BACKGROUND: Massachusetts' health care reform substantially decreased the percentage of uninsured residents. However, less is known about how reform affected access to care, especially according to insurance type. OBJECTIVE: To assess access to care in Massachusetts after implementation of health care reform, based on insurance status and type. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed a convenience sample of 431 patients presenting to the Emergency Department of Massachusetts' second largest safety net hospital between July 25, 2009 and March 20, 2010. MAIN MEASURES: Demographic and clinical characteristics, insurance coverage, measures of access to care and cost-related barriers to care. KEY RESULTS: Patients with Commonwealth Care and Medicaid, the two forms of insurance most often newly-acquired under the reform, reported similar or higher utilization of and access to outpatient visits and rates of having a usual source of care, compared with the privately insured. Compared with the privately insured, a significantly higher proportion of patients with Medicaid or Commonwealth Care Type 1 (minimal cost sharing) reported delaying or not getting dental care (42.2 % vs. 27.1 %) or medication (30.0 % vs. 7.0 %) due to cost; those with Medicaid also experienced cost-related barriers to seeing a specialist (14.6 % vs. 3.5 %) or getting recommended tests (15.6 % vs. 5.9 %). Those with Commonwealth Care Types 2 and 3 (greater cost sharing) reported significantly more cost-related barriers to obtaining care than the privately insured (45.0 % vs. 16.0 %), to seeing a primary care doctor (25.0 % vs. 6.0 %) or dental provider (58.3 % vs. 27.1 %), and to obtaining medication (20.8 % vs. 7.0 %). No differences in cost-related barriers to preventive care were found between the privately and publicly insured. CONCLUSIONS: Access to care improved less than access to insurance following Massachusetts' health care reform. Many newly insured residents obtained Medicaid or state subsidized private insurance; cost-related barriers to access were worse for these patients than for the privately insured.
BACKGROUND: Massachusetts' health care reform substantially decreased the percentage of uninsured residents. However, less is known about how reform affected access to care, especially according to insurance type. OBJECTIVE: To assess access to care in Massachusetts after implementation of health care reform, based on insurance status and type. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed a convenience sample of 431 patients presenting to the Emergency Department of Massachusetts' second largest safety net hospital between July 25, 2009 and March 20, 2010. MAIN MEASURES: Demographic and clinical characteristics, insurance coverage, measures of access to care and cost-related barriers to care. KEY RESULTS:Patients with Commonwealth Care and Medicaid, the two forms of insurance most often newly-acquired under the reform, reported similar or higher utilization of and access to outpatient visits and rates of having a usual source of care, compared with the privately insured. Compared with the privately insured, a significantly higher proportion of patients with Medicaid or Commonwealth Care Type 1 (minimal cost sharing) reported delaying or not getting dental care (42.2 % vs. 27.1 %) or medication (30.0 % vs. 7.0 %) due to cost; those with Medicaid also experienced cost-related barriers to seeing a specialist (14.6 % vs. 3.5 %) or getting recommended tests (15.6 % vs. 5.9 %). Those with Commonwealth Care Types 2 and 3 (greater cost sharing) reported significantly more cost-related barriers to obtaining care than the privately insured (45.0 % vs. 16.0 %), to seeing a primary care doctor (25.0 % vs. 6.0 %) or dental provider (58.3 % vs. 27.1 %), and to obtaining medication (20.8 % vs. 7.0 %). No differences in cost-related barriers to preventive care were found between the privately and publicly insured. CONCLUSIONS: Access to care improved less than access to insurance following Massachusetts' health care reform. Many newly insured residents obtained Medicaid or state subsidized private insurance; cost-related barriers to access were worse for these patients than for the privately insured.
Authors: R Tamblyn; R Laprise; J A Hanley; M Abrahamowicz; S Scott; N Mayo; J Hurley; R Grad; E Latimer; R Perreault; P McLeod; A Huang; P Larochelle; L Mallet Journal: JAMA Date: 2001 Jan 24-31 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: A Austvoll-Dahlgren; M Aaserud; G Vist; C Ramsay; A D Oxman; H Sturm; J P Kösters; A Vernby Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2008-01-23
Authors: Amresh D Hanchate; Danny McCormick; Karen E Lasser; Chen Feng; Meredith G Manze; Nancy R Kressin Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Sora Al Rowas; Michael B Rothberg; Benjamin Johnson; Joel Miller; Mohanad AlMahmoud; Jennifer Friderici; Sarah L Goff; Tara Lagu Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Matthew S Chang; Ruth Tuomala; Anna E Rutherford; Muthoka L Mutinga; Karin L Andersson; Blaire E Burman; Robert S Brown; Emily Oken; Chinweike Ukomadu Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-09-30 Impact factor: 8.661