PURPOSE: We investigated the relationship between blindness and vision impairment and access to medical care. METHODS: Pooled data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) years 2002-2004 were used to identify non-institutionalized individuals over the age of 40 with either self-reported blindness, vision impairment, or no vision impairment (n = 40,643). Differences in access to care measures by vision status were assessed, after adjusting for the complex sampling design of the MEPS, using either two-sided z-tests or two-sided t-tests. RESULTS: Individuals with blindness and vision impairment report having more access problems related to cost of care, availability of insurance coverage, transportation issues, and refusal of services by providers, although they do not report lower rates of having a usual source of care compared to those without vision impairment. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that access to care for individuals with blindness and vision impairment is problematic, for reasons that are amenable to policy interventions.
PURPOSE: We investigated the relationship between blindness and vision impairment and access to medical care. METHODS: Pooled data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) years 2002-2004 were used to identify non-institutionalized individuals over the age of 40 with either self-reported blindness, vision impairment, or no vision impairment (n = 40,643). Differences in access to care measures by vision status were assessed, after adjusting for the complex sampling design of the MEPS, using either two-sided z-tests or two-sided t-tests. RESULTS: Individuals with blindness and vision impairment report having more access problems related to cost of care, availability of insurance coverage, transportation issues, and refusal of services by providers, although they do not report lower rates of having a usual source of care compared to those without vision impairment. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that access to care for individuals with blindness and vision impairment is problematic, for reasons that are amenable to policy interventions.
Authors: D Diane Zheng; Sharon L Christ; Byron L Lam; Kristopher L Arheart; Anat Galor; David J Lee Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: John E Crews; Chiu-Fang Chou; Xinzhi Zhang; Matthew M Zack; Jinan B Saaddine Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: Sila Bal; Jibby E Kurichi; Pui L Kwong; Dawei Xie; Sean Hennessy; Ling Na; Liliana E Pezzin; Joel E Streim; Hillary R Bogner Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: John E Crews; Chiu-Fang Chou; Matthew M Zack; Xinzhi Zhang; Kai McKeever Bullard; Alan R Morse; Jinan B Saaddine Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: Heather F McClintock; Jibby E Kurichi; Pui L Kwong; Dawei Xie; Joel E Streim; Liliana E Pezzin; Sean Hennessey; Ling Na; Hillary R Bogner Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Paul P Lee; Sheila K West; Sandra S Block; Janine Clayton; Mary Frances Cotch; Colin Flynn; Linda S Geiss; Ronald Klein; Timothy W Olsen; Cynthia Owsley; Susan A Primo; Gary S Rubin; Asel Ryskulova; Sanjay Sharma; David S Friedman; Xinzhi Zhang; John E Crews; Jinan B Saaddine Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Xinzhi Zhang; Kai McKeever Bullard; Mary Frances Cotch; M Roy Wilson; Barry W Rovner; Gerald McGwin; Cynthia Owsley; Lawrence Barker; John E Crews; Jinan B Saaddine Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Lama Assi; Varshini Varadaraj; Ahmed F Shakarchi; Orla C Sheehan; Nicholas S Reed; Joshua R Ehrlich; Bonnielin K Swenor Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 7.389