Review of Barrier Free Approach and Additional Analysis of MEPS Data Related to ‘Potential’ vs. ‘Experienced’ Barriers.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
What characteristics of patients and local health systems are associated with ED utilization?
Advertisements

Access and Affordability: An Update on Health Reform in Massachusetts as of Fall 2008 Sharon K. Long Urban Institute August 10, 2009 Alliance for Health.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
Exhibit 1 NOTES: Other setting of usual care includes: neighborhood or family health center, free standing surgery center, rural health clinic, company.
Conceptualization, Operationalization, and Measurement
Medical Underserved Populations HRSA NRM
2003 Alabama Health Care Insurance and Access Survey Montgomery, AL May 2, 2003 Ashley Alvord, MPH Alabama Department of Public Health Children’s Health.
Preventable Hospitalizations: Assessing Access and the Performance of Local Safety Net Presented by Yu Fang (Frances) Lee Feb. 9 th, 2007.
Language Attributes and Older Adults: Implications for Medicare Policy Ninez Ponce, PhD,MPP 1,2 ; Leighton Ku, PhD 4 ; William.
Deepa Patel Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate, 2012 Mercer COPHS Presented on July 22, 2011.
Challenges to Surveys Non-response error –Falling response rates over time Sample coverage –Those without landline telephones excluded –Growing.
The Michigan Healthcare Marketplace Eileen Ellis Health Management Associates Initial Observations.
Chapter 11 Age and Health Inequalities. Chapter Outline  The Structures of Aging and Health Care  Age Differentiation and Inequality  Explanations.
The Achievement Gap: Lessons from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) Tamara Halle, Nicole Forry, Elizabeth Hair & Kate Perper.
Uninsured On The Rise What The 2011 Colorado Health Access Survey Tells Us About Vulnerable Coloradans March 7, 2012 CHI/AHEC Conversation Series.
Can we predict how enrollment may change if eligibility floor is raised to 200% of FPL? Test health insurance policy option Determine typical characteristics.
Clustered or Multilevel Data
COST–EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS AND COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS
Methodologic Overview of Two National Data Sets Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics Issues in Comparing Findings.
1 Health Status and The Retirement Decision Among the Early-Retirement-Age Population Shailesh Bhandari Economist Labor Force Statistics Branch Housing.
Note: FPL refers to federal poverty level. * A composite of the following four indicators measures access to a medical home: 1) having a regular doctor.
Impact of Hospital Provider Payment Mechanism on Household Health Service Utilization in Vietnam (preliminary results) Sarah Bales Public Policy in Asia,
Demand for Health Care Purpose of demand analysis for health care is to determine those factors that on average most effect utilization of medical services.
David Card, Carlos Dobkin, Nicole Maestas
The new HBS Chisinau, 26 October Outline 1.How the HBS changed 2.Assessment of data quality 3.Data comparability 4.Conclusions.
Improving Access In a Binational Population The Potential Role for Binational Health Insurance Tim Waidmann & Saad Ahmad The Urban Institute.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Health Outcomes Samuel A. Kleiner Cornell University and NBER Human Capital Research Collaborative Fall.
Concepts for Approaching Population Group Designations.
Intervention Studies Principles of Epidemiology Lecture 10 Dona Schneider, PhD, MPH, FACE.
Measuring Output from Primary Medical Care, with Quality Adjustment Workshop on measuring Education and Health Volume Output OECD, Paris 6-7 June 2007.
Fuel Poverty. Structure of the Presentation Background: What is fuel poverty? Issues to consider when measuring fuel poverty. Ways to measure fuel poverty.
Health Programme Evaluation by Propensity Score Matching: Accounting for Treatment Intensity and Health Externalities with an Application to Brazil (HEDG.
Development and results of an older adult health communication program using the Theory of Planned Behavior Virginia Brown, DrPH; Lisa McCoy, MS The National.
TARA HANCOCK CALIFORNIA STATE LONG BEACH SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK MAY 2012 CONTRIBUTIONS OF COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.
