Leveraging research for health insurance coverage of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction: insights from policy makers, patients and practitioners.

IF 2.5 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Ariana M Albanese, Hannah E Frank, Margaret E Crane, Frances B Saadeh, Blair T Johnson, Eric B Loucks
{"title":"Leveraging research for health insurance coverage of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction: insights from policy makers, patients and practitioners.","authors":"Ariana M Albanese, Hannah E Frank, Margaret E Crane, Frances B Saadeh, Blair T Johnson, Eric B Loucks","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) is a well-studied treatment that health insurers typically do not cover in the United States. To understand how research can best support efforts towards coverage, researchers must partner with individuals who occupy diverse roles within a health system (for example, policy makers and practitioners).</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We sought to understand from key informants (policy makers, health insurers, healthcare administrators, clinicians, MBSR students/patients and teachers): the barriers/facilitators of MBSR coverage, how they use research to make decisions, and which research outcomes they find most important. We also sought to understand whether perspectives for individuals with direct policy influence differed from those without.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted qualitative interviews informed by the SPIRIT Action Framework with a role-diverse advisory group. Data were analysed using a rapid data condensation approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Responses of those with and without direct policy-making influence were generally aligned. Research was framed as important to coverage decisions. When considering coverage decisions, participants reported wanting information about: (1) MBSR's worthiness as a covered treatment (is it 'good', usable and a sound financial investment?) and (2) a clearer definition of the service and its coverage. Barriers were identified related to both the billing code being created as well as being used, although MBSR's ability to address the policy priority of mental health in an un-stigmatising way could facilitate coverage. Participants also recommended next steps to advance the case for coverage.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that research is frequently integrated into decision making across roles, though other factors are weighed in coverage decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"370-389"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000052","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) is a well-studied treatment that health insurers typically do not cover in the United States. To understand how research can best support efforts towards coverage, researchers must partner with individuals who occupy diverse roles within a health system (for example, policy makers and practitioners).

Purpose: We sought to understand from key informants (policy makers, health insurers, healthcare administrators, clinicians, MBSR students/patients and teachers): the barriers/facilitators of MBSR coverage, how they use research to make decisions, and which research outcomes they find most important. We also sought to understand whether perspectives for individuals with direct policy influence differed from those without.

Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews informed by the SPIRIT Action Framework with a role-diverse advisory group. Data were analysed using a rapid data condensation approach.

Results: Responses of those with and without direct policy-making influence were generally aligned. Research was framed as important to coverage decisions. When considering coverage decisions, participants reported wanting information about: (1) MBSR's worthiness as a covered treatment (is it 'good', usable and a sound financial investment?) and (2) a clearer definition of the service and its coverage. Barriers were identified related to both the billing code being created as well as being used, although MBSR's ability to address the policy priority of mental health in an un-stigmatising way could facilitate coverage. Participants also recommended next steps to advance the case for coverage.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that research is frequently integrated into decision making across roles, though other factors are weighed in coverage decisions.

利用基于正念减压的健康保险研究:来自政策制定者、患者和从业者的见解。
背景:正念减压(MBSR)是一种经过充分研究的治疗方法,在美国,健康保险公司通常不包括这种治疗。为了理解研究如何能够最好地支持实现覆盖的努力,研究人员必须与在卫生系统中扮演不同角色的个人(例如决策者和从业人员)合作。目的:我们试图从关键信息提供者(政策制定者、健康保险公司、医疗管理人员、临床医生、MBSR学生/患者和教师)那里了解:MBSR覆盖的障碍/促进因素,他们如何使用研究来做出决策,以及他们认为哪些研究成果最重要。我们还试图了解对政策有直接影响的个人的观点是否与没有直接影响的个人的观点不同。方法:我们根据SPIRIT行动框架与角色多样化咨询小组进行了定性访谈。使用快速数据浓缩方法分析数据。结果:有直接决策影响和没有直接决策影响的人的反应大致一致。研究被认为对报道决策很重要。在考虑覆盖决策时,参与者报告希望了解以下信息:(1)MBSR作为覆盖治疗的价值(它是否“好”,可用并且是一项合理的财务投资?)以及(2)对服务及其覆盖范围的更明确定义。确定了与正在创建和正在使用的计费代码有关的障碍,尽管MBSR能够以非污名化的方式处理精神卫生的政策优先事项,可以促进覆盖。与会者还建议采取下一步措施来推进覆盖。结论:我们的研究结果表明,研究经常被整合到跨角色的决策中,尽管其他因素在覆盖决策中被权衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信