Children’s Mental-Health Language Access Laws: State Factors Influence Policy Adoption

Original Article

Abstract

Despite federal legislation to equalize healthcare for children with limited English language proficiency, some state healthcare agencies and programs fall short in providing children’s linguistic services for mental healthcare. While some states have been aggressive in passing cultural and linguistic laws aimed at providing protection for children, other states have not, limiting children of all ages to potential substandard care. This research uses state-level data and multivariate regression analysis to explore why some states are adopting these laws, whereas others are not. We find two dissimilar forces with unrelated goals must work in tandem to bring about policy change—the desire of civil rights and liberty groups to ensure equality in the delivery of healthcare services, and the desire of state legislature to reduce healthcare costs.

Keywords

Children’s language laws Limited English proficiency Mental-health public policy Equitable healthcare access Multivariate regression analysis 

References

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). (2004). Literacy and health outcomes. evidence report/technology assessment. AHRQ Publication No. 04-E007-2, January 2004. Retrieved from www.ahrq.gov.
  2. Brudney, J., Hebert, F., & Wright, D. (1999). Reinventing government in the American states: Measuring and explaining administrative reform. Public Administration Review, 59, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clark, S. E. (1979). Determinants of the state growth management policies. Policy Studies Journal, 7, 753–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Commonwealth Fund National Health Law Program. (2008). Summary of state law requirements, addressing language needs in health care. Retrieved from www.healthlaw.org/images/stories/issues/nhelp.lep.state.law.chart.final.0319.pdf.
  5. Commonwealth Fund. (2009a). State scorecard data tables. Supplement to aiming higher: Results from a state scorecard on health system performance, 2009. Children’s mental-health service utilization. Retrieved from www.commonwealthfund.org.
  6. Commonwealth Fund. (2009b). State scorecard data tables. Supplement to aiming higher: Results from a state scorecard on health system performance, 2009. Equitable state health system performance. Retrieved from www.commonwealthfund.org.
  7. Executive Order 13166. (2000 Aug 11). Improving access to services for persons with limited English proficiency. Retrieved from www.justice.gov/crt/cor/Pubs/eolep.htm.
  8. Flores, G., Abreu, M., Olivar, M., & Kaster, B. (1998). Access barriers to health care for Latino children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 152, 1119–1125.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Game, K. (1980). Controlling air pollution: Why some states try harder. In T. R. Dye & V. Lexington (Eds.), The determinants of public policy. Massachussetts: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  10. Goggin, M., Bowman, A., Lester, J., & O’Toole, Jr, L. (1990). Implementation theory and practice: toward a third generation. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2010). State mental health agency (SMHA) per capita mental health services expenditures. Retrieved from www.statehealthfacts.org.
  12. Lester, J., Franke, J., Bowman, A., & Kramer, K. (1983). Hazardous wastes, politics, and public policy: A comparative state analysis. Western Political Quarterly, 36, 257–281.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McNeal, R., Tolbert, C., Mossberger, K., & Dotterweich, L. (2003). Innovating in digital government in the American states. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 52–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meier, K. (1994). The politics of sin: Drugs, alcohol and public policy. New York: Sharpe.Google Scholar
  15. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2007). Partisan composition of state legislatures. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org.
  16. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Project Vote Smart. (2007). Issue organizations. Retrieved from www.votesmart.org/issue_group.php.
  18. Public Law 88-352. (1964). Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Section 601, Stat 252.Google Scholar
  19. Schmeida, M. (2001). State mental health parity mandates. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 13, 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schmeida, M., McNeal, R., & Mossberger, K. (2007). Policy determinants affect telehealth implementation. Journal of Telemedicine and e-Health, 13(2), 101–108.Google Scholar
  21. Squire, P. (2007). Measuring state legislative professionalism: The Squire index revisited. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 7(2), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. United States Census Bureau. (2005). Statistical abstracts in the United States 2005. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  23. United States Census Bureau. (2011). Statistical abstracts in the United States 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  24. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The condition of education 2011 (NCES 2011-033), Indicator 6. Retrieved from www.nces.ed.gov.
  25. Vestal, C. (2012). Medicaid: A year of excruciating decisions. Retrieved from www.stateline.org/live/prntable/story?contentId=624072.
  26. Youdelman, M. (2008). The medical tongue: U.S. laws and policies on language access. Health Affairs, 27(2), 424–433.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kent State UniversityKentUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Northern IowaCedar FallsUSA

Personalised recommendations