Dental hygienists' scope of practice regulations and preventable non-traumatic dental emergency department visits: A cross-sectional study of 10 U.S. states.

OBJECTIVES: As emergency department (ED) visits for non-traumatic dental complaints continue to rise in the United States (U.S.), some states are implementing initiatives to expand access to the oral health workforce. This study examines the associations between the 2014 Dental Hygiene Professional Practice Index (DHPPI) and preventable dental ED visits. METHODS: In 2020, we used ED data from 10 U.S. states and ordinary least squares models to examine the relationship between the states' DHPPI scores and preventable dental ED use. We stratified regressions by age to examine this relationship across different age cohorts and introduced interaction terms to assess the same relationship among rural and urban residents. RESULTS: On average, 23.8% of all non-traumatic dental ED visits were identified as preventable. Controlling for other factors, a one-point increase in DHPPI scores was associated with a decrease of 0.01 (95% CI -0.03, -0.02) preventable dental ED visits per 1000 county population in each year-quarter. In the age-stratified models, the strength of the association between DHPPI scores and preventable dental ED visits was higher in the 20 to 34 (-0.03, 95% CI -0.04, -0.02), and the 35 to 50 age cohorts (-0.17, 95% CI -0.00, -0.00). U.S. states with DHPPI scores below 60 saw significantly higher preventable dental ED visits among rural residents. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that stringent state policies regarding the dental hygienist workforce are associated with higher preventable dental ED visits in the U.S. Policy makers and stake holders must address the scope of practice policies to alleviate the burden of access to oral healthcare.

Health services utilization, out-of-pocket expenditure, and underinsurance among insured non-elderly cancer survivors in the United States, 2011-2015.

BACKGROUND: High out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure and inadequate insurance coverage may adversely affect cancer survivors. We aimed to characterize the extent and correlates of healthcare utilization, OOP expenditures, and underinsurance among insured cancer survivors. METHODS: We used 2011-2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data to identify a nationally representative sample of insured non-elderly adult (age 18-64 years) cancer survivors. We used negative binomial, two-part (logistic and Generalized Linear Model with log link and gamma distribution), and logistic regression models to quantify healthcare utilization, OOP expenditures, and underinsurance, respectively, and identified sociodemographic correlates for each outcome. RESULTS: We identified 2738 insured non-elderly cancer survivors. Adjusted average utilization of ambulatory, non-ambulatory, prescription medication, and dental services was 14.4, 0.51, 24.9, and 1.4 events per person per year, respectively. Higher ambulatory and dental services utilization were observed in older adults, females, non-Hispanic Whites, survivors with a college degree and high income, compared to their counterparts. Nearly all (97.7%) survivors had some OOP expenditures, with a mean adjusted OOP expenditure of $1552 per person per year. Adjusted mean OOP expenditures for ambulatory, non-ambulatory, prescription medication, dental, and other health services were $653, $161, $428, $194, and $83, respectively. Sociodemographic variations in service-specific OOP expenditures were generally consistent with respective utilization patterns. Overall, 8.8% of the survivors were underinsured. CONCLUSION: Many insured non-elderly cancer survivors allocate a substantial portion of their OOP expenditure for healthcare-related services and experience financial vulnerability, resulting in nearly 8.8% of the survivors being underinsured. Utilization of healthcare services varies across sociodemographic groups.

Outcomes Associated With Early Preventive Dental Care Among Medicaid-Enrolled Children in Alabama.

