Medicaid and CHIP
Most Physicians Serve Covered Children but Have Difficulty Referring Them for Specialty Care Gao ID: GAO-11-624 June 30, 2011Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)--two joint federal-state health care programs for certain low-income individuals--play a critical role in addressing the health care needs of children. The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 required GAO to study children's access to care under Medicaid and CHIP, including information on physicians' willingness to serve children covered by Medicaid and CHIP. GAO assessed (1) the extent to which physicians are enrolled and serving children in Medicaid and CHIP and accepting these and other children as new patients, and (2) the extent to which physicians experience difficulty referring children in Medicaid and CHIP for specialty care, as compared to privately insured children. GAO conducted a national survey of nonfederal primary and specialty care physicians who serve children, and asked about their enrollment in state Medicaid and CHIP programs, whether they served and accepted Medicaid and CHIP and privately insured children, and the extent to which they experienced difficulty referring children in Medicaid and CHIP and privately insured children to specialty care. GAO also interviewed officials with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that oversees Medicaid and CHIP.
Most physicians are enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP and serving children covered by these programs. On the basis of its 2010 national survey of physicians, GAO estimates that more than three-quarters of primary and specialty care physicians are enrolled as Medicaid and CHIP providers and serving children in those programs. A larger share of primary care physicians (83 percent) are participating in the programs--enrolled as a provider and serving Medicaid and CHIP children--than specialty physicians (71 percent). Further, a larger share of rural primary care physicians (94 percent) is participating in the programs than urban primary care physicians (81 percent). Nationwide, physicians participating in Medicaid and CHIP are generally more willing to accept privately insured children as new patients than Medicaid and CHIP children. For example, about 79 percent are accepting all privately insured children as new patients, compared to about 47 percent for children in Medicaid and CHIP. Nonparticipating physicians--those not enrolled or not serving Medicaid and CHIP children--most commonly cite administrative issues such as low and delayed reimbursement and provider enrollment requirements as limiting their willingness to serve children in these programs. Physicians experience much greater difficulty referring children in Medicaid and CHIP to specialty care, compared to privately insured children. On the basis of the physician survey, more than three times as many participating physicians--84 percent--experience difficulty referring Medicaid and CHIP children to specialty care as experience difficulty referring privately insured children--26 percent. For all children, physicians most frequently cited difficulty with specialty referrals for mental health, dermatology, and neurology. In its comments on a draft of this report, HHS stated that CMS is committed to improving physician participation and that this report will be of value as CMS works with the states to ensure beneficiary access to care.
GAO-11-624, Medicaid and CHIP: Most Physicians Serve Covered Children but Have Difficulty Referring Them for Specialty Care
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-624
entitled 'Medicaid and CHIP: Most Physicians Serve Covered Children
but Have Difficulty Referring Them for Specialty Care' which was
released on June 30, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Committees:
June 2011:
Medicaid and CHIP:
Most Physicians Serve Covered Children but Have Difficulty Referring
Them for Specialty Care:
GAO-11-624:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-624, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Medicaid and the Children‘s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)-”two joint
federal-state health care programs for certain low-income individuals”-
play a critical role in addressing the health care needs of children.
The Children‘s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
required GAO to study children‘s access to care under Medicaid and
CHIP, including information on physicians‘ willingness to serve
children covered by Medicaid and CHIP.
GAO assessed (1) the extent to which physicians are enrolled and
serving children in Medicaid and CHIP and accepting these and other
children as new patients, and (2) the extent to which physicians
experience difficulty referring children in Medicaid and CHIP for
specialty care, as compared to privately insured children. GAO
conducted a national survey of nonfederal primary and specialty care
physicians who serve children, and asked about their enrollment in
state Medicaid and CHIP programs, whether they served and accepted
Medicaid and CHIP and privately insured children, and the extent to
which they experienced difficulty referring children in Medicaid and
CHIP and privately insured children to specialty care. GAO also
interviewed officials with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS), an agency within the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) that oversees Medicaid and CHIP.
What GAO Found:
Most physicians are enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP and serving children
covered by these programs. On the basis of its 2010 national survey of
physicians, GAO estimates that more than three-quarters of primary and
specialty care physicians are enrolled as Medicaid and CHIP providers
and serving children in those programs. A larger share of primary care
physicians (83 percent) are participating in the programs”-enrolled as
a provider and serving Medicaid and CHIP children-”than specialty
physicians (71 percent). Further, a larger share of rural primary care
physicians (94 percent) are participating in the programs than urban
primary care physicians (81 percent). Nationwide, physicians
participating in Medicaid and CHIP are generally more willing to
accept privately insured children as new patients than Medicaid and
CHIP children. For example, about 79 percent are accepting all
privately insured children as new patients, compared to about 47
percent for children in Medicaid and CHIP. Nonparticipating physicians”
those not enrolled or not serving Medicaid and CHIP children”most
commonly cite administrative issues such as low and delayed
reimbursement and provider enrollment requirements as limiting their
willingness to serve children in these programs.
Physicians experience much greater difficulty referring children in
Medicaid and CHIP to specialty care, compared to privately insured
children. On the basis of the physician survey, more than three times
as many participating physicians”84 percent”experience difficulty
referring Medicaid and CHIP children to specialty care as experience
difficulty referring privately insured children”26 percent. For all
children, physicians most frequently cited difficulty with specialty
referrals for mental health, dermatology, and neurology.
Figure: Acceptance of New Patients and Difficulty Referring Children
for Specialty Consultations:
[Refer to PDF for image: 4 pie-charts]
Acceptance of new patients:
Medicaid and CHIP:
All: 47%;
Some: 44%;
None: 9%.
Private Insurance:
All: 79%;
Some: 18%;
None: 3%.
Difficulties with specialty referrals:
Medicaid and CHIP:
Great difficulty: 34%;
Some difficulty: 50%;
No difficulty: 16%.
Private Insurance:
Great difficulty: 1%;
Some difficulty: 25%;
No difficulty: 75%.
Source: GAO.
Note: Numbers may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
[End of figure]
In its comments on a draft of this report, HHS stated that CMS is
committed to improving physician participation and that this report
will be of value as CMS works with the states to ensure beneficiary
access to care.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-624] or key
components. For more information, contact Katherine Iritani, (202) 512-
7114, iritanik@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Most Physicians Are Enrolled and Serving Children in Medicaid and
CHIP, but Are Generally More Willing to Accept Privately Insured
Children as New Patients:
More Than Three Times as Many Participating Physicians Have Difficulty
Referring Children in Medicaid and CHIP to Specialty Care as Have
Difficulty Referring Privately Insured Children:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology for GAO Survey of Primary Care and
Specialty Care Physicians:
Appendix II: 2010 Physician Survey Results:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human
Services:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Physician Participation in Medicaid and CHIP, by Physician
Type:
Table 2: Response Rates for GAO's Survey of Primary Care and Specialty
Care Physicians:
Table 3: Gender of Physicians Who Responded to the Survey:
Table 4: Employment of Nurse Practitioners or Physician Assistants to
Provide Direct Patient Care, among Physicians Who Responded to the
Survey:
Table 5: Percentage of All Physicians Participating in Medicaid and
CHIP (Enrolled as a Medicaid and CHIP Provider and Serving Children),
Nationally:
Table 6: Percentage of All Physicians Participating in Medicaid and
CHIP (Enrolled as a Medicaid and CHIP Provider and Serving Children),
by Physician Type:
Table 7: Percentage of All Primary Care Physicians Participating in
Medicaid and CHIP (Enrolled as a Medicaid and CHIP Provider and
Serving Children), by Geographic Location:
Table 8: Percentage of Participating Physicians Serving Children in
Medicaid and CHIP by Fee-for-Service and Managed Care Delivery Models,
in Areas Where Both Delivery Models Are Available:
Table 9: Extent to Which Participating Physicians Are Accepting New
Patients (Age 0-18), by Child's Insurance Type:
Table 10: Extent to Which Participating Physicians Are Accepting New
Patients (Age 0-18), by Child's Insurance Type, and by Physician Type:
Table 11: Extent to Which Participating Primary Care Physicians Are
Accepting New Patients (Age 0-18), by Child's Insurance Type, and by
Geographic Location:
Table 12: Percentage of Participating Physicians Accepting New
Medicaid and CHIP Patients (Age 0-18), by Fee-for-Service and Managed
Care Delivery Model in Areas Where Both Delivery Models Are Available:
Table 13: Participating Physicians' Wait Times for Next Available
Appointment for New Patients (Age 0-18), by Insurance Type:
Table 14: Participating Physicians' Wait Times for Next Available
Appointment for New Patients (Age 0-18), by Insurance Type and
Physician Type:
Table 15: Participating Primary Care Physicians' Wait Times for Next
Available Appointment for New Patients (Age 0-18), by Insurance Type
and Geographic Location:
Table 16: Percentage of All Participating Physicians' Child Patients
(Age 0-18) in Medicaid and CHIP:
Table 17: Percentage of Participating Physicians' Child Patients (Age
0-18) in Medicaid and CHIP, by Physician Type:
Table 18: Percentage of Participating Primary Care Physicians' Child
Patients (Age 0-18) in Medicaid and CHIP, by Geographic Location:
Table 19: Percentage of Participating Physicians' Child Patients (Age
0-18) in Medicaid and CHIP, by Acceptance of Medicaid and CHIP
Patients (Age 0-18):
Table 20: Extent to Which Certain Factors Limit Participating and
Nonparticipating Physicians' Own Willingness to Serve Children (Age 0-
18) in Medicaid and CHIP:
Table 21: Extent to Which Certain Factors Limit Physicians' Own
Willingness to Serve Children (Age 0-18) in Medicaid and CHIP, by
Participating Physicians and Nonparticipating Physicians:
Table 22: Level of Difficulty Referring Children for Specialty Care
for Participating Physicians, by Child's Insurance Type:
Table 23: Comparison of Participating Primary Care and Specialty Care
Physicians' Level of Difficulty Referring Children for Specialty Care,
by Child's Insurance Type:
Table 24: Comparison of Participating Rural and Urban Primary Care
Physicians' Level of Difficulty Referring Children for Specialty Care,
by Child's Insurance Type:
Figures:
Figure 1: Primary Care Physicians per 1,000 Children 19 Years of Age
and Younger, 2007:
Figure 2: Acceptance of New Patients (Age 0-18) among Physicians
Participating in Medicaid and CHIP, by Child's Insurance Type:
Figure 3: Comparison of Participating Primary Care and Specialty Care
Physicians' Acceptance of New Patients (Age 0-18), by Child's
Insurance Type:
Figure 4: Comparison of Participating Rural and Urban Primary Care
Physicians' Acceptance of New Patients (Age 0-18), by Child's
Insurance Type:
Figure 5: Percentage of Child Patients Covered by Medicaid and CHIP,
among Participating Physicians:
Figure 6: Level of Difficulty Referring Children for Specialty Care
among Physicians Participating in Medicaid and CHIP, by Child's
Insurance Type:
Figure 7: Comparison of Participating Primary Care and Specialty Care
Physicians' Level of Difficulty Referring Children for Specialty Care,
by Child's Insurance Type:
Figure 8: Comparison of Participating Rural and Urban Primary Care
Physicians' Level of Difficulty Referring Children for Specialty Care,
by Child's Insurance Type:
Figure 9: Workplace Setting of Physicians Who Responded to the Survey:
Figure 10: Responding Physicians' Patients Who Are Children (Age 0-18):
Figure 11: Number of Physicians Who Responded to the Survey, by Strata
and Region:
Abbreviations:
AMA: American Medical Association:
CHIP: Children's Health Insurance Program:
CHIPRA: Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of
2009:
CMS: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services:
EPSDT: Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
MEPS: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey:
PPACA: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:
[End of section]
June 30, 2011:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
The Honorable Max Baucus:
Chairman:
The Honorable Orrin Hatch:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Finance:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Fred Upton:
Chairman:
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Energy and Commerce:
House of Representatives:
Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)--two joint
federal-state health care programs for certain low-income individuals--
play a critical role in addressing the health care needs of children.
