Differences in the Receipt of Low-Value Services Between Publicly and Privately Insured Children.

BACKGROUND: Children frequently receive low-value services that do not improve health, but it is unknown whether the receipt of these services differs between publicly and privately insured children. METHODS: We analyzed 2013-2014 Medicaid Analytic eXtract and IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters databases. Using 20 measures of low-value care (6 diagnostic testing measures, 5 imaging measures, and 9 prescription drug measures), we compared the proportion of publicly and privately insured children in 12 states who received low-value services at least once or twice in 2014; the proportion of publicly and privately insured children who received low-value diagnostic tests, imaging tests, and prescription drugs at least once; and the proportion of publicly and privately insured children eligible for each measure who received the service at least once. RESULTS: Among 6 951 556 publicly insured children and 1 647 946 privately insured children, respectively, 11.0% and 8.9% received low-value services at least once, 3.9% and 2.8% received low-value services at least twice, 3.2% and 3.8% received low-value diagnostic tests at least once, 0.4% and 0.4% received low-value imaging tests at least once, and 8.4% and 5.5% received low-value prescription drug services at least once. Differences in the proportion of eligible children receiving each service were typically small (median difference among 20 measures, public minus private: +0.3 percentage points). CONCLUSIONS: In 2014, 1 in 9 publicly insured and 1 in 11 privately insured children received low-value services. Differences between populations were modest overall, suggesting that wasteful care is not highly associated with payer type. Efforts to reduce this care should target all populations regardless of payer mix.

Medicaid and CHIP Child Health Beneficiary Incentives: Program Landscape and Stakeholder Insights.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the landscape of Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program beneficiary incentive programs for child health and garner key stakeholder insights on incentive program rationale, child and family engagement, and program evaluation. METHODS: We identified beneficiary health incentive programs from 2005 to 2018 through a search of peer-reviewed and publicly available documents and through semistructured interviews with 80 key stakeholders (Medicaid and managed-care leadership, program evaluators, patient advocates, etc). This study highlights insights from 23 of these stakeholders with expertise on programs targeting child health (<18 years old) to understand program rationale, beneficiary engagement, and program evaluation. RESULTS: We identified 82 child health-targeted beneficiary incentive programs in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. Programs most commonly incentivized well-child checks (n = 77), preventive screenings (n = 30), and chronic disease management (n = 30). All programs included financial incentives (eg, gift cards, premium incentives); some also offered incentive material prizes (n = 12; eg, car seats). Loss-framed incentives were uncommon (n = 1; eg, lost benefits) and strongly discouraged by stakeholders. Stakeholders suggested family engagement strategies including multigenerational incentives or incentives addressing social determinants of health. Regarding evaluation, stakeholders suggested incentivizing evidence-based preventive services (eg, vaccinations) rather than well-child check attendance, and considering proximal measures of child well-being (eg, school functioning). CONCLUSIONS: As the landscape of beneficiary incentive programs for child health evolves, policy makers have unique opportunities to leverage intergenerational and social approaches for family engagement and to more effectively increase and evaluate programs' impact.

Enhancing Health IT Functionality for Children: The 2015 Children's EHR Format.

Electronic health record (EHR) use throughout the United States has advanced considerably, but functionality to support the optimal care of children has been slower to develop and deploy. A previous team of experts systematically identified gaps in EHR functionality during collaborative work from 2010 to 2013 that produced the Children's EHR Format (Format), funded under the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, Public Law 111-3. After that, a team of practitioners, software developers, health policy leaders, and other stakeholders examined the Format's exhaustive list of 547 EHR functional requirements in 26 topic areas and found them to be valuable but in need of further refinement and prioritization. Work began in 2014 to develop a shortened high priority list of requirements and provide guidance to improve their use. Through a modified Delphi process that included key document review, selection criteria, multiple rounds of voting, and small group discussion, a multistakeholder work group identified and refined 47 items on the basis of earlier requirements to form the 2015 Children's EHR Format Priority List and developed 16 recommended uses of the Format. The full report of the Format enhancement activities is publicly available. In this article, we aim to promote awareness of these high priority EHR functional requirements for the care of children, sharpen industry focus on adopting these changes, and align all stakeholders in prioritizing specific health information technology functionalities including those essential for well-child preventive care, medication management, immunization tracking, and growth data for specific pediatric subgroups.