Search

Background: Timely access to primary care is important, particularly among patients with acute conditions and patients seeking gateways to specialty care. Due to concerns that expanded Medicaid eligibility would compromise access to primary care among new Medicaid beneficiaries, an experimental study was conducted to test the ability to obtain timely appointments. Although access to primary care appointments for simulated Medicaid patients significantly increased, wait times also increased. This study explores the determinants of wait times and whether they pose greater barriers to Medicaid beneficiaries., Methods: We conducted linear regressions to determine the association between the number of days to scheduled appointments and the simulated patient's clinical scenario, practice-level characteristics, and county-level measures of primary care supply., Results: Simulated Medicaid patients faced 1.3 days longer wait times than commercially insured ones. Participation in accountable care organizations and integrated health systems was associated with longer wait times but did not seem to reduce wait time disparities across insurance types. Notably, the presence of Federally Qualified Health Centers in a given county was associated with lower wait times for simulated Medicaid patients., Conclusions: These findings highlight the complexity of access disparities for Medicaid patients and provide insight for future waves of health care reform., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None., (© Copyright 2021 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Coverage and access have improved under the Affordable Care Act, yet it is unclear whether recent gains have reached those regions within states that were most in need of improved access to care. We examined geographic variation in Medicaid acceptance among Michigan primary care practices before and after Medicaid expansion in the state, using data from a simulated patient study of primary care practices. We used logistic regression analysis with time indicators to assess regional changes in Medicaid acceptance over time. Geographic regions with lower baseline (<50%) Medicaid acceptance had significant increases in Medicaid acceptance at 4 and 8 months post-expansion, while regions with higher baseline (≥50%) Medicaid acceptance did not experience significant changes in Medicaid acceptance. As state Medicaid expansions continue to be implemented across the country, policy makers should consider the local dynamics of incentives for provider participation in Medicaid.

Objectives: The Pennsylvania Chronic Care Initiative (CCI) was a statewide patient-centered medical home (PCMH) initiative implemented from 2008 to 2011. This study examined whether the CCI affected utilization and costs for HIV-positive Medicaid patients with both medical and behavioral health comorbidities., Study Design: Nonrandomized comparison of 302 HIV-positive Medicaid patients treated in 137 CCI practices and 2577 HIV-positive Medicaid patients treated elsewhere., Methods: All patients had chronic medical conditions (diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, or congestive heart failure) and a psychiatric and/or substance use disorder. Analyses used Medicaid claims data to examine changes in total per patient costs per month from 1 year prior to 1 year following an index episode. Propensity score weighting was used to adjust for potential sample differences. Secondary outcomes included costs and utilization of emergency department, inpatient, and outpatient/pharmacy services., Results: We identified an average total cost savings of $214.10 per patient per month (P = .002) for the CCI group relative to the non-CCI group. This was a function of decreased inpatient medical (-$415.69; P = .007) and outpatient substance abuse treatment (-$4.86; P = .001) costs, but increased non-HIV pharmacy costs ($158.43; P = .001). Utilization for the CCI group, relative to the non-CCI group, was correspondingly decreased for inpatient medical services (odds ratio [OR], 0.619; P = .002) and inpatient services overall (OR, 0.404; P = .001), but that group had greater numbers of outpatient medical service claims when they occurred (11.7%; P = .003) and increased non-HIV pharmacy claims (9.7%; P = .001)., Conclusions: There was increased outpatient service utilization, yet relative cost savings, for HIV-positive Medicaid patients with medical and behavioral health comorbidities who were treated in PCMHs.

