Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Sarata, Amanda K." in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Comparison of the Bills to Extend State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Funding [October 23, 2017]
"The State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is a means-tested program that provides health coverage to targeted low-income children and pregnant women in families that have annual income above Medicaid eligibility levels but have no health insurance. CHIP is jointly financed by the federal government and the states, and the states are responsible for administering CHIP. In statute, FY2017 is the last year a federal CHIP appropriation is provided. Federal CHIP funding was not extended before the beginning of FY2018. As a result, states do not currently have FY2018 CHIP allotments, and states are funding their CHIP programs with unspent federal CHIP funds from prior years. Some states are expected to exhaust this funding within the first quarter of FY2018. On October 4, 2017, both the Senate Finance Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee had markups on different bills that would extend CHIP federal funding through FY2022, among other provisions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mitchell, Alison; Baumrucker, Evelyne P.; Dabrowska, Agata . . .
2017-10-23
-
Comparison of the Bills to Extend State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Funding [November 3, 2017]
"The State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is a means-tested program that provides health coverage to targeted low-income children and pregnant women in families that have annual income above Medicaid eligibility levels but have no health insurance. CHIP is jointly financed by the federal government and the states, and the states are responsible for administering CHIP. In statute, FY2017 is the last year a federal CHIP appropriation is provided. Federal CHIP funding was not extended before the beginning of FY2018. As a result, states do not currently have FY2018 CHIP allotments, and states are funding their CHIP programs with unspent federal CHIP funds from prior years. Some states are expected to exhaust this funding within the first quarter of FY2018."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mitchell, Alison; Baumrucker, Evelyne P.; Dabrowska, Agata . . .
2017-11-03
-
Overview of U.S. Domestic Response to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) [Updated March 2, 2020]
From the Background: "This report discusses selected actions taken by the U.S. federal government to quell the introduction and spread of COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] in the United States. The President, the HHS [Health and Human Services] Secretary, and other federal officials have taken several specific actions to address this threat. While some of these actions are based in generally applicable authorities, others may be contingent upon the Secretary or another federal official making a determination or declaration, specific to that action, regarding the existence of a public health emergency or threat. Key actions and their legal basis are discussed in this report."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Lister, Sarah A.; Sekar, Kavya; Dabrowska, Agata . . .
2020-03-02
-
Development and Regulation of Domestic Diagnostic Testing for Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19): Frequently Asked Questions [March 9, 2020]
From the Document: "On December 31, 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) was informed of a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan City, Hubei Province of China. Illnesses have since been linked to a disease caused by a previously unidentified strain of coronavirus, designated Coronavirus Disease 2019, or COVID-19. Despite containment efforts in China, the United States, and elsewhere, by late February there were indications that the COVID-19 outbreak may have entered a new phase, with community spread occurring or suspected in several countries other than China, including in the United States."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sarata, Amanda K.
2020-03-09
-
Comparison of the Bills to Extend State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Funding [January 17, 2018]
"The State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is a means-tested program that provides health coverage to targeted low-income children and pregnant women in families that have annual income above Medicaid eligibility levels but have no health insurance. CHIP is jointly financed by the federal government and the states, and the states are responsible for administering CHIP. In statute, FY2017 was the last year a federal CHIP appropriation was provided. Federal CHIP funding was not extended before the beginning of FY2018. As a result, states do not currently have full-year FY2018 CHIP allotments and states are funding their CHIP programs with unspent federal CHIP funds from prior years. The continuing resolutions enacted on December 8, 2017, and December 22, 2017, both include provisions that provide short-term funding for CHIP. The continuing resolution enacted on December 8, 2017, includes a special rule for redistribution funds, and the continuing resolution enacted on December 22, 2017, includes short-term appropriations and an extension of the special rule for redistribution funds. This short-term funding is not sufficient to fund CHIP through the end of FY2018.There are a couple of bills that would extend federal funding for CHIP for five years. On October 4, 2017, both the Senate Finance Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee had markups on different bills that would extend CHIP federal funding through FY2022, among other provisions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mitchell, Alison; Baumrucker, Evelyne P.; Dabrowska, Agata . . .
2018-01-17
-
Public Health and Other Related Provisions in P.L 115-271, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act [December 3, 2018]
"On October 24, 2018, President Donald J. Trump signed into law H.R. 6, the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act (P.L. 115-271; SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, or the SUPPORT Act). The final agreement on the bill was approved by the House 393-8 on September 28, 2018, and cleared by the Senate by a vote of 98-1 on October 3, 2018. Over the past several years, there has been growing concern among the public and lawmakers in the United States about rising drug overdose deaths. Opioid overdose deaths, in particular, have increased significantly in the past 15 years. In 2015, an estimated 33,091 Americans died of opioid-related overdoses. Provisional data for 2017 estimate 49,068 deaths involving opioids, representing a fourfold increase over 2002 during the beginning of the epidemic. In October of 2017, President Trump declared the opioid epidemic a national public health emergency."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Heisler, Elayne J., 1976-; Duff, Johnathan H.; Bradley, David H. . . .
2018-12-03
-
COVID-19 Testing: Key Issues [April 23, 2020]
From the Document: "The COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] pandemic is affecting communities throughout the United States, with the country reporting the highest number of cases and deaths from the disease globally. Containment and mitigation efforts by federal, state, and local governments have been undertaken to 'flatten the curve'--that is, to slow widespread transmission that could overwhelm the nation's health care system. Diagnostic testing is a critical part of the clinical management of COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 [severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2] virus. In addition, both diagnostic and serology testing at scale may be a key component of efforts to ease mitigation measures prior to the development, manufacture, and broad distribution of a vaccine or effective therapeutic. Efforts in the United States to rapidly develop, scale up, and disseminate testing for COVID-19 have faced challenges, including supply chain issues; a shifting regulatory landscape; a lack of consensus around federal coordination of or strategy for testing; concerns with the accuracy of both molecular and serology tests; an early lack of data on test results and capacity; and a delayed ramp-up by commercial laboratories and test manufacturers of both centralized and point-of-care testing. In addition, manufacturing and quality issues with the nation's initial test--developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)--resulted in significant delay in early access to testing throughout the country."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sarata, Amanda K.
2020-04-23
-
Changes to Behavioral Health Treatment During the COVID-19 Pandemic [Updated November 17, 2020]
From the Document: "Physical distancing measures and temporary stay-at-home orders associated with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have required changes in service delivery for mental health and substance use (collectively known as 'behavioral health') treatment. Changes have surrounded relaxing privacy requirements required by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Rules and increasing use of telehealth to deliver behavioral health treatment and services. Some states have also employed other methods of service delivery--such as mobile units--for treatments that cannot be administered via telehealth, such as medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder (OUD)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Duff, Johnathan H.; Sarata, Amanda K.
2020-11-17
-
Discretionary Spending Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) [February 8, 2017]
From the Document: "The Affordable Care Act (ACA) authorized many new discretionary grant programs and provided each one with an authorization of appropriations-typically through FY2014 or FY2015-to carry them out. The ACA also reauthorized funding for numerous existing programs with expired authorizations of appropriations, most of which were still receiving annual funding. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that fully funding the discretionary grant programs authorized (or reauthorized) by the ACA, based on the amounts specified in the authorizations of appropriations, would result in appropriations of almost $100 billion over the period FY2012-FY2021. However, the total amount of discretionary funding provided to date falls well below CBO's estimate for two reasons. First, few of the new grant programs authorized by the ACA have received any discretionary appropriations. Second, programs that were reauthorized by the ACA generally have received discretionary appropriations at levels well below the amounts authorized in the law."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Redhead, C. Stephen; Colello, Kirsten J.; Heisler, Elayne J., 1976- . . .
2017-02-08
-
Discretionary Spending Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) [July 16, 2014]
From the Document: "Among the provisions that are intended to strengthen the nation's health care safety net and improve access to care, the ACA permanently reauthorized the federal health centers program and the National Health Service Corps (NHSC). The NHSC provides scholarships and student loan repayments to individuals who agree to a period of service as a primary care provider in a federally designated Health Professional Shortage Area. In addition, the ACA addressed concerns about the current size, specialty mix, and geographic distribution of the health care workforce. It reauthorized and expanded existing health workforce education and training programs under Titles VII and VIII of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA). Title VII supports the education and training of physicians, dentists, physician assistants, and public health workers through grants, scholarships, and loan repayment. The ACA created several new programs to increase training experiences in primary care, in rural areas, and in community-based settings, and provided training opportunities to increase the supply of pediatric subspecialists and geriatricians. It also expanded the nursing workforce development programs authorized under PHSA Title VIII."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Redhead, C. Stephen; Colello, Kirsten J.; Heisler, Elayne J., 1976- . . .
