Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH
description
Transcript of Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH
![Page 1: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Assessing the Potential Effect of Programmatic Changes in Medicaid and SCHIP on Children’s Uninsured Rates
Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP
Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH
With support from the Michigan Department of Community Health
CHEAR Unit, Division of General Pediatrics, and the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan
![Page 2: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
How Low Can Child Uninsurance Rates Go?
• Political opportunities
• Fiscal realities
• Programmatic options?
![Page 3: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Focus on Individual-Level Determinants of Uninsurance
• Clinician’s perspective– Causes– Effects
• Anecdotally powerful
![Page 4: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Focus on Individual-Level Determinants of Uninsurance
• Clinician’s perspective– Causes– Effects
• Anecdotally powerful
• But what about programmatic opportunities at state and federal levels?
![Page 5: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Research Question
What are sociodemographic and programmatic factors at the state level associated with rates
of uninsurance among children?
![Page 6: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Program Opportunities in Context of Population Factors
• Candidate sociodemographic and programmatic factors at the state level associated with rates of uninsurance among children– Sociodemographic
• Race/ethnicity, immigration, median income, unemployment rates, employer insurance offer rates, population age balance
– Programmatic• Medicaid and SCHIP income eligibility thresholds,
asset tests, copays/premiums for SCHIP, SCHIP program type
![Page 7: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
State-to-State Comparison of Child Uninsurance Rates
• Current Population Survey (CPS)– March (“Sociodemographic”) Supplement– Annual household survey– Nationally representative– Representative estimates for all states and DC– 2000 – 2004 (rates from 1999-2003)
![Page 8: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
State Data Regarding Candidate Uninsurance Factors
• Census data• Bureau of Labor Statistics• Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services• Foundation reports
– Kaiser Family Foundation StateFacts– Center for Budget and Policy Priorities
![Page 9: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Data Analysis
• Time-series analysis– Generalized estimating equations– Within each state (1999-2003)– Between states– Bivariate analyses Multivariate analyses– Adjust for different state populations
![Page 10: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Methodologic Options and Challenges
• Outcomes– For all children– For low-income children
• Collinearity of independent variables– e.g., Income eligibility levels for different child age
groups within Medicaid• Necessitated “families” of models with
interchanging collinear variables
![Page 11: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Results: Uninsurance Rates for All Children
• Variables significant in bivariate tests included:– Sociodemographic variables:
• Median income• Proportion of state population who are Hispanic• Proportion of state population who are children
– Programmatic variables:• Asset test• SCHIP income eligibility thresholds• Medicaid income eligibility thresholds
![Page 12: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Models of Uninsurance Rates for All Children
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Median income
Prop. Hispanic
Prop. children
No asset test
SCHIP elig thresh
M’caid elig 0-1
M’caid elig 2-5
M’caid elig 6-16
M’caid elig 17-19
*P<.0001; ‡P<.05
![Page 13: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Models of Uninsurance Rates for All Children
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Median income -.0002*
Prop. Hispanic .261*
Prop. children .390*
No asset test
SCHIP elig thresh
M’caid elig 0-1
M’caid elig 2-5
M’caid elig 6-16
M’caid elig 17-19
*P<.0001; ‡P<.05
![Page 14: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Models of Uninsurance Rates for All Children
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Median income -.0002* -.0001*
Prop. Hispanic .261* .243*
Prop. children .390* .347*
No asset test -.644
SCHIP elig thresh -.012 ‡
M’caid elig 0-1 -.012
M’caid elig 2-5
M’caid elig 6-16
M’caid elig 17-19
*P<.0001; ‡P<.05
![Page 15: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Models of Uninsurance Rates for All Children
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Median income -.0002* -.0001* -.0002*
Prop. Hispanic .261* .243* .248*
