Premium
Falling short: When testing is mandated and follow‐up is not
Author(s) -
Miller Virginia G.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
nursing forum
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.618
H-Index - 36
eISSN - 1744-6198
pISSN - 0029-6473
DOI - 10.1111/nuf.12378
Subject(s) - medicine , diabetes mellitus , legislation , type 2 diabetes , population , legislature , type 1 diabetes , family medicine , pediatrics , gerontology , environmental health , law , endocrinology , political science
Summary In 1999, the Texas Legislature mandated acanthosis nigricans (AN) screening in primary schools in designated regions of the state through the passage of House Bill 1860 to identify children at risk for diabetes by identifying the skin condition AN. AN is related to insulin resistance, and, thus, is associated with type 2 diabetes (diabetes mellitus type 2 [DMT2]), a growing concern among school‐aged children. Since 1999, millions of children have been screened and hundreds of thousands have been screened positive. No data are available about the effectiveness of the program in identifying DMT2 among the school‐aged population because no follow‐up is mandated. The current practice is to send a letter to the parents of the child who screens positive, advising the parents to take the child to a health care provider for further assessment. Hence, children within the state may have diabetes or are developing diabetes but have yet to be diagnosed. In light of the presence of a law mandating AN screening, mandating a follow‐up to identify those who have diabetes or are developing the condition of diabetes can provide early intervention and decrease costs of care. It is not known why the follow‐up of those who screen positive was not included in the initial legislation. It may have been due to the cost of the necessary blood tests that are used to assess an individual for diabetes. Related to this is the reality that blood tests are invasive procedures, whereas screening for a skin disorder is not, thereby possibly explaining the omission of mandated follow‐up from the legislation.