Anna Smith1, Nicoleta Serban2, Anne Fitzpatrick3. 1. H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Ga. 2. H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Ga. Electronic address: nserban@isye.gatech.edu. 3. Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Ga.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Small-area asthma prevalence measures, which are crucial for targeting interventions, are currently sparsely available for children. OBJECTIVE: To provide measures of in-contact asthma prevalence for the 2012 Medicaid child population so as to highlight areas in need of targeted asthma interventions. METHODS: Using the 2012 Medicaid Analytic eXtract claims files, we developed 2 prevalence metrics differentiated by persistent and diagnosed asthma. We developed prevalence measures at the state, county, and census tract levels, with statistical inferences to highlight areas of high prevalence where interventions should be focused. We compared the measures with asthma prevalence estimates derived from a sample of the child population that self-reported whether they have been diagnosed with asthma regardless of in-contact asthma. RESULTS: A total of 1.98 million (8.1%) and 1.71 million (6.9%) Medicaid-enrolled children were identified with in-contact asthma diagnosis and persistent asthma, respectively. Among 40 states, 17 had lower prevalence estimates for the Medicaid-enrolled children compared with similar child asthma self-reported prevalence estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. High-prevalence regions spanned primarily in the southern Midwest region, from Texas to West Virginia and from Illinois to north Florida. CONCLUSION: There are large variations in the differences between the self-reported estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the general population and the in-contact estimates for the Medicaid-enrolled children, highlighting potential asthma misdiagnosis in the Medicaid population in many states. Small-area estimates point to areas of high prevalence, consistently throughout the south and southeast.
BACKGROUND: Small-area asthma prevalence measures, which are crucial for targeting interventions, are currently sparsely available for children. OBJECTIVE: To provide measures of in-contact asthma prevalence for the 2012 Medicaid child population so as to highlight areas in need of targeted asthma interventions. METHODS: Using the 2012 Medicaid Analytic eXtract claims files, we developed 2 prevalence metrics differentiated by persistent and diagnosed asthma. We developed prevalence measures at the state, county, and census tract levels, with statistical inferences to highlight areas of high prevalence where interventions should be focused. We compared the measures with asthma prevalence estimates derived from a sample of the child population that self-reported whether they have been diagnosed with asthma regardless of in-contact asthma. RESULTS: A total of 1.98 million (8.1%) and 1.71 million (6.9%) Medicaid-enrolled children were identified with in-contact asthma diagnosis and persistent asthma, respectively. Among 40 states, 17 had lower prevalence estimates for the Medicaid-enrolled children compared with similar childasthma self-reported prevalence estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. High-prevalence regions spanned primarily in the southern Midwest region, from Texas to West Virginia and from Illinois to north Florida. CONCLUSION: There are large variations in the differences between the self-reported estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the general population and the in-contact estimates for the Medicaid-enrolled children, highlighting potential asthma misdiagnosis in the Medicaid population in many states. Small-area estimates point to areas of high prevalence, consistently throughout the south and southeast.
Authors: Christian Hermann; Tine Westergaard; Bo V Pedersen; Jan Wohlfahrt; Arne Høst; Mads Melbye Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2005-07-13 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Jonathan S Schildcrout; Lianne Sheppard; Thomas Lumley; James C Slaughter; Jane Q Koenig; Gail G Shapiro Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2006-06-23 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Deidre D Crocker; Stella Kinyota; Gema G Dumitru; Colin B Ligon; Elizabeth J Herman; Jill M Ferdinands; David P Hopkins; Briana M Lawrence; Theresa A Sipe Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Jennifer E Devoe; Rachel Gold; Patti McIntire; Jon Puro; Susan Chauvie; Charles A Gallia Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Wen-Chao Ho; William R Hartley; Leann Myers; Meng-Hung Lin; Yu-Sheng Lin; Chih-Hui Lien; Ruey-Shiung Lin Journal: Environ Res Date: 2007-02-21 Impact factor: 6.498