In 2010, more than 42 million children received health care coverage
through Medicaid or CHIP, and this number is expected to increase.
[Footnote 1] But simply having coverage does not ensure that a
beneficiary can access physicians and needed services. Access to
health care for children in Medicaid and CHIP is affected, in part, by
the number of physicians who are participating--that is, who are not
only enrolled in state Medicaid and CHIP programs, but also providing
services to these children.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), an agency within
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), oversees state
Medicaid and CHIP programs at the federal level, including monitoring
children's access to primary care and specialty care. Under broad
federal requirements, states administer the day-to-day operations of
their programs, including enrolling physicians, establishing provider
payment rates, and paying for services provided to program
beneficiaries. States generally provide Medicaid and CHIP services
through two service delivery and financing models--fee-for-service and
managed care. While physicians and other providers must enroll with
states as Medicaid and CHIP providers to receive payment for services
provided under these programs, enrollment does not require physicians
to serve a specific number of program beneficiaries or accept all
program beneficiaries seeking care.[Footnote 2]
The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
(CHIPRA) required that we study Medicaid-and CHIP-covered children's
access to primary and specialty care, including information on
providers' willingness to serve these children.[Footnote 3] In this
report, we address:
1. the extent to which physicians are enrolled as Medicaid and CHIP
providers and serving children in these programs, and the extent to
which physicians are accepting these and other children as new
patients; and:
2. the extent to which physicians experience difficulty referring
children in Medicaid and CHIP for specialty care, as compared to
privately insured children.
To answer our two research objectives, we conducted a national survey
of physicians who serve children. We surveyed a nationally
representative sample of physicians from each of three groups--
specialty care physicians, primary care physicians in urban areas, and
primary care physicians in rural areas--all of whom were practicing
physicians in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and
age 65 or younger, provided direct patient care to children (age 0-
18), and were not federal employees.[Footnote 4] We received responses
from 932 eligible physicians, and had a response rate of 35 percent.
We performed a nonresponse bias analysis to determine whether any bias
was introduced in the results due to the absence of responses from
some members of the sample. We also performed additional analysis of
the survey data to determine whether certain characteristics, such as
age, gender, and the percentage of children served, influenced
responses to our survey questions. We found that physicians'
willingness to serve and accept children in Medicaid and CHIP was not
influenced by these factors. Our survey methodology allowed us to
generalize our results to the total population of physicians who serve
children in the United States, and to four groups of physicians who
serve children: primary care physicians, specialty care physicians,
rural primary care physicians, and urban primary care physicians.
[Footnote 5] The survey was administered from August 5, 2010, to
October 31, 2010. All estimates are based on self-reported information
from the survey respondents and have a margin of error of plus or
minus 5 percent or less at the 95 percent confidence level, unless
otherwise noted. (For more information on the scope and methodology of
our survey, see appendix I.) The survey included questions about
physicians' enrollment in state Medicaid and CHIP programs, whether
they serve and accept children (age 0-18) in Medicaid and CHIP as new
patients, the share of their child patients that are covered by
Medicaid and CHIP, whether they experience difficulty referring
children to specialists, and factors that may affect their own
willingness to participate in Medicaid and CHIP.[Footnote 6] We also
reviewed related literature on physician supply and participation in
public programs, including Medicaid. In addition, we reviewed certain
provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)
that may affect physicians' participation in the program, and
interviewed officials from CMS and selected provider associations.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2009 through June
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
Medicaid and CHIP are the nation's largest health care financing
programs for low-income children, accounting for about $79 billion in
shared federal and state expenditures in 2009, the most recent year
for which data are available.[Footnote 7] Medicaid is a federal-state
program for certain categories of low-income children, families, and
individuals. In fiscal year 2010, 34.4 million children had health
coverage through Medicaid. CHIP is also a federal-state program and
provides health care coverage to children 18 years of age and younger
living in low-income families whose incomes exceed the eligibility
requirements for Medicaid. In fiscal year 2010, 7.7 million children
had health care coverage through CHIP.[Footnote 8]
State Medicaid and CHIP programs are required to cover certain groups
of individuals and offer a minimum set of services, including services
provided by primary care and specialty care physicians, and services
provided in hospitals, clinics, and other settings. States are also
responsible for enrolling physicians as Medicaid and CHIP providers.
For Medicaid programs, federal law establishes that state Medicaid
payments to providers must be sufficient to enroll enough providers so
that care and services are available to beneficiaries at least to the
extent that they are available to the general population in the same
geographic area.[Footnote 9] On May 6, 2011, CMS issued a proposed
regulation regarding this requirement.[Footnote 10] The proposed
regulation is intended to promote standardized and transparent methods
for states to review and monitor Medicaid beneficiaries' access to
covered services delivered under a fee-for-service delivery model.
Under the proposed regulation, state monitoring of Medicaid
beneficiaries' access is anticipated to be an ongoing and evolving
process. The proposed regulation describes different approaches states
may use to assess Medicaid beneficiaries' access to care, and
identifies different actions states may take to address access
problems. In addition, the proposed regulation includes a requirement
for states to annually assess Medicaid beneficiaries' access to a
different subset of covered services and then make the results of
these assessments available to the public.[Footnote 11] Figure 1
illustrates how the supply of primary care physicians varies among
states and within states.
Figure 1: Primary Care Physicians per 1,000 Children 19 Years of Age
and Younger, 2007:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map]
Map depicts the following geographical areas:
Physicians per 1,000 children:
Over 3.50;
2.75 to 3.50;
2.00 to 2.74;
1.25 to 1.99;
Less than 1.25.
Sources: Health Resources and Services Administration and Census
Bureau.
Note: The county-level ratios presented in this figure are based on
the number of U.S. physicians age 65 and younger with a primary
specialty in general practice, family medicine, internal medicine,
pediatrics, obstetrics-gynecology, general preventive medicine, or
public health, and the number of children age 19 and under. For this
analysis, we used 0-19 years as the age range for children because
this is the range included in Census Bureau data. Data from 2007 were
the most recent available.
[End of figure]
Like all children, children in Medicaid and CHIP depend on physicians
and other health care providers for regular health screenings to
monitor their health, development, and growth. In addition to primary
health care needs, these screenings are important in identifying
conditions that may warrant specialty care and services. Medicaid
programs are required to provide regular health screenings, under the
benefit known as Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and
Treatment (EPSDT) services, for eligible children.[Footnote 12] We and
others have reported, however, that many children in Medicaid and CHIP
are not receiving well-child checkups, all required health screening
services, or needed specialty services. For example:
* In August 2009, we reported that, on the basis of parents' reports
in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), about 40 percent of
children in Medicaid and CHIP had not had a well-child checkup over a
2-year period.[Footnote 13]
* In May 2010, HHS's Office of Inspector General reported that in nine
states, three of four children in Medicaid did not receive all
required covered health screening services.[Footnote 14]
* In April 2011, on the basis of MEPS, we reported that for 12 percent
of children in Medicaid and CHIP 17 years of age and younger who
needed health care services, such as tests or treatments, their
families had difficulties accessing those services. In addition, an
estimated 24 percent of children in Medicaid and CHIP 17 years of age
and younger who needed specialists had problems accessing specialty
services.[Footnote 15]
We also reported, in April 2011, that monitoring access to specialty
care for children in Medicaid and CHIP was important because the
National Survey of Children's Health--which is based on responses from
parents or guardians--showed that these children had problems
accessing needed services. We also found that the required state
reports submitted to CMS regarding services provided to children in
Medicaid lacked detail. For example, the reports do not indicate
whether children referred to providers for treatment actually receive
the services they need. We recommended that the Administrator of CMS
work with states to identify additional improvements that could be
made to the annual reports that states are required to submit to CMS,
including options for capturing information on children's receipt of
the services for which they are referred. CMS agreed with our
recommendations.
Most Physicians Are Enrolled and Serving Children in Medicaid and
CHIP, but Are Generally More Willing to Accept Privately Insured
Children as New Patients:
On the basis of our survey of physicians, we estimate that nationally
more than three-quarters of primary and specialty care physicians are
enrolled as Medicaid and CHIP providers and serving children covered
by these programs. These participating physicians are generally more
willing to accept privately insured children as new patients than
children in Medicaid and CHIP. In addition, the percentage of
physicians accepting children in Medicaid and CHIP is similar to the
percentage of physicians accepting uninsured children. Participating
physicians do not appear to show a preference when scheduling
appointments for new patients, as the reported wait times for new
appointments are generally the same for privately insured children and
children in Medicaid and CHIP. We also found that for most
participating physicians, children in Medicaid and CHIP represent less
than 20 percent of the children they serve. Physicians not enrolled or
not serving children in these programs often cited administrative
issues related to reimbursement and provider enrollment requirements
as factors limiting their willingness to serve these children.
More Than Three-quarters of Physicians Are Enrolled and Serving
Children in Medicaid and CHIP:
On the basis of physicians' responses to our survey, we estimate that
nationally 78 percent of physicians are enrolled as Medicaid and CHIP
providers and serving children in these programs. A larger share of
primary care physicians than specialty care physicians are
participating in Medicaid and CHIP--that is, enrolled and serving
children in Medicaid and CHIP. Among primary care physicians,
participation in Medicaid and CHIP is higher in rural areas than in
urban areas. Overall, the proportion of physicians participating in
Medicaid and CHIP ranged from a low of 71 percent for specialty care
physicians to a high of 94 percent for primary care physicians in
rural areas. (See table 1.)
Table 1: Physician Participation in Medicaid and CHIP, by Physician
Type:
Physician type: Primary care physician (nationally);
Percentage participating in Medicaid and CHIP: 83%;
Percentage not participating in Medicaid and CHIP: 17%;
Total: 100%.
Physician type: Urban primary care physician;
Percentage participating in Medicaid and CHIP: 81%;
Percentage not participating in Medicaid and CHIP: 19%;
Total: 100%.
Physician type: Rural primary care physician;
Percentage participating in Medicaid and CHIP: 94%;
Percentage not participating in Medicaid and CHIP: 6%;
Total: 100%.
Physician type: Specialty care physician (nationally);
Percentage participating in Medicaid and CHIP: 71%;
Percentage not participating in Medicaid and CHIP: 29%;
Total: 100%.
Physician type: All physicians;
Percentage participating in Medicaid and CHIP: 78%;
Percentage not participating in Medicaid and CHIP: 22%;
Total: 100%.
Source: GAO.
Note: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and CHIP
providers and serving children in one or both of these programs. The
sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians in
the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
[End of table]
Physicians who participate in Medicaid and CHIP do not appear to show
a preference for a particular delivery model. In areas where both
managed care and fee-for-service delivery models exist for these
programs, 78 percent of participating physicians serve Medicaid and
CHIP children in both delivery models.[Footnote 16] Among
participating physicians, 10 percent only serve children under the fee-
for-service model, and 8 percent only serve children in the managed
care model. (For additional data on physicians' participation in
Medicaid and CHIP, including estimates of the percentage of
participating physicians serving children in Medicaid and CHIP by
delivery model, and the lower and upper bounds of all estimates on
physician participation, see appendix II, tables 5-8.)
Physicians Participating in Medicaid and CHIP Are Generally More
Willing to Accept Privately Insured Children as New Patients Than
Children in Medicaid and CHIP:
Although most participating physicians are accepting children in
Medicaid and CHIP as new patients, they are generally more willing to
accept privately insured children as new patients. For example, about
8 of 10 participating physicians are accepting all privately insured
children, compared to less than 5 of 10 accepting all children
enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP. About 1 of 10 participating physicians
are not accepting any children in Medicaid and CHIP as new patients,
compared to about 1 of 30 who are not accepting any privately insured
children as new patients. (See figure 2.) Participating physicians
were generally more willing to accept privately insured children than
Medicaid and CHIP children in each of the physician types we analyzed:
primary care physicians, specialty care physicians, and primary care
physicians in urban and rural areas.
