Medical Home Disparities Between Children With Public and Private Insurance

Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit, Division of General Pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., USA.
Academic pediatrics (Impact Factor: 2.01). 06/2011; 11(4):305-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.acap.2011.03.006
Source: PubMed


To compare the prevalence of a medical home for children with public versus private insurance and identify components of the medical home that contribute to any differences.
We performed a secondary data analysis of the 2007 National Survey of Children's Health. A medical home was defined as meeting each of 5 components: 1) usual source of care; 2) personal doctor/nurse; 3) family-centered care; 4) care coordination, if needed; and 5) no problems getting a referral, if needed. We estimated the national prevalence of the medical home and its components for children with public versus private insurance. Comparisons were made using logistic regression, unadjusted and adjusted for sociodemographic factors.
A total of 67% of privately insured children met all 5 components of the medical home, compared with only 45% of publicly insured children (P < .001). The gap in medical home prevalence between public and private groups remained significant after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics (public vs private adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.82; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.73-0.92). Over 90% of children in both groups reported having a usual source of care and a personal doctor/nurse. Only 58% of publicly insured children reported family-centered care, compared with 76% of privately insured children (P < .001). This difference was significant after adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics (public vs private AOR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77-0.99).
Significant medical home disparities exist between publicly and privately insured children, driven primarily by disparities in family-centered care. Efforts to promote the medical home must recognize and address determinants of family-centered care.

Download full-text


Available from: Joseph S Zickafoose, Apr 21, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To explore medical home attributes of community health centers (CHCs) that provide care to low-income children nationwide compared to other providers for the poor. Cross-sectional study of children aged 0 to 17 years in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS; 2003 to 2009) who resided in families living at <200% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and had visits to a primary care setting. CHC visits were defined as a visit to a neighborhood/family health center, rural health clinic, or community health center. Independent measures included provider type, age, gender, race/ethnicity, insurance, FPL, number of parents at home, language, maternal education, health status, and special health care need. Dependent measures included 4 medical home attributes: accessibility, and family-centered, comprehensive, and compassionate care. CHCs typically serve low-income children who are publicly insured or uninsured, come from racial/ethnic minority groups, and have poorer health status. Eighty percent to 90% of parents visiting both CHCs and other primary care providers rated high levels of family-centered, comprehensive, and compassionate care. However, CHCs had a 10% to 18% lower rating of accessibility (after-hours care, telephone access) even after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. Racial/ethnic disparities existed at both settings, but these patterns did not differ between CHCs and other settings. On the basis of parental reports, CHCs received similar ratings to other primary care providers for family-centered, comprehensive, and compassionate care, but lower ratings for accessibility. Further studies should examine strategies for practice transformation in CHCs to improve patient satisfaction and accessibility to optimize child health outcomes.
    Academic pediatrics 09/2013; 13(5):436-42. DOI:10.1016/j.acap.2013.06.006 · 2.01 Impact Factor

  • JAMA Pediatrics 12/2011; 165(12):1067-8. DOI:10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.1068 · 5.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objectives of this study are (1) to compare the prevalence of a medical home between children with public and private insurance across states, (2) to investigate the association between a medical home and state health care characteristics for children with public and private insurance. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the 2007 National Survey of Children's Health, estimating the prevalence of parents' report of a medical home and its components for publicly- and privately-insured children in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We then performed a series of random-effects multilevel logistic regression models to assess the associations between a medical home and insurance type, individual sociodemographic characteristics, and state level characteristics/policies. The prevalence of a medical home varied significantly across states for both publicly- and privately-insured children (ranges: 33-63 % and 57-76 %, respectively). Compared to privately-insured children, publicly-insured children had a lower prevalence of a medical home in all states (public-private difference: 5-34 %). Low prevalence of a medical home was driven primarily by less family-centered care. Variation across states and differences by insurance type were largely attributable to lower reports of a medical home among traditionally vulnerable groups of children, including racial/ethnic minorities and non-English primary language speakers. The prevalence of a medical home was not associated with state level characteristics/policies. There are significant disparities between states in parents' report of a medical home for their children, especially for publicly-insured children. Interventions seeking to address these disparities will need to target family-centered care for traditionally vulnerable populations of children.
    Maternal and Child Health Journal 03/2012; 16 Suppl 1(S1):S178-87. DOI:10.1007/s10995-012-1008-9 · 2.24 Impact Factor
Show more