Background

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 gave states the option to withdraw Medicaid coverage of nonemergency care from most legal immigrants. Our goal was to assess the effect of PRWORA on hospital uncompensated care in the United States.

Methods

We collected the following state-level data for the period from 1994 through 1999: foreign-born, noncitizen population and health uninsurance rates (US Census Current Population Survey); percentage of teaching hospitals (American Hospital Association Annual Survey of Hospitals); and each state's decision whether to implement the PRWORA Medicaid bar for legal permanent residents or to continue offering nonemergency Medicaid coverage using state-only funds (Urban Institute). We modeled uncompensated care expenditures by state (also from the Annual Survey of Hospitals) in both univariate and multivariable regression analyses.

Results

When measured at the state level, there was no significant relationship between uncompensated care expenditures and states' percentage of noncitizen immigrants. Uninsurance rates were the only significant factor in predicting uncompensated hospital care expenditures by state.

Conclusions

Reducing the number of uninsured patients would most surely reduce hospital expenditures for uncompensated care. However, data limitations hampered our efforts to obtain a monetary estimate of hospitals' financial losses due specifically to the immigrant eligibility changes in PRWORA. Quantifying the impact of these provisions on hospitals will require better data sources.

Background

The U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services established the Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program in 2009 to stimulate the adoption of EHRs. One component of the program requires eligible providers to implement clinical decision support (CDS) interventions that can improve performance on one or more quality measures pre-selected for each specialty. Because the unique decision-making challenges and existing HIT capabilities vary widely across specialties, the development of meaningful objectives for CDS within such programs must be supported by deliberative analysis.

Design

We developed a conceptual framework and protocol that combines evidence review with expert opinion to elicit clinically meaningful objectives for CDS directly from specialists. The framework links objectives for CDS to specialty-specific performance gaps while ensuring that a workable set of CDS opportunities are available to providers to address each performance gap. Performance gaps may include those with well-established quality measures but also priorities identified by specialists based on their clinical experience. Moreover, objectives are not constrained to performance gaps with existing CDS technologies, but rather may include those for which CDS tools might reasonably be expected to be developed in the near term, for example, by the beginning of Stage 3 of the EHR Incentive program. The protocol uses a modified Delphi expert panel process to elicit and prioritize CDS meaningful use objectives. Experts first rate the importance of performance gaps, beginning with a candidate list generated through an environmental scan and supplemented through nominations by panelists. For the highest priority performance gaps, panelists then rate the extent to which existing or future CDS interventions, characterized jointly as "CDS opportunities," might impact each performance gap and the extent to which each CDS opportunity is compatible with specialists' clinical workflows. The protocol was tested by expert panels representing four clinical specialties: oncology, orthopedic surgery, interventional cardiology, and pediatrics.