Figure 2: Acceptance of New Patients (Age 0-18) among Physicians
Participating in Medicaid and CHIP, by Child's Insurance Type:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 pie-charts]
Medicaid and CHIP:
All: 47%;
Some: 44%;
None: 9%.
Private Insurance:
All: 79%;
Some: 18%;
None: 3%.
Source: GAO.
Notes: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and
CHIP providers and serving children in one or both of these programs.
The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians
in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
Numbers may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
The differences between physician responses for children covered by
Medicaid and CHIP and for privately insured children are statistically
significant.
[End of figure]
Primary and Specialty Care Physicians:
Both primary care physicians and specialty care physicians are more
willing to accept privately insured children as new patients than
children in Medicaid and CHIP. (See figure 3.) For example, for both
primary care physicians and specialty care physicians the percentage
of participating physicians who accept all privately insured children
as new patients is about 30 percent higher than the percentage who
accept all children in Medicaid and CHIP.[Footnote 17] (For additional
data on acceptance of new patients by child's insurance and physician
type, including estimates of physicians' acceptance of uninsured
children, and the lower and upper bounds of all estimates, see
appendix II, tables 9 and 10.)
Figure 3: Comparison of Participating Primary Care and Specialty Care
Physicians' Acceptance of New Patients (Age 0-18), by Child's
Insurance Type:
[Refer to PDF for image: 4 pie-charts]
Primary care physicians:
Medicaid- and CHIP-covered children:
All: 45%;
Some: 43%;
None: 12%.
Privately insured children:
All: 77%;
Some: 19%;
None: 4%.
Specialty care physicians:
Medicaid- and CHIP-covered children:
All: 51%[A];
Some: 45%[A];
None: 4%.
Privately insured children:
All: 84%;
Some: 16%;
None: 1%.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Notes: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and
CHIP providers and serving children in one or both of these programs.
The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians
in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
Numbers may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
[A] The confidence interval for the estimate is plus or minus 7
percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of figure]
Similarly, a March 2011 report found that the percentage of primary
care physicians who were accepting all or most Medicaid patients--
adults and children--was considerably lower than the percentage
accepting all or most privately insured patients.[Footnote 18] This
study also found that the relative supply of primary care physicians
did not affect physician willingness to accept new Medicaid patients.
Specifically, primary care physicians in states with fewer primary
care physicians per capita were as willing to accept new Medicaid
patients as primary care physicians in states with more primary care
physicians per capita.[Footnote 19]
Physicians in Rural and Urban Areas:
As illustrated in figure 4, primary care physicians in urban and rural
areas are more willing to accept privately insured children as new
patients than children in Medicaid and CHIP; however, rural primary
care physicians are more willing than urban primary care physicians to
accept children in Medicaid and CHIP as new patients. In rural areas,
the percentage of participating primary care physicians who will
accept all privately insured children as new patients is about 20
percent higher than the share willing to accept all children in
Medicaid and CHIP. In urban areas, the difference is about 30
percent.[Footnote 20] Further, the percentage of primary care
physicians in rural areas who are willing to accept all children in
Medicaid and CHIP as new patients (62 percent) is much higher than the
percentage in urban areas (43 percent).[Footnote 21] (For additional
data on acceptance of new patients by child's insurance and primary
care physician's geographic location, including estimates of physician
acceptance of uninsured children, the lower and upper bounds of all
estimates, and information on statistically significant differences,
see appendix II, table 11.)
Figure 4: Comparison of Participating Rural and Urban Primary Care
Physicians' Acceptance of New Patients (Age 0-18), by Child's
Insurance Type:
[Refer to PDF for image: 4 pie-charts]
Rural primary care physicians:
Medicaid- and CHIP-covered children:
All: 62%[A];
Some: 29%[A];
None: 9%[A].
Privately insured children:
All: 83%[A];
Some: 13%[A];
None: 5%.
Urban primary care physicians:
Medicaid- and CHIP-covered children:
All: 43%[A];
Some: 45%[A];
None: 12%.
Privately insured children:
All: 76%;
Some: 20%;
None: 4%.
Source: GAO.
Notes: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and
CHIP providers and serving children in one or both of these programs.
The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians
in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
Numbers may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
[A] The confidence interval for the estimate is between plus or minus
6 and plus or minus 10 percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of figure]
The percentage of physicians accepting uninsured children as new
patients is similar to the percentage accepting children in Medicaid
and CHIP. For example, 55 percent of all participating physicians
accept all uninsured children as new patients, and 9 percent do not
accept children without insurance, compared to 47 percent and 9
percent, respectively, for children in Medicaid and CHIP. (See
appendix II, tables 9-11.) Other research has found that physicians'
willingness to accept patients enrolled in Medicaid and uninsured
patients is lower than willingness to accept privately insured
patients.[Footnote 22]
When accepting new Medicaid and CHIP patients, physicians who
participate in Medicaid and CHIP do not appear to show a preference
for children in a fee-for-service or managed care delivery model. In
areas where both delivery models exist for these programs, 69 percent
of participating physicians accept children in Medicaid and CHIP under
both fee-for-service and managed care. The percentage of physicians
who only accept these children under one type of delivery model is
about the same for each delivery model--7 percent only accept Medicaid
and CHIP children in a managed care delivery model, and 10 percent
only accept these children in a program with a fee-for-service
delivery model. (See appendix II, table 12, for additional information
regarding physician acceptance of children in Medicaid and CHIP by
delivery model.)
Participating physicians do not appear to have a preference for, or to
give priority to, privately insured children when scheduling
appointments for new patients. Nationally, physicians cited wait times
for new patient appointments as largely the same for children in
Medicaid and CHIP and privately insured children. For example, the
most common wait time for a new appointment cited was less than 48
hours for both children in Medicaid and CHIP and privately insured
children. Further, for both groups of children, more than half of the
participating physicians could schedule a nonurgent visit in 6 days or
fewer.
Wait times for children in Medicaid and CHIP and privately insured
children were similar for primary care physicians (national, urban,
and rural) and specialty care physicians. For primary care physicians
overall and those in urban and rural locations, more than half of
participating physicians indicated that wait times are less than 1
week for children seeking new appointments, regardless of insurance
coverage of the child. For specialty care physicians, more than half
of physicians indicated that wait times for new appointments are 1
week or more for children with private insurance, as well as for
children covered by Medicaid and CHIP. (See appendix II, tables 13
through 15, for data on wait times by physician type and geographic
location of primary care physicians.) A June 2011 report on children's
access to specialty services found that wait times in one large urban
county differed for children in Medicaid and CHIP as compared to
privately insured children. Using a methodology that entailed
researchers calling clinics in Cook County, Illinois, and posing as
mothers of children with Medicaid or CHIP coverage, and, in separate
calls, as mothers of children with private insurance, the study found
that among the clinics that accepted both Medicaid and CHIP and
private insurance, the average wait time for children covered by
Medicaid and CHIP was 22 days longer than that for children with
private insurance.[Footnote 23]
Children in Medicaid and CHIP represent a relatively small share of
most participating physicians' child patients. Although the percentage
of children in Medicaid and CHIP served by participating physicians
varies, for more than half (55 percent) of all participating
physicians, children in Medicaid and CHIP represent less than 20
percent of the children they serve. The most common physician response
was that children in Medicaid and CHIP represent less than 10 percent
of the children they serve. The second most common response was that
children in Medicaid and CHIP represent 60 percent or more of the
children they serve. (See figure 5.)
Figure 5: Percentage of Child Patients Covered by Medicaid and CHIP,
among Participating Physicians:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Participating physicians‘ child patients covered: 1 to 9 percent;
Percentage of participating physicians: 38%.
Participating physicians‘ child patients covered: 10 to 19 percent;
Percentage of participating physicians: 17%.
First two categories total 55%.
Participating physicians‘ child patients covered: 20 to 39 percent;
Percentage of participating physicians: 16%.
Participating physicians‘ child patients covered: 40 to 59 percent;
Percentage of participating physicians: 12%.
Participating physicians‘ child patients covered: 60 percent or more;
Percentage of participating physicians: 18%.
Source: GAO.
Notes: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and
CHIP providers and serving children in one or both of these programs.
The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians
in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were a primary care or specialty
care physician.
Numbers may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
[End of figure]
The share of participating physicians' child patients that are in
Medicaid and CHIP was similar for primary care physicians, specialty
care physicians, and urban primary care physicians. For the majority
of participating physicians in each of these groups, children in
Medicaid and CHIP accounted for less than 20 percent of the children
they served. In contrast, for the majority of rural primary care
physicians, these children accounted for 20 percent or more of all the
children they served. (See appendix II, tables 16 through 19, for data
on the patient mix of participating physicians.) Our findings are
similar to those from recent research in California, which found that
for the majority of the physicians participating in the state's
Medicaid program--primary care, specialty care, and urban as well as
rural physicians--adults and children enrolled in Medicaid accounted
for 20 percent or less of their patients.[Footnote 24]
Nonparticipating Physicians Largely Cited Administrative Issues as
Limiting Their Own Willingness to Serve Children in Medicaid and CHIP:
Physicians not participating in the programs--that is, those not
enrolled or not serving children in Medicaid and CHIP--often cited
certain administrative issues related to reimbursement and enrolling
as a provider as factors that limit their own willingness to serve
children enrolled in these programs. Specifically, of 13 factors that
physicians could identify on our survey as limiting their own
willingness to serve children in Medicaid and CHIP, nonparticipating
physicians most frequently identified 5 factors.[Footnote 25] For
physicians not participating in Medicaid and CHIP, we estimate that
nationally:
1. 95 percent are influenced by low reimbursement,
2. 87 percent are influenced by burdens associated with billing,
3. 85 percent are influenced by delayed reimbursement,[Footnote 26]
and:
4. 85 percent are influenced by burdens associated with enrolling and
participating.[Footnote 27]
5. 78 percent are influenced by difficulty referring patients to other
providers.[Footnote 28]
In contrast, two factors were frequently cited as not limiting
physicians' own willingness to participate in Medicaid and CHIP:
practice capacity and other patients' perceptions of Medicaid and CHIP
patients. Specifically, 64 percent of nonparticipating physicians said
that practice capacity does not limit their own willingness to serve
Medicaid and CHIP children,[Footnote 29] and 71 percent said other
patients' perceptions of Medicaid and CHIP patients does not limit
their own willingness to serve these children.[Footnote 30] (For
additional information on the degree to which certain factors
influence participation for participating and nonparticipating
physicians, see appendix II, tables 20 and 21.)
Other research has suggested that although physicians often cite
administrative issues as limiting their own willingness to participate
in Medicaid and CHIP, raising reimbursement rates may not increase
their participation in these programs. For example, one study found
that physicians' negative perceptions of the program or its
beneficiaries may cause them to be reluctant to participate.[Footnote
31] Other studies have shown that a number of factors unrelated to
reimbursement can affect physician participation in these programs,
including gender, the type of practice, whether the physician owns or
is an employee in a practice, and the geographic area in which the
physician practices.[Footnote 32]
Recent provisions have been implemented to increase Medicaid
reimbursement rates. Under PPACA, states are required to increase
Medicaid payment rates for primary care services for 2013 and 2014.
For these 2 years, states will be required to pay certain primary care
physicians an amount equal to the amount Medicare pays for primary
care services,[Footnote 33] and the federal government will pay 100
percent of the additional costs.[Footnote 34] However, one researcher
noted that for states with the lowest levels of physician supply the
increase in reimbursement rates may not increase the supply of
Medicaid primary care providers to the levels necessary for the likely
growth in the Medicaid population.[Footnote 35]
More Than Three Times as Many Participating Physicians Have Difficulty
Referring Children in Medicaid and CHIP to Specialty Care as Have
Difficulty Referring Privately Insured Children:
On the basis of our national survey, most physicians participating in
Medicaid and CHIP experience difficulty referring children in these
programs to specialty care, but relatively few have difficulty
referring privately insured children to specialty care. This
difference is consistent for primary and specialty care physicians at
the national level, as well as for primary care urban and primary care
rural physicians. Physicians who responded to our survey told us that
they experience difficulty referring children in Medicaid and CHIP to
specialty care for a number of reasons, including specialty physician
supply and long waiting lists for specialists willing to accept
children covered by Medicaid and CHIP. The most frequently cited
specialty types that are difficult referrals for children in Medicaid
and CHIP were nearly identical to the types most frequently cited as
difficult for privately insured children.
About 84 Percent of Participating Physicians Experience Difficulty
Referring Children in Medicaid and CHIP to Specialty Care, a Rate More
Than Three Times That for Privately Insured Children:
On the basis of the results of our survey, more than three times as
many physicians experience difficulty referring children in Medicaid
and CHIP to specialty care as experience difficulty referring
privately insured children. We estimate that nationally, 84 percent of
participating physicians experience some or great difficulty referring
children in Medicaid and CHIP, compared to 26 percent for privately
insured children. Of further note, 34 percent of the physicians
experience great difficulty for children in Medicaid and CHIP,
compared to 1 percent for privately insured. At the same time, 75
percent experience no difficulty referring privately insured children
to specialty care, compared to 16 percent for children in Medicaid and
CHIP. (See figure 6.)
Figure 6: Level of Difficulty Referring Children for Specialty Care
among Physicians Participating in Medicaid and CHIP, by Child's
Insurance Type:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 pie-charts]
Medicaid and CHIP:
Great difficulty: 34%;
Some difficulty: 50%;
No difficulty: 16%.
Private insurance:
Great difficulty: 1%;
Some difficulty: 25%;
No difficulty: 75%.
Source: GAO.
Notes: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and
CHIP providers and serving children in one or both of these programs.
The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians
in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
Numbers may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
The differences between physician responses for children covered by
Medicaid and CHIP and for privately insured children are statistically
significant.
[End of figure]
Physicians generally have more difficulty referring children in
Medicaid and CHIP to specialty care than privately insured children
regardless of physician type and geographic location. For each
physician group--primary care physicians, specialty care physicians,
and primary care urban and primary care rural physicians--a greater
percentage of physicians experience difficulty referring children
enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP to specialty care than experience
difficulty referring privately insured children. (See figures 7 and 8.)
(For additional data on referrals to specialty care by child's
insurance and physician specialty type and geographic location,
including estimates for uninsured children, the lower and upper bounds
of all estimates, and information on statistically significant
differences, see appendix II, tables 22 through 24.) The June 2011
report examining children's access to specialty services in one large
urban county found disparities in provider acceptance of children in
Medicaid and CHIP as compared to privately insured children. The study
found that 66 percent of the calls for children covered by Medicaid
and CHIP were denied an appointment compared to 11 percent for
children with private insurance.[Footnote 36]
Figure 7: Comparison of Participating Primary Care and Specialty Care
Physicians' Level of Difficulty Referring Children for Specialty Care,
by Child's Insurance Type:
[Refer to PDF for image: 4 pie-charts]
Primary care physicians:
Medicaid- and CHIP-covered children:
Great difficulty: 33%;
Some difficulty: 53%;
No difficulty: 15%.
Privately insured children:
Great difficulty: 0%[A];
Some difficulty: 28%;
No difficulty: 72%.
Specialty care physicians:
Medicaid- and CHIP-covered children:
Great difficulty: 35%[B];
Some difficulty: 44%[B];
No difficulty: 20%[B].
Privately insured children:
Great difficulty: 2%;
Some difficulty: 19%[B];
No difficulty: 79%[B].
Source: GAO.
Notes: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and
CHIP providers and serving children in one or both of these programs.
The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians
in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
Numbers may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
The differences between physician responses for children covered by
Medicaid and CHIP and for privately insured children are statistically
significant.
[A] No physicians in this group reported "great difficulty" serving
privately insured children.
[B] The confidence interval for the estimate is between plus or minus
6 and plus or minus 7 percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of figure]
Figure 8: Comparison of Participating Rural and Urban Primary Care
Physicians' Level of Difficulty Referring Children for Specialty Care,
by Child's Insurance Type:
[Refer to PDF for image: 4 pie-charts]
Rural primary care physicians:
Medicaid- and CHIP-covered children:
Great difficulty: 26%[A];
Some difficulty: 50%[A];
No difficulty: 24%[A].
Privately insured children:
Great difficulty: 0%[B];
Some difficulty: 23%[A];
No difficulty: 78%[A].
Urban primary care physicians:
Medicaid- and CHIP-covered children:
Great difficulty: 34%;
Some difficulty: 53%;
No difficulty: 13%.
Privately insured children:
Great difficulty: 0%[B];
Some difficulty: 29%;
No difficulty: 71%.
Source: GAO.
Notes: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and
CHIP providers and serving children in one or both of these programs.
The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians
in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were a primary care or specialty
care physician.
Numbers may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
The differences between physician responses for children covered by
Medicaid and CHIP and for privately insured children are statistically
significant.
[A] The confidence interval for the estimate is between plus or minus
9 and plus or minus 11 percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
[B] No physicians in this group reported "great difficulty" serving
privately insured children.
[End of figure]
The level of difficulty physicians experience in referring children in
Medicaid and CHIP to specialty care is similar to the level of
difficulty they experience in referring uninsured children.
Specifically, the percentage of participating physicians that
experience some or great difficulty referring uninsured children to
specialty care (84 percent) was the same as the percentage that
experience some or great difficulty referring Medicaid and CHIP to
specialty care. These findings are consistent with the findings of our
April 2011 report that children in Medicaid and CHIP and uninsured
children were more likely to experience problems receiving needed
specialty care than privately insured children.[Footnote 37]
Physicians who responded to our open-ended survey question requesting
information on whether they experience difficulty referring children
in Medicaid and CHIP to specialty care cited a variety of reasons,
including the short supply of specialists in the area, long waiting
lists for specialists, specialists not accepting or limiting the
number of children covered by Medicaid and CHIP that they will accept,
and low reimbursement rates and other administrative issues associated
with the programs.
[Text box: Selected Statements from Physicians on Difficulties
Referring Children in Medicaid and CHIP to Specialty Care:
’Lack of pediatric specialists“
’It has nothing to do with type of insurance; some specialists are in
very short supply“
’Specialists have separate waiting lists for Medicaid versus private“
’Many of the specialists we have to use for Medicaid and CHIP patients
have long waiting times“
’Fewer physicians accept these programs because of paperwork, poor
reimbursement“
’Few specialists in this small geographical area will see children in
the first place; if the risk is high and the reimbursement low, it gets
harder“
’There are no specialists within a 75 mile radius who participate in
Medicaid and CHIP“
End of text box]
The Specialties Cited as Difficult Referrals Were Largely the Same for
Children in Medicaid and CHIP and for Privately Insured Children:
The specialties cited by physicians as difficult to refer children to
for specialty care were largely the same for children in Medicaid and
CHIP and privately insured children. In our survey, we asked
physicians who indicated that they face difficulty referring children
to specialists to list the particular specialties for which making a
referral is difficult. The most frequently cited specialties for
children enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP and privately insured children
were mental health specialties (such as psychiatry and psychology),
dermatology, and neurology.[Footnote 38] Shortages in these specialty
types are not unknown. For example, a 2010 survey of physicians in
Michigan found that dermatology, neurology, and pediatric psychiatry
were among the most difficult specialties for referrals. Similarly, a
2010 study of the physician workforce in Massachusetts classified the
shortages of physicians in dermatology, neurology, and psychiatry as
severe.[Footnote 39] HHS projects that, as for many specialties, the
supply of psychiatrists, dermatologists, and neurologists will
continue to grow for the next decade or so. However, HHS noted that
demand for physician services--both primary and specialty care--is
growing faster than supply, and that the resulting shortfall could
impede national health care goals.[Footnote 40]
Concluding Observations:
Medicaid and CHIP have a significant role in addressing the preventive
and specialty health care needs of tens of millions of children in the
United States. In April 2011, we reported that children's access to
needed specialty care is an issue warranting closer monitoring. We
recommended to CMS--a recommendation to which CMS agreed--that the
agency work with states to identify ways to improve annual Medicaid
and CHIP reports that states submit to CMS, including ways to capture
information on children's receipt of specialty care services for which
they have been referred by a physician or other provider. Findings of
our current review, capturing perspectives of physicians working to
serve the medical needs of Medicaid and CHIP children, further suggest
the need for monitoring of children's receipt of needed specialty care
in Medicaid and CHIP. In particular, our finding that more than three
times as many physicians experience difficulty referring children in
Medicaid and CHIP to specialty care as experience difficulty referring
privately insured children lends importance to our April 2011
recommendation in that it gives the clearest indication to date of the
extent of the referral problem for children in Medicaid and CHIP.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to HHS for its review and comment.
HHS's letter and general comments are reprinted in appendix III. HHS
commented that CMS is committed to improving physician participation
rates and that our report will be of significant value to CMS as it
works with states and providers to ensure that beneficiaries have
access to covered health care services. HHS also raised concerns about
the report's portrayal of the percentage of physicians accepting all
Medicaid and CHIP children separately from the percentage accepting
some, saying that when the report describes half of physicians as
accepting all new children, the reader may assume the other half does
not accept any new children. HHS suggested that we combine the
percentages of physicians accepting some and all. We do not agree with
HHS's suggestion. The report consistently depicts the extent of
physicians' willingness to serve by providing the share accepting all,
some, or no children in Medicaid and CHIP as new patients, and
combining all and some would mask the important differences in
physicians' willingness to accept Medicaid and CHIP children. HHS also
commented that we should provide qualifying statements about our
sample of physicians, because the majority of physicians who responded
to our survey do not serve a large percentage of children. We
conducted statistical testing of the survey data to determine whether
physician characteristics--including the percentage of the physician's
practice that is made up of children--influenced physicians'
responses. We found that the percentage of children in physicians'
practices did not affect physician responses to key questions in our
survey. We revised our report to provide information about this
additional statistical testing. HHS also provided technical comments,
which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Administrator of CMS and
other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no
charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions or need additional
information, please contact me at (202) 512-7114 or iritanik@gao.gov.
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff
members who made key contributions to this report are listed in
appendix IV.
Signed by:
Katherine Iritani:
Director, Health Care:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology for GAO Survey of Primary Care and
Specialty Care Physicians:
We conducted a mixed-mode survey (mail and Web-based) of primary care
and specialty care physicians to determine the extent to which
nonfederal primary care and specialty care physicians are enrolled as
Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) providers and
serve children in these programs; the extent to which they are
accepting new Medicaid and CHIP patients; factors that may affect
physicians' own willingness to participate in Medicaid and CHIP; and
the extent to which participating physicians experience difficulty
referring children in Medicaid and CHIP for specialty care.
Development of Survey Questionnaire:
We developed a questionnaire for surveying primary care and specialty
care physicians. We pretested the questionnaire with a convenience
sample of primary care and specialty care physicians in four states:
Georgia, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington. On the basis of the pretest
results, we revised the questionnaire for clarity. Most questions were
closed-ended, in which physicians selected from a list of possible
responses, answered yes or no questions, or selected responses on a
three-point scale, such as none, some, or all. The questionnaire also
included some open-ended questions to allow respondents to identify
specific types of specialty care physicians that were difficult to get
referrals to or other comments respondents had regarding serving
children in Medicaid and CHIP.
Survey of Primary Care and Specialty Care Physicians:
Using the questionnaire, we surveyed a nationally representative
sample of primary care and specialty care physicians, including a
representative sample of primary care physicians in rural and urban
areas. We used the American Medical Association's Physician Masterfile
to select a random sample. We fielded the questionnaire from August
2010 through October 2010. Our random sample included 2,642 primary
care and specialty care physicians who were eligible to participate.
