Adherence with recommended well-child visits has grown, but large gaps persist among various socioeconomic groups

Health Affairs

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 508-515

  Abdus, Salam ^a   Selden, Thomas M ^b  

^a SOCIAL AND SCIENTIFIC SYSTEMS INC   (United States)

^b AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHILD HEALTH CARE; EDUCATION; ETHNICITY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; INCOME; OUTPATIENT CARE; PARENT EDUCATION; SOCIOECONOMICS; WELL CHILD VISIT;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CHILD HEALTH SERVICES; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; INFANT; MASS SCREENING; PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; UNITED STATES; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

EID: 84875049770     PISSN: 02782715     EISSN: 15445208     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0691     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Chung PF, Lee TC, Morrison JL, Schuster MA. Preventive care for children in the United States: quality and barriers. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:491-515.
2. Hakim RB, Bye BV. Effectiveness of compliance with pediatric preventive care guidelines among Medicaid beneficiaries. Pediatrics. 2001;108: 90-7.
3. Hakim RB, Ronsaville DS. Effect of compliance with health supervision guidelines among US infants on emergency department visits. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002;156(10): 1015-20.
4. American Academy of Pediatrics. Recommendations for preventive pediatric health care. Pediatrics. 2000;105(3):645-6.
5. Short PF, Lefkowitz DC. Encouraging preventive services for low-income children: the effect of expanding Medicaid. Med Care. 1992;30(9):766-80.
6. Dubay L, Kenney GM. Health care access and use among low-income children: who fares best? Health Aff (Millwood). 2001;20(1):112-21.
7. Davidoff A, Kenney G, Yemane A. The effect of parents' insurance coverage on access to care for lowincome children. Inquiry. 2003; 40(3):254-68.
8. Selden TM. Compliance with wellchild visit recommendations: evidence from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2000-2002. Pediatrics. 2006;118(6):e1766-78.
9. Cohen JW, Monheit AC, Beauregard KM, Cohen SB, Lefkowitz DC, Potter DE, et al. The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey: a national health information resource. Inquiry. 1996; 33(4):373-89.
10. Cohen SB. Sample design of the 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component. Rockville (MD): Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1997. (Pub. No. 97-0027).
11. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey [home page on the Internet]. Rockville (MD): AHRQ; [cited 2013 Feb 1]. Available from: http:// www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/
12. To access the Appendix, click on the Appendix link in the box to the right of the article online
13. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine. Recommendations for preventive pediatric health care. Pediatrics. 1995;96(2):373.
14. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine. Recommendations for preventive pediatric health care. Pediatrics. 2007;120(6):1376.
15. National Committee for Quality Assurance. The state of health care quality 2011: continuous improvement and the expansion of quality measurement [Internet]. Washington (DC): NCQA; 2011 [cited 2011 Dec 16]. Available from: http://www.ncqa.org/LinkClick .aspx?fileticket=FpMqqpADPo 8%3D
16. Throughout the analysis, in cases where no parent (natural, step, or adoptive) could be identified within the household, "parent" characteristics pertain to the adult(s) deemed responsible for the child (typically grandparents or other adult relatives)
17. We estimated a linear regression despite the fact that the adherence ratio was bounded below (and had a substantial mass point) at zero. Although alternative limited dependent variable specifications might arguably be more appropriate, linear regression results are easily interpreted and support the detailed decomposition analysis shown in the online Appendix (see Note 12). Moreover, the linear model fit our data well. The regression model consisted entirely of 0/1 indicator variables, and as a result it generated within-sample predicted values 99 percent of the time.
18. The online Appendix (see Note 12) presents estimates from a regression in which we replaced regional dummies with state fixed effects. In the text we present results from the model with regional dummies to show geographic differences (the MEPS sample sizes preclude the publication of a full set of state coefficients). Coefficient estimates for the other explanatory variables in the model were not sensitive to the choice of regional versus state fixed effects.
19. Selden TM, Hudson JL. Access to care and utilization among children: estimating the effects of public and private coverage. Med Care. 2006: 44(5 Suppl):I19-26.
20. Perry CD, Kenney GM. Preventive care for children in low income families: how well do Medicaid and state children's health insurance programs do? Pediatrics. 2007; 120(6):e1393-401.
21. Correcting for self-selection using two-stage, residual inclusion probit estimation had relatively little impact on estimated coverage effects in the analysis of well-child visit adherence in Thomas Selden and Julie Hudson's study (see Note 19)
22. Congressional Budget Office. The State Children's Health Insurance Program [Internet]. Washington (DC): CBO; 2007 May [cited 2012 May 8]. Available from: http:// www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ cbofiles/ftpdocs/80xx/doc8092/05-10-schip.pdf
23. The decomposition analysis shows that insurance change explained only 1.37 percentage points of the 12.56 percentage point increase. Indeed, changes in all of the explanatory variables explained only 1.92 percentage points of the overall rise in adherence.
24. The Vaccines for Children program began in 1994. Although its initial implementation began prior to the start of our analysis, any effects of the program on adherence to recommendations for well-child visits may have occurred gradually over time. For more on the effects of the program, see Smith PJ, Santoli JM, Chu SY, Ochoa DQ, Rodewald LE. The association between having a medical home and vaccination coverage among children eligible for the Vaccines for Children program. Pediatrics. 2005;116(1):130-9.
25. Starfield B. U.S. child health: what's amiss, and what should be done about it? Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23(5):169.
26. Kenney GM, Buettgens M, Guyer J, Heberlein M. Improving coverage for children under health reform will require maintaining current eligibility standards for Medicaid and CHIP. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(12):2371-81.
27. White House. Health reform for children: the Affordable Care Act gives parents greater control over their children's health care [Internet]. Washington (DC): White House; 2011[cited2012Jun10].Availablefrom:http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/healthreformforchildren.pdf
28. American Academy of Pediatrics. Health reform and the AAP: what the new law means for children and pediatricians [Internet]. Washington (DC): American Academy of Pediatrics [cited 2013 Jan 16]. Available from: http://www.aap.org/ en-us/advocacy-and-policy/federaladvocacy/ Documents/ACA ImplementationFactSheets.pdf
29. Department of Health and Human Services. Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization act: 2011 annual report on the quality of care for children in Medicaid and CHIP [Internet]. Washington (DC): HHS; 2011 Sep [cited 2012 Jun 10]. Available from: http://medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Quality-of-Care/Downloads/ 2011_StateReporttoCongress.pdf