Disparities in the Adequacy of Depression Treatment in the United States Jeffrey S. Harman, Ph.D. University of Florida Mark J. Edlund, M.D., Ph.D. John.
Health Status Adjustment to Initial Barrier-Free Demand Estimate.
Early Parental Satisfaction with Pediatric Care: Does it Improve Immunization of Young Children? Ashley Schempf BS, Cynthia Minkovitz MD MPP Donna Strobino.
The Uninsured in Virginia: An Update Nathaniel Anderson, Laura Skopec, and Genevieve M. Kenney The Urban Institute.
Module 6: Quantifying gaps and measuring coverage ILO, 2013.
Poverty measurement: experience of the Republic of Moldova UNECE, Measuring poverty, 4 May 2015.
Methodology for producing the revised back series of population estimates for Julie Jefferies Population and Demography Division Office for.
Consumer behavior studies1 CONSUMER BEHAVIOR STUDIES STATISTICAL ISSUES Ralph B. D’Agostino, Sr. Boston University Harvard Clinical Research Institute.
Fairness and the Federal Tax Treatment of Health Insurance and Medical Care Mark Pauly Wharton School University of Pennsylvania Prepared for The President's.
Exhibit ES-1. The Percentage of Young Adults Uninsured Declined over 2010–2012, While Rates Rose in Other Age Groups Note: Totals may not equal sum of.
Obesity, Medication Use and Expenditures among Nonelderly Adults with Asthma Eric M. Sarpong AHRQ Conference September 10, 2012.
1 System Level Accountability Measures Sept. 17, 2003.
How Much Do Patients’ Preferences Contribute To Resource Use? Anthony D L, Herndon M B, et al. Health Affairs, 28, no. 3 (2009):
Differences in Access to Care for Asian and White Adults Merrile Sing, Ph.D. September 8, 2008.
Building Wave Response Rates in a Longitudinal Survey: Essential for Nonsampling Error Reduction or Last In - First Out? Steven B. Cohen Fred Rohde and.
1 NPRM2 OVERVIEW Review of Proposed Methodology for Historical Context.
Do State Parity Laws Differentially Impact Low Income or High Need Groups? Colleen L. Barry, Ph.D. Susan H. Busch, Ph.D. Yale School of Medicine June 2006.
1 WOMEN AND HEALTH REFORM: LESSONS FROM MASSACHUSETTS November 9, 2010 American Public Health Association Annual Meeting Tracey Hyams, JD, MPH, Director.
 Increased life expectancy  Disease prevention  Early diagnosis and treatment of diseases  Improved outcomes  Increased quality of life.
Measurements and Their Analysis. Introduction Note that in this chapter, we are talking about multiple measurements of the same quantity Numerical analysis.
ARC PARTNERSHIP PRESENTATION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 BY CARL P. MAERTZ, JR., PH.D. JOHN COOK SCHOOL OF BUSINESS SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY Contact at:
Out-of-Pocket Financial Burden for Low-Income Families with Children: Socioeconomic Disparities and Effects of Insurance Alison A. Galbraith, MD Sabrina.
SENIOR AUSTRALIANS AND PRESCRIPTION MEDICINES Australian Association of Gerontology NSW 30 August 2013.
Transportation as a barrier to child health access: The scope of the problem Roy Grant, Director of Applied Research & Policy Analysis The Children’s Health.
Parental Vaccine Safety Concerns: Results from the National Immunization Survey, Norma Allred, PhD, Kate Shaw, MS, Tammy Santibanez, PhD, Donna.
Copyright 2010, The World Bank Group. All Rights Reserved. Producer prices, part 2 Measurement issues Business Statistics and Registers 1.
Table 1. Methodological Evaluation of Observational Research (MORE) – observational studies of incidence or prevalence of chronic diseases Tatyana Shamliyan.
The Uninsured in Virginia: An Update for the Virginia Health Care Foundation May 2016 Laura Skopec, Jason Gates, Michael Karpman, and Genevieve M. Kenney.
System Capacity and Population Need May 9, 2017
Telehealth Survey Update.
Patient Registries and Health Outcomes in Diabetes: A Retrospective Study Nipa Shah, MD1; Fern Webb, PhD1; Liane Hannah, BSH1; Carmen Smotherman, MS2;
Subsidized private insurance
Believed discrimination occurred because of their:
Indian Health Care Improvement Fund Workgroup Update
How Well Does Insurance Coverage Protect Consumers from Health Care Costs? Findings from the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey, 2016 Sara.
Vice President, Health Care Coverage and Access
Presentation transcript:

Review of Barrier Free Approach and Additional Analysis of MEPS Data Related to ‘Potential’ vs. ‘Experienced’ Barriers

2 Quantify Need/Demand (Visits for Benchmark, Age Gender Adjusted, Average Health Status) Adjust for Population Health Status (Increase if below avg. health status, decrease if above ) Quantify Supply (Visit capacity for appropriate primary care providers ) Scale(s) of Provider Adequacy/Shortage (Combined measure of Supply vs Demand ) Set Threshold(s) for HPSA Designation Assess Health Outcome Deficits/Disparities (Areas/Populations with persistently and significantly negative health indicators ) Assess Other Indicators of Med.Underservice (Nature/Indicators TBD) Scale(s) of Medical Underservice (Assessed separately or Integrated into an index) Set Threshold(s) for MUA/P Designation or

3 Additional Discussion/Analysis Relevance and Utility of Experienced Barriers Adjustment of demand for variation in population health status Discussion of any alternative approaches to estimating demand

4 Review of ‘Barrier Free’ Concept for Estimating Demand Approach presented thus far estimates demand based on utilization patterns of those without a series of known ‘Potential’ barriers to care: –Race/ethnicity: Non-Hispanic White –Poverty level: Income >200% of FPL –Education: HS+ education (or younger than 18 years) –Usual source of care: Has a usual provider –Insurance: Full year insured under Medicare or Private insurance –Language: Language spoken at home = English –Physician Availability: Does not live in a geographic HPSA Resulting group weighted to correct for positive health status bias in the ‘Barrier Free’ group

5 Application of Initial Barrier Free Demand Produces a count of visits needed by a given population assuming they had no/minimal access barriers and were of average health status –Permits comparison of actual provider capacity/ accessibility to idealized demand –Not a measure of unmet need or provider shortage directly

6

7

8 Benefits to Approach Demand based on actual patterns of primary care access –Corrects for major known barriers to access collectively Avoids need to quantify each barrier separately at the local level –Readily updated as utilization patterns change –Remains valid even as health care barriers are addressed Directly adjusts for local variation in population demographics by age & gender Establishes a fixed reference for population health status (average of US pop.) from which local variation can be measured and accounted for Produces a single metric of primary care need –Total visits needed by a barrier-free population –Readily comparable to provider capacity by productivity

9 ‘Experienced’ Barriers to Care ‘Potential Barrier’ approach likely eliminates many individuals that do not actually face access barriers Two questions related to to having ‘Experienced Barriers’ are included in MEPS: – In the last 12 months, was anyone in the family unable to obtain medical care, tests, or treatments they or a doctor believed necessary? –In the last 12 months, was anyone in the family delayed in getting medical care, tests, or treatments they or a doctor believed necessary? Questions are not specific to primary care Does not quantify delayed/avoided care in any way Follow-on questions ask: –What was the main reason for delayed or avoided care? –How big a problem was delayed/avoided care?

10 Purpose of ‘Experienced Barrier’ Analysis How do the groups defined based on ‘Potential’ barriers compare to those that actually experienced barriers? Can ‘Barrier Free’ be defined based on eliminating those that experienced barriers instead of those with potential barriers? Should the absence of ‘experienced’ barriers be added to the other characteristics in the definition of the ‘barrier free’ population?

11 Top-Level Findings The group experiencing barriers is too small to explain observed differences in utilization The Barrier Free group exhibits significantly different experience with barriers compared to the remainder of the population –Lower incidence of delayed/avoided care –Somewhat lower significance of impact –Very different reasons for delayed/avoided care Experience of a barrier is heavily tied to high need and utilization of the system –Especially true amongst those otherwise Barrier Free

12 Prevalence of Experienced Barriers Low overall prevalence of experienced barriers perceived –Far too low to explain difference in utilization for Potential Barrier group ‘Potential Barrier’ group is 3.5 times more likely to have experienced inability to get needed care –Difference less pronounced for delayed care

13 Delayed/Avoided care was less of a problem overall for Barrier Free group Delayed care was a more significant problem for ‘Barriered’ group Majority of both groups rated inability to receive care a significant problem

14 Care delayed for very different reasons –Barriered group far more likely to delay for reason of affordability –Barrier Free group more likely to delay for reasons related to convenience and insurance (‘Other’ most common)

15 Differences in reasons for avoided care even more pronounced –Cost dominant amongst Barriered group –Insurance company denial and under-insurance account for half of avoided care for Barrier-Free group

16 Considerations for Inclusion of “Experienced Barriers” in Definition Exclusion of Population that Experienced a Barrier reduces Barrier Free sample by 3.4% –Eliminates 472 of 13,847 cases = 13,375 –Still represents approx. 22% of overall MEPS respondent sample Excluding those that experienced barriers actually lowers overall utilization rate for the Barrier Free group –Having experienced delayed/avoided care appears to be largley a product of increased need for services and contacts with the system –Individuals otherwise barrier free that experienced barriers exhibit: 53% higher average utilization (3.57 visits vs 2.34 visits) Nearly triple the rate of fair/poor health status (24.7% vs 8.5% More likely to fall above childhood but below Medicare These effects far more pronounced amongst otherwise barrier-free individuals compared to the overall population experiencing barriers

17 Net Effect on Estimated Utilization if ‘Experienced Barrier’ Group Excluded