Objectives: While the Affordable Care Act seeks to reduce emergency department (ED) visits for outpatient-treatable conditions, it remains unclear whether Medicaid patients or the uninsured have adequate access to follow-up care. The goal of this study was to determine the availability of follow-up orthopedic care by insurance status., Methods: Using simulated patient methodology, all 102 eligible general orthopedic practices in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, were contacted twice by a caller requesting follow-up for an ankle fracture diagnosed in a local ED using a standardized script that differed by insurance status. Practices were randomly assigned to paired private and uninsured or Medicaid and uninsured scenarios., Results: We completed 204 calls: 59 private, 43 Medicaid, and 102 uninsured. Appointment success rate was 83.1% for privately insured (95% confidence interval [CI] = 73.2% to 92.9%), 81.4% for uninsured (95% CI = 73.7% to 89.1%), and 14.0% for Medicaid callers (95% CI = 3.2% to 24.7%). Controlling for paired calls to the same practice, an uninsured caller had 5.7 times higher odds (95% CI = 2.74 to 11.71) of receiving an appointment than a Medicaid caller (p < 0.001), but the same odds as a privately insured caller (odds ratio = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.19 to 5.37, p = 1.0). Uninsured patients had to bring a median of $350 (interquartile range = $250 to $400) to their appointment to be seen, and only two uninsured patients were able to obtain an appointment for $100 or less up front. In comparison, typical total payments collected for privately insured patients were $236 and for Medicaid patients $128. When asked where else they could go, 49 (48%) uninsured callers and one Medicaid caller (2%) were directed to local public hospital EDs as alternative sources of care. Of the practices that appeared on Medicaid's published list of orthopedic providers accepting new patients, 15 told callers that they did not accept Medicaid, 11 did not treat ankles, nine listed nonworking phone numbers, and only three actually scheduled an appointment for the Medicaid caller., Conclusions: Less than one in seven Medicaid patients could obtain orthopedic follow-up after an ED visit for a fracture, and prices quoted to the uninsured were 30% higher than typical negotiated rates paid by the privately insured. High up-front costs for uninsured patients and low appointment availability for Medicaid patients may leave these patients with no other option than the ED for necessary care., (© 2016 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: The Chronic Care Initiative (CCI) was a large state-wide patient-centered medical home (PCMH) initiative in Pennsylvania in place from 2008-2011., Objective: Determine whether the CCI impacted the utilization and costs for Medicaid patients with chronic medical conditions and comorbid psychiatric or substance use disorders., Design: Analysis of Medicaid claims using difference-in-difference regression analyses to compare changes in utilization and costs for patients treated at CCI practices to propensity score-matched patients treated at comparison non-CCI practices., Setting: Ninety-six CCI practices in Pennsylvania and 60 non-CCI practices during the same time period., Participants: A total of 11,105 comorbid Medicaid patients treated in CCI practices and an equal number of propensity-matched comparison patients treated in non-CCI practices., Measurements: Changes in total per-patient costs from 1 year prior to 1 year following an index episode period. Secondary outcomes included utilization and costs for emergency department (ED), inpatient, and outpatient services., Results: The CCI group experienced an average adjusted total cost savings of $4145.28 per patient per year (P = 0.023) for the CCI relative to the non-CCI group. This was largely driven by a $3521.15 savings (P = 0.046) in inpatient medical costs, in addition to relative savings in outpatient psychiatric ($21.54, P < 0.001) and substance abuse service costs ($16.42, P = 0.013), compared to the non-CCI group. The CCI group, related to the non-CCI group, had decreases in expected mean counts of ED visits (for those who had any) and psychiatric hospitalizations of 15.6 (95 % CI: -21, -9) and 40.7 (95 % CI: -57, -18) percentage points respectively., Limitations: We do not measure quality of care and cannot make conclusions about the overall cost-effectiveness or long-term effects of the CCI., Conclusions: The CCI was associated with substantial cost savings, attributable primarily to reduced inpatient costs, among a high-risk group of Medicaid patients, who may disproportionally benefit from care management in patient-centered medical homes., Competing Interests: Compliance with Ethical Standards Funding Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, State Health Access Reform Evaluation grant no. 70165 Conflict of interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Purpose: Prior work suggests that access to health care may influence the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. Mystery-caller methods have been used previously to measure access to care for health services such as primary care, where patients' self-initiate requests for care. We used a mystery-caller survey for specialized prostate cancer care to assess dimensions of access to prostate cancer care., Materials and Methods: We created an inventory of urology and radiation oncology practices in southeastern Pennsylvania. Using a 'mystery caller' approach, a research assistant posing as a medical office scheduler in a primary care office, attempted to make a new patient appointment on behalf of a referred patient. Linear regression was used to determine the association between time to next available appointment with practice and census tract characteristics., Results: We successfully obtained information on new patient appointments from 198 practices out of the 223 in the region (88.8%). Radiation oncology practices were more likely to accept Medicaid compared to urology practices (91.3% vs 36.4%) and had shorter mean wait times for new patient appointments (9.0 vs 12.8 days). We did not observe significant differences in wait times according to census tract characteristics including neighborhood socioeconomic status and the proportion of male African American residents., Conclusions: Mystery-caller methods that reflect real-world referral processes from primary care offices can be used to measure access to specialized cancer care. We observed significant differences in wait times and insurance acceptance between radiation oncology and urology practices., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Arkansas and Iowa received waivers from the federal government in 2014 to use federal Medicaid expansion funding to enroll beneficiaries in commercial insurance plans on the Marketplaces. One key hypothesis of these "private option" or "premium assistance" programs was that Medicaid beneficiaries would experience increased access to care. In this study, we compare new patient primary care appointment availability and wait-times for beneficiaries of traditional Medicaid and premium assistance Medicaid., Methods: Trained field staff posing as patients, randomized to traditional Medicaid or Marketplace plans, called primary care practices seeking new patient appointments in Arkansas and Iowa in May to July 2014. All calls were made to offices that previously indicated being in-network for the plan. Offices were drawn randomly, within insurance type, based on the county proportion of the population with each insurance type. We calculated appointment rates and wait-times for new patients for traditional Medicaid and Marketplace plans., Results: In Arkansas, Marketplace appointment rates were 27.2 percentage points higher than traditional Medicaid appointment rates (83.2% compared with 55.5%, P<0.001), while in Iowa, Marketplace appointment rates were 12.0 percentage points higher (86.3% compared with 74.3%, P<0.001). Conditional on receiving an appointment, median wait-times were roughly 1 week in each state without significant differences by insurance type., Conclusions: The experiences of Arkansas and Iowa suggest that enrolling Medicaid beneficiaries into Marketplace plans may lead to higher primary care appointment availability for new patients at participating providers. Further research is needed on whether premium assistance programs affect quality and continuity of care, and at what cost.