Prop. children .390* .347* .353*
No asset test -.644 -.744
SCHIP elig thresh -.012 ‡ -.013 ‡
M’caid elig 0-1 -.012
M’caid elig 2-5 -.009
M’caid elig 6-16
M’caid elig 17-19
*P<.0001; ‡P<.05
![Page 16: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Models of Uninsurance Rates for All Children
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Median income -.0002* -.0001* -.0002* -.0001*
Prop. Hispanic .261* .243* .248* .247*
Prop. children .390* .347* .353* .352*
No asset test -.644 -.744 -.697
SCHIP elig thresh -.012 ‡ -.013 ‡ -.012 ‡
M’caid elig 0-1 -.012
M’caid elig 2-5 -.009
M’caid elig 6-16 -.009
M’caid elig 17-19
*P<.0001; ‡P<.05
![Page 17: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Models of Uninsurance Rates for All Children
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Median income -.0002* -.0001* -.0002* -.0001* -.0001*
Prop. Hispanic .261* .243* .248* .247* .245*
Prop. children .390* .347* .353* .352* .348*
No asset test -.644 -.744 -.697 -.580
SCHIP elig thresh -.012 ‡ -.013 ‡ -.012 ‡ -.011 ‡
M’caid elig 0-1 -.012
M’caid elig 2-5 -.009
M’caid elig 6-16 -.009
M’caid elig 17-19 -.010 ‡
*P<.0001; ‡P<.05
![Page 18: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Models of Uninsurance Rates for Low-income Children
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Prop. Hispanic .349* .320* .329* .329* .321*
Prop. children .642 ‡ .225 .285 .274 .293
No asset test -2.58 -2.90 -2.83 -2.50
SCHIP elig thresh -.010 -.012 -.010 -.006
M’caid elig 0-1 -.036 ‡
M’caid elig 2-5 -.032 ‡
M’caid elig 6-16 -.030 ‡
M’caid elig 17-19 -.033 ‡
*P<.0001; ‡P<.01; also adjusted for type of SCHIP program
![Page 19: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Limitations
• CPS data not equivalently accurate for all states– Larger states likely with better estimates
• Much variation in child uninsurance rates remains unexplained by state-level variables– Opportunity for multi-level model of likelihood of
uninsurance for a child, given individual, family, community, and state-level variables
– Influence of state variables likely varies across states
![Page 20: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Summary
• State-level model consistent with individual-level factors associated with uninsurance– Income– Hispanic ethnicity
• Consistent with hypothesized program effects– Eligibility thresholds– Asset test
• New insight– Proportion of state population comprised by
children
![Page 21: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Implication: Eliminate the Asset Test
![Page 22: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Implication: Eliminate the Asset Test
• But only 6 states still have an asset test– CO, ID, MT, NV, TX, UT
![Page 23: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Implication: Modify Medicaid Eligibility Thresholds
If raise Medicaid eligibility threshold to:
Estimated child uninsurance rate
133% 8.7% - 9.1%
150% 8.1% - 8.7%
185% 6.7% - 7.8%
200% 6.2% - 7.4%
If State X has Medicaid eligibility threshold of 100% FPL and a low-income child uninsurance rate of 10% …
![Page 24: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Implication: Modify SCHIP Eligibility Thresholds
If raise SCHIP eligibility threshold to:
Estimated child uninsurance rate
200% 9.8% - 9.9%
235% 9.2% - 9.3%
250% 9.0% - 9.2%
300% 8.3% - 8.5%
If State Y has SCHIP eligibility threshold of 185% FPL and an overall child uninsurance rate of 10% …
![Page 25: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Implication: Consider the State Proportion of Children
• Range of states’ proportions of population comprised by children:– High
– Low
![Page 26: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Implication: Consider the State Proportion of Children
• Range of states’ proportions of population comprised by children:– High
• UT 32.6%• AK 30.1%
– Low
![Page 27: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Implication: Consider the State Proportion of Children
• Range of states’ proportions of population comprised by children:– High
• UT 32.6%• AK 30.1%
– Low• ME 22.4%• DC 19.7%
![Page 28: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Implication: Consider the State Proportion of Children
• Range of states’ proportions of population comprised by children:– High Child uninsurance rate
• UT 32.6% 9.0%• AK 30.1% 12.3%
– Low• ME 22.4% 6.0%• DC 19.7% 11.4%
![Page 29: Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Rachel M. Quinn, MPP, MPH](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022070417/5681536d550346895dc16fdb/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Conclusions
• Value of considering child uninsurance within the state context
• Opportunities to use models to inform legislators and policymakers about possible yields of program changes
• New insights about possible factors for consideration in federal match rate