Surgery for obesity and related diseases : official journal of the American Society for Bariatric Surgery · 2026
Obesity treatment access in the United States: a state-level scorecard.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Scott John David, Hale Allyson Lynn, Zvenyach Tracy, Nadglowski Joseph, Hilton Lisa Renee
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Obesity affects more than 40% of U.S. adults and carries substantial morbidity and mortality, yet access to evidence-based treatment varies widely across jurisdictions.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare state-level access to evidence-based obesity treatment across the United States using a standardized composite framework.
SETTING: 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia (51 jurisdictions).
METHODS: Ecological cross-sectional study using publicly available policy and administrative data aggregated in 2026; the unit of analysis was the jurisdiction and no individual patient-level data were used. The Obesity Treatment Access Scorecard was derived from 44 metrics across 6 weighted tiers, coverage, access barriers, workforce capacity, regulatory factors, patient context, and treatment utilization, yielding scores of 0-100 mapped to letter grades (A-F). Data were verified by expert review with multisource validation, and sensitivity analyses tested alternative tier-weighting schemes.
RESULTS: Scores ranged from 25.5 to 77.7 (mean, 48.5; standard deviation [SD], 12.8). No state achieved an A grade (≥80). Fifteen jurisdictions (29.4%) scored below 40 and 10 (19.6%) scored 60 or higher. Massachusetts (77.7) and Minnesota (76.4) ranked the highest; Arkansas (25.5), Oklahoma (28.5), and West Virginia (28.9) ranked the lowest. Mean scores were highest in the Northeast (62.7 [SD, 10.2]) and lowest in the South (39.9 [SD, 10.5]). Variability was greatest in the patient context and workforce capacity tiers. Jurisdiction rankings were robust to alternative tier-weighting schemes (Spearman ρ ≥ .99).
CONCLUSIONS: Access to evidence-based obesity treatment is highly variable across the United States, with no state achieving top performance. These findings highlight significant geographic disparities and support the need for policy and system-level reforms. The Obesity Treatment Access Scorecard is presented as an exploratory benchmarking framework requiring further validation before use in policy evaluation.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare state-level access to evidence-based obesity treatment across the United States using a standardized composite framework.
SETTING: 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia (51 jurisdictions).
METHODS: Ecological cross-sectional study using publicly available policy and administrative data aggregated in 2026; the unit of analysis was the jurisdiction and no individual patient-level data were used. The Obesity Treatment Access Scorecard was derived from 44 metrics across 6 weighted tiers, coverage, access barriers, workforce capacity, regulatory factors, patient context, and treatment utilization, yielding scores of 0-100 mapped to letter grades (A-F). Data were verified by expert review with multisource validation, and sensitivity analyses tested alternative tier-weighting schemes.
RESULTS: Scores ranged from 25.5 to 77.7 (mean, 48.5; standard deviation [SD], 12.8). No state achieved an A grade (≥80). Fifteen jurisdictions (29.4%) scored below 40 and 10 (19.6%) scored 60 or higher. Massachusetts (77.7) and Minnesota (76.4) ranked the highest; Arkansas (25.5), Oklahoma (28.5), and West Virginia (28.9) ranked the lowest. Mean scores were highest in the Northeast (62.7 [SD, 10.2]) and lowest in the South (39.9 [SD, 10.5]). Variability was greatest in the patient context and workforce capacity tiers. Jurisdiction rankings were robust to alternative tier-weighting schemes (Spearman ρ ≥ .99).
CONCLUSIONS: Access to evidence-based obesity treatment is highly variable across the United States, with no state achieving top performance. These findings highlight significant geographic disparities and support the need for policy and system-level reforms. The Obesity Treatment Access Scorecard is presented as an exploratory benchmarking framework requiring further validation before use in policy evaluation.