OBJECTIVES: To compare preventive dental utilization for children with intellectual and/or developmental disability (IDD) and those without IDD and to identify factors associated with dental utilization. METHODS: We analyzed Iowa Medicaid dental claims submitted during calendar year (CY) 2005 for a cohort of children ages 3-17 who were eligible for Medicaid for at least 11 months in CY 2005 (n = 107,605). A protocol for identifying IDD children was developed by a group of dentists and physicians with clinical experience in treating children with disabilities. Utilization rates were compared for the two groups. Crude and covariate-adjusted odds ratios were estimated using conditional logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: A significantly higher proportion of non-IDD children received preventive care than those identified as IDD (48.6 percent versus 46.1 percent; P < 0.001). However, the final model revealed no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Factors such as older age, not residing in a dental Health Professional Shortage Area, interaction with the medical system, and family characteristics increased one's likelihood of receiving preventive dental care. CONCLUSION: Although IDD children face additional barriers to receiving dental care and may be at greater risk for dental disease, they utilize preventive dental services at the same rate as non-IDD children. Clinical and policy efforts should focus on ensuring that all Medicaid-enrolled children receive need-appropriate levels of preventive dental care.
OBJECTIVES: To compare preventive dental utilization for children with intellectual and/or developmental disability (IDD) and those without IDD and to identify factors associated with dental utilization. METHODS: We analyzed Iowa Medicaid dental claims submitted during calendar year (CY) 2005 for a cohort of children ages 3-17 who were eligible for Medicaid for at least 11 months in CY 2005 (n = 107,605). A protocol for identifying IDDchildren was developed by a group of dentists and physicians with clinical experience in treating children with disabilities. Utilization rates were compared for the two groups. Crude and covariate-adjusted odds ratios were estimated using conditional logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: A significantly higher proportion of non-IDDchildren received preventive care than those identified as IDD (48.6 percent versus 46.1 percent; P < 0.001). However, the final model revealed no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Factors such as older age, not residing in a dental Health Professional Shortage Area, interaction with the medical system, and family characteristics increased one's likelihood of receiving preventive dental care. CONCLUSION: Although IDDchildren face additional barriers to receiving dental care and may be at greater risk for dental disease, they utilize preventive dental services at the same rate as non-IDDchildren. Clinical and policy efforts should focus on ensuring that all Medicaid-enrolled children receive need-appropriate levels of preventive dental care.
Authors: Jennifer A Pinto-Martin; Margaret Dunkle; Marian Earls; Dane Fliedner; Cynthia Landes Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2005-09-29 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Katherine Yun; Arina Chesnokova; Justine Shults; Andres Pinto; David M Rubin Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Donald L Chi; Elizabeth T Momany; Lloyd A Mancl; Scott D Lindgren; Samuel H Zinner; Kyle J Steinman Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-10-26 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Jane M Chalmers; Raymond A Kuthy; Elizabeth T Momany; Donald L Chi; Robert A Bacon; Scott D Lindgren; Natoshia M Askelson; Peter C Damiano Journal: Spec Care Dentist Date: 2010-12-28
Authors: Donald L Chi; Elizabeth T Momany; Michael P Jones; Raymond A Kuthy; Natoshia M Askelson; George L Wehby; Peter C Damiano Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-12-13 Impact factor: 9.308