2014-07-16
-
Treating Ebola Patients in the United States: Health Care Delivery Implications [November 4, 2014]
"On September 30, 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed the first case of Ebola diagnosed in the United States. This patient was the first in the United States to be treated for Ebola outside of a specialty hospital with a biocontainment unit. Shortly after this diagnosis, CDC Director Thomas Frieden expressed his confidence in the U.S. health care system, stating that we will 'stop Ebola in its tracks.' Despite the assurances, two nurses who cared for the patient were diagnosed with and have since recovered from Ebola. […] While the U.S. health care system has the resources to effectively identify and treat Ebola cases, a situation that is novel, emergent, and resource-intensive may test the system's ability to effectively mobilize those resources. The care of the initial U.S. patient highlighted several system delivery issues, including (1) inefficient use of finite healthcare resources due, at least in part, to gaps in preparation; (2) challenges in coordination between local, state, and federal public health systems and the health care delivery system, including in basic infection control procedures; and (3) care coordination issues. This Insight focuses only on the first issue. All components of the health care system are actively responding to these issues by identifying, learning from, and disseminating lessons learned. The adaptability of the system may be tested in the coming months, as experts predict that additional Ebola cases are possible as long as the outbreak persists in West Africa."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sarata, Amanda K.
2014-11-04
-
Discretionary Spending Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) [October 28, 2014]
From the Document: "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act, or ACA) reauthorized funding for numerous existing discretionary grant programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The ACA also created many new discretionary grant programs and provided for each an authorization of appropriations. Generally, the law authorized (or reauthorized) appropriations through FY2014 or FY2015. This report summarizes all the discretionary spending provisions in the ACA. […] Among the provisions that are intended to strengthen the nation's health care safety net and improve access to care, the ACA permanently reauthorized the federal health centers program and the National Health Service Corps (NHSC). The NHSC provides scholarships and student loan repayments to individuals who agree to a period of service as a primary care provider in a federally designated Health Professional Shortage Area. In addition, the ACA addressed concerns about the current size, specialty mix, and geographic distribution of the health care workforce. It reauthorized and expanded existing health workforce education and training programs under Titles VII and VIII of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA). Title VII supports the education and training of physicians, dentists, physician assistants, and public health workers through grants, scholarships, and loan repayment. The ACA created several new programs to increase training experiences in primary care, in rural areas, and in community-based settings, and provided training opportunities to increase the supply of pediatric subspecialists and geriatricians. It also expanded the nursing workforce development programs authorized under PHSA Title VIII."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Redhead, C. Stephen; Colello, Kirsten J.; Heisler, Elayne J., 1976- . . .
2014-10-28
-
Genetic Testing: Scientific Background for Policymakers [February 20, 2014]
"Congress has considered, at various points in time, numerous pieces of legislation that relate to genetic and genomic technology and testing. These include bills addressing genetic discrimination in health insurance and employment; personalized medicine; the patenting of genetic material; and the oversight of clinical laboratory tests (in vitro diagnostics), including genetic tests. The focus on these issues signals the growing importance of public policy issues surrounding the clinical and public health implications of new genetic technology. As genetic technologies proliferate and are increasingly used to guide clinical treatment, these public policy issues are likely to continue to garner attention. Understanding the basic scientific concepts underlying genetics and genetic testing may help facilitate the development of more effective public policy in this area. […] Policymakers may need to balance concerns about the potential use and misuse of genetic information with the potential of genetics and genetic technology to improve care delivery, for example by personalizing medical care and treatment of disease. In addition, policymakers face decisions about the balance of federal oversight and regulation of genetic tests, patients' safety, and innovation in this area. Finally, the need for and degree of federal support for research to develop a comprehensive evidence base to facilitate the integration of genetic testing into clinical practice (for example, to support coverage decisions by health insurers) may be debated."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sarata, Amanda K.
