Search

Background: Providing increases in Medicaid reimbursements for primary care, a key provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), raised Medicaid payments to Medicare levels in 2013 and 2014 for selected services and providers. The federally funded increase in reimbursements was aimed at expanding access to primary care for the growing number of Medicaid enrollees. The reimbursement increase expired at the end of 2014 in most states before policymakers had much empirical evidence about its effects., Methods: We measured the availability of and waiting times for appointments in 10 states during two periods: from November 2012 through March 2013 and from May 2014 through July 2014. Trained field staff posed as either Medicaid enrollees or privately insured enrollees seeking new-patient primary care appointments. We estimated state-level changes over time in a stable cohort of primary care practices that participated in Medicaid to assess whether willingness to provide appointments for new Medicaid enrollees was related to the size of increases in Medicaid reimbursements in each state., Results: The availability of primary care appointments in the Medicaid group increased by 7.7 percentage points, from 58.7% to 66.4%, between the two time periods. The states with the largest increases in availability tended to be those with the largest increases in reimbursements, with an estimated increase of 1.25 percentage points in availability per 10% increase in Medicaid reimbursements (P=0.03). No such association was observed in the private-insurance group. During the same periods, waiting times to a scheduled new-patient appointment remained stable over time in the two study groups., Conclusions: Our study provides early evidence that increased Medicaid reimbursement to primary care providers, as mandated in the ACA, was associated with improved appointment availability for Medicaid enrollees among participating providers without generating longer waiting times. (Funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.).

Background: Health care reform has expanded eligibility to public insurance without fully addressing concerns about access. We measured children's access to outpatient specialty care to identify disparities in providers' acceptance of Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) versus private insurance., Methods: Between January and May 2010, research assistants called a stratified, random sample of clinics representing eight specialties in Cook County, Illinois, which has a high proportion of specialists. Callers posed as mothers of pediatric patients with common health conditions requiring outpatient specialty care. Two calls, separated by 1 month, were placed to each clinic by the same person with the use of a standardized clinical script that differed by insurance status., Results: We completed 546 paired calls to 273 specialty clinics and found significant disparities in provider acceptance of Medicaid-CHIP versus private insurance across all tested specialties. Overall, 66% of Medicaid-CHIP callers (179 of 273) were denied an appointment as compared with 11% of privately insured callers (29 of 273) (relative risk, 6.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3 to 8.8; P<0.001). Among 89 clinics that accepted both insurance types, the average wait time for Medicaid-CHIP enrollees was 22 days longer than that for privately insured children (95% CI, 6.8 to 37.5; P=0.005)., Conclusions: We found a disparity in access to outpatient specialty care between children with public insurance and those with private insurance. Policy interventions that encourage providers to accept patients with public insurance are needed to improve access to care.

Background: Differences between blacks and whites have been reported in the incidence of several forms of cardiovascular disease, including hypertension and stroke. We examined racial differences in the incidence of cardiac arrest in a large urban population and in subsequent survival., Methods: We collected data on all nontraumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in Chicago from January 1, 1987, through December 31, 1988, and compared the incidence and survival rates for blacks and whites. We examined the association between survival and race and seven other known risk factors by logistic-regression analysis. We computed incidence rates by coupling our data with U.S. Census population data., Results: Our study population comprised 6451 patients: 3207 whites, 2910 blacks, and 334 persons of other races. The incidence of cardiac arrest was significantly higher for blacks than for whites in every age group. The survival rate after cardiac arrest was 2.6 percent in whites, as compared with 0.8 percent in blacks (P < 0.001). Blacks were significantly less likely to have a witnessed cardiac arrest, bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or a "favorable" initial rhythm or to be admitted to the hospital. When they were admitted, blacks were half as likely to survive. The association between race and survival persisted even when other recognized risk factors were taken into account. We did not find important differences between blacks and whites in the response times of the emergency medical services., Conclusions: The black community in our study was at higher risk for cardiac arrest and subsequent death than the white community, even after we controlled for other variables.