Importance: There is a recommendation for children to have a dental home by 6 months of age, but there is limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of early preventive dental care or whether primary care providers (PCPs) can deliver it. Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of preventive dental care in reducing caries-related treatment visits among Medicaid enrollees. Design, Setting, and Participants: High-dimensional propensity scores were used to address selection bias for a retrospective cohort study of children continuously enrolled in coverage from the Alabama Medicaid Agency from birth between 2008 and 2012, adjusting for demographics, access to care, and general health service use. Exposures: Children receiving preventive dental care prior to age 2 years from PCPs or dentists vs no preventive dental care. Main Outcome and Measures: Two-part models estimated caries-related treatment and expenditures. Results: Among 19 658 eligible children, 25.8% (n = 3658) received early preventive dental care, of whom 44% were black, 37.6% were white, and 16.3% were Hispanic. Compared with matched children without early preventive dental care, children with dentist-delivered preventive dental care more frequently had a subsequent caries-related treatment (20.6% vs 11.3%, P < .001), higher rate of visits (0.29 vs 0.15 per child-year, P < .001), and greater dental expenditures ($168 vs $87 per year, P < .001). Dentist-delivered preventive dental care was associated with an increase in the expected number of caries-related treatment visits by 0.14 per child per year (95% CI, 0.11-0.16) and caries-related treatment expenditures by $40.77 per child per year (95% CI, $30.48-$51.07). Primary care provider-delivered preventive dental care did not significantly affect caries-related treatment use or expenditures. Conclusions and Relevance: Children with early preventive care visits from dentists were more likely to have subsequent dental care, including caries-related treatment, and greater expenditures than children without preventive dental care. There was no association with subsequent caries-related treatment and preventive dental care from PCPs. We observed no evidence of a benefit of early preventive dental care, regardless of the provider. Additional research beyond administrative data may be necessary to elucidate any benefits of early preventive dental care.

Preventive Dental Care and Long-Term Dental Outcomes among ALL Kids Enrollees.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether early or regular preventive dental visit (PDV) reduces restorative or emergency dental care and costs for low-income children. STUDY SETTING: Enrollees during 1998-2012 in the Alabama CHIP program, ALL Kids. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using claims data for children continuously enrolled in ALL Kids for at least 4 years. Analyses are conducted separately for children 0-4 years, 4-9 years, and >9 years. For 0-4 years, the intervention of interest is whether they have at least one PDV before age 3. For the other two age groups, interventions of interest are if they have regular PDVs during each of the first 3 years, and if they have claims for a sealant in the first 3 years. Outcomes-namely restorative and emergency dental service and costs-are measured in the fourth year. To account for selection into PDV, a high-dimensional propensity scores approach is utilized. DATA EXTRACTION: Claims data were obtained from ALL Kids. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Only sealants are associated with a reduced likelihood of using restorative and emergency services and costs. CONCLUSIONS: Whether PDVs without sealants actually reduce restorative/emergency pediatric dental services is questionable. Further research into benefits of PDV is needed.

Enrollment, expenditures, and utilization after CHIP expansion: evidence from Alabama.

OBJECTIVE: In October 2009, Alabama expanded eligibility in its Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), known as ALL Kids, from 200% to 300% of the federal poverty level (FPL). We examined the expenditures, utilization, and enrollment behavior of expansion enrollees relative to traditional enrollees (100-200% FPL) and assessed the impact of expansion on total program expenditures. METHODS: We compared unadjusted mean person-month-level expenditures and utilization of expansion enrollees and various categories of existing enrollees and used a 2-part modeling strategy to examine differences after controlling for enrollee characteristics. We used probit models to examine adjusted differences in reenrollment behavior by eligibility category. RESULTS: Expansion enrollees had higher total monthly expenditures ($10.33, P < .05) than traditional ALL Kids enrollees, including higher outpatient ($5.35, P < .001) and dental ($0.85, P < .01) expenditures but lower emergency department (-$1.34, P < .001) expenditures. Expansion enrollees had marginally lower utilization of emergency department services for low-severity conditions and higher utilization of physician outpatient visits. Expansion enrollees were 4.47 percentage points (P < .001) more likely to reenroll before their contract expiration date than traditional ALL Kids enrollees. As of October 2012, expansion enrollees accounted for approximately 20% of ALL Kids enrollment and expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: The expansion population was characterized by moderately higher health expenditures and utilization, and more persistent enrollment relative to fee group enrollees who are subject to the same levels of cost sharing and annual premiums. Although states are prohibited from changing program eligibility until 2019, the costs associated with the expansion population will be important to future policy decisions.

Measuring prevention more broadly: an empirical assessment of CHIPRA core measures.

OBJECTIVE: To assess limitations of using select Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) core claims-based measures in capturing the preventive services that may occur in the clinical setting. METHODS: We use claims data from ALL Kids, the Alabama Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), to calculate each of four quality measures under two alternative definitions: (1) the formal claims-based guidelines outlined in the CMS Technical Specifications, and (2) a broader definition of appropriate claims for identifying preventive service use. Additionally, we examine the extent to which these two claims-based approaches to measuring quality differ in assessments of disparities in quality of care across subgroups of children. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in rates were identified when comparing the two definitions for calculating each quality measure. Measure differences ranged from a 1.9 percentage point change for measure #13 (receiving preventive dental services) to a 25.5 percentage point change for measure #12 (adolescent well-care visit). We were able to identify subgroups based upon family income, rural location, and chronic disease status with differences in quality within the core measures. However, some identified disparities were sensitive to the approach used to calculate the quality measure. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in CHIP design and structure, across states and over time, may limit the usefulness of select claims-based core measures for detecting disparities accurately. Additional guidance and research may be necessary before reporting of the measures becomes mandatory.

Effectiveness of preventive dental visits in reducing nonpreventive dental visits and expenditures.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although preventive dental visits are considered important for maintaining pediatric oral health, there is relatively little research showing that they reduce subsequent nonpreventive dental visits or costs. At least 1 study seemed to find that early preventive dental care is associated with more restorative and emergency visits. Previous studies are limited by their inability to account for unmeasurable factors that may lead children to "select" into using both more preventive and nonpreventive dental care. We used econometric techniques that minimize selection bias to assess the effectiveness of preventive dental care in reducing subsequent nonpreventive dental service utilization among children. METHODS: Using data from Alabama's Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), 1998-2010., a cohort study of children's dental service utilization was conducted. Outcomes were 1-year lagged nonpreventive dental care and expenditures, and overall dental and medical expenditures. Children who were continuously enrolled for at least 3 years were included. Separate models were estimated for children aged <8 years (n = 14 972) and those aged ≥8 years (n = 21 833). RESULTS: More preventive visits were associated with fewer subsequent nonpreventive dental visits and lower nonpreventive dental expenditures for both groups. However, more preventive visits did not reduce overall dental or medical (inclusive of dental) expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive dental visits can reduce subsequent nonpreventive visits and expenditures for children continuously enrolled in CHIP. However, they may not reduce overall program costs. Effective empirical research in this area must continue to address unobserved confounders and selection issues.

Did copayment changes reduce health service utilization among CHIP enrollees? Evidence from Alabama.

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether health care utilization changed among enrollees in Alabama's CHIP program, ALL Kids, following copayment increases at the beginning of fiscal year 2004. DATA SOURCES: Data on all ALL Kids enrollees over 1999-2009 are obtained from claims files and the state's administrative database. STUDY DESIGN: We use pooled month-level data for all enrollees and conduct covariate-adjusted segmented regression models. Health services considered are inpatient care, emergency department (ED) visits, brand-name prescription drugs, generic prescription drugs, physician office visits and outpatient-services, ambulance services, allergy treatments, and non-preventive dental services. Physician well-visits, preventive dental services, and service use by Native-Americans--which saw no copayment increases--serve as counterfactuals. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: There are significant declines in utilization for inpatient care, physician visits, brand-name medications, and ED visits following the copayment increases. By and large, utilization did not decline, or declined only temporarily, for those services and for those enrollees that who not subject to increased copayments. CONCLUSIONS: Copayment increases reduced utilization of many health services among ALL Kids enrollees. Concerns remain regarding the long-term health consequences to low-income children of copayment-induced reductions in health care utilization.