2014-02-20
-
Genetic Information Nondiscriminatation Act of 2008 [August 6, 2015]
"On May 21, 2008, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), referred to by its sponsors as the first civil rights act of the 21st century, was enacted. GINA, P.L. 110-233, prohibits discrimination based on genetic information by health insurers and employers. The sequencing of the human genome and subsequent advances raise hope for genetic therapies to cure disease, but this scientific accomplishment is not without potential problems. An employer or health insurer could decide to take adverse action based on a genetic predisposition to disease, and situations have arisen where discriminatory action based on genetic information did occur. In addition, there is evidence that the fear of genetic discrimination has an adverse effect on those seeking genetic testing, as well as on participation in genetic research. GINA was enacted to remedy this situation. GINA is divided into two main parts: Title I, which prohibits discrimination based on genetic information by health insurers; and Title II, which prohibits discrimination in employment based on genetic information. Title I of GINA amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), through the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), as well as the Social Security Act, to prohibit health insurers from engaging in genetic discrimination. Title II of GINA prohibits discrimination in employment because of genetic information and, with certain exceptions, prohibits an employer from requesting, requiring, or purchasing genetic information. […] This report provides background on genetic information, legal implications regarding the use of this information, and relevant laws. It also discusses the statutory provisions of GINA and the regulations regarding both health insurance and employment."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sarata, Amanda K.; Feder, Jody
2015-08-06
-
Employer Wellness Programs and Genetic Information: Frequently Asked Questions [December 17, 2015]
"Since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA, P.L. 111-148, as amended), which encouraged the use of wellness programs, employers have increasingly established employer wellness programs in an effort to support better health among their employees and reduce their own health care costs. Employer wellness programs often focus on improving wellness overall, but they may target a specific disease (e.g., diabetes) or behavior (e.g., smoking), and they may include the provision of health or other services. These programs often include incentives for participation, ranging from additional paid time off to reduced insurance premium contributions. Participation in a wellness program almost always involves the provision of medical information--which may include genetic information--by the participant (e.g., the employee, the employee's spouse) to the employer. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) permits employers to request genetic information as part of a wellness program but prohibits the offering of inducements to secure such information. In other words, the EEOC requires that the provision of genetic information as part of a wellness program be voluntary, and considers the offering of any incentive at all for the provision of genetic information to nullify this voluntariness. […] This report explains when an employer may request genetic information from an employee as part of a wellness program with an inducement attached to participation and the requirements the employer must follow when doing so. It also discusses the EEOC's proposed rule whereby a spouse may be incentivized to provide his or her own medical information, which is also the employee's genetic information, as part of a wellness program."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sarata, Amanda K.
2015-12-17
-
Discretionary Spending Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) [January 13, 2016]
From the Document: "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act, or ACA) reauthorized funding for numerous existing discretionary grant programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The ACA also created many new discretionary grant programs and provided for each an authorization of appropriations. Generally, the law authorized (or reauthorized) appropriations through FY2014 or FY2015. This report summarizes all the discretionary spending provisions in the ACA."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Redhead, C. Stephen; Colello, Kirsten J.; Heisler, Elayne J., 1976- . . .
2016-01-13
-
Early Development and Regulation of Diagnostic Testing for COVID-19: Frequently Asked Questions [Updated March 17, 2021]
From the Document: "On December 31, 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) was informed of a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan City, Hubei Province of China. Illnesses have since been linked to a disease caused by a previously unidentified strain of coronavirus, designated Coronavirus Disease 2019, or COVID-19. Despite containment efforts in China, the United States, and elsewhere, by late February there were indications that the COVID-19 outbreak may have entered a new phase, with community spread occurring or suspected in several countries other than China, including in the United States. Since this time, the virus has spread widely, resulting in millions of cases and more than 500,000 deaths in the United States. Diagnostic testing is a critical part of the public health response to and clinical management of COVID-19. The earliest efforts in the United States to develop and disseminate a test for COVID-19 faced challenges. Manufacturing and quality issues with the nation's test--developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)--resulted in essentially all testing going through CDC's laboratory facility in Atlanta through early March 2020, despite distribution of test kits to state and local public health laboratories beginning in early February 2020. [...] In June 2020, HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] Office of the General Counsel released findings of an internal investigation into CDC's production of its test kit, finding generally that the test was likely contaminated, and that time pressure may have 'compromised sufficient QC/QA [quality control/quality assurance] to identify certain anomalies in data and realize the possibility of contamination before shipment.' In addition, the matter is currently under investigation by HHS Office of the Inspector General, with an audit underway to 'review CDC's process of producing and distributing the COVID-19 test kits.' This report is reportedly expected sometime in FY2021."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sarata, Amanda K.
