John Loftus1, Elizabeth M Allen2, Kathleen Thiede Call3, Susan A Everson-Rose1,4. 1. Program in Health Disparities Research, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2. Department of Public Health, St. Catherine University, St. Paul, Minnesota. 3. School of Public Health, Division of Health Policy & Management, and SHADAC, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 4. Department of Medicine, and Program in Health Disparities Research, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Reduced access to care and barriers have been shown in rural populations and in publicly insured populations. Barriers limiting health care access in publicly insured populations living in rural areas are not understood. This study investigates rural-urban differences in system-, provider-, and individual-level barriers and access to preventive care among adults and children enrolled in a public insurance program in Minnesota. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a 2008 statewide, cross-sectional survey of publicly insured adults and children (n = 4,388) investigating barriers associated with low utilization of preventive care. Sampling was stratified with oversampling of racial/ethnic minorities. RESULTS: Rural enrollees were more likely to report no past year preventive care compared to urban enrollees. However, this difference was no longer statistically significant after controlling for demographic and socioeconomic factors (OR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.00-1.88). Provider- and system-level barriers associated with low use of preventive care among rural enrollees included discrimination based on public insurance status (OR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.34-2.38), cost of care concerns (OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.03-2.89) and uncertainty about care being covered by insurance (OR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.01-2.85). These and additional provider-level barriers were also identified among urban enrollees. CONCLUSIONS: Discrimination, cost of care, and uncertainty about insurance coverage inhibit access in both the rural and urban samples. These barriers are worthy targets of interventions for publicly insured populations regardless of residence. Future studies should investigate additional factors associated with access disparities based on rural-urban residence.
PURPOSE: Reduced access to care and barriers have been shown in rural populations and in publicly insured populations. Barriers limiting health care access in publicly insured populations living in rural areas are not understood. This study investigates rural-urban differences in system-, provider-, and individual-level barriers and access to preventive care among adults and children enrolled in a public insurance program in Minnesota. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a 2008 statewide, cross-sectional survey of publicly insured adults and children (n = 4,388) investigating barriers associated with low utilization of preventive care. Sampling was stratified with oversampling of racial/ethnic minorities. RESULTS: Rural enrollees were more likely to report no past year preventive care compared to urban enrollees. However, this difference was no longer statistically significant after controlling for demographic and socioeconomic factors (OR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.00-1.88). Provider- and system-level barriers associated with low use of preventive care among rural enrollees included discrimination based on public insurance status (OR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.34-2.38), cost of care concerns (OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.03-2.89) and uncertainty about care being covered by insurance (OR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.01-2.85). These and additional provider-level barriers were also identified among urban enrollees. CONCLUSIONS: Discrimination, cost of care, and uncertainty about insurance coverage inhibit access in both the rural and urban samples. These barriers are worthy targets of interventions for publicly insured populations regardless of residence. Future studies should investigate additional factors associated with access disparities based on rural-urban residence.
Authors: Allison L Diamant; Ron D Hays; Leo S Morales; Wesley Ford; Daphne Calmes; Steven Asch; Naihua Duan; Eve Fielder; Sehyun Kim; Jonathan Fielding; Gerald Sumner; Martin F Shapiro; David Hayes-Bautista; Lillian Gelberg Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Emory Nelms; Ling Wang; Michael Pennell; Mary Ellen Wewers; Eric Seiber; Michael D Adolph; Electra D Paskett; Amy K Ferketich Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Laura-Mae Baldwin; Walter B Hollow; Susan Casey; L Gary Hart; Eric H Larson; Kelly Moore; Ervin Lewis; C Holly A Andrilla; David C Grossman Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2008 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Susan A Sabatino; Mary C White; Trevor D Thompson; Carrie N Klabunde Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2015-05-08 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Jingchuan Guo; Meiqi He; Jared W Magnani; Maria M Brooks; Walid F Gellad; Inmaculada Hernandez Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Vicky Mengqi Qin; Barbara McPake; Magdalena Z Raban; Thomas E Cowling; Riyadh Alshamsan; Kee Seng Chia; Peter C Smith; Rifat Atun; John Tayu Lee Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-05-04 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Jaclyn M Hall; Sarah M Szurek; Heedeok Cho; Yi Guo; Michael S Gutter; Georges E Khalil; Jonathan D Licht; Elizabeth A Shenkman Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2022-07-22
Authors: Erin A Hirsch; Anna E Barón; Betsy Risendal; Jamie L Studts; Melissa L New; Stephen P Malkoski Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 6.240