Catherine A Okoro1, Satvinder S Dhingra, Ralph J Coates, Matthew Zack, Eduardo J Simoes. 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Behavioral Surveillance, Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Public Health Surveillance and Informatics Program Office, 1600 Clifton Rd. NE, M/S E-97, Atlanta, GA, 30333, USA, COkoro@cdc.gov.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Expansion of health insurance coverage, and hence clinical preventive services (CPS), provides an opportunity for improvements in the health of adults. The degree to which expansion of health insurance coverage affects the use of CPS is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether Massachusetts health reform was associated with changes in healthcare access and use of CPS. DESIGN: We used a difference-in-differences framework to examine change in healthcare access and use of CPS among working-aged adults pre-reform (2002-2005) and post-reform (2007-2010) in Massachusetts compared with change in other New England states (ONES). SETTING: Population-based, cross-sectional Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 208,831 survey participants aged 18 to 64 years. INTERVENTION: Massachusetts health reform enacted in 2006. MEASUREMENTS: Four healthcare access measures outcomes and five CPS. KEY RESULTS: The proportions of adults who had health insurance coverage, a healthcare provider, no cost barrier to healthcare, an annual routine checkup, and a colorectal cancer screening increased significantly more in Massachusetts than those in the ONES. In Massachusetts, the prevalence of cervical cancer screening in pre-reform and post-reform periods was about the same; however, the ONES had a decrease of -1.6 percentage points (95 % confidence interval [CI] -2.5, -0.7; p <0.001). As a result, the prevalence of cervical cancer screening in Massachusetts was increased relative to the ONES (1.7, 95 % CI 0.2, 3.2; p = 0.02). Cholesterol screening, influenza immunization, and breast cancer screening did not improve more in Massachusetts than in the ONES. LIMITATIONS: Data are self-reported. CONCLUSIONS: Health reform may increase healthcare access and improve use of CPS. However, the effects of health reform on CPS use may vary by type of service and by state.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Expansion of health insurance coverage, and hence clinical preventive services (CPS), provides an opportunity for improvements in the health of adults. The degree to which expansion of health insurance coverage affects the use of CPS is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether Massachusetts health reform was associated with changes in healthcare access and use of CPS. DESIGN: We used a difference-in-differences framework to examine change in healthcare access and use of CPS among working-aged adults pre-reform (2002-2005) and post-reform (2007-2010) in Massachusetts compared with change in other New England states (ONES). SETTING: Population-based, cross-sectional Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 208,831 survey participants aged 18 to 64 years. INTERVENTION: Massachusetts health reform enacted in 2006. MEASUREMENTS: Four healthcare access measures outcomes and five CPS. KEY RESULTS: The proportions of adults who had health insurance coverage, a healthcare provider, no cost barrier to healthcare, an annual routine checkup, and a colorectal cancer screening increased significantly more in Massachusetts than those in the ONES. In Massachusetts, the prevalence of cervical cancer screening in pre-reform and post-reform periods was about the same; however, the ONES had a decrease of -1.6 percentage points (95 % confidence interval [CI] -2.5, -0.7; p <0.001). As a result, the prevalence of cervical cancer screening in Massachusetts was increased relative to the ONES (1.7, 95 % CI 0.2, 3.2; p = 0.02). Cholesterol screening, influenza immunization, and breast cancer screening did not improve more in Massachusetts than in the ONES. LIMITATIONS: Data are self-reported. CONCLUSIONS: Health reform may increase healthcare access and improve use of CPS. However, the effects of health reform on CPS use may vary by type of service and by state.
Authors: Cheryl R Clark; Jane Soukup; Usha Govindarajulu; Heather E Riden; Dora A Tovar; Paula A Johnson Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Satvinder S Dhingra; Matthew M Zack; Tara W Strine; Benjamin G Druss; Eduardo Simoes Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Judith Swan; Nancy Breen; Barry I Graubard; Timothy S McNeel; Donald Blackman; Florence K Tangka; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-10-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lindsay M Sabik; Kirsten Y Eom; Bassam Dahman; Jie Li; Nengliang Yao; G J van Londen; Cathy J Bradley Journal: Med Care Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Laurie E Steffen; Kenneth M Boucher; Barbara H Damron; Lisa M Pappas; Scott T Walters; Kristina G Flores; Watcharaporn Boonyasiriwat; Sally W Vernon; Antoinette M Stroup; Marc D Schwartz; Sandra L Edwards; Wendy K Kohlmann; Jan T Lowery; Charles L Wiggins; Deirdre A Hill; John C Higginbotham; Randall Burt; Rebecca G Simmons; Anita Y Kinney Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-06-22 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Andrew P Loehrer; Zirui Song; Alex B Haynes; David C Chang; Matthew M Hutter; John T Mullen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Miguel Marino; Steffani R Bailey; Rachel Gold; Megan J Hoopes; Jean P O'Malley; Nathalie Huguet; John Heintzman; Charles Gallia; K John McConnell; Jennifer E DeVoe Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 5.043