Literature DB >> 24394980

A statewide Medicaid enhanced prenatal care program: impact on birth outcomes.

LeeAnne Roman1, Jennifer E Raffo1, Qi Zhu2, Cristian I Meghea3.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Policy makers and practitioners need rigorous evaluations of state-based Medicaid enhanced prenatal care programs that provide home visiting to guide improvements and inform future investments. Effects on adverse birth outcomes are of particular interest.
OBJECTIVE: To test if participation in the Michigan statewide enhanced prenatal care program, the Maternal Infant Health Program (MIHP), accounting for program timing and dosage, reduced risk for low birth weight (LBW) and preterm birth, particularly among black women who are at greater risk for adverse outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Quasi-experimental cohort study. Data, including birth records, Medicaid claims, and monthly program participation, were extracted from the Michigan Department of Community Health warehouse. Participants included all 60 653 pregnant women who had a Medicaid-insured singleton birth between January 1 and December 31, 2010, in Michigan. The MIHP participants were propensity score-matched with nonparticipants based on demographics, previous pregnancies, socioeconomic status, and chronic disease. EXPOSURE: An enhanced prenatal care program. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Low birth weight, very low birth weight (VLBW), preterm birth, and very preterm birth.
RESULTS: In the propensity score-matched models, black women who enrolled and were screened in the MIHP by the end of the second trimester had lower odds of VLBW (odds ratio [OR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.97) and very preterm births (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.85) than matched nonparticipants. Black MIHP participants who enrolled and were screened in the program by the second trimester and had at least 3 additional prenatal MIHP contacts had lower odds of LBW (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.89), VLBW (0.42; 0.30-0.61), preterm birth (0.71; 0.61-0.83), and very preterm birth (0.41; 0.30-0.57) compared with matched nonparticipants. The MIHP participants of other races and ethnicities who enrolled and were screened in the program by the second trimester and had at least 3 additional prenatal MIHP contacts had lower odds of LBW (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.93), VLBW (0.38; 0.22-0.66), preterm birth (0.77; 0.66-0.89), and very preterm birth (0.63; 0.43-0.91) compared with matched nonparticipants. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Participation in MIHP reduced the risk for adverse birth outcomes in a diverse, disadvantaged population. The study adds to the evidence base for enhanced prenatal care home visiting programs and informs state and federal investments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24394980     DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4347

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Pediatr        ISSN: 2168-6203            Impact factor:   16.193


  29 in total

1.  A Statewide Medicaid Enhanced Prenatal and Postnatal Care Program and Infant Injuries.

Authors:  Cristian I Meghea; Zhiying You; Lee Anne Roman
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2015-10

2.  Multilevel assessment of prenatal engagement in home visiting.

Authors:  Neera K Goyal; Alonzo T Folger; Eric S Hall; Angelique Teeters; Judith B Van Ginkel; Robert T Ammerman
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  Adolescent and Adult Clients in Prenatal Case Management: Differences in Problems and Interventions Used.

Authors:  L Michele Issel; Kelsey Gilmet; Izumi Chihara; Jamie Slaughter-Acey
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2015-12

4.  Relationship Between Pregnancy Complications and Psychiatric Disorders: A Population-Based Study With a Matched Control Group.

Authors:  Christina D Kang-Yi; Sara L Kornfield; C Neill Epperson; David S Mandell
Journal:  Psychiatr Serv       Date:  2017-11-15       Impact factor: 3.084

Review 5.  Social Determinants of Placental Health and Future Disease Risks for Babies.

Authors:  Kent L Thornburg; Janne Boone-Heinonen; Amy M Valent
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 2.844

6.  Toward development of evidenced-based quality parameters: What gets counted and who gets paid?

Authors:  Shetal I Shah; Heather L Brumberg; Cynthia F Bearer
Journal:  Pediatr Res       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 3.756

7.  Predictions of the affordable care act's impact on neonatal practice.

Authors:  S I Shah; H L Brumberg
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.521

8.  Defining the Role of the Community Health Worker within a Federal Healthy Start Care Coordination Team.

Authors:  Jennifer E Raffo; Celeste Lloyd; Monica Collier; LaDynah Slater; Belinda Cunningham; Katherine Penninga; Susan Henning; Janis Coil; Bonita Agee; Veronica Quintino-Aranda; Peggy VanderMeulen; Lee Anne Roman
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2017-12

9.  Estimating the effect of Prenatal Care Coordination in Wisconsin: A sibling fixed effects analysis.

Authors:  David C Mallinson; Andrea Larson; Lawrence M Berger; Eric Grodsky; Deborah B Ehrenthal
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-11-07       Impact factor: 3.402

10.  A Call to Revisit the Prenatal Period as a Focus for Action Within the Reproductive and Perinatal Care Continuum.

Authors:  Arden Handler; Kay Johnson
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2016-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.