Eligible physicians were those who:
1. work in an office-or hospital-based setting;
2. provide direct patient care to children (age 0-18);
3. have a primary specialty in one of our two groups of
physicians;[Footnote 41]
4. are age 65 or younger; and:
5. are not an employee of a federal agency.
We received complete responses from 932 eligible physicians, for an
overall response rate of 35 percent. Based on the sampling frame and
the results of our nonresponse bias analyses, we were able to
generalize results nationally to primary care and specialty care
physicians who serve children. Table 2 illustrates the response rates
for each physician group surveyed.
Table 2: Response Rates for GAO's Survey of Primary Care and Specialty
Care Physicians:
Physician group: Urban Primary Care Physicians;
Eligible physicians surveyed: 1,490;
Eligible physicians who responded: 505;
Response rate: 34%.
Physician group: Rural Primary Care Physicians;
Eligible physicians surveyed: 232;
Eligible physicians who responded: 108;
Response rate: 47%.
Physician group: Specialty Care Physicians;
Eligible physicians surveyed: 920;
Eligible physicians who responded: 319;
Response rate: 35%.
Physician group: Total;
Eligible physicians surveyed: 2,642;
Eligible physicians who responded: 932;
Response rate: 35%.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Analysis of Physician Responses:
We analyzed survey results for four groups of physicians: primary care
physicians, specialty care physicians, primary care physicians in
urban areas, and primary care physicians in rural areas. We analyzed
physician responses using standard descriptive statistics. In our
analysis, we project results to the national level, and to areas where
both managed care and fee-for-service delivery systems are available.
All estimates are based on self-reported information provided by the
survey respondents and have a margin of error of plus or minus 5
percent or less at the 95 percent confidence level, unless otherwise
noted.
For the open-ended questions related to difficulties making referrals
to specialty care,[Footnote 42] we used a standard content review
method to identify the types of specialists that physicians have
difficulty referring children to for specialty care. Our coding
process for these qualitative responses involved one independent coder
and an independent reviewer who verified the coded comments.
Characteristics of Survey Respondents:
Of the 932 eligible physicians responding to our survey, two-thirds
were male; over two-thirds worked in an office-based setting; and, for
most, child patients represented less than 20 percent of the patients
they served (see table 3 and figs. 9 and 10). On average, respondents
were 50 years old, and had graduated from medical school 23 years
earlier. Ninety-three percent provided at least 20 hours of patient
care per week.
Table 3: Gender of Physicians Who Responded to the Survey:
Female;
Primary care urban: 210;
Primary care rural: 28;
Specialty care: 64;
Total: 302.
Male;
Primary care urban: 295;
Primary care rural: 80;
Specialty care: 255;
Total: 630.
Total;
Primary care urban: 505;
Primary care rural: 108;
Specialty care: 319;
Total: 932.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Figure 9: Workplace Setting of Physicians Who Responded to the Survey:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Workplace setting: Group practice with 3 or more physicians;
Number of responding physicians: 435.
Workplace setting: Solo or two physician practice;
Number of responding physicians: 308.
Workplace setting: Non-profit organization hospital;
Number of responding physicians: 62.
Workplace setting: Other[A];
Number of responding physicians: 40.
Workplace setting: Federally qualified health center, community health
center, or rural health center[B];
Number of responding physicians: 37.
Workplace setting: Group or staff model HMO;
Number of responding physicians: 31.
Workplace setting: State, county, or city government hospital;
Number of responding physicians: 13.
Workplace setting: Private for-profit hospital;
Number of responding physicians: 6.
Source: GAO.
[A] "Other" includes those who work in another setting and those who
did not respond to this question.
[B] The eligible physicians included in our sample who worked at
federally qualified health centers, community health centers, or rural
health clinics were not federal employees.
[End of figure]
Figure 10: Responding Physicians' Patients Who Are Children (Age 0-18):
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Responding physicians‘ child patients: 1 to 9 percent;
Number of responding physicians: 352.
Responding physicians‘ child patients: 10 to 19 percent;
Number of responding physicians: 183.
Responding physicians‘ child patients: 20 to 39 percent;
Number of responding physicians: 112.
Responding physicians‘ child patients: 40 to 59 percent;
Number of responding physicians: 34.
Responding physicians‘ child patients: 60 percent or more;
Number of responding physicians: 237.
Responding physicians‘ child patients: Other;
Number of responding physicians: 14.
Source: GAO.
Note: "Other" are those that did not respond to the question.
[End of figure]
The number of physicians who employ nurse practitioners or physician
assistants was about evenly split among physicians responding to our
survey. About two-thirds of primary care rural physicians in our
sample said they employ nurse practitioners or physician assistants
(see table 4).
Table 4: Employment of Nurse Practitioners or Physician Assistants to
Provide Direct Patient Care, among Physicians Who Responded to the
Survey:
Yes;
Primary care urban: 270;
Primary care rural: 70;
Specialty care: 129;
Total: 469.
No;
Primary care urban: 228;
Primary care rural: 35;
Specialty care: 189;
Total: 452.
No response;
Primary care urban: 7;
Primary care rural: 3;
Specialty care: 1;
Total: 11.
Total;
Primary care urban: 505;
Primary care rural: 108;
Specialty care: 319;
Total: 932.
[End of table]
Source: GAO.
The number of physicians who responded to our survey varied by region,
with the highest numbers of physicians responding from the South, and
the lowest from the Northeast (see figure 11).
Figure 11: Number of Physicians Who Responded to the Survey, by Strata
and Region:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Region: Midwest;
Primary urban: 104;
Specialty care: 73;
Primary rural: 40.
Region: Northeast;
Primary urban: 104;
Specialty care: 59;
Primary rural: 9.
Region: South;
Primary urban: 178;
Specialty care: 121;
Primary rural: 42.
Region: West;
Primary urban: 119;
Specialty care: 66;
Primary rural: 17.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Nonresponse and Internal Consistency of Survey Data:
We performed checks on survey responses to identify inconsistent
answers. We also reviewed survey data for missing or ambiguous
responses, and performed statistical testing to determine whether
physician characteristics (such as age, gender, or percentage of
children physicians reported serving) influenced physicians' responses
to key survey questions. We found that physician characteristics did
not influence responses. We also conducted a nonresponse bias analysis
to determine whether any bias was introduced in the results due to the
absence of responses from some members of the sample. For the
nonresponse bias analysis, we utilized data from our survey, the
American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, and follow-up
telephone interviews with physicians who did not respond to our paper
or Web-based survey. Based on the results of our nonresponse bias
analysis, we adjusted our survey analysis weights to ensure that
physicians were appropriately represented in our study.
Based on our systematic survey processes, follow-up procedures, and
nonresponse bias analysis, we determined that the questionnaire
responses were representative of the experience and perceptions of
primary care and specialty care physicians nationally, and of primary
care physicians in urban and rural areas. We determined that the data
were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
[End of section]
Appendix II: 2010 Physician Survey Results:
This appendix contains additional data we collected from our 2010
national survey of physicians who serve children. It includes the
results from the closed-ended survey questions on our questionnaire,
but does not include narrative responses that we received to the open-
ended questions. Results are generally provided for physicians
participating in state Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance
Program (CHIP) programs--that is, physicians who are enrolled in these
programs and also providing services to these children in these
programs.
We report statistically significant differences only when comparing
responses by (1) the child's type of insurance (Medicaid and CHIP
coverage and private insurance coverage); (2) physician type (all
physicians, primary care physicians, and specialty care physicians);
(3) geographic location (rural and urban) of primary care physicians;
and (4) child's type of insurance for each type of physician. We
provide national estimates regarding the following:[Footnote 43]
* physician participation--the extent to which physicians are
participating, that is, enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP and serving
children in these programs (tables 5 through 8);
* acceptance of new patients--participating physicians' acceptance of
new child patients by insurance type, physician type, delivery model,
and Medicaid and CHIP (tables 9 through 12), and the length of time
patients must wait for a new appointment, by insurance type (tables 13
through 15);
* patient composition--children in Medicaid and CHIP as a share of all
children served by participating physicians (tables 16 through 19);
* factors limiting Medicaid and CHIP participation--factors cited by
nonparticipating and participating physicians as limiting their own
participation in these programs (tables 20 through 21);[Footnote 44]
and:
* level of difficulty referring children for specialty care--the
extent to which participating physicians experience difficulties
referring to specialty care (tables 22 through 24).
Physician Participation:
Table 5: Percentage of All Physicians Participating in Medicaid and
CHIP (Enrolled as a Medicaid and CHIP Provider and Serving Children),
Nationally:
Yes:
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 78 (76, 81)[A].
No:
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 22 (19, 24)[A].
Source: GAO.
Notes: The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing
physicians in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and
age 65 or younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct
patient care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or
specialty care physicians.
[A] The difference between the percentage of physicians who responded
yes and the percentage of physicians who responded no is statistically
significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Table 6: Percentage of All Physicians Participating in Medicaid and
CHIP (Enrolled as a Medicaid and CHIP Provider and Serving Children),
by Physician Type:
Yes:
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 83 (80, 86)[A,B];
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 71 (66, 77)[A,B].
No:
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 17 (14, 20)[A,B];
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 29 (23, 34)
[A,B].
Source: GAO.
Notes: The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing
physicians in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and
age 65 or younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct
patient care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or
specialty care physicians.
[A] The difference between the percentage of physicians who responded
yes and the percentage of physicians who responded no is statistically
significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[B] The difference between the percentage of primary care physicians
and the percentage of specialty care physicians is statistically
significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Table 7: Percentage of All Primary Care Physicians Participating in
Medicaid and CHIP (Enrolled as a Medicaid and CHIP Provider and
Serving Children), by Geographic Location:
Yes:
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 94 (88, 99)[A,B]; Urban
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 81 (78, 85)[A,B].
No:
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 6 (1, 12)[A,B]; Urban
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 19 (15, 22)[A,B].
Source: GAO.
Notes: The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing
physicians in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and
age 65 or younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct
patient care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or
specialty care physicians.
[A] The difference between the percentage of physicians who responded
yes and the percentage of physicians who responded no is statistically
significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[B] The difference between the percentage of primary care rural
physicians and the percentage of primary care urban physicians is
statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Table 8: Percentage of Participating Physicians Serving Children in
Medicaid and CHIP by Fee-for-Service and Managed Care Delivery Models,
in Areas Where Both Delivery Models Are Available:
Both fee-for-service and managed care Percentage (lower bound, upper
bound): 78 (73, 83);
Fee-for-service only Percentage (lower bound, upper bound only): 10
(7, 14);
Managed care only Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 8 (5, 11);
Not serving or other response[A] Percentage (lower bound, upper
bound): 4 (2, 7);
Total: 100.
Source: GAO.
Notes: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and
CHIP providers and serving children in one or both of these programs.
The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians
in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians. These data are projected to areas where both managed
care and fee-for-service delivery models are available.
[A] For example, no response or do not know.
[End of table]
Acceptance of New Patients:
Table 9: Extent to Which Participating Physicians Are Accepting New
Patients (Age 0-18), by Child's Insurance Type:
Medicaid and CHIP:
None;
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 9 (7, 11)[A].
Some;
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 44 (40, 48)[A].
All;
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 47(43, 51)[A].
Private insurance:
None;
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 3 (2, 4)[A].
Some;
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 18 (15, 21)[A].
All;
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 79 (76, 82)[A].
Uninsured:
None;
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 9 (7, 11).
Some;
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 36 (32, 40).
All;
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 55 (51, 59).
Source: GAO.
Notes: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and
CHIP providers and serving children in one or both of these programs.
The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians
in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
[A] The difference between the percentage of children covered by
Medicaid and CHIP and the percentage of children covered by private
insurance is statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence
level.
[End of table]
Table 10: Extent to Which Participating Physicians Are Accepting New
Patients (Age 0-18), by Child's Insurance Type, and by Physician Type:
Medicaid and CHIP:
None;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 12 (9, 15 )[A,B];
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 4 (1, 7)[A].
