Dataset Information

Abortion providers' experiences with Medicaid abortion coverage policies: a qualitative multistate study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the implementation of state Medicaid abortion policies and the impact of these policies on abortion clients and abortion providers.

Data source

From 2007 to 2010, in-depth interviews were conducted with representatives of 70 abortion-providing facilities in 15 states.

Study design

In-depth interviews focused on abortion providers' perceptions regarding Medicaid and their experiences working with Medicaid and securing reimbursement in cases that should receive federal funding: rape, incest, and life endangerment.

Data extraction

Data were transcribed verbatim before being coded.

Principal findings

In two study states, abortion providers reported that 97 percent of submitted claims for qualifying cases were funded. Success receiving reimbursement was attributed to streamlined electronic billing procedures, timely claims processing, and responsive Medicaid staff. Abortion providers in the other 13 states reported reimbursement for 36 percent of qualifying cases. Providers reported difficulties obtaining reimbursement due to unclear rejections of qualifying claims, complex billing procedures, lack of knowledgeable Medicaid staff with whom billing problems could be discussed, and low and slow reimbursement rates.

Conclusions

Poor state-level implementation of Medicaid coverage of abortion policies creates barriers for women seeking abortion. Efforts to ensure policies are implemented appropriately would improve women's health.

SUBMITTER: Dennis A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3589964 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHumanitarian settings are characterised by limited access to comprehensive abortion care. At the same time, humanitarian settings can increase the vulnerability of women and girls to unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions. Humanitarian actors and health care providers can play important roles in ensuring the availability and accessibility of abortion-related care. This study explores health care providers' perceptions and experiences of providing comprehensive abortion care in a humanitarian setting in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh and identifies barriers and facilitators in service provision.MethodIn-depth interviews (n?=?24) were conducted with health care providers (n?=?19) providing comprehensive abortion care to Rohingya refugee women and with key informants (n?=?5), who were employed by an organisation involved in the humanitarian response. Data were analysed using an inductive content analysis approach.ResultsThe national menstrual regulation policy provided a favourable legal environment and facilitated the provision of comprehensive abortion care, while the Mexico City policy created organisational barriers since it made organisations unable or unwilling to provide the full comprehensive abortion care package. Supplies were available, but a lack of space created a barrier to service provision. Although training from organisations had made the health care providers confident and competent and had facilitated the provision of services, their knowledge of the national abortion law and menstrual regulation policy was limited and created a barrier to comprehensive abortion services. Even though the health care providers were willing to provide comprehensive abortion care and had acquired skills and applied strategies to communicate with and provide care to Rohingya women, their personal beliefs and their perceptions of Rohingya women influenced their provision of care.ConclusionThe availability and accessibility of comprehensive abortion care was limited by unfavourable abortion policies, a lack of privacy, a lack of knowledge of abortion laws and policies, health care providers' personal beliefs and a lack of cultural safety. To ensure the accessibility and availability of quality services, a comprehensive approach to sexual and reproductive health and rights is needed. Organisations must ensure that health care providers have knowledge of abortion policies and the ability to provide quality care that is woman-centred and non-judgmental.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has produced widespread disruptions for healthcare systems across Canada. Perinatal care in Ontario, Canada was subject to province-wide public health restrictions, reallocation of hospital beds and human health resources. To better understand the impacts of the pandemic on Ontario perinatal care, this study explored the perspectives of perinatal care providers about their clinical COVID-19 pandemic experiences.MethodsSemi-structured key informant virtual interviews were conducted between August 2021 and January 2022 with 15 Ontario-based perinatal care providers. Recorded interviews were transcribed, and thematic content analysis used to identify major themes and subthemes.ResultsParticipants were mainly women, practicing in Eastern and Central Ontario as health providers (obstetricians, nurses, midwives), allied regulated health professionals (social worker, massage therapist), and perinatal support workers (doula, lactation consultant). Major themes and subthemes were identified inductively as follows: (1) Impacts of COVID-19 on providers (psychosocial stress, healthcare system barriers, healthcare system opportunities); (2) Perceived impacts of COVID-19 on pregnant people (psychosocial stress, amplification of existing healthcare barriers, influences on reproductive decision making; minor theme- social and emotional support roles); (3) Vaccine discourse (provider empathy, vaccines and patient family dynamics, minor themes- patient vaccine hesitancy, COVID-19 misinformation); and (4) Virtual pregnancy care (benefits, disadvantages, adaptation of standard care practices).ConclusionsPerinatal care providers reported significant stress and uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and evolving hospital protocols. Providers perceived that their patients were distressed by both the pandemic and related reductions in pregnancy healthcare services including hospital limits to support companion(s). Although virtual pregnancy care impaired patient-provider rapport, most providers believed that the workflow efficiencies and patient convenience of virtual care is beneficial to perinatal healthcare.

