Dataset Information

Geographic Access to Specialty Mental Health Care Across High- and Low-Income US Communities.

ABSTRACT: Importance:With the future of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid program unclear, it is critical to examine the geographic availability of specialty mental health treatment resources that serve low-income populations across local communities. Objectives:To examine the geographic availability of community-based specialty mental health treatment resources and how these resources are distributed by community socioeconomic status. Design, Setting, and Participants:Measures of the availability of specialty mental health treatment resources were derived using national data for 31?836 zip code tabulation areas from 2013 to 2015. Analyses examined the association between community socioeconomic status (assessed by median household income quartiles) and resource availability using logistic regressions. Models controlled for zip code tabulation area-level demographic characteristics and state indicators. Main Outcomes and Measures:Dichotomous indicators for whether a zip code tabulation area had any (1) outpatient mental health treatment facility (more than nine-tenths of which offer payment arrangements for low-income populations), (2) office-based practice of mental health specialist physician(s), (3) office-based practice of nonphysician mental health professionals (eg, therapists), and (4) mental health facility or office-based practice (ie, any community-based resource). Results:Of the 31?836 zip code tabulation areas in the study, more than four-tenths (3382 of 7959 [42.5%]) of communities in the highest income quartile (mean income, $81?207) had any community-based mental health treatment resource vs 23.1% of communities (1841 of 7959) in the lowest income quartile (mean income, $30?534) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.50-2.03). When examining the distribution of mental health professionals, 25.3% of the communities (2014 of 7959) in the highest income quartile had a mental health specialist physician practice vs 8.0% (637 of 7959) of those in the lowest income quartile (adjusted odds ratio, 3.04; 95% CI, 2.53-3.66). Similarly, 35.1% of the communities (2792 of 7959) in the highest income quartile had a nonphysician mental health professional practice vs 12.9% (1029 of 7959) of those in the lowest income quartile (adjusted odds ratio, 2.77; 95%, 2.35-3.26). In contrast, outpatient mental health treatment facilities were less likely to be located in the communities in the highest vs lowest income quartiles (12.9% [1025 of 7959] vs 16.5% [1317 of 7959]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.37-0.51). More than seven-tenths of the lowest income communities with any resource (71.5% [1317 of 1841]) had an outpatient mental health treatment facility. Conclusions and Relevance:Mental health treatment facilities are more likely to be located in poorer communities, whereas office-based practices of mental health professionals are more likely to be located in higher-income communities. These findings indicate that mental health treatment facilities constitute the backbone of the specialty mental health treatment infrastructure in low-income communities. Policies are needed to support and expand available resources for this critical infrastructure.

SUBMITTER: Cummings JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5693377 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Geographic Access to Specialty Mental Health Care Across High- and Low-Income US Communities.

Cummings Janet R JR Allen Lindsay L Clennon Julie J Ji Xu X Druss Benjamin G BG

JAMA psychiatry 20170501 5

<h4>Importance</h4>With the future of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid program unclear, it is critical to examine the geographic availability of specialty mental health treatment resources that serve low-income populations across local communities.<h4>Objectives</h4>To examine the geographic availability of community-based specialty mental health treatment resources and how these resources are distributed by community socioeconomic status.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>Measures of ...[more]

PMID: 28384733

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe how access to primary and specialty care differs for Medicaid patients relative to commercially insured patients, and how these differences vary across rural and urban counties, using comprehensive claims data from Oregon.DesignCross-sectional study of risk-adjusted access rates for two types of primary care providers (physicians; nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs)); four types of mental health providers (psychiatrists, psychologists, advanced practice NPs or PAs specializing in mental health care, behavioral specialists); and four physician specialties (obstetrics and gynecology, general surgery, gastroenterology, dermatology).Participants420,947 Medicaid and 638,980 commercially insured adults in Oregon, October 2014-September 2015.OutcomePresence of any visit with each provider type, risk-adjusted for sex, age, and health conditions.ResultsRelative to commercially insured individuals, Medicaid enrollees had lower rates of access to primary care physicians (- 11.82%; CI - 12.01 to - 11.63%) and to some specialists (e.g., obstetrics and gynecology, dermatology), but had equivalent or higher rates of access to NPs and PAs providing primary care (4.33%; CI 4.15 to 4.52%) and a variety of mental health providers (including psychiatrists, NPs and PAs, and other behavioral specialists). Across all providers, the largest gaps in Medicaid-commercial access rates were observed in rural counties. The Medicaid-commercial patient mix was evenly distributed across primary care physicians, suggesting that access for Medicaid patients was not limited to a small subset of primary care providers.ConclusionsThis cross-sectional study found lower rates of access to primary care physicians for Medicaid enrollees, but Medicaid-commercial differences in access rates were not present across all provider types and displayed substantial variability across counties. Policies that address rural-urban differences as well as Medicaid-commercial differences-such as expansions of telemedicine or changes in the workforce mix-may have the largest impact on improving access to care across a wide range of populations.

