Search

This study aimed to evaluate associations of Medicaid expansion with health care access for adults with obesity and to explore racial/ethnic differences in these changes in health care access.Using 2011 to 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data, the study compared health care access measures among adults who were aged ≥18 years and who had BMI ≥ 30 kg/mMedicaid expansion was associated with improvements in health care access, including lower proportions of those without a usual source of care (-3.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.8% to -1.4%, p 0.01) and cost as a barrier to medical care (-4.5%, 95% CI: -7.0% to -1.9%, p 0.01). No significant changes were found in routine medical checkups in the last year (-1.8%, 95% CI: -4.4% to 0.8%, p = 0.12). However, across these measures, Medicaid expansion was consistently associated with better access among non-Hispanic White adults (-6.0% to -7.9%, p 0.01) and not at all among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic adults (p 0.05).Medicaid expansion was associated with significant improvements in health care access among adults with obesity, but these improvements were variable across race and ethnicity.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to develop a simple and practical guide for discussing and managing obesity in primary care settings. METHODS This study convened representatives from 12 primary care and obesity specialty organizations for a series of roundtable meetings to discuss the key components of obesity treatment in primary care. Attendees identified the need for a guide for primary care providers that outlined the key steps for discussing obesity with patients and managing their care while recognizing the significant time constraints on such provider/patient encounters. RESULTS Prevailing themes from the roundtable sessions suggested that the key components of addressing obesity in primary care settings are obtaining patient permission, addressing weight bias, providing a diagnosis, and emphasizing shared decision-making. A modified "6A" framework with the steps "Ask," "Assess," "Advise," "Agree," "Assist," and "Arrange" was deemed appropriate to organize the process of weight management in primary care. An algorithm was developed to provide a script for the patient/provider encounter. CONCLUSIONS The expert panel developed a short, accessible, practical, and informative guide for obesity management by primary care clinicians. Efforts are under way to disseminate the guide to primary care providers through the 11 participating organizations that have endorsed it.

Our objective was to determine the clinical services offered by American Board of Obesity Medicine (ABOM) Diplomates and whether guideline concordant services varied by clinical practice attributes. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the 2019 ABOM Diplomate survey (response rate 19.2%). Respondents (n = 494) self-reported services offered: nutrition, exercise, mental health, minimally invasive bariatric procedures, perioperative bariatric surgical care and FDA-approved anti-obesity medications. We graded concordance of services offered with three evidence-based obesity guidelines, and then conducted bivariate analyses comparing concordance by practice attributes. Most responding ABOM Diplomates offered nutrition (90.1%), exercise (67.8%) and mental health (76.7%). Few offered minimally invasive procedures (24.3%), and most provided perioperative surgical care (63.0%). Most (83.4%) prescribed FDA-approved medications-typically both short- and long-term agents (70.9%). Few Diplomates had low concordance with the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/The Obesity Society (AHA/ACC/TOS) guidelines (24.7%). Those who managed more obesity-related conditions and endorsed AHA/ACC/TOS guideline use had higher concordance with these recommendations. No differences in guideline concordance existed by population, clinical effort or location. We found similar findings regarding concordance with ) American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology and Obesity Medicine Association guidelines. In conclusion, most responding ABOM Diplomates offer evidence-based obesity medicine services. Clinicians may therefore have increased confidence in patient receipt of evidence-based care when referring to an ABOM Diplomate.

Objective Evidence-based obesity treatments, such as bariatric surgery, are not considered essential health benefits under the Affordable Care Act. Employer-sponsored wellness programs with incentives based on biometric outcomes are allowed and often used despite mixed evidence regarding their effectiveness. This study examines consumers' perceptions of their coverage for obesity treatments and exposure to workplace wellness programs. Methods A total of 7,378 participants completed an online survey during 2015–2016. Respondents answered questions regarding their health coverage for seven medical services and exposure to employer wellness programs that target weight or body mass index (BMI). Using χ2 tests, associations between perceptions of exposure to employer wellness programs and coverage for medical services were examined. Differences between survey years were also assessed. Results Most respondents reported they did not have health coverage for obesity treatments, but more of the respondents with employer wellness programs reported having coverage. Neither the perception of coverage for obesity treatments nor exposure to wellness programs increased between 2015 and 2016. Conclusions Even when consumers have exposure to employer wellness programs that target BMI, their health insurance often excludes obesity treatments. Given the clinical and cost-effectiveness of such treatments, reducing that coverage gap may mitigate obesity's individual- and population-level effects.

Objective This study assessed the proportion of US adults with excess weight and obesity who consider bariatric surgery to be appropriate for themselves and how their own weight perception influences this consideration. Methods A stratified sample of 920 US adults in June 2014 was obtained through an online survey. The respondents were queried about bariatric surgery acceptability and personal weight perception. Average body mass index (BMI) was determined for each demographic variable, and responses were characterized according to BMI and concordance with perceived weight status. Chi-square analyses served to assess perceived weight concordance in relation to bariatric acceptance. Results Only 32% of respondents with Class III obesity indicated that bariatric surgery would be an acceptable option for them, most often because they considered it to be too risky. Respondents with Class III obesity and concordant perception of weight status were more likely (P < 0.03) than discordant Class III respondents to accept bariatric surgery. Likewise, concordant respondents with excess weight, but not obesity, were more likely (P < 0.001) to correctly consider bariatric surgery to be inappropriate for them. Conclusions Despite good safety and efficacy, many persons still believe bariatric surgery is too risky. Weight perception concordance or discordance influences one's decision to consider this treatment option.

In 2009, Massachusetts (MA) Department of Public Health (DPH) implemented new regulations that required public schools in the state to measure height and weight, determine body mass index (BMI), and notify parents of children in grades 1, 4, 7, and 10 of their child's weight status. After 3 years of implementation, MA DPH recently abandoned parental notification of school-based BMI screening results citing several concerns including flaws in the ability to monitor the way that the BMI screening results were communicated from the schools to parents/guardians and some reports of breaches in confidentiality of students' measurements. In this article, we review implementation issues that could have impacted the success of the MA DPH regulation as well as lessons to be learned and potentially applied to future childhood obesity efforts.