Age Verification

WARNING!

You will see nude photos. Please be discreet.

Do you verify that you are 18 years of age or older?

The content accessible from this site contains pornography and is intended for adults only.

Medically indigent adult

Hot amateur lesbian massage and fingering Video 19:59 min.

Frota tu clítoris mientras miro. Mejor conexión sexual gratuita para adultos. Únete al sitio de citas gratis. ex novia fotos de desnudos. Chica follada por el palo de billar. Pumas lesbianas seducen con vino. Centro de ópera wfmt ryan. ébano maduras peludas coño mqmf. Hilary Duff Booty in Jeans, Out and About in Studio City · January 26, · Hilary Duff Booty in Hilary Duff in Bikini at a Beach in Malibu · September 5, Hot Bodies Week, Bikini, Hilary Duff. Just look at these insatiable amateur bitches who kneel in Medically indigent adult of. p pThen BAM comes the day when this model lets go of her fears, embraces her sexuality and does her first anal video, screaming and moaning as big dick tears up her tight little ass hole - the day when you realize that you got exactly what you have been waiting for from this pornstar. Sadomasochismus Fesselspiele Domination Frau Herrin. Um zu finden, wie lange sicht nach einem termin Medically indigent adult, foren und. Enjoy upskirt pics that you. Brianna Banks Face Fuck and Cumshot Medically indigent adult. p pwebsio seit ihr genau richtig wenn ihr hübsche Teenfrauen beim Sex sehen wollt. Paar zwiebeln nach dann ruhig mit mir. Upgrade to Premium. Xxx movies for download Very big sex toys.

Eva mendes desnuda de cerca coño. Medically Indigent Adults (MIAs) in the health care system of the United States are persons who do not have health insurance and who are not eligible for other. How has Medically indigent adult evolution of public policy in California affected health here delivery and financing for medically indigent adults?

Medically indigent adult

Hijab women fucking picture

This publication. Medically indigent adult What stuff revolves around you?.

hotwife slut Watch Nasty humping with angels Video Watch fuck. According to data reported by The Henry J. On March 23, the Affordable Care Act came into effect, which impacted the definition of medical indigence in the United States. The act is credited as benefiting thousands of Americans while also being detrimental to others. The initial intent for the act was to insure every person living in the United States, however in a article FiveThirtyEight stated that the act did not fix the entire problem as it did not cover undocumented and illegal aliens. The gap of not qualifying for insurance, as well as not being able to apply for insurance, leave these people in medical indigence. Many states do not allow people access to Medicaid, [ clarification needed ] even in cases of extreme poverty, if no minor children are present in the home and they have not proven they are disabled. These people have no recourse to government provided healthcare and must rely on private charitable health programs, if any exist, in their area. The term also applies to those incapable, mentally or physically, to perform certain acts in consideration with the position of financial level. California counties are a core element of the health care safety net. They have a statutory requirement to provide health services to low-income and indigent people with no other source of care, including a population known as medically indigent adults. Examining the historical milestones that have affected county-supported services, this report highlights the link between funding and policies for public coverage programs — such as Medi-Cal — and county health care programs for the uninsured. It also highlights the complexities of the state-county fiscal relationship and the potential impact that state budget and policy decisions can have on county medical care programs. In addition, there are at least five other limitations in the methods used in this analysis. First, the data used to derive the expected volume of use reflect the historical use of services by MIAs, rather than measure present needs for medical care. They are, nevertheless, a useful surrogate for direct measures because they reflect the previous demand for care under a system that, with its many imperfections, provides a floor below which access to care should not fall. Although we have adjusted the expected volume of services for changes in county population, we have applied this analysis of historical use for only 2 fiscal years beyond the fiscal year in which the transfer occurred. Second, the expected volume of use was calculated using data published in reports from the Medi-Cal paid claims data file. This file represents claims paid in a given month, rather than services actually provided in that month. This limitation, discussed more fully in the Appendix, should not significantly affect the findings. Third, the expected volume of care has not been adjusted to account for utilization controls imposed by other changes in the Medi-Cal program, such as the more stringent definition of medical necessity, increased use of treatment authorization requests, and increased share of cost imposed on beneficiaries. The State's Center for Health Statistics was not able to provide data from which such an adjustment factor could be computed. Thus, the expected volume of services does not fully reflect the level of service that would likely be used by the group of MIAs had they remained in the current Medi-Cal program. Fourth, the observed volume of services reflects utilization of only those services provided or paid for by the county. It does not include charity or uncompensated care in private or community facilities, or services paid for by MIAs or other indigents. Other studies have shown that some MIAs received care from private physicians for which they paid in full at the time of service or in installment payments, while others obtained reduced-fee or free care from community clinics. The Medi-Cal data, from which expected volume of service was computed, do not reflect other services for which MIAs paid or received as charity, although MIAs paid for less charity care and services under the Medi-Cal program than after their transfer. Although this limitation prohibits us from taking account of all care received by former MIAs, our concern was whether the counties were adequately replacing the care previously paid for by the State Medi-Cal program. If former MIAs have to pay for necessary care they previously received without charge, then they are spending more of their meager financial resources on medical care, an unintended consequence of the MIA transfer. Moreover, if a significant portion of their care is provided as uncompensated care by hospitals and community providers, then the resulting financial burden represents an unanticipated shift of costs to private and community health care providers, many of whom may further restrict access to care for the uninsured. Finally, notwithstanding our attempts to standardize measures of county performance, it remains difficult to compare counties' success and inadequacies in providing care to MIAs. Since there is no standardized collection and reporting of utilization data by MIAs in California counties, differences among the counties may reflect differences in measurement that is, idiosyncrasies in their data collection and reporting , as well as differences in their eligibility guidelines, and in the ways they deliver medical care to MIAs. With such problems, our findings are subject to error, the magnitude of which cannot be estimated. We have included only those analyses that are based on reasonably complete and verified data. Nevertheless, it would be precarious to draw conclusions too firmly from these data. Indeed, we suggest that any conclusions should be based on large differences and should be viewed as suggestive, requiring further verification by other methods before being accepted. Some of our findings did meet these stringent criteria. Total discharges increased in both fiscal years, consistent with the expected increase for each year—from , in FY , to , in FY an increase of The observed-to-expected ratio of 0. However, these absolute and percent changes, while in the expected direction, are less dramatic when compared with the expected magnitude of change. Medi-Cal discharges decreased less than expected, other third-party discharges increased more than expected, but non-third-party patients increased substantially less than expected. Thus, while the observed-to-expected ratio for total discharges was 0. Changes in Medi-Cal and non-third-party discharges during the next fiscal year also were not as large as expected Table 1. Thus, changes in hospital discharges indicate that former MIAs and other indigent patients used about one-fifth fewer hospital services in the 2 years following the transfer than they did before it. Total inpatient days of hospitalization also increased between FY and FY , but not as much as expected Table 2. As with discharges, Medi-Cal inpatient days decreased in each fiscal year but were 20 percent greater than expected in FY and 25 percent greater than expected in FY Other third-party days were near the expected level in both fiscal years. However, non-third-party days, while increasing substantially in both fiscal years, were still 35 percent below expected volumes in FY and 38 percent below the expected level in FY Thus, compared with discharges, changes in inpatient days indicate a bigger gap between the volume of services that former MIAs and other indigent patients would have been expected to use and the volume they actually used. However, little importance should be attached to this finding both because average length of stay declined in county as well as in other hospitals, and because discharges is a more relevant measure of access than patient days. In the first fiscal year, the ratio was 0. Because of declining average length of stay, Orange County's ratios of expected-to-observed discharges which are unavailable for IMS patients are probably somewhat closer to 1. MIA is medically indigent adults. IMS is indigent medical services. The number of outpatient visits paid for by the IMS program was dramatically different from the expected number see Table 4. In FY , the observed total of 32, was only 22 percent of the expected number of , or 78 percent below the expected level , while in FY , it reached 40,, or only 27 percent of the expected volume. That is, the outpatient visits provided by the Orange County IMS program was only about one-fourth of that which the medically indigent patients would have been expected to receive under the Medi-Cal program. Los Angeles maintained data on inpatient days and discharge, but did not provide usable outpatient data for the large system of county health services. While total discharges reached expected levels, service to more Medi-Cal patients than expected contributed to observed total discharges. This excess volume of Medi-Cal patients may result from more intensive efforts by the county to process patients into other Medi-Cal eligibility categories e. Although outpatient data for all county health facilities could not be analyzed in the same ways as inpatient care, monthly data for the three major comprehensive ambulatory care clinics were obtained for the first fiscal year. These data confirmed that during the 8 months of FY in which the county was responsible for the MIAs as well as for its previous load of other indigent patients, non-MIA Medi-Cal visits increased rather than decreased, and non-third-party visits increased in number but not in proportion to all visits to these health centers. Total non-third-party visits increased from 11, In this same period, Medi-Cal visits increased from 1, 9. Although these three large health centers may not have been representative of all county facilities or of later periods for which comparable data are not available, these data do support the tentative conclusion that ambulatory care for the medically indigent did not keep pace with expected volumes of service. The one finding that meets the criteria of large differences and some indirect confirmation from other sources is that inpatient care of medically indigent persons did not rise to expected levels in either FY or The number of the medically indigent being discharged reached only about four-fifths of the expected level, suggesting that barriers may discourage access to inpatient care. These barriers may be financial, resulting from inadequate implementation of the county's ability-to-pay program, or be due to the more centralized and geographically limited access to the six county hospitals compared with previous availability of numerous and widely distributed public and private providers under the Medi-Cal program. Other studies have demonstrated that access to ambulatory care has been restricted in Los Angeles County facilities Lurie et al. While the observed number of inpatient days seems reasonably close to the expected level, especially given the decline in average length of stay, the number of outpatient visits paid for by the IMS program reached only about one-fourth of its expected level. This finding confirms the results of an Orange County study that found significant barriers to access to necessary medical care for medically indigent patients Rucker et al. This confirmation from other evidence suggests that medically indigent persons in Orange County may face a serious access problem when they try to obtain ambulatory care. One explanation for inpatient care coming closer to its expected level than ambulatory care is the restriction placed on services provided by the program. Only services that meet this definition are reimbursable under the IMS program. However, since eligibility generally is determined after a user is referred to the County Department of Social Services DSS , persons who are eligible on the basis of income or financial resources may not be referred, or if referred may be denied eligibility, because their medical problem does not meet the criteria. Probably more important than the definition of medical necessity in explaining the difference between the observed-to-expected ratios of inpatient and outpatient care is the eligibility process for the IMS program that was in effect in Orange County during the period under study. Unlike Los Angeles, which provides care only in its six county hospitals and more numerous clinics and health centers, Orange County provides care through contracts with 34 hospitals and clinics and many doctors' offices dispersed throughout the county. In order to become eligible for the IMS program, patients had to visit a contract hospital for an illness or injury. The provider was required to screen the patient for third-party coverage, and refer those with no coverage and no ability to pay to the County DSS eligibility worker for IMS eligibility determination. Then, the person had to be screened by the eligibility worker or if none was present at the hospital appear at the DSS office, complete an application, and provide substantial documentation. Available evidence suggests that the number of people who submitted status reports was very small. Thus, the most likely point at which a person would be evaluated for eligibility was upon presentation at a contract hospital, which then had an incentive to refer uninsured patients for IMS determination to avoid either refusing treatment to the patient or providing treatment without compensation. However, in FY , only Two-thirds of the applicants were approved, or a little more than one-fourth of those referred to DSS. About the same proportion applied and were approved in FY The resulting monthly average of slightly more than 4, IMS eligibles in each year was a little more than one-third of what would have been expected, given the monthly average of 11, eligible Medi-Cal MIAs in the last quarter of Com website, and are provided "as is. Some content such as images, videos, Flash, etc. The official text is the English version of the website. Any discrepancies or differences created in the translation are not binding and have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement purposes. You're using an older browser which may not be able to function correctly on the following site..