Project description:ImportanceAn increasing diversity of children's health coverage options under the US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, together with uncertainty regarding reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) beyond 2017, merits renewed attention on the quality of these options for children.ObjectiveTo compare health care access, quality, and cost outcomes by insurance type (Medicaid, CHIP, private, and uninsured) for children in households with low to moderate incomes.Design, setting, and participantsA repeated cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data from the 2003, 2007, and 2011-2012 US National Surveys of Children's Health, comprising 80,655 children 17 years or younger, weighted to 67 million children nationally, with household incomes between 100% and 300% of the federal poverty level. Multivariable logistic regression models compared caregiver-reported outcomes across insurance types. Analysis was conducted between July 14, 2014, and May 6, 2015.ExposuresInsurance type was ascertained using a caregiver-reported measure of insurance status and each household's poverty status (percentage of the federal poverty level).Main outcomes and measuresCaregiver-reported outcomes related to access to primary and specialty care, unmet needs, out-of-pocket costs, care coordination, and satisfaction with care.ResultsAmong the 80,655 children, 51,123 (57.3%) had private insurance, 11,853 (13.6%) had Medicaid, 9554 (18.4%) had CHIP, and 8125 (10.8%) were uninsured. In a multivariable logistic regression model (with results reported as adjusted probabilities [95% CIs]), children insured by Medicaid and CHIP were significantly more likely to receive a preventive medical (Medicaid, 88% [86%-89%]; P < .01; CHIP, 88% [87%-89%]; P < .01) and dental (Medicaid, 80% [78%-81%]; P < .01; CHIP, 77% [76%-79%]; P < .01) visits than were privately insured children (medical, 83% [82%-84%]; dental, 73% [72%-74%]). Children with all insurance types experienced challenges in access to specialty care, with caregivers of children insured by CHIP reporting the highest rates of difficulty accessing specialty care (28% [24%-32%]), problems obtaining a referral (23% [18%-29%]), and frustration obtaining health care services (26% [23%-28%]). These challenges were also magnified for privately insured children with special health care needs, whose caregivers reported significantly greater problems accessing specialty care (29% [26%-33%]) and frustration obtaining health care services (36% [32%-41%]) than did caregivers of children insured by Medicaid, and a lower likelihood of insurance always meeting the child's needs (63% [60%-67%]) than children insured by Medicaid or CHIP. Caregivers of privately insured children were also significantly more likely to experience out-of-pocket costs (77% [75%-78%]) than were caregivers of children insured by Medicaid (26% [23%-28%]; P < .01) or CHIP (38% [35%-40%]; P < .01).Conclusions and relevanceThis examination of caregiver experiences across insurance types revealed important differences that can help guide future policymaking regarding coverage for families with low to moderate incomes.

Project description:BackgroundGeographic access to obstetric care facilities has a significant influence on women's uptake of institutional delivery care. However, this effect was not consistent across studies. Some studies reported that geographic access to obstetric care facilities had no influence on the use of facility delivery. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized and pooled the influence of geographic access on institutional delivery service uptake in low and middle-income countries.MethodsMultiple combinations of search terms were used to search articles from six databases and a hand search of reference lists performed. We included observational studies conducted in low and middle-income countries which reported the influence of geographic access on delivery care use. The pooled effects of geographic access on institutional delivery care use were calculated using a random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval.FindingsIn this study a total of 31 studies were included. Among these studies, 15 met criteria for inclusion in the meta-analyses, while the remaining 16 were summarized using qualitative synthesis. Studies included in the analysis where women had to walk 60 minutes or less to access a health facility delivery were significantly heterogeneous. Having access to obstetric care facilities within five kilometres was significantly associated with institutional deliveries (pooled OR = 2.27; 95% CI = 1.82, 2.82). Similarly, a travelling time of 60 minutes or less was significantly associated with higher odds of health facility delivery (pooled OR = 3.30; 95% CI = 1.97, 5.53). Every one-hour and one-kilometre increase in travel time and distance, respectively, was negatively associated with institutional delivery care use.InterpretationGeographic access measured in either physical distance and/or travel time was significantly associated with women's use of facility delivery. The greater the distance and/or travel time to obstetric care facilities, the greater the barrier and the lesser the service uptake.

Dataset Information

Geographic Access to Specialty Mental Health Care Across High- and Low-Income US Communities.

Publications

Geographic Access to Specialty Mental Health Care Across High- and Low-Income US Communities.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets