We examined geographic differences in Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) visits as the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) transitioned from direct service provision (DSP) to assuring delivery within the larger health care system.We examined infant cohorts with continuous Medicaid coverage and normal birth weights from 1995 to 2010. Outcome variables included any EPSDT visit and the ratio of observed to expected visits. Change in SCDHEC market share over time by residence was the primary variable of interest. We used growth curve models to examine changes in EPSDT visits by rural areas and levels of DSP over time.A small proportion of the study population (10%) resided in rural counties that were more dependent on SCDHEC for DSP. The trajectory of not having visits among counties with high DSPs was steeper in rural areas (0.208; P = .001) compared with urban areas (0.145; P = .002). In counties with high DSPs, the slope of the predicted ratio in rural areas (-0.033; P < .001) was steeper than that of urban areas (-0.013; P < .001).Health departments operations continue to transition from DSP, which might decrease access to well-child care in rural communities. Health care reform provides opportunities for health departments to work with community partners to facilitate DSP from public to private sectors.
Abstract Purpose Access to the full range of contraceptive options is essential to providing patient‐centered reproductive health care. Women living in rural areas often experience more barriers to contraceptive care than women living in urban areas. Therefore, federally funded family planning clinics are important for ensuring women have access to contraceptive care, especially in rural areas. This study examines contraceptive provision, factors supporting contraceptive provision, and contraceptive utilization among federally funded family planning clinics in 2 Southern states. Methods All health department and Federally Qualified Health Center clinics in Alabama and South Carolina that offer contraceptive services were surveyed in 2017‐2018. Based on these surveys, we examined differences between rural and urban clinics in the following areas: clinic characteristics, services offered, staffing, staff training, policies, patient characteristics, contraceptive provision, and contraceptive utilization. Differences were assessed using Chi‐square tests of independence for categorical variables and independent t ‐tests for continuous variables. Findings Urban clinics had more staff on average than rural clinics, but rural clinics reported greater ease in recruiting and retaining family planning providers. Patient characteristics did not significantly vary between rural and urban clinics. While no significant differences were observed in the provision of long‐acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) overall, a greater proportion of patients in urban clinics utilized LARCs. Conclusions While provision of most contraceptives is similar between rural and urban federally funded family planning clinics, important differences in other factors continue to result in women who receive care in rural clinics being less likely to choose LARC methods.
Health insurance remains an important dimension of contraceptive access. This study investigated the role of insurance in contraceptive use, access, and quality in South Carolina and Alabama.The study used a cross-sectional statewide representative survey that assessed reproductive health experiences and contraceptive use among reproductive-age women in South Carolina and Alabama. The primary outcomes were current contraceptive method use, barriers to access (inability to afford wanted method, delay/trouble obtaining wanted method), receipt of any contraceptive care in the past 12 months, and perceived quality of care. The independent variable was insurance type. Generalized linear models were applied to estimate prevalence ratios for each outcome's association with insurance type while adjusting for potentially confounding variables.Nearly 1 in 5 women (17.6%) was uninsured, and 1 in 4 women (25.3%) reported not using a contraceptive method at the time of the survey. Compared with women with private insurance, women with no insurance had a lower likelihood of current method use (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.75; 95% confidence interval 0.60-0.92) and receipt of contraceptive care in the past 12 months (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.61; 95% confidence interval 0.45-0.82). These women also were more likely to experience cost barriers to access care. The insurance type was not significantly associated with the interpersonal quality of contraceptive care.Findings highlight the need for expanding Medicaid in states that did not do so under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, interventions to increase the number of providers who accept Medicaid patients, and protections to Title X funding as key elements for enhancing contraceptive access and population health outcomes.
Objectives. To investigate differences in funding and service delivery between rural and urban local health departments (LHDs) in the United States. Methods. In this repeated cross-sectional study, we examined rural–urban differences in funding and service provision among LHDs over time using 2010 and 2016 National Association of County and City Health Officials data. Results. Local revenue among urban LHDs (41.2%) was higher than that in large rural (31.3%) and small rural LHDs (31.2%; P < .05). Small (20.9%) and large rural LHDs (19.8%) reported greater reliance on revenue from Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services than urban LHDs (11.5%; P < .05). All experienced decreases in clinical revenue between 2010 and 2016. Urban LHDs provided less primary care services in 2016; rural LHDs provided more mental health and substance abuse services (P < .05). Conclusions. Urban LHDs generated more revenues from local sources, and rural LHDs generated more from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and clinical services. Rural LHDs tended to provide more clinical services. Given rural LHDs’ reliance on clinical revenue, decreases in clinical services could have disproportionate effects on them. Public Health Implications. Differences in financing and service delivery by rurality have an impact on the communities. Rural LHDs rely more heavily on state and federal dollars, which are vulnerable to changes in state and national health policy.