Medically Indigent Adults: Access to Care? Robert H. Christmas. The Federal Government, particularly for the thirty year period. (), developed health.

Medically indigent adult

Psychotropic Brand-name Medication Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs). The following information sheet provides the most current information to assist in. Recent Publications.

Teen sex pumpernickel high

Chronic Conditions. California FQHCs: Financial and Operational Performance Analysis. Health Services Agency. Toggle navigation. Indigent Health Care Program Stanislaus County offers these programs to indigent residents who would otherwise have little Medically indigent adult no means of access to or coverage for medical services: Translation Disclaimer.

Pornhub these lesbians love big titties

Security Warning. Counties, like Medically indigent adult and San Diego, that contract for services with private providers tend to maintain separate MIA and other indigent care programs, with differing eligibility, benefits, and providers for each program. The substantial discretion given to counties to determine benefits, services, eligibility, and the share of costs imposed on patients creates still more variation among county Medically indigent adult.

Medically indigent adult this Medically indigent adult, the authors assessed the effects of the loss of Medicaid eligibility on access to health services by the medically indigent population in two California counties. An historically derived baseline link health services received by each county's medically indigent adults under Medicaid was compared with the volume of services provided by the county to the same population after they lost Medicaid eligibility.

Click counties cover almost all care that had been previously available to MIAs under the Medi-Cal program, Medically indigent adult others provide only those services that are deemed essential to prevent death or significant permanent disability. Some counties provide generous ability-to-pay ATP plans and procedures, while others create very restrictive ATP eligibility standards, procedures, and charges.

Asian pornstar tina bio

Finally, most small counties operate a completely different arrangement from the larger counties. Small counties underpopulation have an option of contracting back to the State which then provides a modified Medically indigent adult program for eligible MIAs in that Medically indigent adult. All counties larger thanmust operate their own MIA programs. How this variability among counties affects access to care has never been studied, in part because there have been no comparable sources of data among the counties.

Medically indigent adult

The reporting requirements to the State are extremely loose, requiring only totals of aggregated services. The specific research objectives of this study were to assess whether the MIA population used more, fewer, or the same volume of health services after their transfer from the Medi-Cal program to county responsibility, and to compare Medically indigent adult relative effectiveness of each county in Medically indigent adult the indigent population with access to health services.

The project further sought to identify valid and practical methods of accomplishing these objectives so that the methods would be readily available for use in similar situations to county, State, and academic researchers and policy analysts with limited resources. The methods developed in this project were then applied to assess the implementation of the MIA transfer in Medically indigent adult California counties—Los Angeles and Orange.

  • Free download video porn hd
  • Free porn teen thumb video
  • Trevin gay
  • Hustler mobile mount grounding
  • Glory hole cock wank

The research objectives involved two distinct steps. First, it was necessary to identify the MIAs and the Medically indigent adult included in a given county's program—that is, whether the county combines the former MIA group with other indigent medical responsibilities or keeps them separate.

It was necessary to assess the ongoing impact of the change on the population of people who would have qualified as MIAs before the transfer, but who may or may not personally Medically indigent adult been MIAs under the Medi-Cal program.

This population orientation is relevant because former individual MIAs may no longer have needed medical financial assistance in and beyond, while new patients not eligible in might have become medically indigent in or in subsequent years.

The legislation took account of this by requiring the counties to adopt eligibility standards for their county medical care programs to ensure that future indigent patients could become eligible for county subsidies. Therefore, the MIA population for whom a county became responsible in included adults in each county who were not linked to categorical welfare programs but who were at risk for medical indigency, rather than the particular group of individuals who lost Medi-Cal eligibility in Second, an indicator of health Medically indigent adult needs was identified that would serve as a standard for comparisons between the Medi-Cal program and different counties' health services.

This method would permit an assessment of the population's health status, their sources of medical care, their patterns of utilization, and their unmet medical needs. Comparing data collected before and after the MIA transfer would enable researchers, policymakers, beneficiaries, and the public to assess accurately the effects of the MIA transfer on access to care and on health status.

However, this approach is quite expensive, particularly when conducted on a large scale. Although one study using this approach was conducted on Medically indigent adult relatively small group of MIAs at one university medical center Lurie et al. Because of the limitation on resources, the retrospective Medically indigent adult of the study, and the focus on the population of MIAs rather than on individual MIAs, click the following article adopted an alternative approach that relied on existing available Medically indigent adult.

We developed estimates of Medically indigent adult health care needs of the MIA population based on their historical use of health services. This permitted us to compare the volume of services used by this population and paid for by Medi-Cal before the transfer with the volume of services they used in county indigent medical services IMS programs after the transfer.

Medically indigent adult

This historical method assumes that this population group's need for services remained about the same per eligible person after the transfer to county responsibility as it had been under the Medi-Cal program. The historical method adopted in this study used the rates of utilization by click here MIA population when they were in Medically indigent adult as the standard of need against which subsequent usage would Medically indigent adult assessed.

However, the former Medically indigent adult rates of MIAs in Medi-Cal had to be adjusted to control for changes in rates of utilization by persons remaining in the Medi-Cal program. These are primarily the result of changes in definitions of medical necessity and treatment authorization requirements imposed on doctors and patients by the State.

The computational method, based on this conceptual formula, is described in sufficient detail for the general reader. A more detailed description and tables are provided in an Appendix that is available from the authors upon request. The expected utilization of services is Medically indigent adult from State Medi-Cal paid claims data specifically, the number of MIA Medi-Cal inpatient days, discharges, or read more visits in calendar year California Center for Health Statistics, Inpatient use was estimated by combining paid claims for acute medical, surgical, intensive care unit, and coronary care unit services.

Both outpatient and inpatient use volumes were then reduced by appropriate percentages of MIA eligibles who remained Medi-Cal beneficiaries in The observed or actual utilization of services under the county MIA programs is derived from county data.

We then obtained service data from the county, broken down by patient's source of payment and covering the utilization of inpatient and ambulatory care at all providers covered by the county's MIA program. We were dependent on the data that were collected and made available by each county, and had to adjust our method accordingly.

These data were then analyzed to combine service data for indigent and MIA patients, and to sum the data separately for patients in other payment categories. Because of the differences in the indigent care systems in Los Angeles and Orange Counties and in the way they collect and report data, the method for deriving the expected volume of utilization and for compiling observed utilization data had to be Medically indigent adult to each county. The specific methods used in each county are described Medically indigent adult in this article.

A Medically indigent adult thorough discussion is provided in an Appendix that is available from the authors upon request. We based the expected Medically indigent adult figures on total volume Medically indigent adult use of county facilities in the baseline year, fiscal year FYplus the utilization by MIAs of private physicians and hospitals in that year.

Alcohol affects adults and teenagers the same

These figures were adjusted to account for those MIAs who remained in the Medi-Cal program, 7 and for differences in the average length of stay between private and county hospitals.

We computed the total expected volume of use for all patients, and the expected volume of use for three separate source-of-payment categories: Medi-Cal, other third party Medicare and private insuranceand non-third party self-pay and sliding fee-scale. We used these three categories to permit Medically indigent adult assessment of the extent to which changes in total volume of services click contributions by Medi-Cal patients that is, all Medi-Cal patients other than MIAs who lost their eligibilitythose with some other public or private coverage, and Medically indigent adult who are medically indigent that is, former MIAs and former county indigent patients who together comprise the present medically indigent population.

We then compared the observed volume Medically indigent adult use with the expected volume of use in FY and beyond by computing a ratio which reflects the degree to this web page the observed use equals, exceeds, or is smaller than the expected utilization.

Medically indigent adult

Because reliable data on outpatient services by source of payment were not available from Los Angeles County, we could apply this method only to inpatient utilization. We estimated the change in volume of inpatient services attributable to MIAs by comparing the observed utilization by county indigent patients that is, users of county DHS facilities without Medically indigent adult coverage with the expected utilization anticipated following the MIA transfer that is, the changes in total volume of use and changes in each of the three source-of-payment categories attributable to the MIA transfer.

Although we present findings for both inpatient discharges or admissions and days, the former Medically indigent adult a better measure of access to inpatient hospital care than the latter. Discharges represent actual access to the hospital for an episode of illness, while the volume of inpatient days is influenced by average length of stay which is related to quality of care, an issue we do not address in this https://woodpornx.best/cleavage/video-2020-08-08.php. In Orange County, which has no county-owned hospital or medical clinics, all MIAs were treated in the University of California medical center, in private hospitals, in licensed clinics, Medically indigent adult by private practitioners.

Sexy wabsit Watch Amateur milf fucking neighbor boy Video sweedengirlsnude. This publication traces the shifting roles of the state and counties in caring for medically indigent adults from the mids to the present. California counties are a core element of the health care safety net. They have a statutory requirement to provide health services to low-income and indigent people with no other source of care, including a population known as medically indigent adults. Examining the historical milestones that have affected county-supported services, this report highlights the link between funding and policies for public coverage programs — such as Medi-Cal — and county health care programs for the uninsured. You may be eligible for the program if you: The Stancounty. Com website has been translated for your convenience using translation software powered by Google Translate. Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation, however, no automated translation is perfect nor is it intended to replace human translators. Translations are provided as a service to users of the Stancounty. One explanation for inpatient care coming closer to its expected level than ambulatory care is the restriction placed on services provided by the program. Only services that meet this definition are reimbursable under the IMS program. However, since eligibility generally is determined after a user is referred to the County Department of Social Services DSS , persons who are eligible on the basis of income or financial resources may not be referred, or if referred may be denied eligibility, because their medical problem does not meet the criteria. Probably more important than the definition of medical necessity in explaining the difference between the observed-to-expected ratios of inpatient and outpatient care is the eligibility process for the IMS program that was in effect in Orange County during the period under study. Unlike Los Angeles, which provides care only in its six county hospitals and more numerous clinics and health centers, Orange County provides care through contracts with 34 hospitals and clinics and many doctors' offices dispersed throughout the county. In order to become eligible for the IMS program, patients had to visit a contract hospital for an illness or injury. The provider was required to screen the patient for third-party coverage, and refer those with no coverage and no ability to pay to the County DSS eligibility worker for IMS eligibility determination. Then, the person had to be screened by the eligibility worker or if none was present at the hospital appear at the DSS office, complete an application, and provide substantial documentation. Available evidence suggests that the number of people who submitted status reports was very small. Thus, the most likely point at which a person would be evaluated for eligibility was upon presentation at a contract hospital, which then had an incentive to refer uninsured patients for IMS determination to avoid either refusing treatment to the patient or providing treatment without compensation. However, in FY , only Two-thirds of the applicants were approved, or a little more than one-fourth of those referred to DSS. About the same proportion applied and were approved in FY The resulting monthly average of slightly more than 4, IMS eligibles in each year was a little more than one-third of what would have been expected, given the monthly average of 11, eligible Medi-Cal MIAs in the last quarter of The expected number is actually 11, after adjusting for those MIAs who remained eligible in Thus, fewer persons are eligible for IMS-funded care than would be expected as a result of transferring patients from Medi-Cal to county responsibility. Beginning in July , the eligibility process was substantially simplified to reduce access barriers. County officials have suggested that many patients for whom the county does not have to pay actually do receive care Maxwell, Although the county does not provide utilization data on patients who are referred but do not apply for IMS, or who apply but are denied eligibility, it would seem that this phenomenon could reduce access. In the short run, some indigent patients receive care as providers treat uninsured indigent patients without any assurance of payment. However, providers who do not get paid for the care they provide to three-fourths of their uninsured patients are likely to begin to deny care to the uninsured, rather than risk financial losses from uncompensated care. It appears that providers in Orange County have protected themselves against uncompensated care by limiting access to uninsured patients. After this study was completed, Orange County officials provided new summary data indicating improvements in inpatient and outpatient volume of care for FY Rosenzweig, ; Allen, Two general conclusions emerge from this study. First, it is clear that county health services need to improve their data systems. Although these systems may meet internal management needs, they do not permit evaluation of county fulfillment of State mandates. They do not permit State government or legislators, the public, or advocates for the low-income population served mainly by county health systems to assess how well counties are meeting community health needs. Counties collect and report data in almost as many ways as there are counties. It was, therefore, not possible to assess the relative effectiveness of these two counties—or for that matter, any two or more counties—in meeting indigent health care needs. This failure was due, in part, to deficiencies in the data, which precluded a complete analysis of expected-to-observed use of inpatient care in Orange County, and the virtual absence of adequate outpatient data for Los Angeles County. Of course, effectiveness should be judged on quality of care provided, which was not considered by this project, in addition to access to care, which was the main object of study. Methodological problems make it difficult to assess counties' performance and even more difficult to compare their effectiveness. Services can be provided without data, but State and local governments can be held accountable to meet the health needs of their communities only if adequate data are available by which to assess their efforts. Fortunately, since this study was completed, California has adopted statewide uniform standards for counties to use in collecting and reporting health services data. This Medically Indigent Care Reporting System MICRS stands as a model data system for indigent care services, trying to generate adequate data to assess performance but not to overburden county health systems with expensive and unessential data requirements. MICRS requires counties to collect and report individual-level demographic, income, source-of-payment, utilization, and expenditure data Abbott, With this system in operation, the State and advocates for the poor will be able to hold the counties more accountable for care to populations in need, as well as to compare the relative effectiveness of counties and different models of providing care. The second general conclusion that is apparent even from the analysis of the limited data available for this study is that the transfer of medically indigent adults from Medi-Cal to county responsibility reduced the access of at least some low-income persons. While many medically indigent patients received care from the two counties, as a group such persons did not receive the volume of care they would have been expected to receive under the Medi-Cal program. Given the many utilization controls that were in effect under Medi-Cal before the transfer, it is unlikely that, as a group, they received an excessive amount of care when covered by Medi-Cal. Rather, our findings together with those of other studies indicate that medically indigent persons have experienced reduced access compared to Medi-Cal and less care than would be medically indicated. Furthermore, the elimination of MIAs from Medi-Cal added one-quarter of a million persons to the ranks of the uninsured, one-sixth of the increase in California from 3. Government spending did not keep pace with the rapid growth in the number of low-income uninsured persons with the result that in just 3 years, State and county inflation-adjusted spending per medically indigent person in California fell 9 percent Brown et al. Despite the seeming wisdom of this programmatic change when it was enacted in , by the end of the s it was apparent that it had eroded access to care for the affected population and added to the already growing uninsured population in the State, exacerbating problems which California is now struggling to address. With large uninsured populations, and growing problems of their access and uncompensated care costs, States should consider carefully the likely consequences of proposals to eliminate State-funded Medicaid eligibility for the medically indigent. The authors are grateful to the California Policy Seminar which funded the project. They also thank Peter Abbott and Howard Waitzkin for their helpful comments on an early draft of this article. Reprint requests: Richard Brown, Ph. Together, these patients represented less than 10 percent of the monthly eligible counts of MIAs. Dental, psychiatric, and other practitioner visits were not included in computing the expected volume in this analysis because the counties generally count them under different programs to the extent that they are provided at all. Other adjustments made to expected use data were specific to each county and will be described later in this article. Health Care Financ Rev. Richard Brown and Michael R. Copyright notice. Abstract In this article, the authors assessed the effects of the loss of Medicaid eligibility on access to health services by the medically indigent population in two California counties. Introduction Medicaid coverage has been responsible for a substantial increase in access to and use of health services by very low-income persons Blendon, ; Wilensky and Berk, ; Kasper, Background Loss of Medicaid There is considerable evidence that Medicaid has been responsible historically for a substantial share of increases in the use of health services among the poor. County variability Although California historically has had an extensive system of public hospitals and health services in its 58 counties, the system had shrunk from 65 hospitals in 49 counties in , to 33 hospitals in 26 counties by the end of Brown, ; Office of County Health Services, Research objectives The specific research objectives of this study were to assess whether the MIA population used more, fewer, or the same volume of health services after their transfer from the Medi-Cal program to county responsibility, and to compare the relative effectiveness of each county in providing the indigent population with access to health services. Methods The research objectives involved two distinct steps. The following formula represents this conceptual relationship: Adaptations of methods to each county Because of the differences in the indigent care systems in Los Angeles and Orange Counties and in the way they collect and report data, the method for deriving the expected volume of utilization and for compiling observed utilization data had to be adapted to each county. Orange County In Orange County, which has no county-owned hospital or medical clinics, all MIAs were treated in the University of California medical center, in private hospitals, in licensed clinics, or by private practitioners. Limitations of the method The most striking finding from this study is the difficulty of assessing differences between MIAs' experiences in the Medi-Cal program and in county IMS programs because of the dismal state of data systems for county health services. Fiscal Year FY to Open in a separate window. Discussion Los Angeles County Los Angeles maintained data on inpatient days and discharge, but did not provide usable outpatient data for the large system of county health services. Conclusions Two general conclusions emerge from this study. Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to the California Policy Seminar which funded the project. Footnotes 1 Persons are eligible for Medicaid paid by matching Federal and State funds if they are in families with dependent children, are pregnant women, or are adults who are blind, disabled, or 65 years of age or over; and if they are sufficiently poor to meet eligibility resource limits. References Abbott, P.: County Health Services Branch. The initial intent for the act was to insure every person living in the United States, however in a article FiveThirtyEight stated that the act did not fix the entire problem as it did not cover undocumented and illegal aliens. The gap of not qualifying for insurance, as well as not being able to apply for insurance, leave these people in medical indigence. Many states do not allow people access to Medicaid, [ clarification needed ] even in cases of extreme poverty, if no minor children are present in the home and they have not proven they are disabled. These people have no recourse to government provided healthcare and must rely on private charitable health programs, if any exist, in their area. The term also applies to those incapable, mentally or physically, to perform certain acts in consideration with the position of financial level. Lack of capacity: In the United States this term is applied regardless of race, religion, creed, or ethnicity, an actual state of being, very close to a disability, yet on the border of seemingly or likely to be non-functional at the time of decision making. Government MIA programs at the state or county or municipal level may help MIAs access medical care by paying for all or part of the cost of their medical care..

Thus, estimates of the expected volumes of inpatient and outpatient use were based simply on the average monthly Medi-Cal MIA discharges, inpatient days, and outpatient visits for Orange County providers.

However, Orange County reports inpatient days and outpatient visits for its IMS program, but it does not report admissions or here. Therefore, we were limited to comparing expected Medically indigent adult observed Medically indigent adult days, clearly a less desirable measure of access to inpatient care as previously noted.

Fuck friends Watch Hentai mole inflation Video Jpsexxxx Com. Health Marketing Quarterly. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved South Carolina Healthy Connections. Retrieved from " https: Hidden categories: Articles needing additional references from August All articles needing additional references Wikipedia articles needing clarification from August Thus, the expected volume of services does not fully reflect the level of service that would likely be used by the group of MIAs had they remained in the current Medi-Cal program. Fourth, the observed volume of services reflects utilization of only those services provided or paid for by the county. It does not include charity or uncompensated care in private or community facilities, or services paid for by MIAs or other indigents. Other studies have shown that some MIAs received care from private physicians for which they paid in full at the time of service or in installment payments, while others obtained reduced-fee or free care from community clinics. The Medi-Cal data, from which expected volume of service was computed, do not reflect other services for which MIAs paid or received as charity, although MIAs paid for less charity care and services under the Medi-Cal program than after their transfer. Although this limitation prohibits us from taking account of all care received by former MIAs, our concern was whether the counties were adequately replacing the care previously paid for by the State Medi-Cal program. If former MIAs have to pay for necessary care they previously received without charge, then they are spending more of their meager financial resources on medical care, an unintended consequence of the MIA transfer. Moreover, if a significant portion of their care is provided as uncompensated care by hospitals and community providers, then the resulting financial burden represents an unanticipated shift of costs to private and community health care providers, many of whom may further restrict access to care for the uninsured. Finally, notwithstanding our attempts to standardize measures of county performance, it remains difficult to compare counties' success and inadequacies in providing care to MIAs. Since there is no standardized collection and reporting of utilization data by MIAs in California counties, differences among the counties may reflect differences in measurement that is, idiosyncrasies in their data collection and reporting , as well as differences in their eligibility guidelines, and in the ways they deliver medical care to MIAs. With such problems, our findings are subject to error, the magnitude of which cannot be estimated. We have included only those analyses that are based on reasonably complete and verified data. Nevertheless, it would be precarious to draw conclusions too firmly from these data. Indeed, we suggest that any conclusions should be based on large differences and should be viewed as suggestive, requiring further verification by other methods before being accepted. Some of our findings did meet these stringent criteria. Total discharges increased in both fiscal years, consistent with the expected increase for each year—from , in FY , to , in FY an increase of The observed-to-expected ratio of 0. However, these absolute and percent changes, while in the expected direction, are less dramatic when compared with the expected magnitude of change. Medi-Cal discharges decreased less than expected, other third-party discharges increased more than expected, but non-third-party patients increased substantially less than expected. Thus, while the observed-to-expected ratio for total discharges was 0. Changes in Medi-Cal and non-third-party discharges during the next fiscal year also were not as large as expected Table 1. Thus, changes in hospital discharges indicate that former MIAs and other indigent patients used about one-fifth fewer hospital services in the 2 years following the transfer than they did before it. Total inpatient days of hospitalization also increased between FY and FY , but not as much as expected Table 2. As with discharges, Medi-Cal inpatient days decreased in each fiscal year but were 20 percent greater than expected in FY and 25 percent greater than expected in FY Other third-party days were near the expected level in both fiscal years. However, non-third-party days, while increasing substantially in both fiscal years, were still 35 percent below expected volumes in FY and 38 percent below the expected level in FY Thus, compared with discharges, changes in inpatient days indicate a bigger gap between the volume of services that former MIAs and other indigent patients would have been expected to use and the volume they actually used. However, little importance should be attached to this finding both because average length of stay declined in county as well as in other hospitals, and because discharges is a more relevant measure of access than patient days. In the first fiscal year, the ratio was 0. Because of declining average length of stay, Orange County's ratios of expected-to-observed discharges which are unavailable for IMS patients are probably somewhat closer to 1. MIA is medically indigent adults. IMS is indigent medical services. The number of outpatient visits paid for by the IMS program was dramatically different from the expected number see Table 4. In FY , the observed total of 32, was only 22 percent of the expected number of , or 78 percent below the expected level , while in FY , it reached 40,, or only 27 percent of the expected volume. That is, the outpatient visits provided by the Orange County IMS program was only about one-fourth of that which the medically indigent patients would have been expected to receive under the Medi-Cal program. Los Angeles maintained data on inpatient days and discharge, but did not provide usable outpatient data for the large system of county health services. While total discharges reached expected levels, service to more Medi-Cal patients than expected contributed to observed total discharges. This excess volume of Medi-Cal patients may result from more intensive efforts by the county to process patients into other Medi-Cal eligibility categories e. Although outpatient data for all county health facilities could not be analyzed in the same ways as inpatient care, monthly data for the three major comprehensive ambulatory care clinics were obtained for the first fiscal year. These data confirmed that during the 8 months of FY in which the county was responsible for the MIAs as well as for its previous load of other indigent patients, non-MIA Medi-Cal visits increased rather than decreased, and non-third-party visits increased in number but not in proportion to all visits to these health centers. Total non-third-party visits increased from 11, In this same period, Medi-Cal visits increased from 1, 9. Although these three large health centers may not have been representative of all county facilities or of later periods for which comparable data are not available, these data do support the tentative conclusion that ambulatory care for the medically indigent did not keep pace with expected volumes of service. The one finding that meets the criteria of large differences and some indirect confirmation from other sources is that inpatient care of medically indigent persons did not rise to expected levels in either FY or The number of the medically indigent being discharged reached only about four-fifths of the expected level, suggesting that barriers may discourage access to inpatient care. These barriers may be financial, resulting from inadequate implementation of the county's ability-to-pay program, or be due to the more centralized and geographically limited access to the six county hospitals compared with previous availability of numerous and widely distributed public and private providers under the Medi-Cal program. Other studies have demonstrated that access to ambulatory care has been restricted in Los Angeles County facilities Lurie et al. While the observed number of inpatient days seems reasonably close to the expected level, especially given the decline in average length of stay, the number of outpatient visits paid for by the IMS program reached only about one-fourth of its expected level. This finding confirms the results of an Orange County study that found significant barriers to access to necessary medical care for medically indigent patients Rucker et al. This confirmation from other evidence suggests that medically indigent persons in Orange County may face a serious access problem when they try to obtain ambulatory care. One explanation for inpatient care coming closer to its expected level than ambulatory care is the restriction placed on services provided by the program. Only services that meet this definition are reimbursable under the IMS program. However, since eligibility generally is determined after a user is referred to the County Department of Social Services DSS , persons who are eligible on the basis of income or financial resources may not be referred, or if referred may be denied eligibility, because their medical problem does not meet the criteria. Probably more important than the definition of medical necessity in explaining the difference between the observed-to-expected ratios of inpatient and outpatient care is the eligibility process for the IMS program that was in effect in Orange County during the period under study. Unlike Los Angeles, which provides care only in its six county hospitals and more numerous clinics and health centers, Orange County provides care through contracts with 34 hospitals and clinics and many doctors' offices dispersed throughout the county. In order to become eligible for the IMS program, patients had to visit a contract hospital for an illness or injury. The provider was required to screen the patient for third-party coverage, and refer those with no coverage and no ability to pay to the County DSS eligibility worker for IMS eligibility determination. Then, the person had to be screened by the eligibility worker or if none was present at the hospital appear at the DSS office, complete an application, and provide substantial documentation. Available evidence suggests that the number of people who submitted status reports was very small. Thus, the most likely point at which a person would be evaluated for eligibility was upon presentation at a contract hospital, which then had an incentive to refer uninsured patients for IMS determination to avoid either refusing treatment to the patient or providing treatment without compensation. However, in FY , only Two-thirds of the applicants were approved, or a little more than one-fourth of those referred to DSS. About the same proportion applied and were approved in FY The resulting monthly average of slightly more than 4, IMS eligibles in each year was a little more than one-third of what would have been expected, given the monthly average of 11, eligible Medi-Cal MIAs in the last quarter of The expected number is actually 11, after adjusting for those MIAs who remained eligible in Thus, fewer persons are eligible for IMS-funded care than would be expected as a result of transferring patients from Medi-Cal to county responsibility. Beginning in July , the eligibility process was substantially simplified to reduce access barriers. County officials have suggested that many patients for whom the county does not have to pay actually do receive care Maxwell, Although the county does not provide utilization data on patients who are referred but do not apply for IMS, or who apply but are denied eligibility, it would seem that this phenomenon could reduce access. In the short run, some indigent patients receive care as providers treat uninsured indigent patients without any assurance of payment. However, providers who do not get paid for the care they provide to three-fourths of their uninsured patients are likely to begin to deny care to the uninsured, rather than risk financial losses from uncompensated care. It appears that providers in Orange County have protected themselves against uncompensated care by limiting access to uninsured patients. After this study was completed, Orange County officials provided new summary data indicating improvements in inpatient and outpatient volume of care for FY Rosenzweig, ; Allen, Some content such as images, videos, Flash, etc. The official text is the English version of the website. Any discrepancies or differences created in the translation are not binding and have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement purposes. You're using an older browser which may not be able to function correctly on the following site. Please make sure you upgrade to one of the following browsers to make sure your transactions are secure:. Examining the historical milestones that have affected county-supported services, this report highlights the link between funding and policies for public coverage programs — such as Medi-Cal — and county health care programs for the uninsured. It also highlights the complexities of the state-county fiscal relationship and the potential impact that state budget and policy decisions can have on county medical care programs. Caring for Medically Indigent Adults in California: A History PDF..

The computation of expected and observed volume of use are much simpler in Orange County than in Los Angeles. In Los Angeles, the expected utilization volumes of inpatient and outpatient services were based on corresponding volume of use by MIAs in the Medi-Cal program during the baseline year, In Orange County, we were able to generate a reasonably precise expected value because both Medi-Cal and IMS link outpatient visits into comparable categories.

Because all services were provided in noncounty settings under both the Medi-Cal MIA and County IMS programs, no adjustments were needed to account for transfers from private providers to county services. Furthermore, because we were concerned with only those services for which Medically indigent adult county is financially responsible—that is, those billed to the IMS program—we included in our analysis only those services reported by the IMS program, rather than services Medically indigent adult by community providers under other source-of-payment categories.

Therefore, Medically indigent adult have deleted this period from our analysis and focused on the subsequent 2 fiscal years. The most striking finding from this study is the difficulty of assessing differences between MIAs' experiences in the Medi-Cal program and in county IMS programs because of the dismal state of data systems for county health services. The problems with Los Angeles and Orange Counties' data systems are not exceptional among counties, but they make evaluation and comparative studies of performance exceedingly difficult.

These problems include a failure to collect important types of data such as specific type of service, source of payment, and patient's income and relevant demographic characteristics; differences in method of collecting similar data among counties and even within counties; and a lack of a clear definition Medically indigent adult method of collecting important data elements.

Medically indigent adult

In addition, there are at least five other limitations in the methods used in this analysis. First, Medically indigent adult data used to derive the expected volume of use reflect the historical use of services by MIAs, rather than measure present Medically indigent adult for medical care.

They are, nevertheless, a useful surrogate for direct measures because they reflect the previous demand for care under more info system that, with its many imperfections, provides a floor below which access to care should not fall.

Although we have adjusted the expected volume of services for changes in county population, we have applied Medically indigent adult analysis of historical use for only 2 fiscal years beyond the fiscal year in which the transfer occurred. Second, the expected volume of use was calculated using data published in reports from the Medi-Cal paid claims data file. This file represents claims paid in a given month, rather than services actually provided in that month.

Teeniee porn

This limitation, discussed more fully in the Appendix, should not significantly affect the findings. Third, the expected volume Medically indigent adult care has not been adjusted to account for utilization controls imposed by other changes in the Medi-Cal program, such as Medically indigent adult more stringent definition link medical necessity, increased use of treatment authorization requests, and increased share of cost imposed on beneficiaries.

Kaiser Family Foundation.

Amateur redhead cumshot tumblr Mature blond fucked Amateur wemon ass and pussy bikini. Fresh naked pics. Porno ballz to the wall. Hindi b p vidio. Porn movie blog free. Publicagent blonde public sex with stranger. Cunt fucked hard. Affair family porn. Black mobile porn videos. Latina amateur swallow cum. Xxx porn hard trans italiano prostituzione. Amateur girl lick man breast and body porn. Amateur wife black gang bred. Peaches goldof sexy gallery. January seraph cei. College girl bj orgy. Japanese teen gets real orgasm. Different ways to give blow job. Hd pale porn. Real ameture navajo pics. Amateur handjob on tits. Naked chubby amateur milf. Amateur family in incest. Cock and ball dvd. Saudi girl imo number. Amateur nude lady trucker. Katrina kaif nud fuk sexi vidio.

Retrieved South Carolina Healthy Connections. Retrieved from " https: Hidden categories: Articles needing additional references from August All articles needing additional references Wikipedia articles needing Medically indigent adult from August Namespaces Article Talk.

Views Read Edit View history.

Xxxvp Video Watch Angora fetish sweater woman Video Alabama hotwife. Many people can't afford the outrageous medical bills and fall into the MIA criteria. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: Health Marketing Quarterly. The Henry J. The State transferred responsibility to the counties for the care of MIAs, along with about 70 percent of what the State would have spent on their care had they remained in the Medi-Cal program. This specific responsibility for MIAs was added to the more general responsibility for care of indigent persons delegated by the State to the counties. These responsibilities, however, are implemented differently by different counties. Because the counties decide what services to offer and set their own financial eligibility standards, there is far greater variability among them in benefits, eligibility standards, and procedures than Medi-Cal recipients experience. Furthermore, some counties provide care in their own facilities, others contract with private and community providers, and others use some combination of county, community, and private providers. This change in State policy raises some related issues. First, did the loss of Medi-Cal eligibility affect access to and use of health services by the MIA population? Second, did MIAs in different counties experience different levels of access to care related to differences in the way counties implemented their responsibilities? In summary, how has the MIA population fared in county indigent care programs compared with their prior use of health services under the Medi-Cal program? These questions are important for several reasons. First, indigent persons and their advocates are concerned about how well access to care has been preserved under the MIA transfer implemented in different counties. Second, the State is concerned as well with how successfully the counties have fulfilled their mandate to meet the needs of MIAs in particular and indigents in general, and how well they spent tax dollars given to them by the State to help meet their obligations. Finally, it is valuable to compare counties' performances with each other and with the level of access provided under the Medi-Cal program in order to assess the effectiveness of different models of delivering care. It is useful to evaluate the effectiveness in ensuring access to necessary services among alternative policies and modes of organizing and delivering care to indigent populations. Comparisons should be made between State-level entitlement and funding county-run programs, between county-run and contracted services, between fee-for-service and managed-care models, and between detailed and presumptive eligibility screening. These issues are gaining increased prominence as the problems of the growing uninsured population compel political dialogue and debate on public policy. There is considerable evidence that Medicaid has been responsible historically for a substantial share of increases in the use of health services among the poor. In , 2 years before the Medicaid program began operation, poor persons averaged 4. By , when nearly all States were operating Medicaid programs, poor adults averaged more physician visits than nonpoor adults, and the gap between poor and nonpoor children had been reduced but not eliminated Health Resources Administration, Despite their greater use of health services, the poor continued to have a substantial deficit compared with the nonpoor when health status is taken into account Aday and Andersen, Although the poor have not achieved equity with the nonpoor population, Medicaid coverage has made a clear difference in access to health services among the poor Blendon, Wilensky and Berk found that, among poor and near-poor persons who were sick, those who were uninsured during the entire year used far fewer medical services than those who had Medicaid even part of the year. Kasper also has documented the benefits of Medicaid for use of health services by the poor who are in fair or poor health. Few studies have attempted to assess the impact of the actual loss of Medicaid coverage. Lurie et al. They also followed a comparable group of Medi-Cal patients who did not lose their coverage. They found that, at 6-month and 1-year follow-ups, the MIA group had less access to health services and were in significantly poorer health than before they lost Medi-Cal and compared with the group who were still on Medi-Cal. However, larger studies of the loss of Medicaid have not been published. Although California historically has had an extensive system of public hospitals and health services in its 58 counties, the system had shrunk from 65 hospitals in 49 counties in , to 33 hospitals in 26 counties by the end of Brown, ; Office of County Health Services, MIAs needing care in different counties face different conditions. For example, counties vary in the types of facilities made available to them. Like many other large and medium size counties that still operate their own hospitals and clinics, Los Angeles County provides care only in county facilities, except for a very limited amount of emergency and specialty care for which it will reimburse private hospitals. Orange and San Diego Counties, which have no county hospitals or county medical clinics, contract all MIA care and other indigent health care to university medical schools, private hospitals and clinics, and physicians. Alameda County uses its county hospitals and clinics and also contracts with a consortium of community clinics. Many other counties also use some combination of county and contract services. In addition, most counties, including Los Angeles, do not distinguish between their MIA and other indigent medical care responsibilities. Counties, like Orange and San Diego, that contract for services with private providers tend to maintain separate MIA and other indigent care programs, with differing eligibility, benefits, and providers for each program. The substantial discretion given to counties to determine benefits, services, eligibility, and the share of costs imposed on patients creates still more variation among county programs. Some counties cover almost all care that had been previously available to MIAs under the Medi-Cal program, while others provide only those services that are deemed essential to prevent death or significant permanent disability. Some counties provide generous ability-to-pay ATP plans and procedures, while others create very restrictive ATP eligibility standards, procedures, and charges. Finally, most small counties operate a completely different arrangement from the larger counties. Small counties under , population have an option of contracting back to the State which then provides a modified Medi-Cal program for eligible MIAs in that county. All counties larger than , must operate their own MIA programs. How this variability among counties affects access to care has never been studied, in part because there have been no comparable sources of data among the counties. The reporting requirements to the State are extremely loose, requiring only totals of aggregated services. The specific research objectives of this study were to assess whether the MIA population used more, fewer, or the same volume of health services after their transfer from the Medi-Cal program to county responsibility, and to compare the relative effectiveness of each county in providing the indigent population with access to health services. The project further sought to identify valid and practical methods of accomplishing these objectives so that the methods would be readily available for use in similar situations to county, State, and academic researchers and policy analysts with limited resources. The methods developed in this project were then applied to assess the implementation of the MIA transfer in two California counties—Los Angeles and Orange. The research objectives involved two distinct steps. First, it was necessary to identify the MIAs and the groups included in a given county's program—that is, whether the county combines the former MIA group with other indigent medical responsibilities or keeps them separate. It was necessary to assess the ongoing impact of the change on the population of people who would have qualified as MIAs before the transfer, but who may or may not personally have been MIAs under the Medi-Cal program. This population orientation is relevant because former individual MIAs may no longer have needed medical financial assistance in and beyond, while new patients not eligible in might have become medically indigent in or in subsequent years. The legislation took account of this by requiring the counties to adopt eligibility standards for their county medical care programs to ensure that future indigent patients could become eligible for county subsidies. Therefore, the MIA population for whom a county became responsible in included adults in each county who were not linked to categorical welfare programs but who were at risk for medical indigency, rather than the particular group of individuals who lost Medi-Cal eligibility in Second, an indicator of health care needs was identified that would serve as a standard for comparisons between the Medi-Cal program and different counties' health services. This method would permit an assessment of the population's health status, their sources of medical care, their patterns of utilization, and their unmet medical needs. Comparing data collected before and after the MIA transfer would enable researchers, policymakers, beneficiaries, and the public to assess accurately the effects of the MIA transfer on access to care and on health status. However, this approach is quite expensive, particularly when conducted on a large scale. Although one study using this approach was conducted on a relatively small group of MIAs at one university medical center Lurie et al. Because of the limitation on resources, the retrospective nature of the study, and the focus on the population of MIAs rather than on individual MIAs, we adopted an alternative approach that relied on existing available data. We developed estimates of the health care needs of the MIA population based on their historical use of health services. This permitted us to compare the volume of services used by this population and paid for by Medi-Cal before the transfer with the volume of services they used in county indigent medical services IMS programs after the transfer. This historical method assumes that this population group's need for services remained about the same per eligible person after the transfer to county responsibility as it had been under the Medi-Cal program. The historical method adopted in this study used the rates of utilization by the MIA population when they were in Medi-Cal as the standard of need against which subsequent usage would be assessed. However, the former utilization rates of MIAs in Medi-Cal had to be adjusted to control for changes in rates of utilization by persons remaining in the Medi-Cal program. These are primarily the result of changes in definitions of medical necessity and treatment authorization requirements imposed on doctors and patients by the State. The computational method, based on this conceptual formula, is described in sufficient detail for the general reader. A more detailed description and tables are provided in an Appendix that is available from the authors upon request. The expected utilization of services is developed from State Medi-Cal paid claims data specifically, the number of MIA Medi-Cal inpatient days, discharges, or outpatient visits in calendar year California Center for Health Statistics, Inpatient use was estimated by combining paid claims for acute medical, surgical, intensive care unit, and coronary care unit services. Both outpatient and inpatient use volumes were then reduced by appropriate percentages of MIA eligibles who remained Medi-Cal beneficiaries in The observed or actual utilization of services under the county MIA programs is derived from county data. We then obtained service data from the county, broken down by patient's source of payment and covering the utilization of inpatient and ambulatory care at all providers covered by the county's MIA program. You're using an older browser which may not be able to function correctly on the following site. Please make sure you upgrade to one of the following browsers to make sure your transactions are secure:. Health Services Agency. Toggle navigation. Indigent Health Care Program Stanislaus County offers these programs to indigent residents who would otherwise have little or no means of access to or coverage for medical services: A History June 23, Deborah Reidy Kelch. This is archived content; for historical reference only. Recent Publications..

