Dataset Information

Mental Health Service Use by Medicaid-Enrolled Children and Adolescents in Primary Care Safety-Net Clinics.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Little is known about the role of primary care safety-net clinics, including federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics, in providing mental health services to youths. This study examined correlates and quality of mental health care for youths treated in these settings.

Methods

Medicaid claims data (2008-2010) from nine states were used to identify youths initiating medication for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (N=6,433) and youths with an incident depression diagnosis (N=13,209). The authors identified youths who received no ADHD or depression-related visits in a primary care safety-net clinic, some (but less than most) visits in these clinics, and most visits in these clinics. Using bivariate and regression analyses, they examined correlates of mental health treatment in these settings and whether mental health visits in these settings were associated with quality measures.

Results

Only 13.5% of the ADHD cohort and 7.2% of the depression cohort sought any ADHD- or depression-related visits in primary care safety-net clinics. Residence in a county with a higher (versus lower) percentage of residents living in an urban area was negatively associated with receiving the majority of mental health visits in these settings (p<0.05). Compared with youths with no visits in these settings, youths who received most of their mental health treatment in these settings received lower-quality care on five of six measures (p<0.01).

Conclusions

As investment in the expansion of mental health services in primary care safety-net clinics grows, future research should assess whether these resources translate into improved mental health care access and quality for Medicaid-enrolled youths.

SUBMITTER: Cummings JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8052634 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundQuality metrics, pay for performance (P4P), and value-based payments are prominent aspects of the current and future American healthcare system. However, linking clinic payment to clinic quality measures may financially disadvantage safety-net clinics and their patient population because safety-net clinics often have worse quality metric scores than non-safety net clinics. The Minnesota Safety Net Coalition's Quality Measurement Enhancement Project sought to collect data from primary care providers' (PCPs) experiences, which could assist Minnesota policymakers and state agencies as they create a new P4P system. Our research study aims are to identify PCPs' perspectives about 1) quality metrics at safety net clinics and non-safety net clinics, 2) how clinic quality measures affect patients and patient care, and 3) how payment for quality measures may influence healthcare.MethodsQualitative interviews with 14 PCPs (4 individual interviews and 3 focus groups) who had worked at both safety net and non-safety net primary care clinics in Minneapolis-St Paul Minnesota USA metropolitan area. Qualitative analyses identified major themes.ResultsThree themes with sub-themes emerged. Theme #1: Minnesota's current clinic quality scores are influenced more by patients and clinic systems than by clinicians. Theme #2: Collecting data for a set of specific quality measures is not the same as measuring quality healthcare. Subtheme #2.1: Current quality measures are not aligned with how patients and clinicians define quality healthcare. Theme #3: Current quality measures are a product of and embedded in social and structural inequities in the American health care system. Subtheme #3.1: The current inequitable healthcare system should not be reinforced with financial payments. Subtheme #3.2: Health equity requires new metrics and a new healthcare system. Overall, PCPs felt that the current inequitable quality metrics should be replaced by different metrics along with major changes to the healthcare system that could produce greater health equity.ConclusionAligning payment with the current quality metrics could perpetuate and exacerbate social inequities and health disparities. Policymakers should consider PCPs' perspectives and create a quality-payment framework that does not disadvantage patients who are affected by social and structural inequities as well as the clinics and providers who serve them.

Project description:ImportanceBrief disruptions in insurance coverage among eligible participants are associated with poorer health outcomes for children.ObjectiveTo describe factors associated with coverage disruptions among children enrolled in North Carolina Medicaid from 2016 to 2018 and estimate the outcome of preventing such disruptions on medical expenditures.Design setting and participantsThis was a retrospective cohort study using North Carolina Medicaid claims data. All enrolled individuals were aged 1 to 20 years on January 1, 2016, and with 30 days of prior continuous enrollment. Children were observed from January 1, 2016, until December 31, 2018. Analyses were conducted from June 2020 through December 2020.Main outcomes and measuresRisk of Medicaid coverage disruptions of 1 to less than 12 months was assessed. Among children who disenrolled from Medicaid for 30 or more days, the risk of reenrollment within 1 to 6 months and 7 to 11 months was assessed. An inverse probability of censoring weights method was then used to estimate the outcome of an intervention to reduce coverage disruptions through preventing disenrollment on per member per month (PMPM) cost.ResultsThe study population included 831 173 Medicaid beneficiaries aged 1 to 5 years (23%), 6 to 17 years (68%), and 18 to 20 years (9%); 35% were Black, 44% were White, and 14% were Hispanic/Latinx. Among those with a first disenrollment (n = 214 401, 26%), the risk of reenrollment within 6 months and 7 to 11 months was 19% and 7%, respectively. Risk of coverage disruption was higher for Black children (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21; 95% CI, 1.18-1.24), children of other races (Asian, American Indian, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, multiple races, or unreported; HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.33-1.40), and Latinx children (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.60-1.70) compared with White children. Risk of coverage disruption was also higher for children with higher medical complexity (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.12-1.19). The risk of coverage disruption was lower for children living in counties with the highest unemployment rates (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94), and comparisons between county-level measures of child poverty and graduation rates showed little or no difference. The estimated PMPM cost for the full population under a scenario in which all medical costs were included was $125.73. Estimated PMPM cost for the full cohort in a counterfactual scenario in which disenrollment was prevented was slightly lower ($122.14). Across all subgroups, estimated PMPM costs were modestly lower ($2-$8) in the scenario in which disenrollment was prevented.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, the risk of Medicaid coverage disruption was high, with many eligible children in historically marginalized communities continuing to experience unstable enrollment. In addition to improving health outcomes, preventing coverage gaps through policies that decrease disenrollment may also reduce Medicaid costs.