2021-03-17
-
COVID-19 Testing Supply Chain [February 25, 2021]
From the Introduction: "COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] testing--including for diagnosis, screening, and surveillance--is a critical component of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, and its implementation has posed numerous challenges. Issues have included those related to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation of tests, reimbursement and coverage for testing, equitable access to testing, and infrastructure and supply chain stressors, among others. In particular, the diagnostic testing supply chain has shown evidence of significant and ongoing stress since early in the pandemic, and problems persist with ascertainment, production, and distribution of almost all testing supply chain components."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sarata, Amanda K.; Siddalingaiah, Simi V.
2021-02-25
-
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) [December 19, 2011]
"On May 21, 2008, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), referred to by its sponsors as the first civil rights act of the 21st century, was enacted. GINA, P.L. [Public Law] 110-233, prohibits discrimination based on genetic information by health insurers and employers. The sequencing of the human genome and subsequent advances raise hope for genetic therapies to cure disease, but this scientific accomplishment is not without potential problems. An employer or health insurer could decide to take adverse action based on a genetic predisposition to disease, and situations have arisen where discriminatory action based on genetic information did occur. In addition, there is evidence that the fear of genetic discrimination has an adverse effect on those seeking genetic testing, as well as on participation in genetic research. GINA was enacted to remedy this situation. GINA is divided into two main parts: Title I, which prohibits discrimination based on genetic information by health insurers; and Title II, which prohibits discrimination in employment based on genetic information. […] The law prohibits the use of genetic information in employment decisions--including hiring, firing, job assignments, and promotions--by employers, unions, employment agencies, and labor-management training programs. This report provides background on genetic information, legal implications regarding the use of this information, and relevant laws. It also discusses the statutory provisions of GINA and the regulations regarding both health insurance and employment."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sarata, Amanda K.; DeBergh, James V.
2011-12-19
-
Genetic Exceptionalism: Genetic Information and Public Policy [December 21, 2011]
"The Human Genome Project, from inception through completion, has generated a great deal of debate over the appropriate uses, as well as potential misuses, of genetic information. Legislation that is specific to genetics is predicated on the concept of genetic exceptionalism, or the premise that genetic information is unique and, therefore, merits both special and different, or exceptional, treatment. As applied to public policy, this translates into genetics-specific legislative approaches to various health policy issues, such as the oversight of genetic tests, privacy, and discrimination in health insurance. Amidst considerable concern over the potential for the misuse of genetic information, most states passed genetics legislation during the past decade and a half in areas such as genetic privacy, genetic discrimination in health insurance, and genetic discrimination in employment. […] This report provides an overview of the nature of genetic information and its implications for individuals, family, and society. Individuals utilize genetic information to guide health care and other decisions, when possible, and may experience anxiety as a result of genetic test results. Genetic test results for an individual may often be informative for other close family members and thus influence their care decisions. Society must grapple with the effect genetic information may have on our conception of disease, as well as its impact on issues like privacy and equity. Data are presented on public opinion regarding the nature of genetic information, the need for special protections for genetic information, and the potential effect of the passage of GINA [Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act] on attitudes toward the sharing of genetic information."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sarata, Amanda K.
2011-12-21
-
Changes to Behavioral Health Treatment During the COVID-19 Pandemic [July 7, 2020]
From the Document: "Physical distancing measures and temporary stay-at-home orders associated with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have required changes in service delivery for mental health and substance use (collectively known as 'behavioral health') treatment. Changes have surrounded relaxing privacy requirements required by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Rules and increasing use of telehealth to deliver behavioral health treatment and services. Some states have also employed other methods of service delivery--such as mobile units--for treatments that cannot be administered via telehealth, such as medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder (OUD)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Duff, Johnathan H.; Elliott, Victoria L.; Sarata, Amanda K.
