Affiliation:
1. Division of Pharmaceutical Evaluation and Policy University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Pharmacy Little Rock Arkansas USA
2. Department of Internal Medicine University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Medicine Little Rock Arkansas USA
3. Department of Internal Medicine University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Medicine Springdale Arkansas USA
Abstract
AbstractObjectivesTo evaluate the quality of Arkansas All‐Payer Claims Database (APCD) for disparity research in persistent poverty areas by determining (1) its representativeness of Arkansas population, (2) variation by county, and (3) differences in coverage between persistent poverty and other counties.Data SourcesCross‐sectional study using 2019 Arkansas APCD member enrollment data and county‐level data from various agencies.Data Collection/Extraction MethodsAn alias identifier linked persons across insurance plans. County FIPS codes were used to extract county‐level variables.Study DesignCohort 1 included individuals with ≥1 day of medical coverage in 2019. Cohort 2 included individuals with medical coverage in June, 2019. Cohort 3 included individuals with continuous medical coverage in 2019. Sampling proportions of a county's population in the three cohorts were compared between persistent poverty and other counties. Inverse‐variance weighted linear regression was used to identify county‐level socioeconomic and demographic characteristics associated with inclusion in each cohort.Principal FindingsIn 2019, 73.6% of Arkansans had medical coverage for ≥1 day (Cohort 1), 66.3% had coverage in June (Cohort 2), and 58.8% had continuous coverage (Cohort 3) in APCD. Sampling proportions varied by county (median[range]: Cohort 1, 78% [58%–95%]; Cohort 2, 71% [51%–88%]; and Cohort 3, 64% [44%–80%]), and were higher among persistent poverty counties than others for all three cohorts (mean [SD], persistent poverty vs. other: Cohort 1: 80.9% [6.4%] vs. 77.1% [6.3%], p = 0.04; Cohort 2: 74.0% [6.4%] vs. 70.1% [6.2%], p = 0.03; Cohort 3: 66.4% [6.1%] vs. 62.7% [6.0%], p = 0.03). In the 2019 APCD, larger counties and those with higher proportions of females or persons 65+ years had higher coverage, whereas counties with higher per capita household income, median home value, or disproportionately more persons of other races (non‐White and non‐Black) had lower coverage (p < 0.05 for all three cohorts).ConclusionsThe Arkansas APCD had good coverage of Arkansas population. Coverage was higher in persistent poverty counties than others.
Funder
Arkansas Biosciences Institute
American Cancer Society
National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Reference29 articles.
1. State All‐Payer Claims Databases: Tools for Improving Health Care Value Part 2 — The Uses and Benefits of State APCDs.2020.
2. All‐Payer Claims Databases.2023.https://www.ahrq.gov/data/apcd/index.html
3. FiedlerM YoungCL.Federal policy options to realize the potential of APCDs.