Explore the vast range of titles available.

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine estimates that fewer than a quarter of infertile couples have sufficient access to infertility care. Insurers in the United States (US) have long considered infertility to be a socially constructed condition, and thus in-vitro fertilization (IVF) an elective intervention. As a result, IVF is cost prohibitive for many patients in the US. State infertility insurance mandates are a crucial mechanism for expanding access to fertility care in the US in the absence of federal legislation. The first state insurance mandate for third party coverage of infertility services was passed by West Virginia in 1977, and Maryland passed the country’s first IVF mandate in 1985. To date, twenty states have passed legislation requiring insurers to cover or offer coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of infertility. Ten states currently have “comprehensive” IVF mandates, meaning they require third party coverage for IVF with minimal restrictions to patient eligibility, exemptions, and lifetime limits. Several studies analyzing the impact of infertility and IVF mandates have been published in the past 20 years. In this review, we characterize and contextualize the existing evidence of the impact of state insurance mandates on access to infertility treatment, IVF practice patterns, and reproductive outcomes. Furthermore, we summarize the arguments in favor of insurance coverage for infertility care and assess the limitations of state insurance mandates as a strategy for increasing access to infertility treatment. State mandates play a key role in the promotion of evidence-based practices and represent an essential and impactful strategy for the advancement of gender equality and reproductive rights.

Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are nonprofit organizations that present themselves as healthcare clinics while providing counseling explicitly intended to discourage and limit access to abortion. These facilities engage in purposefully manipulative and deceptive practices that spread misinformation on sexual health and abortion. CPCs have also been shown to delay access to medically legitimate prenatal and abortion care, which negatively impacts maternal health. Along with increasing anti-abortion legislation, the proliferation of CPCs paired with the closure of abortion clinics exacerbates the ongoing harmful impact these centers have on the reproductive healthcare landscape; however, despite their growing influence, there is still limited research on patients' understanding of and experiences with CPCs. This article provides a review of academic literature on CPCs and suggests future directions for research. Ongoing scholarship may aid in improving patient awareness and education regarding CPCs, an important step toward protecting reproductive autonomy.

La infeccion por el virus de la hepatitis C (VHC) es un problema global de salud pública. Se estima que 58 millones de personas tienen infeccion cronica con riesgo de desarrollar cirrosis o carcinoma hepatocelular. Desde el descubrimiento del VHC en 1989, la búsqueda de un tratamiento para lograr el aclaramiento viral ha sido uno de los principales objetivos de investigacion, por lo cual esta revision se enfoca en los diferentes tratamientos para la infeccion por VHC. En los años 80 se iniciaron las terapias con interferon alfa, y posteriormente interferon alfa pegilado en monoterapia o en combinacion con ribavirina; sin embargo, la respuesta viral sostenida (RVS) solo se lograba en un limitado porcentaje de los pacientes. En 2011 fueron aprobados los antivirales de accion directa (AAD) de primera generacion, y en los últimos 10 años se han desarrollado nuevos AAD con tasas RVS superiores al 95 %. Sin embargo, recientemente se han reportado mutaciones asociadas a resistencia a los AAD, especialmente en los genotipos de VHC 1, subgenotipo 1a y 3. Es importante anotar que el aclaramiento viral luego del tratamiento con AAD no elimina el riesgo de carcinoma hepatocelular en pacientes con cirrosis hepática. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a global public health concern. An estimated of 58 million people with chronic HCV infection are at risk of developing cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma. Since the discovery of HCV in 1989, the search for a treatment to achieve viral clearance has been one of the main research goals, which is why this review focuses on the different treatments for HCV infection. In the 80s, therapies with interferon-[alpha], and pegylated interferon-[alpha] in monotherapy or combination with ribavirin began. However, sustained viral response (SVR) was achieved in a limited percentage of patients. First-generation direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) were approved in 2011, and new DAAs with SVR rates greater than 95% were developed in the last 10 years. However, mutations associated with resistance to DAAs have recently been reported, especially in HCV genotypes 1, subgenotype 1a, and 3. Finally, it is important to note that viral clearance after DAA treatment does not eliminate the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with liver cirrhosis.

Background The global human footprint has fundamentally altered wildfire regimes, creating serious consequences for human health, biodiversity, and climate. However, it remains difficult to project how long-term interactions among land use, management, and climate change will affect fire behavior, representing a key knowledge gap for sustainable management. We used expert assessment to combine opinions about past and future fire regimes from 99 wildfire researchers. We asked for quantitative and qualitative assessments of the frequency, type, and implications of fire regime change from the beginning of the Holocene through the year 2300. Results Respondents indicated some direct human influence on wildfire since at least ~ 12,000 years BP, though natural climate variability remained the dominant driver of fire regime change until around 5,000 years BP, for most study regions. Responses suggested a ten-fold increase in the frequency of fire regime change during the last 250 years compared with the rest of the Holocene, corresponding first with the intensification and extensification of land use and later with anthropogenic climate change. Looking to the future, fire regimes were predicted to intensify, with increases in frequency, severity, and size in all biomes except grassland ecosystems. Fire regimes showed different climate sensitivities across biomes, but the likelihood of fire regime change increased with higher warming scenarios for all biomes. Biodiversity, carbon storage, and other ecosystem services were predicted to decrease for most biomes under higher emission scenarios. We present recommendations for adaptation and mitigation under emerging fire regimes, while recognizing that management options are constrained under higher emission scenarios. Conclusion The influence of humans on wildfire regimes has increased over the last two centuries. The perspective gained from past fires should be considered in land and fire management strategies, but novel fire behavior is likely given the unprecedented human disruption of plant communities, climate, and other factors. Future fire regimes are likely to degrade key ecosystem services, unless climate change is aggressively mitigated. Expert assessment complements empirical data and modeling, providing a broader perspective of fire science to inform decision making and future research priorities.

Human activity has fundamentally altered wildfire on Earth, creating serious consequences for human health, global biodiversity, and climate change. However, it remains difficult to predict fire interactions with land use, management, and climate change, representing a serious knowledge gap and vulnerability. We used expert assessment to combine opinions about past and future fire regimes from 98 wildfire researchers. We asked for quantitative and qualitative assessments of the frequency, type, and implications of fire regime change from the beginning of the Holocene through the year 2300. Respondents indicated that direct human activity was already influencing wildfires locally since at least ~12,000 years BP, though natural climate variability remained the dominant driver of fire regime until around 5000 years BP. Responses showed a ten-fold increase in the rate of wildfire regime change during the last 250 years compared with the rest of the Holocene, corresponding first with the intensification and extensification of land use and later with anthropogenic climate change. Looking to the future, fire regimes were predicted to intensify, with increases in fire frequency, severity, and/or size in all biomes except grassland ecosystems. Fire regime showed quite different climate sensitivities across biomes, but the likelihood of fire regime change increased with higher greenhouse gas emission scenarios for all biomes. Biodiversity, carbon storage, and other ecosystem services were predicted to decrease for most biomes under higher emission scenarios. We present recommendations for adaptation and mitigation under emerging fire regimes, concluding that management options are seriously constrained under higher emission scenarios.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.