2020-07-07
-
Development and Regulation of Medical Countermeasures for COVID-19 (Vaccines, Diagnostics, and Treatments): Frequently Asked Questions [June 25, 2020]
From the Summary: "In recent months, the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has spread globally, with the United States now reporting the highest number of cases of any country in the world. Currently, there are few treatment options available to lessen the health impact of the disease and no vaccines or other prophylactic treatments to curb the spread of the virus. [...] This report answers frequently asked questions about current efforts related to research and development of medical countermeasures, their regulation, and related policy issues. Although several efforts are underway, medical product research, development, and approval is a difficult and high-risk endeavor that takes years in typical circumstances. In response to COVID-19, this process has been expedited, including through several federal programs and mechanisms covered in this report. However, expedited medical product development can carry certain risks, such as a more limited safety profile for new products upon approval."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Dabrowska, Agata; Gottron, Frank; Sarata, Amanda K. . . .
2020-06-25
-
COVID-19 Testing: Frequently Asked Questions [August 11, 2020]
From the Summary: "The United States is reporting some of the highest number of cases and deaths from the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic globally, and the disease is affecting communities nationwide. In response, federal, state, and local governments have undertaken containment and mitigation efforts to 'flatten the curve'--that is, to slow widespread transmission that could overwhelm the nation's health care system and to reduce spread of the disease while treatments and vaccines are being developed that will lessen the health impact of the virus."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sarata, Amanda K.; Heisler, Elayne J., 1976-
2020-08-11
-
Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs [May 24, 2018]
"In the midst of national concern over the opioid epidemic, federal and state officials are paying greater attention to the manner in which opioids are prescribed. Nearly all prescription drugs involved in overdoses are originally prescribed by a physician (rather than, for example, being stolen from pharmacies). Thus, attention has been directed toward better understanding how opioids are being prescribed and preventing the diversion of prescription drugs after the prescriptions are dispensed. Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) maintain statewide electronic databases of prescriptions dispensed for controlled substances (i.e., prescription drugs with a potential for abuse that are subject to stricter government regulation). Information collected by PDMPs may be used to educate and inform prescribers, pharmacists, and the public; identify or prevent drug abuse and diversion; facilitate the identification of prescription drug-addicted individuals and enable intervention and treatment; outline drug use and abuse trends to inform public health initiatives; or educate individuals about prescription drug use, abuse, diversion, and PDMPs themselves."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sacco, Lisa N.; Duff, Johnathan H.; Sarata, Amanda K.
2018-05-24
-
Public Health Service Agencies: Overview and Funding (FY2015-FY2017) [May 19, 2016]
From the Congressional Research Service (CRS), this report describes the source of funding within eight agencies. "Within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), eight agencies are designated components of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS). The PHS agencies are funded primarily with annual discretionary appropriations. They also receive significant amounts of funding from other sources including mandatory funds from the Affordable Care Act (ACA), user fees, and third-party reimbursements (collections)." The eight agencies are as follows: the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Indian Health Service (IHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). [...] "This report is a new edition of an earlier product, which remains available: CRS Report R43304, Public Health Service Agencies: Overview and Funding (FY2010-FY2016) [Fiscal Year]. It will be updated with information on PHS agency funding for FY2017 once legislative action on appropriations for the new fiscal year is completed."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Redhead, C. Stephen; Dabrowska, Agata; Bagalman, Erin . . .
2016-05-19
-
Public Health Service Agencies: Overview and Funding [October 8, 2014]
"Within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), eight agencies are designated components of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS). The PHS agencies are funded primarily with annual discretionary appropriations. They also receive significant amounts of funding from other sources including mandatory funds from the Affordable Care Act (ACA), user fees, and third-party reimbursements (collections)." The report includes analysis of funding, spending and appropriations for the following eight agencies: (1) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [AHRQ]; (2) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]; (3) Food and Drug Administration [FDA]; (4) Health Resources and Services Administration [HRSA]; (5) Indian Health Service [IHS]; (6) National Institute of Health [NIH]; (7) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
[SAMHSA]; and (8) Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry [ATSDR].
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Thaul, Susan; Sarata, Amanda K.; Lister, Sarah A. . . .
2014-10-08
-
Public Health Service Agencies: Overview and Funding (FY2016-FY2018) [August 16, 2017]
"The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has designated 8 of its 11 operating divisions (agencies) as components of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS). The PHS agencies are (1) the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), (2) the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), (3) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), (4) the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), (5) the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), (6) the Indian Health Service (IHS), (7) the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and (8) the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The PHS agencies all provide and support essential public health services; however, their specific missions vary. With the exception of FDA, the agencies have limited regulatory responsibilities. Two of them--NIH and AHRQ--are primarily research agencies. NIH conducts and supports basic, clinical, and translational medical research. AHRQ conducts and supports research on the quality and effectiveness of health care services and systems."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Redhead, C. Stephen; Dabrowska, Agata; Bagalman, Erin . . .
2017-08-16
-
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) [July 9, 2008]
From the Summary: "On May 21, 2008, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), referred to by its sponsors as the first civil rights act of the 21st century, was enacted. GINA, P.L. [Public Law] 110-233, prohibits discrimination based on genetic information by health insurers and employers. The sequencing of the human genome and subsequent advances raise hope for genetic therapies to cure disease, but this scientific accomplishment is not without potential problems. An employer or health insurer could decide to take adverse action based on a genetic predisposition to disease, and situations have arisen where discriminatory action based on genetic information did occur. In addition, there is evidence that the fear of genetic discrimination has an adverse effect on those seeking genetic testing, as well as on participation in genetic research. GINA was enacted to remedy this situation. […] This report provides background on genetic information, legal implications regarding the use of this information, and relevant laws. It also discusses the statutory provisions of GINA."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sarata, Amanda K.; Jones, Nancy Lee
2008-07-09
-
Commander John Scott Hannon Veterans Mental Health Care Improvement Act of 2019 (P.L. 116-171) and Veterans COMPACT Act of 2020 (P.L. 116-214) [July 19, 2021]
From the Summary: "Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States and is a significant contributor to premature mortality. Although suicide rates have increased among the U.S. general population over the past two decades, veterans are disproportionately affected by suicide. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in 2018--the most recent year for which data are available--the suicide rate for veterans was 1.5 times greater than among nonveteran adults (adjusting for age and sex), and an average of 17.6 veterans died by suicide per day. [...] In the 116th Congress, the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs (HVAC and SVAC, respectively) focused much of their efforts on veteran suicide prevention, holding several hearings and introducing and enacting legislation on the topic. The Commander John Scott Hannon Veterans Mental Health Care Improvement Act of 2019 (Hannon Act; P.L. [Public Law] 116-171) and the Veterans Comprehensive Prevention, Access to Care, and Treatment Act of 2020 (Veterans COMPACT Act; P.L. 116-214) were enacted at the end of the 116th Congress and were developed out of SVAC and HVAC, respectively. Both bills were enacted as part of a compromise between the two committees. Although they are separate, the bills complement each other in their efforts to increase access to and quality of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) mental health and suicide prevention services."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Green, Victoria R.; Panangala, Sidath Viranga; Sussman, Jared S. . . .
2021-07-19
-
Behavioral Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Overview and Issues for Congress [July 2, 2021]
From the Summary: "Circumstances surrounding the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic--including mitigation strategies to prevent spread of the virus--appear to have adversely affected the mental health of many Americans. According to some studies, Americans experienced elevated levels of emotional distress, anxiety, depression, substance use, and drug-related overdoses in 2020 and 2021 compared with the same time period in previous years. Various stressors related to the pandemic may have contributed to decreased mental well-being, such as fears about contracting the virus, anxiety about its health effects, social isolation due to physical distancing measures, financial stress due to the economic consequences of the pandemic, grief and bereavement due to the death of a loved one, exposure to pandemic-related media coverage, and interruptions to substance use treatment and mental health care."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Duff, Johnathan H.; Romero, Paul D.; Sarata, Amanda K.
2021-07-02
