The relationship between state capacity measures and allocations to children and youth with special needs within the MCH Services Block Grant.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between state economic, political and health services capacity and state allocations for Title V capacity for Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs (CSHCN). METHODS: Numerous datasets were reviewed to select 13 state capacity measures: per capita Gross State Product (economic); governor's institutional powers and legislative professionalism (political); percent of Children with Special Health Care Needs, percent of uninsured children, percent of children enrolled in Medicaid, state health funds as a percent of Gross State Product, ratio of Medicaid to Medicare fees, percent of children in Medicaid enrolled in managed care, per capita Medicaid expenditures for children, ratios of pediatricians/family practitioners and pediatric subspecialists per 10,000 children, and categorical versus functional state definition of CSHCN (health). Five measures of Title V capacity were selected from the Title V Information System, four that reflect allocation decisions by states and the fifth a state assessment of the role of families in Title V decision-making ratio of state/federal Title V spending; per capita state Title V spending; percent of state Title V spending on CSHCN; state per child spending on CSHCN; and, state Title V Family Participation Score. OLS regression was used to model the association between state and Title V capacity measures. RESULTS: The percentage of the state's gross state product (GSP) accounted for by state health funds and the per capita GSP were positively associated with the per capita expenditures on all children. The percentage of CSHCN in the state was negatively associated with the ratio of state to federal support for Title V and the per child expenditures on CSHCN. Lower family participation scores were associated with having a hybrid legislature; however, higher family participation scores were found in states using a functional definition of special needs. CONCLUSIONS: Measures of state economic, political and health services capacity do not demonstrate consistent and significant associations with the Title V capacity measures that we explored. States with greater economic capacity appear to devote more financial resources to Title V. Our finding that per capita CSHCN expenditures are negatively associated with the percentage of CSHCN in the state suggests that there is an upper limit on what states devote to CSHCN. Our current understanding of what state factors influence Title V capacity remains limited.