Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Am J Public Health ; 108(3): 351-354, 2018 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29345995

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of households' outlays for medical expenditures on income inequality and changes since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). METHODS: We analyzed data from the US Current Population Surveys for calendar years 2010 through 2014. We calculated the Gini index of income inequality before and after subtracting households' medical outlays (including insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs) from income, the financial burden of medical outlays for each income decile, and the number of individuals pushed below poverty by medical outlays. RESULTS: In 2014, the Gini index was 47.84, which rose to 49.21 after medical outlays were subtracted, indicating that medical outlays effectively redistributed about 1.37% of total income from poorer to richer individuals, a slightly smaller redistribution compared with the years before the ACA. Medical outlays reduced the median income of the poorest decile by 47.6% versus 2.7% for the wealthiest decile and pushed 7.013 million individuals into poverty. CONCLUSIONS: The way we finance medical care exacerbates income inequality and impoverishes millions of Americans. This regressive financing pattern improved minimally in the wake of the ACA.


Subject(s)
Health Expenditures/statistics & numerical data , Income/statistics & numerical data , Insurance, Health/economics , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/economics , Deductibles and Coinsurance , Poverty , Surveys and Questionnaires , United States
2.
Am J Public Health ; 106(1): 63-9, 2016 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26562119

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the association between Medicaid coverage and the receipt of appropriate clinical care. METHODS: Using the 1999 to 2012 National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys, we identified adults aged 18 to 64 years with incomes below the federal poverty level, and compared outpatient visit frequency, awareness, and control of chronic diseases between the uninsured (n = 2975) and those who had Medicaid (n = 1485). RESULTS: Respondents with Medicaid were more likely than the uninsured to have at least 1 outpatient physician visit annually, after we controlled for patient characteristics (odds ratio [OR] = 5.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.8, 6.6). Among poor persons with evidence of hypertension, Medicaid coverage was associated with greater awareness (OR = 1.83; 95% CI = 1.26, 2.66) and control (OR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.32, 2.27) of their condition. Medicaid coverage was also associated with awareness of being overweight (OR = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.67), but not with awareness or control of diabetes or hypercholesterolemia. CONCLUSIONS: Among poor adults nationally, Medicaid coverage appears to facilitate outpatient physician care and to improve blood pressure control.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care/statistics & numerical data , Chronic Disease/economics , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Medicaid/statistics & numerical data , Medically Uninsured/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Ambulatory Care/economics , Female , Health Services Accessibility/economics , Humans , Male , Medicaid/economics , Middle Aged , Nutrition Surveys , Poverty , United States , Young Adult
3.
J Grad Med Educ ; 16(2): 202-209, 2024 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38993308

ABSTRACT

Background The "X+Y" residency scheduling model includes "X" weeks of uninterrupted inpatient or subspecialty rotations, followed by "Y" week(s) of uninterrupted outpatient rotations. The optimal ratio of X to Y is unclear. Objective Determine the impact of moving from a 6+2 to a 3+1 schedule on patient access to care, perceived quality of care, and resident/faculty satisfaction. Methods Our residency program switched from a 6+2 to a 3+1 scheduling model in July 2018. We measured access to care before and after the change using the "third next available" (TNA) metric. In June 2019, we administered a voluntary, anonymous, 20-item survey to residents, staff, and faculty who worked in resident clinic in both the 6+2 and 3+1 years. Results Patient access to appointments with their resident physician, as measured by TNA, improved significantly after the schedule change (mean 34.1 days in 6+2, mean 26.5 days in 3+1, P<.0001). Fifteen of 17 (88%) eligible residents and 13 of 24 (54%) faculty/staff filled out the voluntary anonymous survey. Surveyed residents and faculty/staff had concordant perception that the schedule change led to improvement in patient continuity, quality of care, and ability of residents to follow up on diagnostic tests and have regular interaction with clinic attendings. However, residents did not report a change in satisfaction with continuity clinic. Conclusions Changing from a 6+2 to a 3+1 schedule was associated with improvement in patient access to care. Residents and faculty/staff perceived that this schedule change improved several aspects of patient care.


Subject(s)
Appointments and Schedules , Health Services Accessibility , Internship and Residency , Humans , Surveys and Questionnaires , Quality of Health Care , Personnel Staffing and Scheduling , Faculty, Medical
5.
Am J Med ; 128(4): e23-4, 2015 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25812642
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL