Cited by 16Healthcare Policy and ManagementEmergency and Acute Care StudiesChild and Adolescent Health

Medicaid Acceptance and Availability of Timely Follow-up for Newborns With Medicaid

Galbraith, Alison A., Grossman, David C., Koepsell, Thomas D., Heagerty, Patrick J., Christakis, Dimitri A.·2005·Pediatrics

Abstract

Objective. Decreased physician participation in Medicaid has been shown to affect adversely timeliness of adult acute care and pediatric specialty care, but it is not clear whether this is the case for newborn follow-up. The objectives of this study were to determine whether there is a difference within clinics in the timeliness of follow-up appointments that are given to newborns with Medicaid compared with newborns with private insurance and to determine whether there is a difference between clinics that do and do not accept Medicaid in the timeliness of appointments that are given for newborn follow-up. Methods. A randomized crossover study was conducted among general pediatric clinics and practices that were identified from the yellow pages and Internet searches of hospitals and health departments in 8 metropolitan areas from September 2003 to March 2004. A simulated parent telephoned clinics to find the earliest available appointment for a 1-day-old infant who needed routine follow-up after discharge that day. Clinics were randomly assigned to receive a first call from a patient with either Medicaid or private insurance; each clinic received the same call at least 3 weeks later with the patient's insurance status reversed. The main outcome measure was whether the appointment was timely (≤2 days from the day of the call). Results. Of 401 participating clinics, 22% did not accept Medicaid. Among clinics that accepted Medicaid, availability of a timely appointment for a newborn with Medicaid was similar to that for a newborn with private insurance (87% vs 90%, respectively). Appointments that were provided to privately insured newborns were as likely to be timely in clinics that accept Medicaid as in clinics that do not accept Medicaid (89.5% vs 93.4%, respectively). However, providing timely appointments was significantly less likely in clinics that were in high-poverty locations compared with clinics that were not (86.1% vs 92.7%, respectively). Conclusions. Although newborns with Medicaid did not have access to >20% of clinics because of their insurance, among clinics that did accept Medicaid, timeliness of available follow-up was similar for newborns with Medicaid compared with newborns with private insurance and similar between clinics that did and did not accept Medicaid. However, to the extent that care for newborns with Medicaid is concentrated in clinics in high-poverty areas, some newborns with Medicaid may not be able to receive timely appointments.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2004-2584

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Children covered by Medicaid-CHIP may have a greater need for specialty care because of the association between socioeconomic disadvantage and poor health status.

    “Given the association between socioeconomic disadvantage and poor health status, children covered by Medicaid-CHIP may have a greater need for specialty care.17”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 33 · Cited by 16

Authors
Galbraith, A. A., Grossman, D. C., Koepsell, T. D., Heagerty, P. J., & Christakis, D. A.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Group Health Cooperative (US)
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (US)
  • Seattle Children's Hospital (US)
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2005-11-01
Volume
116
Issue
5
Pages
1148-1154
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W1973443815
Cited by
16
References
33
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Harvard University
  • Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Child and Adolescent Health
Keywords
Medicaid, neonatal follow-up, private insurance, health care access, pediatric care, health insurance status
MeSH terms
Community Health Services, Continuity of Patient Care, Cross-Sectional Studies, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Insurance, Health, Medicaid, United States, Cross-Over Studies

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