Some;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 43 (38, 48)[B];
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 45 (38, 52)[B].
All;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 45 (41, 50)[B];
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 51 (44, 58)[B].
Private insurance:
None;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 4 (2, 6)[A,B];
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 1 (0, 2)[A].
Some;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 19 (15, 23)[B];
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 16 (10, 21)[B].
All;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 77 (73, 81)[B];
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 84 (79, 89)[B].
Uninsured:
None;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 11 (8, 14);
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 6 (2, 9).
Some;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 34 (29, 38);
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 41 (34, 48).
All;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 56 (51, 61);
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 53 (46, 60).
Source: GAO.
Notes: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and
CHIP providers and serving children in one or both of these programs.
The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians
in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
[A] The difference between the percentage of primary care physicians
and the percentage of specialty care physicians is statistically
significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[B] The difference between the percentage of children covered by
Medicaid and CHIP and the percentage of children covered by private
insurance is statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence
level.
[End of table]
Table 11: Extent to Which Participating Primary Care Physicians Are
Accepting New Patients (Age 0-18), by Child's Insurance Type, and by
Geographic Location:
Medicaid and CHIP:
None;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 9 (3, 16);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 12 (9, 15)[A].
Some;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 29 (19, 39)[B];
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 45 (40, 50)[A,B].
All;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 62 (51, 72)[A,B];
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 43 (38, 48)[A,B].
Private insurance:
None;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 5 (0, 10);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 4 (2 , 6)[A].
Some;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 13 (6, 20);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 20 (16, 24)[A].
All;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): [83 (74, 91)A];
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): [76 (71, 80)A].
Uninsured:
None;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 6 (1, 11);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 11 (8, 15).
Some;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 29 (20, 39);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 34 (29, 39).
All;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 65 (54, 75);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 54 (49, 60).
Source: GAO.
Notes: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and
CHIP providers and serving children in one or both of these programs.
The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians
in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
[A] The difference between the percentage of children covered by
Medicaid and CHIP and the percentage of children covered by private
insurance is statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence
level.
[B] The difference between the percentage of rural primary care
physicians and the percentage of urban primary care physicians is
statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Table 12: Percentage of Participating Physicians Accepting New
Medicaid and CHIP Patients (Age 0-18), by Fee-for-Service and Managed
Care Delivery Model in Areas Where Both Delivery Models Are Available:
Both fee-for-service and managed care Percentage (lower bound, upper
bound): 69% (64, 74);
Fee-for-service only Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 10% (7,
14);
Managed care only Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 7% (4, 10);
Not accepting or other response[A] Percentage (lower bound, upper
bound): 13% (9, 17);
Total: 100%.
Source: GAO.
Notes: The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing
physicians in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and
age 65 or younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct
patient care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or
specialty care physicians. These data are projected to areas where
both managed care and fee-for-service delivery models are available.
Numbers do not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
[A] For example, no response or do not know.
[End of table]
Table 13: Participating Physicians' Wait Times for Next Available
Appointment for New Patients (Age 0-18), by Insurance Type:
Medicaid and CHIP:
Within 48 hours;
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 29% (25, 32).
2 to 6 days;
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 25% (22, 29).
1 to 2 weeks;
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 21% (18, 24).
15 days to 4 weeks;
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 16% (13, 19).
More than 4 weeks;
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 9% (6, 11).
Private insurance:
Within 48 hours;
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 32% (29, 36).
2 to 6 days;
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 26% (23, 29).
1 to 2 weeks;
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 21% (18, 24).
15 days to 4 weeks;
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 14% (12, 17).
More than 4 weeks;
Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 7% (5, 9).
Source: GAO.
Note: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and CHIP
providers and serving children in one or both of these programs. The
sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians in
the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
[End of table]
Table 14: Participating Physicians' Wait Times for Next Available
Appointment for New Patients (Age 0-18), by Insurance Type and
Physician Type:
Medicaid and CHIP:
Within 48 hours;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 39% (34, 44)[A];
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 12% (7, 16)[A].
2 to 6 days;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 26% (22, 30);
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 24% (18, 30).
1 to 2 weeks;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 17% (14, 21);
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 27% (21, 33).
15 days to 4 weeks;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 13% (10, 17);
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 22% (16, 27).
More than 4 weeks;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 5% (3, 7)[A];
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 15% (10, 20)[A].
Private Insurance:
Within 48 hours;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 42% (37, 46)[A];
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 19% (14, 23)[A].
2 to 6 days;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 24% (20, 28);
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 28% (23, 33).
1 to 2 weeks;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 17% (14, 21)[A];
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 2% (21, 31)[A].
15 days to 4 weeks;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 12% (9, 15);
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 17% (12, 21).
More than 4 weeks;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 5% (3, 6)[A];
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 11% (7, 14)[A].
Source: GAO.
Notes: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and
CHIP providers and serving children in one or both of these programs.
The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians
in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
[A] The difference between the percentage of primary care physicians
and the percentage of specialty care physicians is statistically
significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Table 15: Participating Primary Care Physicians' Wait Times for Next
Available Appointment for New Patients (Age 0-18), by Insurance Type
and Geographic Location:
Medicaid and CHIP:
Within 48 hours;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 48% (36, 59);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 38% (32, 43).
2 to 6 days;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 23% (13, 32);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 26% (22, 31).
1 to 2 weeks;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 19% (10, 27);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 17% (13, 21).
15 days to 4 weeks;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 9% (2, 15);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 14% (10, 18).
More than 4 weeks;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 3% (0, 6);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 5% (3, 8).
Private insurance:
Within 48 hours;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 47% (37, 58);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 41% (36, 45).
2 to 6 days;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 23% (14, 32);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 24% (20, 28).
1 to 2 weeks;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 19% (11, 27);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 17% (14, 21).
15 days to 4 weeks;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 9% (3, 15);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 13% (10, 16).
More than 4 weeks;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 2% (0, 5);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 5% (3, 7).
Source: GAO.
Note: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and CHIP
providers and serving children in one or both of these programs. The
sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians in
the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
[End of table]
Patient Composition:
Table 16: Percentage of All Participating Physicians' Child Patients
(Age 0-18) in Medicaid and CHIP:
Below 10 percent;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 38% (34, 42).
10 to 19 percent;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 17% (14, 20).
20 to 39 percent;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 16% (13, 19).
40 to 59 percent;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 12% (9, 14).
60 percent or more;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 18% (15, 22).
Source: GAO.
Note: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and CHIP
providers and serving children in one or both of these programs. The
sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians in
the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
[End of table]
Table 17: Percentage of Participating Physicians' Child Patients (Age
0-18) in Medicaid and CHIP, by Physician Type:
Below 10 percent;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 35% (30, 40);
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 43% (35, 50).
10 to 19 percent;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 17% (13, 20);
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 17% (11, 23).
20 to 39 percent;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 16% (12, 19);
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 15% (10, 21).
40 to 59 percent;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 12% (9, 15);
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 11% (6, 15).
60 percent or more;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 20% (16, 24);
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 14% (9, 20).
Source: GAO.
Note: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and CHIP
providers and serving children in one or both of these programs. The
sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians in
the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
[End of table]
Table 18: Percentage of Participating Primary Care Physicians' Child
Patients (Age 0-18) in Medicaid and CHIP, by Geographic Location:
Below 10 percent;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 22% (13, 32);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 37% (32, 42).
10 to 19 percent;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 17% (8, 26);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 17% (13, 21).
20 to 39 percent;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 18% (10, 27);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 15% (11, 19).
40 to 59 percent;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 24% (14, 33);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 11% (7, 14).
60 percent or more;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 18% (10, 27);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 21% (16, 25).
Source: GAO.
Note: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and CHIP
providers and serving children in one or both of these programs. The
sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians in
the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
[End of table]
Table 19: Percentage of Participating Physicians' Child Patients (Age
0-18) in Medicaid and CHIP, by Acceptance of Medicaid and CHIP
Patients (Age 0-18):
Below 10 percent;
Accepting new Medicaid and CHIP patients (age 0-18) Percentage (lower
bound, upper bound): 34% (29, 38)[A];
Not accepting new Medicaid and CHIP patients (age 0-18) Percentage
(lower bound, upper bound): 74% (63, 86)[A].
10 to 19 percent;
Accepting new Medicaid and CHIP patients (age 0-18) Percentage (lower
bound, upper bound): 18% (14, 21);
Not accepting new Medicaid and CHIP patients (age 0-18) Percentage
(lower bound, upper bound): 10% (2, 18).
20 to 39 percent;
Accepting new Medicaid and CHIP patients (age 0-18) Percentage (lower
bound, upper bound): 16% (13, 20);
Not accepting new Medicaid and CHIP patients (age 0-18) Percentage
(lower bound, upper bound): 8% (1, 15).
40 to 59 percent;
Accepting new Medicaid and CHIP patients (age 0-18) Percentage (lower
bound, upper bound): 13% (10, 15)[A];
Not accepting new Medicaid and CHIP patients (age 0-18) Percentage
(lower bound, upper bound): 4% (0, 9)[A].
60 percent or more;
Accepting new Medicaid and CHIP patients (age 0-18) Percentage (lower
bound, upper bound): 20% (16, 23)[A];
Not accepting new Medicaid and CHIP patients (age 0-18) Percentage
(lower bound, upper bound): 4% (0, 9)[A].
Source: GAO.
Notes: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and
CHIP providers and serving children in one or both of these programs.
The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians
in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
[A] The difference between the percentage of physicians accepting new
Medicaid and CHIP patients (age 0-18) and the percentage of physicians
not accepting new Medicaid and CHIP patients (age 0-18) is
statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Factors Limiting Medicaid and CHIP Participation:
Table 20: Extent to Which Certain Factors Limit Participating and
Nonparticipating Physicians' Own Willingness to Serve Children (Age 0-
18) in Medicaid and CHIP:
Factor: (a) Billing requirements and/or billing paperwork burdens;
Extent: Does not limit;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 38% (34, 41).
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 38% (35, 41).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 24% (21,27).
Factor: (b) Burdensome provider enrollment or participation
requirements;
Extent: Does not limit;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 43% (39, 46).
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 38% (35, 41).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 19% (17, 22).
Factor: (c) Low reimbursements;
Extent: Does not limit;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 22% (20, 25).
Extent: Factor: Somewhat limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 30% (27, 33).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 48% (44, 51).
Factor: (d) Delayed reimbursements;
Extent: Does not limit;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 33% (29, 36).
Extent: Factor: Somewhat limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 35% (31, 38).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 33% (30, 36).
Factor: (e) Practice does not have the capacity to accept new patients;
Extent: Does not limit;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 71% (68, 74).
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 23% (20, 26).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 6% (4, 8).
Factor: (f) Complex medical or psychosocial needs of patients;
Extent: Does not limit;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 58% (54, 61).
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 35% (31, 38).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 8% (6, 9).
Factor: (g) Limited patient compliance with scheduling;
Extent: Does not limit;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 42% (39, 46).
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 42% (39, 46).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 15% (13,18).
Factor: (h) Limited patient compliance with treatment;
Extent: Does not limit;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 47% (44, 50).
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 41% (38, 44).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 12% (10, 14).
Factor: (i) Frequent changes in patient eligibility;
Extent: Does not limit;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 37% (34, 40).
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 45% (42, 49).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 17% (15, 20).
Factor: (j) Difficulty referring patients to other providers;
Extent: Does not limit;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 35% (32, 38).
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 38% (35, 41).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 27% (24, 30).
Factor: (k) Other patients have a negative perception of Medicaid and
CHIP patients;
Extent: Does not limit;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 80% (77, 82).
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 17% (15, 20).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 3% (2, 4).
Factor: (l) Increased risk of medical liability issues;
Extent: Does not limit;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 60% (57, 63).
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 30% (26, 33).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 11% (9, 13).
