E-mail
Share this pagePoor children denied specialty care
Posted by Don McCanne MD on Thursday, Jun 16, 2011This entry is from Dr. McCanne's Quote of the Day, a daily health policy update on the single-payer health care reform movement. The QotD is archived on PNHP's website.
Auditing Access to Specialty Care for Children with Public Insurance
By Joanna Bisgaier, M.S.W., and Karin V. Rhodes, M.D.
The New England Journal of Medicine, June 15, 2011Expansions of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) are designed to extend access to high-quality medical care to all U.S. children. However, evidence suggests that the 37 million children covered by Medicaid–CHIP are less likely to receive specialty care than children covered by commercial insurance.
We designed an audit study in which research assistants posing as mothers made paired calls to the same clinic and attempted to schedule an appointment for a child needing specialty care. The calls were separated by 1 month and varied only by insurance status (private vs. Medicaid–CHIP insurance).
With the use of an experimental study design involving simulated requests for specialty care, we measured real-world scheduling behavior in an urban area with a high density of medical specialists. The results showed significant disparities in children’s access to needed outpatient specialty care, attributable to specialists’ reluctance to accept public health insurance. These results held across all audited specialties. (66% of the callers reporting Medicaid–CHIP coverage were denied an appointment for specialty care, as compared with 11% of the callers reporting Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance.) Moreover, even when children with Medicaid–CHIP were not denied appointments outright, the appointments were, on average, 22 days later than those obtained for privately insured children with identical health conditions (even though the clinical scenarios represented urgent situations).
Overall, we found considerable disparities in access to outpatient pediatric specialty care that were attributable to providers’ nonacceptance of public insurance.
A well functioning health care system removes barriers to the care that patients need. It is sad commentary that the United States has a program for the most needy that instead crates a barrier to care. As this study shows, merely being covered by Medicaid disqualifies many children from being able to access the specialized care that they need.
This doesn’t happen in other nations. If a person needs care, access is automatically provided without any thought given to the mechanism of payment.
In the United States, even though we have more than enough money already in the system to pay for all essential care, we have erected a wasteful, fragmented, dysfunctional financing system that creates barriers that must be negotiated before appropriate care can be obtained. It’s not the money; it’s the flawed financing system.
We need to cast aside these barriers and create an equitable financing system that is automatic – a single payer national health program. We have the money. Now all we need is the political will.
One Response to “Poor children denied specialty care”
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Subscribe to our blog's RSS feed.
About this blog
Physicians for a National Health Program's blog serves to facilitate communication among physicians and the public. The views presented on this blog are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of PNHP.
News from activists
PNHP Chapters and Activists are invited to post news of their recent speaking engagements, events, Congressional visits and other activities on PNHP’s blog in the “News from Activists” section.
Joel Weddington
June 21st, 2011 at 10:51 am
As a surgical specialist watching colleagues earn high incomes for two decades, studies like this are overdue, yet fall short of a deeper problem. The authors query: “…is it better to raise reimbursement rates globally for all specialists or to provide…incentives to specialists…located in low-resource neighborhoods?”
Finding “specialists” and “incentives” in the same sentence is disturbing. For example: Retinal specialist – $50k bonus for taking double call one month; 46 yo orthopedist, $200k a month; opthalmologist $3M in 2002; podiatrist 1.3M 2009; physiatrist $3M 2010; journal ad for a new ortho -$400k + production incentive and pay-off of all student loans. There are more, and this is just one individual’s experience.
These figures cannot be backed up by research because there is none. Surveys should be seen as grossly underestimating specialist’s earnings. True specialty incomes, because of fragmentation, professional autonomy, and competitive non-disclosure, remain unknown. However, there are those who know, and now is the time to come forward. We need to do the research and fact-checking to make the figures public. Raising awareness can encourage solutions and help speed the implementation of healthcare for all.