Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37933132›Full record

ArticlePsychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)2024

A Tale of Two Taxes: Implementation of Earmarked Taxes for Behavioral Health Services in California and Washington State.

Jonathan Purtle, Nicole A Stadnick, Megan Wynecoop, Sarah C Walker, Eric J Bruns, Gregory A Aarons

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jonathan PurtleGlobal Center for Implementation Science, Department of Public Health Policy and Management, New York University School of Global Public Health, New York City (Purtle, Wynecoop); Dissemination and Implementation Science Center, Department of Psychiatry, Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla (Stadnick, Aarons); Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle (Walker, Bruns).
Nicole A StadnickGlobal Center for Implementation Science, Department of Public Health Policy and Management, New York University School of Global Public Health, New York City (Purtle, Wynecoop); Dissemination and Implementation Science Center, Department of Psychiatry, Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla (Stadnick, Aarons); Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle (Walker, Bruns).
Megan WynecoopGlobal Center for Implementation Science, Department of Public Health Policy and Management, New York University School of Global Public Health, New York City (Purtle, Wynecoop); Dissemination and Implementation Science Center, Department of Psychiatry, Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla (Stadnick, Aarons); Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle (Walker, Bruns).
Sarah C WalkerGlobal Center for Implementation Science, Department of Public Health Policy and Management, New York University School of Global Public Health, New York City (Purtle, Wynecoop); Dissemination and Implementation Science Center, Department of Psychiatry, Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla (Stadnick, Aarons); Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle (Walker, Bruns).
Eric J BrunsGlobal Center for Implementation Science, Department of Public Health Policy and Management, New York University School of Global Public Health, New York City (Purtle, Wynecoop); Dissemination and Implementation Science Center, Department of Psychiatry, Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla (Stadnick, Aarons); Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle (Walker, Bruns).
Gregory A AaronsGlobal Center for Implementation Science, Department of Public Health Policy and Management, New York University School of Global Public Health, New York City (Purtle, Wynecoop); Dissemination and Implementation Science Center, Department of Psychiatry, Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla (Stadnick, Aarons); Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle (Walker, Bruns).

Funding

Policy Implementation Research on Earmarked Taxes for Mental Health ServicesR21MH125261 · NIMH · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI PURTLE, JONATHAN · 2021 to 2022
$404k
NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH125261
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe authors sought to characterize perceptions of the impacts, attributes, and support for taxes earmarked for behavioral health services and to compare perceptions of the taxes among professionals in California and Washington, two states differing in earmarked tax designs.

methodsSurveys were completed by 155 public agency and community organization professionals involved in tax implementation in California (N=87) and Washington State (N=68) during 2022-2023 (29% response rate). Respondents indicated their perceptions of the taxes' impacts, attributes, and support. Responses were summed as aggregate scores and were also analyzed as individual items. Bivariate analyses were used to compare responses of professionals in California versus Washington State.

resultsEarmarked taxes were generally regarded positively. Of the respondents, >80% strongly agreed that the taxes increased funding for services and were helpful, and only 10% strongly agreed that the taxes decreased behavioral health funding from other sources. Substantially more respondents in California than in Washington State strongly agreed that taxes' reporting requirements were complicated (45% vs. 5%, p<0.001) and that the taxes increased unjustified scrutiny of services or systems (33% vs. 2%, p<0.001). However, more respondents in California than in Washington State also strongly agreed that the taxes increased public awareness about behavioral health (56% vs. 15%, p<0.001) and decreased behavioral health stigma (47% vs. 14%, p<0.001).

conclusionsPerceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of taxes earmarked for behavioral health services may vary by design features of the tax. Such features include stigma-reduction initiatives and tax spending and reporting requirements.

Indexed as

Mental Health ServicesTaxesCaliforniaHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesWashingtonFundingPublic policy issuesReimbursement

Identifiers

PMID37933132
PMCPMC11139541

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.