Access to primary care for patients with diabetes at an urban public hospital walk-in clinic

Medicaid primary care physician fees and the use of preventive services among Medicaid enrollees

OBJECTIVE

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) increases Medicaid physician fees for preventive care up to Medicare rates for 2013 and 2014. The purpose of this paper was to model the relationship between Medicaid preventive care payment rates and the use of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)-recommended preventive care use among Medicaid enrollees.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SESSION

We used data from the 2003 and 2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a national probability sample of the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population, linked to Kaiser state Medicaid benefits data, including the state Medicaid-to-Medicare physician fee ratio in 2003 and 2008.

STUDY DESIGN

Probit models were used to estimate the probability that eligible individuals received one of five USPSF-recommended preventive services. A difference-in-difference model was used to separate out the effect of changes in the Medicaid payment rate and other factors.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Data were linked using state identifiers.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Although Medicaid enrollees had a lower rate of use of the five preventive services in univariate analysis, neither Medicaid enrollment nor changes in Medicaid payment rates had statistically significant effects on meeting screening recommendations for the five screenings. The results were robust to a number of different sensitivity tests. Individual and state characteristics were significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that although temporary changes in primary care provider payments for preventive services for Medicaid enrollees may have other desirable effects, they are unlikely to substantially increase the use of these selected USPSTF-recommended preventive care services among Medicaid enrollees.

Sicker and poorer--the consequences of being uninsured: a review of the research on the relationship between health insurance, medical care use, health, work, and income

Health services research conducted over the past 25 years makes a compelling case that having health insurance or using more medical care would improve the health of the uninsured. The literature's broad range of conditions, populations, and methods makes it difficult to derive a precise quantitative estimate of the effect of having health insurance on the uninsured's health. Some mortality studies imply that a 4% to 5% reduction in the uninsured's mortality is a lower bound; other studies suggest that the reductions could be as high as 20% to 25%. Although all of the studies reviewed suffer from methodological flaws of varying degrees, there is substantial qualitative consistency across studies of different medical conditions conducted at different times and using different data sets and statistical methods. Corroborating process studies find that the uninsured receive fewer preventive and diagnostic services, tend to be more severely ill when diagnosed, and receive less therapeutic care. Other literature suggests that improving health status from fair or poor to very good or excellent would increase both work effort and annual earnings by approximately 15% to 20%.

Access to health services in an urban community: does source of care make a difference?

The importance of having a usual source of medical care is well established. Few studies, however, examine whether there are differences in health care utilization associated with the type of site used and whether having a primary clinician is more important than site in influencing utilization. The aim of this study was to examine these issues and assess the relative importance of usual source of care characteristics in determining access to a variety of health services. The study was based on a cross-sectional survey of a household probability sample of 695 adults from Central Harlem in New York City. Outcomes examined included use of hospitals as the regular source of care compared with other types of providers, having a usual clinician, receipt of various preventive health services, and illness-related utilization. Multiple logistic regression analysis indicated that men and people of lower socioeconomic status were significantly (P <or=.05) more likely to rely on hospitals alone as the usual source of care. People who exclusively used hospitals for ambulatory services were 72% less likely to have a primary clinician compared with those using other types of medical care sources. Having a usual source of care of any type was a significant predictor of receipt of five of eight health care services examined; having a main clinician was associated with four of the services. However, type of site used was unrelated to utilization. The impact of having a usual source of care appears to be independent of the effect of having a primary clinical provider, suggesting that having an initial portal into the health care system is as important as possessing an ongoing relationship with a clinician in ensuring access to services. Socioeconomic factors remain important influences on gaining entry into the health care system.