Factor: (m) Inadequate range of covered benefits;
Extent: Does not limit;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 43% (40, 47).
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 39% (36, 43).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 17% (15, 20).
Source: GAO.
Note: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and CHIP
providers and serving children in one or both of these programs. The
sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians in
the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
[End of table]
Table 21: Extent to Which Certain Factors Limit Physicians' Own
Willingness to Serve Children (Age 0-18) in Medicaid and CHIP, by
Participating Physicians and Nonparticipating Physicians:
Factor: (a) Billing requirements and/or billing paperwork burdens;
Extent: Does not limit;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 43%
(39, 47)[A];
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 13%
(7, 18)[A].
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 41%
(37, 45)[A];
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 28%
(21, 36)[A].
Extent: Greatly limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 16%
(13, 19)[A];
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 59%
(51, 67)[A].
Factor: (b) Burdensome provider enrollment or participation
requirements;
Extent: Does not limit;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 49%
(45, 53)[A];
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 15%
(10, 21)[A].
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 38%
(34, 42);
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 36%
(28, 43).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 13%
(10, 15)[A];
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 49%
(41, 57)[A].
Factor: (c) Low reimbursements;
Extent: Does not limit;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 25%
(22, 29)[A];
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 5%
(2, 9)[A].
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 35%
(31, 38)[A];
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 15%
(9, 21)[A].
Extent: Greatly limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 40%
(36, 44)[A];
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 79%
(73, 86)[A].
Factor: (d) Delayed reimbursements;
Extent: Does not limit;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 35%
(32, 39)[A];
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 15%
(9, 21)[A].
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 36%
(33, 40);
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 27%
(19, 34).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 28%
(25, 32)[A];
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 58%
(50, 66)[A].
Factor: (e) Practice does not have the capacity to accept new patients;
Extent: Does not limit;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 73%
(70, 77);
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 64%
(56, 71).
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 21%
(18, 24);
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 29%
(22, 37).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 6% (4,
8);
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 7%
(3, 11).
Factor: (f) Complex medical or psychosocial needs of patients;
Extent: Does not limit;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 61%
(58, 65)[A];
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 44%
(36, 52)[A].
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 32%
(28, 35)[A];
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 46%
(38, 54)[A].
Extent: Greatly limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 7% (5,
9);
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 10%
(5, 15).
Factor: (g) Limited patient compliance with scheduling;
Extent: Does not limit;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 43%
(39, 47);
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 38%
(30, 45).
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 42%
(38, 46);
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 44%
(36, 52).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 15%
(12, 18);
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 18%
(12, 24).
Factor: (h) Limited patient compliance with treatment;
Extent: Does not limit;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 48%
(44, 52);
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 39%
(31, 47).
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 41%
(37, 45);
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 44%
(36, 52).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 11%
(9, 14);
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 17%
(11, 23).
Factor: (i) Frequent changes in patient eligibility;
Extent: Does not limit;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 37%
(33, 41);
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 30%
(23, 37).
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 47%
(43, 51);
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 45%
(37, 53).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 16%
(13, 19);
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 25%
(18, 32).
Factor: (j) Difficulty referring patients to other providers;
Extent: Does not limit;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 36%
(32, 40)[A];
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 22%
(15, 29)[A].
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 40%
(36, 44);
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 34%
(26, 41).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 24%
(20, 27)[A];
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 44%
(36, 52)[A].
Factor: (k) Other patients have a negative perception of Medicaid and
CHIP patients;
Extent: Does not limit;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 82%
(79, 85);
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 71%
(64, 79).
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 16%
(13, 19);
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 23%
(16, 30).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 2% (1,
3);
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 5%
(2, 9).
Factor: (l) Increased risk of medical liability issues;
Extent: Does not limit;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 65%
(61, 69)[A];
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 38%
(30, 46)[A].
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 27%
(24, 31)[A];
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 42%
(34, 50)[A].
Extent: Greatly limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 8% (6,
10)[A];
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 20%
(14, 27)[A].
Factor: (m) Inadequate range of covered benefits;
Extent: Does not limit;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 47%
(43, 51)[A];
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 26%
(19, 33)[A].
Extent: Somewhat limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 38%
(35, 42);
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 45%
(37, 53).
Extent: Greatly limits;
Participating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 14%
(11, 17)[A];
Nonparticipating Physicians Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 29%
(22, 37)[A].
Source: GAO.
Notes: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and
CHIP providers and serving children in one or both of these programs.
The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians
in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
[A] The difference between the percentage of participating physicians
and the percentage of nonparticipating physicians is statistically
significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
Level of Difficulty Referring Children for Specialty Care:
Table 22: Level of Difficulty Referring Children for Specialty Care
for Participating Physicians, by Child's Insurance Type:
Medicaid and CHIP:
No Difficulty;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 16% (13, 19)[A].
Some Difficulty;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 50% (46, 54)[A].
Great Difficulty;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 34% (30, 38)[A].
Private insurance:
No Difficulty;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 75% (71, 78)[A].
Some Difficulty;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 25% (21, 28)[A].
Great Difficulty;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 1% (0, 1)[A].
Uninsured:
No Difficulty;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 16% (13, 19).
Some Difficulty;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 33% (29, 37).
Great Difficulty;
Percentage (upper bound, lower bound): 51% (47, 55).
Source: GAO.
Notes: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and
CHIP providers and serving children in one or both of these programs.
The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians
in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
[A] The difference between the percentage of children covered by
Medicaid and CHIP and the percentage of children covered by private
insurance is statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence
level.
[End of table]
Table 23: Comparison of Participating Primary Care and Specialty Care
Physicians' Level of Difficulty Referring Children for Specialty Care,
by Child's Insurance Type:
Medicaid or CHIP:
No Difficulty;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 15% (11, 18)[A];
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 20% (14, 25)[A].
Some Difficulty;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 53% (48, 57)[A];
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 44% (37, 52)[A].
Great Difficulty;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 33% (28, 37)[A];
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 36% (29, 43)[A].
Private insurance:
No Difficulty;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 72% (68, 76)[A];
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 79% (73, 85)[A].
Some Difficulty;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 28% (24, 32)[A];
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 19% (13, 25)[A].
Great Difficulty;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 0%[A];
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 2% (0, 4)[A].
Uninsured:
No Difficulty;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 14% (11, 18);
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 18% (12, 24).
Some Difficulty;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 37% (32, 42);
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 26% (19, 33).
Great Difficulty;
Primary Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 49% (44, 54);
Specialty Care Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 56% (48, 64).
Source: GAO.
Notes: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and
CHIP providers and serving children in one or both of these programs.
The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians
in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
[A] The difference between the percentage of children covered by
Medicaid and CHIP and the percentage of children covered by private
insurance is statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence
level.
[End of table]
Table 24: Comparison of Participating Rural and Urban Primary Care
Physicians' Level of Difficulty Referring Children for Specialty Care,
by Child's Insurance Type:
Medicaid or CHIP:
No Difficulty;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 24% (15, 33)[A];
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 13% (10, 17)[A].
Some Difficulty;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 50% (39, 61)[A];
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 53% (48, 58)[A].
Great Difficulty;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 26% (17, 36)[A];
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 34% (29, 39)[A].
Private insurance:
No Difficulty;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 76% (68, 87)[A];
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 71% (67, 76)[A].
Some Difficulty;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 23% (13, 32)[A];
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 29% (24, 33)[A].
Great Difficulty;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 0%[A];
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 0%[A].
Uninsured:
No Difficulty;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 20% (11, 29);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 14% (10, 17).
Some Difficulty;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 35% (24, 45);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 37% (32, 43).
Great Difficulty;
Rural Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 46% (35, 57);
Urban Percentage (lower bound, upper bound): 49% (44, 55).
Source: GAO.
Notes: Participating physicians are those enrolled as Medicaid and
CHIP providers and serving children in one or both of these programs.
The sampling frame for our survey included all practicing physicians
in the United States who were office-or hospital-based and age 65 or
younger, who were not federal employees, who provided direct patient
care to children (age 0-18), and who were primary care or specialty
care physicians.
[A] The difference between the percentage of children covered by
Medicaid and CHIP and percentage of children covered by private
insurance is statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence
level.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human
Services:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Department Of Health and Human Services:
Office Of The Secretary:
Assistant Secretary for Legislation:
Washington, DC 20201:
June 21, 2011:
Katherine Iritani:
Acting Director, Health Care:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Iritani:
Attached are comments on the U.S. Government Accountability Office's
(GAO) draft report entitled, "Medicaid And Chip: Most Physicians Serve
Covered Children, but Experience Difficulty with Specialty Care
Referrals" (GA0-11-624).
The Department appreciates the opportunity to review this report
before its publication.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jim R. Esquea:
Assistant Secretary for Legislation:
Attachment:
[End of letter]
General Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services (HHS)
On The Government Accountability Office's (GAO) Draft Report Entitled,
"Medicaid And Chip: Most Physicians Serve Covered Children, But
Experience Difficulty With Specialty Care Referrals" (GA0-11-624):
The Department appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on
this draft report.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is committed and
taking steps to improve physician participation rates. As noted in
your report, on May 6, 2011, CMS issued a Notice of Proposed Rule
Making regarding Access to Covered Medicaid Services to create a
standardized process for States to follow, in the fee-for-service
context, as part of their broader efforts to assure that beneficiaries
have access to covered health care services. We believe the
information provided in this report will be of significant value to
CMS as it continues its work with States and providers on these very
important issues.
Although this report does not include formal recommendations for CMS,
we do have the following comments:
* We question the way this report describes the willingness of
physicians to serve children in Medicaid and CHIP. We are especially
concerned about the portrayal of the finding that only about half of
physicians accept all children newly enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP. It
seems misleading to emphasize that only 47 percent of physicians are
accepting all new Medicaid and CHIP patients, without also clarifying
that 44 percent of physicians say they will accept some new Medicaid
/CHIP patients; this leaves only 9 percent who say they will not
accept any new Medicaid patients. In total, 91 percent of physicians
say they will accept all or some new Medicaid/CHIP patients. When the
report describes half accepting all new children, the reader
automatically assumes the other half does not accept. The graphic does
give the full picture, but the public and policy makers are likely to
focus on the text, so we encourage GAO to explain the information in
the text as well as the graphic.
* Only 30 percent of the responding physicians have a patient load
that is over 40 percent children, while almost 60 percent have a
patient load that is less than 20 percent children (and 38 percent of
responding physicians have a patient load that is less than 10 percent
children). (see Figure 10). It is important to qualify properly the
sample of physicians, if the majority does not primarily work with
children.
[End of section]
GAO Contact:
Katherine Iritani, (202) 512-7114 or iritanik@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Catina Bradley, Assistant
Director; Martha Kelly, Assistant Director; Suzanne Worth, Assistant
Director; Zhi Boon; Tim Bushfield; Sean DeBlieck; Laura Henry;
Roseanne Price; Dan Ries; Hemi Tewarson; and Jennifer Whitworth.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Medicaid and CHIP: Reports for Monitoring Children's Health Care
Services Need Improvement. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-293R]. Washington D.C.: April 5,
2011.
Oral Health: Efforts Under Way to Improve Children's Access to Dental
Services, but Sustained Attention Needed to Address Ongoing Concerns.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-96]. Washington, D.C.:
November 30, 2010.
Health Care Delivery: Features of Integrated Systems Support Patient
Care Strategies and Access to Care, but Systems Face Challenges.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-49]. Washington, D.C.:
November 16, 2010.
Medicaid Managed Care: CMS's Oversight of States' Rate Setting Needs
Improvement. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-810].
Washington, D.C.: August 4, 2010.
Medicaid Preventive Services: Concerted Efforts Needed to Ensure
Beneficiaries Receive Services. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-578]. Washington, D.C.: August 14,
2009.
Medicaid: Concerns Remain about Sufficiency of Data for Oversight of
Children's Dental Services. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-826T]. Washington, D.C.: May 2,
2007.
