Dataset Information

Access to Primary, Mental Health, and Specialty Care: a Comparison of Medicaid and Commercially Insured Populations in Oregon.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To 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.

Design

Cross-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).

Participants

420,947 Medicaid and 638,980 commercially insured adults in Oregon, October 2014-September 2015.

Outcome

Presence of any visit with each provider type, risk-adjusted for sex, age, and health conditions.

Results

Relative 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.

Conclusions

This 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.

SUBMITTER: McConnell KJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6957609 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Access to Primary, Mental Health, and Specialty Care: a Comparison of Medicaid and Commercially Insured Populations in Oregon.

McConnell K John KJ Charlesworth Christina J CJ Zhu Jane M JM Meath Thomas H A THA George Rani M RM Davis Melinda M MM Saha Somnath S Kim Hyunjee H

Journal of general internal medicine 20191028 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To 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.<h4>Design</h4>Cross-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, ...[more]

PMID: 31659659

Similar Datasets

Project description:Reducing unnecessary tests and treatments is a potentially promising approach for improving the value of health care. However, relatively little is known about whether insurance type or local practice patterns are associated with delivery of low-value care.To compare low-value care in the Medicaid and commercially insured populations, test whether provision of low-value care is associated with insurance type, and assess whether local practice patterns are associated with the provision of low-value care.This cross-sectional study of claims data from the Oregon Division of Medical Assistance Programs and the Oregon All-Payer All-Claims database included Medicaid and commercially insured adults aged 18 to 64 years. The study period was January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013.Low-value care was assessed using 16 claims-based measures. Logistic regression was used to test the association between Medicaid vs commercial insurance coverage and low-value care and the association between Medicaid and commercial low-value care rates within primary care service areas (PCSAs).This study included 286?769 Medicaid and 1?376?308 commercial enrollees in 2013. Medicaid enrollees were younger (167 847 [58.5%] of Medicaid enrollees were aged 18-34 years vs 505 628 [36.7%] of those with commercial insurance) but generally had worse health status compared with those with commercial insurance. Medicaid enrollees were also more likely to be female (180 363 [62.9%] vs 702 165 [51.0%]) and live in a rural area (120 232 [41.9%] vs 389 964 [28.3%]). A total of 10 304 of 69 338 qualifying Medicaid patients (14.9%; 95% CI, 14.6%-15.1%) received at least 1 low-value service during 2013; the corresponding rate for commercially insured patients was 35 739 of 314 023 (11.4%; 95% CI, 11.3%-11.5%). No consistent association was found between insurance type and low-value care. Compared with commercial patients, Medicaid patients were more likely to receive low-value care for 10 measures and less likely to receive low-value care for 5 others. For 7 of 11 low-value care measures, Medicaid patients were significantly more likely to receive low-value care if they resided in a PCSA with a higher rate of low-value care for commercial patients.Oregon Medicaid and commercially insured patients received moderate amounts of low-value care in 2013. No consistent association was found between insurance type and low-value care. However, Medicaid and commercial rates of low-value care were associated with one another within PCSAs. Low-value care may be more closely related to local practice patterns than to reimbursement generosity or insurance benefit structures.

Project description:ImportanceYouths with type 2 diabetes are at higher risk for complications compared with peers with type 1 diabetes, though few studies have evaluated differences in access to specialty care.ObjectiveTo compare claims with diabetes specialists for youths with type 1 vs type 2 diabetes and the association between specialist claims with multidisciplinary and acute care utilization.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used Optum Clinformatics Data Mart commercial claims. Individuals included in the study were youths younger than 19 years with type 1 or 2 diabetes as determined by a validated algorithm and prescription claims. Data were collected for youths with at least 80% enrollment in a commercial health plan from December 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed from September 2022 to January 2024.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the number of ambulatory claims from an endocrine and/or diabetes physician or advanced practice clinician associated with a diabetes diagnosis code; secondary outcomes included multidisciplinary and acute care claims.ResultsClaims were analyzed for 4772 youths (mean [SD] age, 13.6 [3.7] years; 4300 [90.1%] type 1 diabetes; 472 [9.9%] type 2 diabetes; 2465 [51.7%] male; 128 [2.7%] Asian, 303 [6.4] Black or African American, 429 [9.0%] Hispanic or Latino, 3366 [70.5%] non-Hispanic White, and 546 [11.4%] unknown race and ethnicity). Specialist claims were lower in type 2 compared with type 1 diabetes (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.61 [95% CI, 0.52-0.72]; P < .001) in propensity score-weighted analyses. The presence of a comorbidity was associated with increased specialist claims for type 1 diabetes (IRR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.03-1.10]) and decreased claims for type 2 diabetes (IRR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67-0.87]). Pooling diagnosis groups and adjusted for covariates, each additional specialist claim was associated with increased odds of a claim with a diabetes care and education specialist (odds ratio [OR], 1.31 [95% CI, 1.25-1.36]), dietitian (OR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.09-1.19]), and behavioral health clinician (OR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.12-1.20]). For acute care claims, each additional specialist claim was associated with increased odds of admission (OR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.11-1.24]) but not for emergency claims (OR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.98-1.82]).Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that youths with type 2 diabetes were significantly less likely to have specialist claims despite insurance coverage, indicating other barriers to care, which may include medical complexity. Access to diabetes specialists influences engagement with multidisciplinary services. The association between increasing ambulatory clinician services and admissions suggests high utilization by a subgroup of patients at greater risk for poor outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the economic burden of systematic lupus erythematous (SLE), stratified by disease severity, in commercially- and Medicaid-insured US populations.MethodsAdults (≥18 years) with SLE treated with antimalarials, selected biologics, immunosuppressants, and systemic glucocorticoids (2010-2014) were identified within the commercial and Medicaid insurance IBM MarketScan® databases (index date = first SLE medication claim). Both cohorts were stratified into mild (receiving antimalarial or glucocorticoid monotherapy ≤5 mg/day) versus moderate/severe SLE (receiving glucocorticoids >5 mg/day, biologic, immunosuppressant, or combination therapy) during a 6-month exposure period. All-cause healthcare utilization and costs were evaluated during the 12 months following the exposure period.ResultsAmong 8231 commercially-insured patients, 32.6% had mild and 67.4% had moderate/severe SLE by our definition. Among 802 Medicaid-insured patients, 25.2% had mild and 74.8% had moderate/severe SLE. Adjusted mean total healthcare costs, excluding pharmacy, for moderate/severe SLE patients were higher than for mild SLE patients in the commercially-insured ($39,021 versus $23,519; p < 0.0001) and Medicaid-insured populations ($56,050 versus $44,932; p = 0.06). In both SLE severity populations total unadjusted costs were significantly higher among Medicaid-insured than commercially-insured patients.ConclusionCommercially-insured patients with treatment suggesting moderate/severe SLE incurred significantly higher adjusted mean healthcare costs, excluding pharmacy, compared with mild SLE patients. While not reaching statistical significance, moderate/severe Medicaid-insured patients had higher costs then mild SLE patients. Total unadjusted healthcare costs were significantly higher among Medicaid-insured than commercially-insured patients. These differential costs are important to consider and monitor when implementing interventions to improve health and reduce healthcare spending for SLE.

Dataset Information

Access to Primary, Mental Health, and Specialty Care: a Comparison of Medicaid and Commercially Insured Populations in Oregon.

Objective

Design

Participants

Outcome

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Access to Primary, Mental Health, and Specialty Care: a Comparison of Medicaid and Commercially Insured Populations in Oregon.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets