Variation in dermatologist visits by sociodemographic characteristics - 18/04/17
Abstract |
Background |
Access to dermatologists is an ongoing concern for Medicaid enrollees. Understanding current use is a key step toward designing and implementing policies to improve access.
Objective |
We sought to quantify how often Medicaid enrollees visit dermatologists and receive treatment for skin-related conditions compared with patients with other coverage or without health insurance.
Methods |
We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of multiyear federal survey data (Medical Expenditure Panel Survey). The sample included Medical Expenditure Panel Survey respondents younger than 65 years from 2008 to 2012.
Results |
In unadjusted comparisons, we found that 1.4% of Medicaid enrollees had an ambulatory visit to a dermatologist annually, compared with 1.2% of uninsured individuals and 5.5% of individuals with private coverage. In adjusted models, we found that health insurance source, age, sex, race/ethnicity, and geography are associated with the likelihood of having visits to a dermatologist. Compared with individuals with private coverage, Medicaid enrollees are less likely to receive a diagnosis for a skin condition by any provider and are less than half as likely to have skin-related diagnoses made by dermatologists.
Limitations |
We have relatively few Medical Expenditure Panel Survey respondents for a subset of specific diagnoses.
Conclusions |
Our findings emphasize the need for efforts to reduce disparities in access to dermatologists.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Key words : dermatology, disparities, health care utilization, Medicaid, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey
Abbreviations used : CI, MEPS, OR
Plan
Supported by the California Healthcare Foundation, which had no role in the design or conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. |
|
Conflicts of interest: None declared. |
|
Reprints not available from the authors. |
Vol 76 - N° 5
P. 918-924 - mai 2017 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?