Characteristics of Laws Requiring Physicians to Report Patient Information for Public Health Surveillance: Notable Patterns from a Nevada Case Study.

J Community Health

Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Box 453064, 4505 S. Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, NV, 89154-3064, USA.

Published: April 2018

AI Article Synopsis

  • Laws globally mandate healthcare providers, including physicians, to report patient health information for public health purposes, but under-reporting is common due to barriers like lack of knowledge and complicated processes.
  • A case study in Nevada reveals significant variations in reporting requirements, including discretion, types of information, and consequences for non-compliance, complicating adherence.
  • The study suggests that understanding the structure of reporting laws could improve compliance and public health outcomes, highlighting the need for further empirical research on these relationships.

Article Abstract

Laws across the globe require healthcare providers to disclose patient health information to public health entities for surveillance and intervention purposes. Physicians play a unique role in such mandatory reporting regimes. However, research reveals consistent under-reporting and points to limited knowledge of mandates, perceived burdens of reporting, misaligned incentives and penalties, and a lack of streamlined processes as significant reporting barriers. These barriers suggest that how legal mandates are structured may impact compliance; yet little research systematically examines their characteristics. Law-based reporting requirements differ across jurisdictions. Thus, we conducted a case study in the U.S. State of Nevada to characterize its physician mandatory reporting laws using legal mapping methodology. Nevada is a useful case study because it has few local jurisdictions and its legislature meets biennially. First, we searched key terms to find relevant state mandates and screened them using inclusion criteria. We then scanned near included provisions for additional requirements and incorporated requirements known a priori. We also searched relevant local regulations. Next, we analyzed all included provisions. Our findings indicate wide, intra-jurisdictional variation in reporting requirements across conditions. Variability extends to physician discretion, information reported, timing, recipient agencies, reporting processes, and implications of non-compliance. Local-level variation adds further complexity. Some relevant state requirements apply only to physicians and nearly one-third were absent from our searches. Our findings support exploring the hypothesis that reporting requirements' characteristics may impact compliance and call for empirically testing such relationships to enhance compliance and public health surveillance and intervention efforts.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10900-017-0426-4DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

public health
12
case study
12
health surveillance
8
nevada case
8
surveillance intervention
8
reporting
8
mandatory reporting
8
impact compliance
8
reporting requirements
8
relevant state
8

Similar Publications

Background: Pharmacoepidemiologic studies assessing drug effectiveness for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) are increasingly popular given the critical need for effective therapies for ADRD. To meet the urgent need for robust dementia ascertainment from real-world data, we aimed to develop a novel algorithm for identifying incident and prevalent dementia in claims.

Method: We developed algorithm candidates by different timing/frequency of dementia diagnosis/treatment to identify dementia from inpatient/outpatient/prescription claims for 6,515 and 3,997 participants from Visits 5 (2011-2013; mean age 75.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Availability of amyloid modifying therapies will dramatically increase the need for disclosure of Alzheimer's disease (AD) related genetic and/or biomarker test results. The 21st Century Cares Act requires the immediate return of most medical test results, including AD biomarkers. A shortage of genetic counselors and dementia specialists already exists, thus driving the need for scalable methods to responsibly communicate test results.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Drug Development.

Alzheimers Dement

December 2024

Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.

Background: Some types of cancer have been associated with reduced risk of clinical dementia diagnosis. Whether cancer history may be associated with neuropathological features of neurodegeneration or cerebrovascular disease is not well understood. We investigated the relation between cancer diagnosis and brain pathology in a sample of community-based research volunteers enrolled in an Alzheimer's Disease Research Center (ADRC) cohort.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Drug Development.

Alzheimers Dement

December 2024

Amsterdam Neuroscience, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Background: The first disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) have been approved in the USA, marking profound changes in AD-diagnosis and treatment. This will bring new challenges in terms of clinician-patient communication. We aimed to collect the perspectives of memory clinic professionals regarding the most important topics to address and what (tools) would support professionals and their patients and care partners to engage in a meaningful conversation on whether (or not) to initiate treatment.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Drug Development.

Alzheimers Dement

December 2024

The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Imperial College London, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Background: Recent growth in the functionality and use of technology has prompted an increased interest in the potential for remote or decentralised clinical trials in dementia. There are many potential benefits associated with decentralised medication trials, but the field is currently lacking specific recommendations for their delivery in the dementia field.

Method: A modified Delphi method engaged a panel with substantial expertise in dementia trial design and delivery and backgrounds that included neurology, psychiatry, pharmacology and psychology, to develop recommendations for the conduct of decentralised medication trials in dementia prevention.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!