Project description:ImportanceFamilies of children with medical complexity (CMC) report barriers to accessing affordable coverage for the full range of services their children may need to optimize their health outcomes. Medicaid enrollment through medical need-based eligibility mechanisms can help cover these service gaps. Understanding state-by-state variation in how CMC access Medicaid may allow policy makers and pediatricians to help families navigate needed services for CMC.ObjectiveTo clarify how eligibility and coverage for CMC differ for Medicaid beneficiaries across states with different policies and managed care penetration.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study used semistructured interviews with state Medicaid representatives from 23 states and Washington, DC, from February 1, 2020, to March 1, 2021. Enrollment pathways and coverage processes were discussed. Interviews were transcribed and content analysis was performed. Participants included Medicaid directors, a designee, or a state-identified policy leader with expertise in and/or responsibility for child-focused programs.ExposuresState variation in Medicaid eligibility and delivery policies.Main outcomes and measuresEligibility pathways and coverage mechanisms for CMC in each state.ResultsA total of 43 informants from 23 states and Washington, DC, participated, which permitted data collection regarding almost half of the US. Four distinct eligibility pathways were characterized, with 3 specific to CMC, and the pathways that include the presence of waiting lists were distinguished. In addition, 3 coverage types at the state level were identified, consisting of fee-for-service, Medicaid managed care, or both. Two main connections between pathways and coverage mechanisms for CMC were described.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this qualitative study suggest that state patterns in Medicaid eligibility and coverage for CMC have implications for access, including some states with substantial waiting periods for these families. Future work is needed to understand the implications of these differential Medicaid medical need-based eligibility pathways and subsequent coverage mechanisms on use of health care resources and expenditures, as well as considerations regarding challenges families of CMC face due to state-by-state variation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act (hereafter, Choice Program) seeks to improve access to care by enabling eligible Veterans to receive care from community providers. Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care providers (PCPs) play a key role in making referrals to community specialists, but their frontline experiences with referrals are not well understood. OBJECTIVE:To understand VA PCPs' experiences referring patients to community specialists while VA works to expand and refine the implementation of the Choice Program. DESIGN:Qualitative study using interview methods. PARTICIPANTS:Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with VA primary care providers (N = 72 out of 599 contacted) recruited nationally. APPROACH:Open-ended interview questions elicited PCP perceptions and experiences with referrals to community specialists via the Choice Program. Keywords were identified using automated coding features in ATLAS.ti and evaluated using conventional content analysis to inductively describe the qualitative data. KEY RESULTS:VA PCPs emphasized problems with care coordination and continuity between the VA and community specialists (e.g., "It is extremely difficult for us to obtain and continue continuity of care because there's not much communication with the community specialist"). They described difficulties with tracking the initial referral, coordinating care after receiving community specialty care, accessing community medical records, and aligning community specialists' prescriptions with the VA formulary. CONCLUSIONS:The VA Choice Program provides access to community specialists for VA patients; however, VA primary care providers face challenges tracking referrals to community specialists and in coordinating care. Strategies to improve care coordination between the VA and community providers should focus on providing PCPs with information to follow Veterans throughout the Choice referral process and follow-up.