4.2 Article

The Influence of Patient Insurance Status on Access to Outpatient Orthopedic Care for Flexor Tendon Lacerations

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME
卷 39, 期 3, 页码 527-533

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.10.031

关键词

Access to care; flexor tendon laceration; insurance; Medicaid; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To determine the effect of patient insurance status on access to outpatient orthopedic care for acute flexor tendon lacerations. Methods The research team contacted 100 randomly chosen orthopedic surgery practices in North Carolina by phone on 2 different occasions separated by 3 weeks. The research team attempted to obtain an appointment for a fictitious 28-year-old man with an acute flexor tendon laceration. Insurance status was presented as Medicaid in 1 call and private insurance in the other call. Ability of an office to schedule an appointment was recorded. Results Of the 100 practices, 13 were excluded because they did not perform hand surgery, which left 87 practices. The patient in the scenario with Medicaid was offered an appointment significantly less often (67%) than the patient in the scenario with private insurance (82%). The odds of the patient with private insurance obtaining an appointment were 2.2 times greater than the odds of the Medicaid patient obtaining an appointment. The Medicaid patient was more likely not to be offered an appointment owing to the lack of a hand surgeon at a practice (28% of appointment denials) than privately insured patients (13% of appointment denials). Conclusions For patients with acute flexor tendon lacerations, insurance status has an important role in the ability to obtain an orthopedic clinic appointment. We found that patients with Medicaid have more barriers to accessing care for a flexor tendon laceration than patients with private insurance. Copyright (C) 2014 by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据