Article

Access to appointments based on insurance status in Washington, D.C.

George Washington University Medical School, USA.
Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved (Impact Factor: 1.1). 08/2008; 19(3):687-96. DOI: 10.1353/hpu.0.0036
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In the U.S., emergency departments see millions of patients requiring timely and adequate outpatient follow-up. Using a hypothetical patient presenting with a scripted presentation of hypertension evaluated in the emergency department and requiring close outpatient follow-up, randomly selected providers in the District of Columbia were queried by phone to evaluate their accessibility based on insurance status. Seventy one percent of calls for privately insured hypothetical patients resulted in a successful appointment. Medicaid fee-for-service was associated with a significantly lower rate of successful appointments (36.6%) than private insurance (p=.002.) Uninsured "patients" had only a 13% success rate when considering out-of-pocket payment limitations of less than $50 (p<.001 compared with private). Access to primary care follow-up is poor in the District of Columbia for all types of insurance; however people with Medicaid fee-for-service and the uninsured face especially strong barriers.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
62 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this cross-sectional, retrospective, claims-based analysis was to evaluate disease-specific quality measures, use of acceptable therapies, and health care cost and utilization among Medicare Advantage Part D (MAPD) enrollees overall and by income/subsidy eligibility status. Individuals aged ≥65 years with evidence of ≥1 of 8 common conditions and continuously enrolled in a MAPD plan throughout 2007 were assigned to low-income/dually eligible (LI/DE) or non-LI/DE cohorts. Quality of care metrics were calculated for asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, and new episode depression. Persistence (proportion with percentage of days covered ≥80%), compliance (proportion with medication possession ratio ≥80%), health care costs, and utilization metrics were assessed by condition. All measures were evaluated for calendar year 2007. Bivariate comparisons were made between all LI/DE and non-LI/DE subgroups. A total of 183,213 patients were included. Metrics showed deficiencies in quality of care overall but generally favored non-LI/DE patients. The proportion of patients filling acceptable medication was suboptimal for most conditions, ranging from 40% to 96% across conditions and cohorts, with COPD the lowest and heart failure (HF) the highest. LI/DE patients were significantly more likely than non-LI/DE patients to fill acceptable therapy in each disease group (P<0.001) except HF. Percentages persistent and compliant with acceptable therapies were lowest for asthma and COPD, and highest for HF; percentages were generally higher among LI/DE patients. Mean disease-specific health care costs ranged from $345 (hyperlipidemia) to $2086 (HF) and were significantly higher for LI/DE than for non-LI/DE enrollees (P<0.001) for all diseases except coronary artery disease and HF. Overall, quality indicators, use of acceptable medications, and persistence/compliance metrics were suboptimal. Quality metrics favored non-LI/DE patients but medication metrics favored LI/DE patients. With an aging population and increasing health care costs, the deficits identified highlight the need for comprehensive strategies to improve clinical and economic outcomes across diseases.
    Population Health Management 02/2012; 15(2):101-12. · 1.18 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Treating cancer in patients with concurrent severe mental illness is complex and challenging for patients, families, and health care providers. Two such illnesses include schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. In this review, cases of women with breast cancer and severe mental illness from Philadelphia, PA illustrate the obstacles these women face in maintaining adequate cancer care. Barriers to receiving cancer treatment include understanding their disease, continuing medications and appointments, and experiencing complications of their psychiatric disorders. Learning from these cases is critical for health care providers and allows for innovation in treating and educating this difficult population. Increasing patient visit time, using social support services, and psychiatrist and psychiatrist-liaisons are necessary to improve care. In addition, family or caregivers should be included in discussions when possible. These techniques will assist in educating patients, improve insight into their disease and treatment, and allow them to benefit from cancer therapy.
    Journal of Cancer Education 07/2012; · 0.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Growing orthopedic and nonorthopedic literature illustrates the point that having health insurance does not equal having access to care. The goal of this study was to evaluate the burden placed on patients to gain access to outpatient orthopedic care. For this study, burden was quantified as the distance traveled by the patient to be seen in clinic. This study was a retrospective review of all new patient encounters at an adult orthopedic outpatient clinic in an academic tertiary referral center over 1 calendar year. All patients were stratified into 4 categories: commercial/private insurance, Medic-aid, Medicare, and uninsured/private pay. The average distance traveled by each patient to the center was then calculated based on the patient's billing zip code. Patient visits were further stratified based on whether the patients were seen by 1 of 3 different categories of providers: general orthopedics/adult reconstruction, spine, and sports/upper extremity. The study group comprised 774 (31.1%) Medicaid patients, 653 (26.2%) Medicare patients, 917 (36.8%) commercial/private insurance patients, and 146 (5.9%) uninsured/private pay patients. The average 1-way distance traveled was 36.2 miles for Medicaid patients, 21.3 miles for Medicare patients, 24.1 miles for commercial/private insurance patients, and 25.3 miles for uninsured/private pay patients (P<.00). Subgroup analysis noted a statistical difference in distance traveled for the general orthopedics/adult reconstruction and sports/upper extremity groups. The study's findings suggest that having insurance does not equal access to outpatient orthopedic care at a single institution. The specific burdens that each group faces to gain access to care are unclear.
    Orthopedics 10/2013; 36(10):e1272-e1276. · 1.05 Impact Factor