Medicaid Managed Care: Access and Quality Requirements Specific to Low-
Income and Other Special Needs Enrollees. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-44R]. Washington, D.C.: December 8,
2004.
Medicaid and SCHIP: States Use Varying Approaches to Monitor
Children's Access to Care. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-222]. Washington, D.C.: January 14,
2003.
Medicaid: Stronger Efforts Needed to Ensure Children's Access to
Health Screening Services. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-749]. Washington, D.C.: July 13,
2001.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] For example, the Congressional Budget Office reported that
provisions to improve state outreach and enrollment of eligible
children contained in the Children's Health Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2009 may result in an increase in Medicaid and
CHIP of about 6 million children in 2013.
[2] Physicians who practice in certain settings, such as Federally
Qualified Health Centers, may be required to serve uninsured patients
and patients covered under Medicaid and CHIP. In addition, physicians
practicing in a hospital subject to the Emergency Medical Treatment
and Active Labor Act requirements may be required to serve patients
regardless of insurance coverage. See generally 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd.
[3] Pub. L. No. 111-3, §402(d), 123 Stat. 8, 84.
[4] The representative sample was taken from the American Medical
Association's (AMA) Physician Masterfile, a comprehensive list of
physicians and their characteristics widely used in physician
research. For primary care physicians, we selected physicians with a
primary specialty in adolescent medicine, family medicine, general
medicine, internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, or pediatrics.
Specialty care physicians included in our random sample were those
with a primary specialty in allergy and immunology; dermatology;
endocrinology; gastroenterology; general surgery or pediatric surgery;
neurology; orthopedic surgery or sports medicine; ophthalmology;
otolaryngology; otology; hematology or oncology; psychiatry; thoracic
surgery; or urology. We designated primary care physicians as urban or
rural using the most recently available rural-urban continuum codes
provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. See appendix I for
more detail on our survey methodology.
[5] Throughout this report, references to Medicaid and CHIP apply to
physician responses for one or both programs. Although some questions
in our survey questionnaire asked physicians to respond for Medicaid
and CHIP separately, or to respond based on delivery model (managed
care and fee-for-service), in our analysis we aggregated responses to
project results to the national level.
[6] We asked about children 18 years of age and younger because both
Medicaid and CHIP cover children in this age range.
[7] CMS estimates that Medicaid expenditures on children were $68.4
million in fiscal year 2009. See 2010 Actuarial Report on the
Financial Outlook for Medicaid, downloaded from the CMS Web site at
[hyperlink,
http://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/downloads/MedicaidReport2010.pdf],
on May 3, 2010. CMS estimates that CHIP expenditures were $10.6
billion in fiscal year 2009. The CHIP expenditures include
expenditures for some adults, because 11 states' programs covered
certain adults in their CHIP programs.
[8] Data on the number of children enrolled in each program are from
summary reports prepared by CMS from its Statistical Enrollment Data
System. A summary of these reports was downloaded from the CMS Web
site at [hyperlink,
http://www.cms.gov/NationalCHIPPolicy/CHIPER/itemdetail.asp?filterType=n
one&filterByDID=0&sortByDID=2&sortOrder=ascending&itemID=CMS1244005&intN
umPerPage=2000] on April 28, 2011.
[9] This federal Medicaid requirement applies to fee-for-service
delivery models. For managed care delivery models, state Medicaid
programs and managed care organizations with whom they contract are
subject to various requirements intended to ensure beneficiary access.
See generally 42 U.S.C. § 1396u-2.
[10] Medicaid Program: Methods for Assuring Access to Covered Medicaid
Services, 76 Fed. Reg. 26,342 (proposed May 6, 2011).
[11] The proposed rule would permit states to determine the services
that they will review each year, provided that each service is
reviewed at least once every 5 years.
[12] See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(10), 1396d(a)(4)(B), 1396d(r). Under
federal law, the EPSDT benefit generally entitles children in Medicaid
to receive coverage of periodic screening services--often termed well-
child checkups--that include a comprehensive health and developmental
history, a comprehensive physical examination, appropriate
immunizations, laboratory tests, and health education. Under the EPSDT
benefit, children also must receive coverage of treatment and other
services necessary to correct or ameliorate health conditions
discovered through well-child checkups. Certain CHIP programs must
also provide EPSDT services.
[13] For our 2009 report, we examined national surveys--MEPS and the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey--conducted by HHS
from 2003 through 2006. The surveys included information from parents,
or other adults in the household about the receipt of well-child
checkups for children in Medicaid and CHIP. GAO, Medicaid Preventive
Services: Concerted Efforts Needed to Ensure Beneficiaries Receive
Services, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-578]
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 14, 2009). See Related GAO Products at the end
of this report.
[14] HHS, Most Medicaid Children in Nine States Are Not Receiving All
Required Preventive Screening Services, HHS OEI-5-08-00520
(Washington, D.C.: May 2010).
[15] For our April 2011 report, we analyzed and reported on available
data from the 2007 MEPS, administered by HHS's Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality. For children in Medicaid and CHIP 17 years of
age and younger, we analyzed MEPS survey questions about whether the
family reported having a problem accessing services or specialists.
GAO, Medicaid and CHIP: Reports for Monitoring Children's Health Care
Services Need Improvement, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-293R] (Washington D.C.: Apr. 5,
2011).
[16] Under a fee-for-service model, states pay providers for each
covered service for which the providers bill the state. Under a
managed care model, states contract with managed care plans, such as
health maintenance organizations, to provide or arrange for medical
services, and prospectively pay the plans a fixed monthly fee per
enrollee.
[17] Differences by child's insurance type (i.e., those enrolled in
Medicaid and CHIP, and those with private insurance) are statistically
significant within each physician group (primary care physicians and
specialty care physicians), with one exception: the difference between
the percentage of specialty care physicians accepting no children in
Medicaid and CHIP (4 percent) and the percentage accepting no
privately insured children (1 percent) is not statistically
significant.
[18] Peter Cunningham, State Variation in Primary Care Physician
Supply: Implications for Health Reform Medicaid Expansions,
(Washington, D.C.: Center for Studying Health System Change, March
2011). Primary care physicians were those that specialized in general
internal medicine, family practice, or general pediatrics.
[19] The study compared Medicaid acceptance rates among states after
classifying states into three groups based on the ratio of primary
care physicians to the nonelderly U.S. population in 2008. States with
primary care physician ratios of less than 11.5 physicians per 10,000
nonelderly people were classified as having a low number of primary
care physicians; states with a ratio of 11.5 to 15 per 10,000 were
classified as having a medium number; and states with a ratio of more
than 15 per 10,000 were classified as having a high number.
[20] This difference is statistically significant.
[21] This difference is statistically significant.
[22] For example, 57 percent of physicians in California reported
accepting new Medicaid patients and 46 percent reporting accepting new
uninsured patients. In contrast, 90 percent reported accepting
privately insured patients. A. B. Bindman, P. W. Chu, and K. Grumbach,
Physician Participation in Medi-Cal, 2008 (Oakland: California
HealthCare Foundation, July 2010).
[23] Between January and May 2010, researchers called a random sample
of clinics representing eight specialties in Cook County, Illinois,
which has a high proportion of specialists. Researchers called 273
clinics posing as mothers of children with common health conditions
requiring outpatient specialty care. Two calls, separated by 1 month,
were placed to each clinic by the same person using a standardized
clinical script that differed by insurance status of the patient. See
J. Bisgaier, K. V. Rhodes, "Auditing Access to Specialty Care for
Children with Public Insurance," The New England Journal of Medicine,
vol. 364, no. 24 (June 16, 2011), 2324-2333, [hyperlink,
http://healthpolicyandreform.nejm.org/?p=14707] (accessed on June 16,
2011).
[24] That study found differences between the different types of
primary care physicians. For example, Medicaid beneficiaries make up
at least 30 percent of child patients for one-half of pediatricians
but for only one-fifth of family medicine physicians. Bindman et al.,
Physician Participation in Medi-Cal, 2008.
[25] For our survey, we developed a list of 13 specific factors that
could influence physician willingness to serve Medicaid and CHIP
children. We developed this list based on a review of other research
and pretesting with researchers, physician groups, and physicians.
[26] The confidence interval for this estimate is plus or minus 6
percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
[27] The confidence interval for this estimate is plus or minus 6
percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
[28] The confidence interval for this estimate is plus or minus 7
percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
[29] The confidence interval for this estimate is plus or minus 7
percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
[30] The confidence interval for this estimate is plus or minus 8
percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
[31] B. A. Mulvihill, F. A. Obuseh, and C. Caldwell, "Healthcare
Providers: Satisfaction with a State Children's Health Insurance
Program (SCHIP)," Maternal and Child Health Journal, vol. 12, no. 2
(2008).
[32] Peter Cunningham, "Physician Reimbursement and Participation in
Medicaid" (paper presented to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access
Commission, Washington, D.C., Sept. 23, 2010), and Cunningham, State
Variation in Primary Care Physician Supply: Implications for Health
Reform Medicaid Expansions.
[33] The higher Medicaid reimbursement rates are limited to physicians
with a primary specialty designation of family medicine, general
internal medicine, or pediatric medicine. Increased payments are
required where state Medicaid payment rates are lower than Medicare
rates for these services. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(13)(C).
[34] 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(dd).
[35] The study estimated the additional number of primary care
providers that would participate in Medicaid as a result of the 2-year
increase in Medicaid reimbursement rates, the growth in Medicaid
enrollment expected under PPACA, and the supply of primary care
providers that are participating in Medicaid. See Cunningham, State
Variation in Primary Care Physician Supply: Implications for Health
Reform Medicaid Expansions.
[36] J. Bisgaier, K. V. Rhodes, "Auditing Access to Specialty Care for
Children with Public Insurance."
[37] Our examination of 2007 HHS national survey data, MEPS, suggested
that 15 percent of children in Medicaid and CHIP age 17 and younger
needed to see a specialist, and 24 percent of those children had
problems seeing specialists; and that 16 percent of uninsured children
age 17 and younger needed to see a specialist, and 29 percent of those
children had problems seeing a specialist. GAO-11-293R.
[38] Mental health specialists cited by physicians included
psychiatrists, psychologists, drug counselors, and other therapists.
[39] Michigan Department of Community Health, Survey of Physicians
(Lansing, Mich.: 2011); and Massachusetts Medical Society, 2010
Physician Workforce Study (Waltham, Mass.: October 2010).
[40] HHS, The Physician Workforce: Projections and Research into
Current Issues Affecting Supply and Demand (December 2008).
[41] For primary care physicians, specialties included adolescent
medicine, family medicine, general medicine, internal medicine,
obstetrics and gynecology, and pediatrics. For specialty care
physicians, specialties included allergy and immunology, dermatology,
endocrinology, gastroenterology, general surgery or pediatric surgery,
neurology, orthopedic surgery or sports medicine, ophthalmology,
otolaryngology, otology, hematology or oncology, psychiatry, thoracic
surgery, and urology. When applicable, we also included the pediatric
subspecialties associated with these specialty types.
[42] Specifically, we asked physicians to describe why they experience
difficulty referring Medicaid or CHIP patients to specialty referrals;
list the top specialties for which making a referral for a
consultation is difficult for Medicaid or CHIP children, or both; and
list the top specialties for which making a referral for a
consultation is difficult for privately insured children.
[43] We calculated a lower and upper bound at the 95 percent
confidence level for each national estimate using raw data and the
appropriate sampling weights and survey design variables. There is a
95 percent probability that the actual percentage falls within the
lower and upper bounds. We indicated where a statistically significant
difference exists when comparing responses of physician groups
(primary care physicians and specialty care physicians) and by child's
type of insurance (Medicaid and CHIP coverage and private insurance
coverage).
[44] For our survey, we developed a list of 13 specific factors that
could influence physician willingness to serve Medicaid and CHIP
children. We developed this list based on a review of other research
and pretesting with researchers, physician groups, and physicians.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
