Cited by 7Healthcare Policy and ManagementAsthma and respiratory diseasesPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Medicaid Accountable Care Organizations and Disparities in Pediatric Asthma Care

Open access
Geissler, Kimberley H., Shieh, Meng-Shiou, Ash, Arlene S., Lindenauer, Peter K., Krishnan, Jerry A., Goff, Sarah L.·2024·JAMA Pediatrics

Abstract

Importance: Nearly 6 million children in the US have asthma, and over one-third of US children are insured by Medicaid. Although 23 state Medicaid programs have experimented with accountable care organizations (ACOs), little is known about ACOs’ effects on longstanding insurance-based disparities in pediatric asthma care and outcomes. Objective: To determine associations between Massachusetts Medicaid ACO implementation in March 2018 and changes in care quality and use for children with asthma. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using data from the Massachusetts All Payer Claims Database from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020, we determined child-years with asthma and used difference-in-differences (DiD) estimates to compare asthma quality of care and emergency department (ED) or hospital use for child-years with Medicaid vs private insurance for 3 year periods before and after ACO implementation for children aged 2 to 17 years. Regression models accounted for demographic and community characteristics and health status. Data analysis was conducted between January 2022 and June 2024. Exposure: Massachusetts Medicaid ACO implementation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were binary measures in a calendar year of (1) any routine outpatient asthma visit, (2) asthma medication ratio (AMR) greater than 0.5, and (3) any ED or hospital use with asthma. To determine the statistical significance of differences in descriptive statistics between groups, χ 2 and t tests were used. Results: Among 376 509 child-year observations, 268 338 (71.27%) were insured by Medicaid and 73 633 (19.56%) had persistent asthma. There was no significant change in rates of routine asthma visits for Medicaid-insured child-years vs privately insured child-years post-ACO implementation (DiD, −0.4 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, −1.4 to 0.6 pp). There was an increase in the proportion with AMR greater than 0.5 for Medicaid-insured child-years vs privately insured in the postimplementation period (DiD, 3.7 pp; 95% CI, 2.0-5.4 pp), with absolute declines in both groups postimplementation. There was an increase in any ED or hospital use for Medicaid-insured child-years vs privately insured postimplementation (DiD, 2.1 pp; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0 pp), an 8% increase from the preperiod Medicaid use rate. Conclusions and Relevance: Introduction of Massachusetts Medicaid ACOs was associated with persistent insurance-based disparities in routine asthma visit rates; a narrowing in disparities in appropriate AMR rates due to reductions in appropriate rates among those with private insurance; and worsening disparities in any ED or hospital use for Medicaid-insured children with asthma compared to children with private insurance. Continued study of changes in pediatric asthma care delivery is warranted in relation to major Medicaid financing and delivery system reforms.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.3935

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Medicare- or Medicaid-related interventions were the most common policy category among the reviewed DiD studies, with 10 studies (24%).

    “with interventions related to Medicare or Medicaid as the most popular (n = 10, 24%) [49-58].”
  • Many US health care policies were introduced at state or local levels, which left comparable states or localities untreated and enabled DiD designs.

    “Broadly, these DiDs leveraged the fact that many US health care policies—such as phased insurance expansion [58], elimination of asset tests [65], and antibullying policies [64]—were introduced at the state- or local-level, leaving comparable states or localities untreated.”

    From Difference-in-Differences for Health Policy and Practice: A Review of Modern Methods (2025) · cites this paper as [58]

    The citation is attached to “antibullying policies,” but no passage in our copy addresses such policies. The Methods (Statistical Analysis) instead describe a difference-in-differences study of Massachusetts Medicaid ACO implementation, comparing Medicaid-insured with privately insured children—not untreated states or localities. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 41 · Cited by 7

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [36]Mount Auburn Cambridge Independent Practice Association. Blue Cross Blue Shield AQC quality metric guide 2018. Acessed June 13, 2024. http://www.macipa.com/wp-content/uploads/2018-BCBS-AQC-Quality-Metric-Guide.pdf
  2. [46]Brown ECF, King KS. The consequences of Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual for health care cost control. Health Affairs. Accessed June 13, 2024. https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/consequences-em-gobeille-em-span-class-lowercase-v-span-em-liberty-mutual-em-health

Authors
Geissler, K. H., Shieh, M.-S., Ash, A. S., Lindenauer, P. K., Krishnan, J. A., & Goff, S. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
Corresponding author
Geissler, Kimberley H.
Venue
JAMA Pediatrics
Published
2024-11-01
Volume
178
Issue
11
Pages
1208
ISSN
  • 1072-4710 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-6203
OpenAlex
W4402983637
Cited by
7
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2
FWCI
2.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • AstraZeneca
  • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
  • Respiratory Health Association
  • COPD Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001453)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL149874)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
accountable care organizations, Medicaid, childhood asthma, health care disparities, insurance status, emergency department utilization, hospital utilization, asthma care quality, Massachusetts, primary care, health policy evaluation, persistent asthma, all-payer claims databases, asthma action plan, asthma exacerbations
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Asthma, Child, Child, Preschool, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Humans, Male, Massachusetts, Medicaid, Quality of Health Care, United States, Healthcare Disparities, Accountable Care Organizations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review