Otolaryngology in chicago: Perception and practice with respect to patients with public aid insurance

J. Schroeder,Heath F Dreyfuss

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.23819

IF: 2.97

2012-12-01

The Laryngoscope

Abstract:INTRODUCTION Medicaid is a needs-based social welfare program. Although Congress and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services set rules and partially fund Medicaid, each state partially funds and establishes its own standards for eligibility, benefits, and provider payment rates. In Illinois, the Medicaid reimbursement rate is 30 cents on the dollar. The Medicaid system covers 30 million children nationwide, with 61% living in households where at least one parent works. Children represent 50% of all Medicaid enrollees but account for only about 25% of all Medicaid spending. The Medicaid system and health care in general are undergoing rapid change. Access to quality affordable health care is a major problem, and both federal and state reforms have been initiated to address this problem, though with varying success. In July 2006, Illinois launched the All Kids program, designed for children in need of comprehensive affordable health insurance, regardless of family income, immigration status, or health status. This program gained national attention as the first state plan to offer universal health care coverage for children by drastically increasing the Medicaid program. Over 1.5 million Illinois children are enrolled. The primary objective of our study was to shed light on the success of this program by determining if greater access to care has been achieved and if a discrepancy exists with regard to access to otolaryngology care for patients with Medicaid versus private insurance in the Chicago area. METHODOLOGY This project was approved by the institutional review board at Children’s Memorial Hospital. We developed a 16-question survey using SurveyMonkey (SurveyMonkey, Palo Alto, CA) and emailed this survey three times over 3 months to all fulltime members of the Chicago Laryngological and Otological Society (n 1⁄4 96). Their responses were anonymous. Responders were divided into two groups: university practitioners and private practitioners/hospital-based practitioners. The responses from each group were compared. The statistical analysis was performed using the v test. P .05 was considered significant.