Search

Objective: Understanding the types of functional challenges faced by adolescents and young adults with disabilities (AYA-WD) can help payers, clinicians, community-based service providers, and policymakers recognize and meet needs. This paper describes state-level prevalence rates for 1) AYA-WD overall and for 2) impairment types singly and in combinations; and 3) examines how rates may differ between those insured by Medicaid versus commercial insurance., Methods: This descriptive study uses Colorado's All Payer Claims Dataset 2014-2018 to identify insured 10- to 26-year-olds (Medicaid only: 333,931; commercially only: 392,444). It then applies the previously validated Children with Disabilities Algorithm (CWDA) and its companion, the Diagnosis-to-Impairment-Type Algorithm (DITA), to compare state-level prevalence rates by insurance source for disability overall and for each of five impairment types singly and in combination., Results: Disability prevalence was greater among the Medicaid-insured AYA-WD by +7.6% points (pp)-Medicaid: 11.9% (47,654/333,931), commercial: 4.3% (16,907/392,444). Most AYA-WD had a single impairment, but the prevalence of AYA-WD with two or more impairments was greater among the Medicaid-insured than the commercially insured (+9.9 pp; Medicaid: 33.5% [15,963/47,654], commercial: 23.7% [3992/16, 907]), as was the prevalence of impairment types that were physical (+6.7 pp; Medicaid: 54.7% [26,054/47,654], commercial: 48.0% [8121/16,907]); developmental (+4.1 pp; Medicaid: 35.4% [16,874/47,654], commercial: 31.3% [5290/16,907]); psychiatric (+6.7 pp; Medicaid 21.3% [10,175/47,654], commercial: 14.6% [2470/16,907]), and intellectual (+9.3 pp; Medicaid: 26.2% [12,501/47,654], commercial: 16.9% [2858/16,907])., Conclusions: CWDA and DITA can be used to understand the rates at which impairment types and combinations occur in a population with childhood-onset disabilities., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have indicated that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Academic Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Disability-based discrimination in health care can lead to low quality of care, limited access to care, and negative health consequences. Yet, little is known regarding the experiences of disability-based discrimination in health care for children with medical complexity and disability. An understanding of disability-based discrimination in pediatrics is needed to drive change and improve care., Methods: We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with caregivers of children with medical complexity and disability. Participants were purposefully recruited through national advocacy and research networks. Interviews were conducted via video conferencing, recorded, and transcribed. Data collection and analysis occurred iteratively. An inductive thematic analysis approach with constant comparison methods was used to identify themes that form a conceptual framework of disability-based discrimination in health care., Results: Thirty participants from diverse backgrounds were interviewed. Six themes emerged, forming a conceptual framework of disability-based discrimination in health care. Three themes described drivers of discrimination: lack of clinician knowledge, clinician apathy, and clinician assumptions. Three themes described manifestations of discrimination: limited accessibility to care, substandard care, and dehumanization., Conclusions: Children with medical complexity may face disability-based discrimination in health care. Themes describing the drivers and manifestations of discrimination offer a conceptual framework of disability-based discrimination. Understanding the drivers and acknowledging perceived manifestations can provide insight into improving patient care for children with disabilities., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Background: Achieving equitable medical care for people with disabilities is a complex challenge with emphasis often placed on the need for improved physician knowledge and cultural competence. Physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) is a specialty dedicated to maximizing patient function, where a focus on working with and learning from patients with complex disabilities informs physician training and patient care., Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess barriers to equitable care in PM&R clinics through a structural checklist and semi-structured interviews with clinic staff and physicians., Methods: We used qualitative analysis with a grounded theory approach to develop a unified explanation of how existing clinic processes and provider attitudes affect equitable access to medical care., Results: We found physicians comfortable with and respectful of patient differences who described leveraging unpaid time and creativity to navigate structural, resource, and awareness barriers. Staff and physicians described current barriers as negatively affecting quality of care, clinic efficiency, and, in some cases, patient and staff safety., Conclusion: Our results suggest that high levels of physician disability-related knowledge and cultural competence may be insufficient to the challenge of achieving equitable care., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Background: Among working age adults in the United States, there is a large, heterogeneous population that requires ongoing and elevated levels of healthcare and related services. At present, there are conflicting approaches to the definition and measurement of this population in health services research., Objective: An expert panel was convened by the National Institutes of Health with the objective of developing a population-level definition of Adults with Chronic Healthcare Needs (ACHCN). In addition, the panel developed a screening instrument and methods for its use in health surveys to identify and stratify the population consistently., Methods: The panel employed multiple methods over the course of the project, including scoping literature reviews, quantitative analyses from national data sources and cognitive testing., Results: The panel defined the ACHCN population as "Adults (age 18-65) with [1] ongoing physical, cognitive, or mental health conditions or difficulties functioning who [2] need health or related support services of a type or amount beyond that needed by adults of the same sex and similar age." The screener collects information on chronic health conditions, functional difficulties, and elevated use of or unmet need for healthcare services., Conclusions: Adapted from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau definition that identifies Children with Special Healthcare Needs, aligned with the ACS-6 disability measure, and consistent with the HHS Multiple Chronic Condition Framework, this definition and screener provide the research community with a common denominator for the identification of ACHCN., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is a concerted effort underway to evaluate and reform our nation's approach to the health of people with ongoing or elevated needs for care, particularly persons with chronic conditions and/or disabilities., Objective: This literature review characterizes the current state of knowledge on the measurement of chronic disease and disability in population-based health services research on working age adults (age 18-64)., Methods: Scoping review methods were used to scan the health services research literature published since the year 2000, including medline, psycINFO and manual searches. The guiding question was: "How are chronic conditions and disability defined and measured in studies of healthcare access, quality, utilization or cost?", Results: Fifty-five studies met the stated inclusion criteria. Chronic conditions were variously defined by brief lists of conditions, broader criteria-based lists, two or more (multiple) chronic conditions, or other constructs. Disability was generally assessed through ADLs/IADLs, functional limitations, activity limitations or program eligibility. A smaller subset of studies used information from both domains to identify a study population or to stratify it by subgroup., Conclusions: There remains a divide in this literature between studies that rely upon diagnostically-oriented measures and studies that instead rely on functional, activity or other constructs of disability to identify the population of interest. This leads to wide ranging differences in population prevalence and outcome estimates. However, there is also a growing effort to develop methods that account for the overlap between chronic disease and disability and to "segment" this heterogeneous population into policy or practice relevant subgroups., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)