Dataset Information

Variability in Primary Care Physician Attitudes Toward Medicaid Work Requirement Exemption Requests Made by Patients With Depression

ABSTRACT: Key Points

Question

To what degree do physicians vary in their willingness to assist patients seeking exemptions from Medicaid work requirements?

Findings

In this mailed survey experiment with 715 responses, we found that 25% of physicians would assist a patient not qualifying under the state’s criteria for exemptions from Medicaid work requirements, and 54% would not, even when a patient qualifies. We found state, administrative effort, political affiliation, and perceived appropriateness to be significantly associated with willingness to assist.

Meaning

It is medically, ethically, and legally imperative that measures aimed at protecting vulnerable patients are not undermined by the burdensomeness of exemption procedures, or by physicians’ political or personal views. This experimental survey study examines variation in physician willingness to assist patients seeking exemptions from Medicaid work requirements.

Importance

Medicaid work requirements seek to promote health and personal responsibility but can also jeopardize health care access. Physicians have a central function in assisting patients with exemption requests, but it is unclear how their role affects patient welfare, professionalism, and the ethical and legal justification of programs.

Objective

To understand the degree of variability in physician response to assist patients with depression in receiving a Medicaid work requirement exemption.

Design, Setting, and Participants

We conducted a mailed survey experiment among practicing primary care physicians in the first 4 approved states (Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana, New Hampshire) in July and October of 2019. We report response, cooperation, refusal, and contact rates in line with American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) standards.

Exposures

In each state, we used an experimental factorial design to randomize recipients to 1 of 4 patient clinical scenarios.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the indicator of willingness to assist a patient reporting depression with an exemption.

Results

We received 715 responses (overall AAPOR response rate: 21%; cooperation rate: 84%; refusal rate: 4%; contact rate: 25%). Respondents’ mean (SD) age was 54 (12) years; mean (SD) time since graduation, 26 (12) years; 435 (61%) identified as male; 177 as Democrat (25%); 156 as Republican (22%); 197 as Independent/other (28%); and 185 as declined/unknown (26%); the mean (SD) share of Medicaid patients was 29% (21%). We found that 97 of 387 physicians (25%) would offer assistance even when state policy would not support an exemption, and 170 of 315 (54%) would not offer assistance when regulations would require this. Moreover, 49 of 245 respondents (20%) who deemed an exemption appropriate indicated that they would not assist. State, administrative effort, political affiliation, and perceived appropriateness were statistically associated with the odds of assisting with an exemption.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this survey study of primary care physicians, we found substantial variation regarding willingness to assist patients qualifying for a work requirement exemption where none should exist. Insofar as work requirements are implemented again, it is critical to proactively identify measures to ensure that patients qualifying for exemptions are not put at risk due to either the burdensomeness of exemption procedures, or physicians’ political or personal views.

SUBMITTER: Schmidt H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8727036 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Previous work demonstrates that individuals who obtain exemptions from school immunization requirements are geographically clustered, making regional differences in vaccination coverage a significant concern. Even where exemption levels are high, there are still parents that vaccinate. School-level assessments have determined that exemptors are more likely to attend wealthier schools with fewer minorities. Few studies have assessed divergent opinions within the context of a higher-exemption community to examine subtle differences in opinion surrounding vaccinations. Therefore, the objective of this work was to assess attitudes and perceptions towards vaccinations and compare them for exemptors and non-exemptors. We administered surveys to parents in high-exemption (>10%) elementary schools in Arizona during the 2012-13 school year. A total of 404 surveys were completed by parents among schools in Maricopa (n = 7) and Yavapai (n = 2) counties. Of these, 35% (n = 141) were exemptors and 65% (n = 261) were non-exemptors. Exemptors were more likely than non-exemptors to be concerned about serious side-effects (p<0.001). They were more likely to report knowing someone who had been diagnosed with a vaccine-preventable disease (p<0.001) but less likely to report that this had been a serious illness in that person (p<0.001) and they believed it is better for a child to develop immunity through illness than vaccination (p<0.001). They were less likely to trust physicians (p<0.001) and information about vaccines (p<0.001) and were more likely to obtain their health care from a naturopath (p<0.001). In summary, exemptors in these Arizona schools do not appear to be exempting their children from vaccinations due to convenience, as has been hypothesized in other settings. Based on the divergent views within high-exemption schools and reported distrust of the medical establishment, target interventions for high-exemption schools are discussed. Additionally, given the lack of effective non-policy based interventions to-date, the negligible declines in personal belief exemption rates, and vaccine preventable disease rate increases in Arizona, especially in high-exemption areas, legislative action in Arizona may also warrant further investigation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Optical spectroscopy has been studied for biologic plausibility, technical efficacy, clinical effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE:We sought to identify health care provider attitudes or practices that might act as barriers or to the dissemination of this new technology. METHODS:Through an academic-industrial partnership, we conducted a series of focus groups to examine physician barriers to optical diagnosis. The study was conducted in 2 stages. First, a pilot group of 10 physicians (8 obstetrician gynecologists and 2 family practitioners) was randomly selected from 8 regions of the United States and each physician was interviewed individually. Physicians were presented with the results of a large trial (N = 980) testing the accuracy of a spectroscopy-based device in the detection of cervical neoplasia. They were also shown a prototype of the device and were given a period of time to ask questions and receive answers regarding the device. They were also asked to provide feedback on a questionnaire that was then revised and presented to 3 larger focus groups (n = 13, 15, and 17 for a total N = 45). The larger focus groups were conducted during national scientific meetings with 20 obstetrician gynecologists and 25 primary care physicians (family practitioners and internists). RESULTS:When asked about the dissemination potential of the new cervical screening technology, all study groups tended to rely on established clinical guidelines from their respective professional societies with regard to the screening and diagnosis of cervical cancer. In addition, study participants consistently agreed that real-time spectroscopy would be viewed positively by their patients. Participants were positive about the new technology's potential as an adjunct to colposcopy and agreed that the improved accuracy would result in reduced health care costs (due to decreased biopsies and decreased visits). Although all participants saw the potential of real-time diagnosis, there were many perceived barriers. These barriers included changes in scheduling and work-flow, liability, documentation, ease of use, length of training, device cost, and reimbursement by third-party payers. CONCLUSIONS:Barriers exist to the dissemination of optical technologies into physician practice. These will need to be addressed before cervical screening and diagnosis programs can take advantage of spectroscopy-based instruments for cancer control.