Cargando…

Differences in Access to Outpatient Care in the State of Ohio for an Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Patient

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of either Medicaid or private insurance on securing an appointment in an outpatient orthopaedic clinic and to determine waiting periods until an appointment as well as the relationship between population metrics and access to care. METHODS: A total of 88 clinics were...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Matar, Robert N., Cotton, Colin D.F., Schramm, Violet T., Shah, Nihar S., Grawe, Brian M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7879190/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33615241
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2020.07.015
_version_ 1783650481825906688
author Matar, Robert N.
Cotton, Colin D.F.
Schramm, Violet T.
Shah, Nihar S.
Grawe, Brian M.
author_facet Matar, Robert N.
Cotton, Colin D.F.
Schramm, Violet T.
Shah, Nihar S.
Grawe, Brian M.
author_sort Matar, Robert N.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of either Medicaid or private insurance on securing an appointment in an outpatient orthopaedic clinic and to determine waiting periods until an appointment as well as the relationship between population metrics and access to care. METHODS: A total of 88 clinics were called. There were 2 fictitious patients, one with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and the other with a medial meniscus injury, with each calling as having Medicaid or private insurance. Clinic responses were recorded for whether an appointment could be made, when it was scheduled, and with what provider. RESULTS: A total of 32 of 88 (36.4%) of the clinics scheduled an appointment for the Medicaid patient reporting an ACL injury versus 71 of 88 (80.6%) of the clinics that scheduled an appointment for the same patient with private insurance. A total of 34 of 88 (38.6%) of the clinics scheduled an appointment for the Medicaid patient reporting a medial meniscus injury versus 71 of 88 (80.6%) of the clinics that scheduled an appointment for the same patient with private insurance. Mean waiting period for ACL patients with Medicaid was 8.6 days and 4.5 days for patients with private insurance, whereas medial meniscus patients with Medicaid was 7.7 days and 5.4 days for patients with private insurance. In total, 60 of the 66 (90.9%) patients with Medicaid who received an appointment were scheduled to see the orthopaedic surgeon (30 in both ACL and medial meniscus groups). In total, 126 (71.6%) patients with Medicaid and 34 (19.3%) patients with private insurance of the 176 encounters faced barriers to scheduling an appointment. Rural communities were associated with appointment acceptance for patients with Medicaid (P < .05), and patients with private insurance had successful appointment scheduling in all community types (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that patients with Medicaid are less likely to receive orthopaedic care for multiple sports medicine injuries, are more likely to encounter barriers, and endure longer waiting periods. There are different patterns of insurance acceptance according to population metrics. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Serves as a baseline evaluation of the difference in access to health care that may be impacted by increases in Medicaid coverage and/or changes in government policies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7879190
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78791902021-02-18 Differences in Access to Outpatient Care in the State of Ohio for an Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Patient Matar, Robert N. Cotton, Colin D.F. Schramm, Violet T. Shah, Nihar S. Grawe, Brian M. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Original Article PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of either Medicaid or private insurance on securing an appointment in an outpatient orthopaedic clinic and to determine waiting periods until an appointment as well as the relationship between population metrics and access to care. METHODS: A total of 88 clinics were called. There were 2 fictitious patients, one with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and the other with a medial meniscus injury, with each calling as having Medicaid or private insurance. Clinic responses were recorded for whether an appointment could be made, when it was scheduled, and with what provider. RESULTS: A total of 32 of 88 (36.4%) of the clinics scheduled an appointment for the Medicaid patient reporting an ACL injury versus 71 of 88 (80.6%) of the clinics that scheduled an appointment for the same patient with private insurance. A total of 34 of 88 (38.6%) of the clinics scheduled an appointment for the Medicaid patient reporting a medial meniscus injury versus 71 of 88 (80.6%) of the clinics that scheduled an appointment for the same patient with private insurance. Mean waiting period for ACL patients with Medicaid was 8.6 days and 4.5 days for patients with private insurance, whereas medial meniscus patients with Medicaid was 7.7 days and 5.4 days for patients with private insurance. In total, 60 of the 66 (90.9%) patients with Medicaid who received an appointment were scheduled to see the orthopaedic surgeon (30 in both ACL and medial meniscus groups). In total, 126 (71.6%) patients with Medicaid and 34 (19.3%) patients with private insurance of the 176 encounters faced barriers to scheduling an appointment. Rural communities were associated with appointment acceptance for patients with Medicaid (P < .05), and patients with private insurance had successful appointment scheduling in all community types (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that patients with Medicaid are less likely to receive orthopaedic care for multiple sports medicine injuries, are more likely to encounter barriers, and endure longer waiting periods. There are different patterns of insurance acceptance according to population metrics. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Serves as a baseline evaluation of the difference in access to health care that may be impacted by increases in Medicaid coverage and/or changes in government policies. Elsevier 2020-12-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7879190/ /pubmed/33615241 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2020.07.015 Text en © 2020 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Matar, Robert N.
Cotton, Colin D.F.
Schramm, Violet T.
Shah, Nihar S.
Grawe, Brian M.
Differences in Access to Outpatient Care in the State of Ohio for an Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Patient
title Differences in Access to Outpatient Care in the State of Ohio for an Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Patient
title_full Differences in Access to Outpatient Care in the State of Ohio for an Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Patient
title_fullStr Differences in Access to Outpatient Care in the State of Ohio for an Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Patient
title_full_unstemmed Differences in Access to Outpatient Care in the State of Ohio for an Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Patient
title_short Differences in Access to Outpatient Care in the State of Ohio for an Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Patient
title_sort differences in access to outpatient care in the state of ohio for an orthopaedic sports medicine patient
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7879190/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33615241
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2020.07.015
work_keys_str_mv AT matarrobertn differencesinaccesstooutpatientcareinthestateofohioforanorthopaedicsportsmedicinepatient
AT cottoncolindf differencesinaccesstooutpatientcareinthestateofohioforanorthopaedicsportsmedicinepatient
AT schrammviolett differencesinaccesstooutpatientcareinthestateofohioforanorthopaedicsportsmedicinepatient
AT shahnihars differencesinaccesstooutpatientcareinthestateofohioforanorthopaedicsportsmedicinepatient
AT grawebrianm differencesinaccesstooutpatientcareinthestateofohioforanorthopaedicsportsmedicinepatient