Objectives: With insurance enrollment greater than expected under the Affordable Care Act, uncertainty about the availability and timeliness of healthcare services for newly insured individuals has increased. We examined primary care appointment availability and wait times for new Medicaid and privately insured patients before and after Medicaid expansion in Michigan., Study Design: Simulated patient ("secret shopper") study., Methods: Extended follow-up of a previously reported simulated patient ("secret shopper") study assessing accessibility of routine new patient appointments in a stratified proportionate random sample of Michigan primary care practices before versus 4, 8, and 12 months after Medicaid expansion., Results: During the study period, approximately 600,000 adults enrolled in Michigan's Medicaid expansion program, representing 57% of the previously uninsured nonelderly adult population. One year after expansion, we found that appointment availability remained increased by 6 percentage points for new Medicaid patients (95% CI, 1.6-11.1) and decreased by 2 percentage points for new privately insured patients (95% CI, -0.5 to -3.8). Over the same period, the proportion of appointments scheduled with nonphysician providers (nurse practitioners or physician assistants) increased from 8% to 21% of Medicaid appointments (95% CI, 5.6-20.2) and from 11% to 19% of private-insurance appointments (95% CI, 1.3-14.1). Median wait times remained stable for new Medicaid patients and increased slightly for new privately insured patients, both remaining within 2 weeks., Conclusions: During the first year following Medicaid expansion in Michigan, appointment availability for new Medicaid patients increased, a greater proportion of appointments could be obtained with nonphysician providers, and wait times remained within 2 weeks.

Objective: To examine the willingness to accept new Medicaid patients among certified rural health clinics (RHCs) and other nonsafety net rural providers., Data Sources: Experimental (audit) data from a 10-state study of primary care practices, county-level information from the Area Health Resource File, and RHC information from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services., Study Design: We generate appointment rates for rural and nonrural areas by patient-payer type (private, Medicaid, self-pay) to then motivate our focus on within-rural variation by clinic type (RHC vs. non-RHC). Multivariate linear models test for statistical differences and assess the estimates' sensitivity to the inclusion of control variables., Data Collection: The primary data are from a large field study., Principal Findings: Approximately 80 percent of Medicaid callers receive an appointment in rural areas-a rate more than 20 percentage points greater than nonrural areas. Importantly, within rural areas, RHCs offer appointments to prospective Medicaid patients nearly 95 percent of the time, while the rural (nonsafety net) non-RHC Medicaid rate is less than 75 percent. Measured differences are robust to covariate adjustment., Conclusions: Our study suggests that RHC status, with its alternative payment model, is strongly associated with new Medicaid patient acceptance. Altering RHC financial incentives may have consequences for rural Medicaid enrollees., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

The Affordable Care Act expands health insurance coverage to millions of Americans, but the availability of health care services for the newly insured population remains uncertain. We conducted a simulated patient (or "secret shopper") study to assess primary care appointment availability and wait times for new patients with Medicaid or private insurance before and after implementation of Michigan's Medicaid expansion in 2014. The expansion, which was made possible through a section 1115 waiver, has a unique requirement that new beneficiaries must be seen by a primary care provider within 60-90 days of enrollment. During a period of rapid coverage expansion in Michigan, we found that appointment availability increased 6 percentage points for new Medicaid patients and decreased 2 percentage points for new privately insured patients, compared to availability before the expansion. Wait times remained stable, at 1-2 weeks for both groups. Further research is needed to determine whether access to primary care for newly insured patients will endure over time., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

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.).

This article explores how a specialty type's local workforce capacity and a specialty practice's location relate to the likelihood of denying care to children covered by Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) while accepting private insurance. Data on discriminatory denials of care to children with public insurance came from an audit study involving 273 practices across seven medical specialties serving children in Cook County, Illinois. These data were linked to physician workforce data and neighborhood poverty data to test for associations with discriminatory denials of public insurance, after adjusting for control variables. In a large metropolitan county, discriminatory denials of specialty care access for publicly insured children were attenuated for specialty types with greater local workforce capacity (odds ratio [OR]: 0.74, 95 percent; confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-0.98) and for practices located in higher-poverty neighborhoods (OR: 0.95, 95 percent; CI: 0.93-0.98). Although limited as a single-site study, our findings support the widespread consensus that payment rates are the strongest driver of decisions to serve patients enrolled in public insurance programs. At a time when state and federal budgets are under strain, ensuring access equity for children covered by Medicaid and CHIP may require policies focused on economic levers tailored based on practice location., (Copyright © 2014 by Duke University Press.)

Study Objective: Emergency departments (EDs) frequently refer patients for needed outpatient specialty care, but little is known about the dynamics of these referrals when patients are publicly insured. Hence, we explored factors, including the role of ED referrals, associated with specialists' willingness to accept patients covered by Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)., Methods: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of 26 specialists and 14 primary care physicians in Cook County, Illinois, from April to September 2009, until theme saturation was reached. Transcripts and notes were entered into ATLAS.ti and analyzed using an iterative coding process to identify patterns of responses, ensure reliability, examine discrepancies, and achieve consensus through content analysis., Results: Themes that emerged indicate that primary care physicians face considerable barriers getting publicly insured patients into outpatient specialty care and use the ED to facilitate this process. Specialty physicians reported that decisions to refuse or limit the number of patients with Medicaid/CHIP are due to economic strain or direct pressure from their institutions. Factors associated with specialist acceptance of patients with Medicaid/CHIP included high acuity or complexity, personal request from or an informal economic relationship with the primary care physician, geography, and patient hardship. Referral through the ED was a common and expected mechanism for publicly insured patients to access specialty care., Conclusion: These exploratory findings suggest that specialists are willing to see children with Medicaid/CHIP if they are referred from an ED. As health systems restructure, EDs have the potential to play a role in improving care coordination and access to outpatient specialty care., (Copyright © 2012. Published by Mosby, Inc.)

Objective: To test whether specialty clinics' academic medical center (AMC) affiliation was associated with equity in scheduling appointments for children with public vs private insurance. Academic medical centers are safety-net providers of specialty medical care and it is unknown whether equitable access is afforded by AMCs across insurance conditions., Design: Audit study data were linked to data describing audited clinics., Setting: Specialty clinics serving children residing in Cook County, Illinois., Participants: From January-May 2010, 273 clinics were each called twice., Main Outcome Measures: Logistic regression was used to examine associations between AMC affiliation and discriminatory denials of Medicaid-Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) (ie, nonacceptance of Medicaid-CHIP when accepting commercial insurance), controlling for clinics' specialty type, practice size, neighborhood poverty level, and physicians' credentials. Among clinics that accepted both insurances, linear regression was used to examine the association between wait times (days) for appointments and insurance status, adjusting for covariates. Tests for interaction terms were performed to identify changes in wait time for academic clinics across insurance status., Results: Of the 273 paired calls to clinics, 155 (57%) resulted in discriminatory denials of Medicaid-CHIP. The odds of a discriminatory denial were 45% lower if a clinic was AMC affiliated (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.99). On average, academic clinics scheduled Medicaid-CHIP appointments with wait times 40 days longer than private insurance (β, 40.73; 95% CI, 5.06-76.41)., Conclusions: Affiliation with an AMC was associated with fewer discriminatory denials of children with Medicaid-CHIP. However, children with Medicaid-CHIP had significantly longer wait times at AMC-affiliated clinics compared with privately insured children. Academic medical centers' propensity toward serving publicly insured patients makes them candidates for targeted resource allocation, perhaps with incentives contingent on equitable appointment acceptance and wait times.

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.