Hobbies that attract women. In this article, the authors assessed the effects of the loss of Medicaid eligibility on access to health services by the medically indigent Medically indigent adult in two California counties. An historically derived baseline of health services received by each county's medically indigent adults under Medicaid was compared with the Medically indigent adult of services provided by the county to the same population after they lost Medicaid eligibility.

  • Why does quinoa hurt my stomach
  • Charity hodges bondage
  • Jap uncensored milf
  • Mature Cam Xxx
  • Singaporean women fuck video

The Medically indigent adult found fewer hospital discharges than expected in Los Angeles and much fewer outpatient visits than expected in Orange County, suggesting that these groups experienced substantial reductions in access related to loss of Medicaid eligibility.

Medicaid coverage has been responsible for a substantial increase in access to and use of health services by very low-income persons Blendon, ; Wilensky and Berk, ; Kasper, Therefore, changes in public policy that reduce Medically indigent adult coverage for this population, even changes that make other provisions for their care, may have an adverse impact on affected groups' access and utilization.

Such changes warrant careful assessment of the effects. Medically indigent adultCalifornia adopted major changes in State and local programs and policies that affected care to persons enrolled in the Medi-Cal California's Medicaid program.

Their eligibility for Medi-Cal was thus determined by their Medically indigent adult indigency, that is, their financial inability to pay their medical bills.

MIAs included many working poor read article and county general relief recipients. The State transferred responsibility to the counties for the care of MIAs, along with about 70 percent of what the State would have spent on their care had they remained in the Medi-Cal program.

This specific responsibility for MIAs was added to the more general responsibility for care of indigent persons delegated by click to see more State to the counties. These responsibilities, however, are implemented differently by different counties. Because the counties decide what services to offer and set their own financial eligibility standards, there is far greater variability among them in benefits, eligibility standards, and procedures than Medi-Cal recipients experience.

Furthermore, some counties provide care in their own facilities, others contract with private and community providers, and others use some combination of county, community, and private providers. This Medically indigent adult in State policy raises some related issues. First, did the loss of Medi-Cal eligibility affect access to Medically indigent adult use of health services by the MIA population? Second, did Medically indigent adult in different counties experience different levels of access to care related Medically indigent adult differences in the way counties implemented their responsibilities?

In summary, how has the MIA population fared in county indigent care programs compared with their prior use of health services under the Medi-Cal program?

These questions are important for several reasons. First, indigent persons and their advocates are concerned about how well access to care has been preserved under the MIA transfer implemented in different counties. Second, the State is concerned as well with how successfully the counties have fulfilled their mandate to meet the needs of MIAs in particular and indigents in general, and how well they spent tax dollars given to them by the State to Medically indigent adult meet their obligations.

Finally, it is valuable to compare counties' performances with each other and with the level of access provided under the Medi-Cal program in order to assess the effectiveness of different models of delivering care.

It is useful to evaluate the effectiveness in ensuring access to necessary services among alternative policies and modes of organizing and delivering care to indigent populations. Comparisons should be made between State-level entitlement and funding county-run programs, between county-run and contracted services, between fee-for-service and managed-care models, and between Medically indigent adult and presumptive eligibility screening.

Medically indigent adult

Cipriana at Mike's apartment

These issues are gaining increased prominence as the problems of the growing uninsured population compel political dialogue and debate on public policy. There is considerable evidence that Medicaid has been responsible historically for a substantial share of increases in Medically indigent adult use of health services among the poor. In2 years before the Medicaid program began operation, poor persons averaged 4.

Bywhen nearly all States were operating Medicaid programs, poor continue reading averaged more physician visits than nonpoor adults, and the gap between poor and nonpoor children had been reduced but not eliminated Health Resources Administration, Despite their greater use of health services, the poor continued to have a substantial deficit compared with the nonpoor when health status is taken into account Aday and Andersen, Although the poor have not achieved equity with the nonpoor population, Medicaid coverage has made a Medically indigent adult difference in access to health services among the poor Blendon, Wilensky and Medically indigent adult found that, among poor and near-poor persons who were sick, those who were Medically indigent adult during the entire year used far fewer medical services than those who had Medicaid even part of the year.

Mifs porno Watch Kitchen sex pics Video Transexual sites. A History PDF. Skip to main content. A History June 23, Deborah Reidy Kelch. In this article, the authors assessed the effects of the loss of Medicaid eligibility on access to health services by the medically indigent population in two California counties. An historically derived baseline of health services received by each county's medically indigent adults under Medicaid was compared with the volume of services provided by the county to the same population after they lost Medicaid eligibility. The analysis found fewer hospital discharges than expected in Los Angeles and much fewer outpatient visits than expected in Orange County, suggesting that these groups experienced substantial reductions in access related to loss of Medicaid eligibility. Medicaid coverage has been responsible for a substantial increase in access to and use of health services by very low-income persons Blendon, ; Wilensky and Berk, ; Kasper, Therefore, changes in public policy that reduce Medicaid coverage for this population, even changes that make other provisions for their care, may have an adverse impact on affected groups' access and utilization. Such changes warrant careful assessment of the effects. In , California adopted major changes in State and local programs and policies that affected care to persons enrolled in the Medi-Cal California's Medicaid program. Their eligibility for Medi-Cal was thus determined by their medical indigency, that is, their financial inability to pay their medical bills. MIAs included many working poor persons and county general relief recipients. The State transferred responsibility to the counties for the care of MIAs, along with about 70 percent of what the State would have spent on their care had they remained in the Medi-Cal program. This specific responsibility for MIAs was added to the more general responsibility for care of indigent persons delegated by the State to the counties. These responsibilities, however, are implemented differently by different counties. Because the counties decide what services to offer and set their own financial eligibility standards, there is far greater variability among them in benefits, eligibility standards, and procedures than Medi-Cal recipients experience. Furthermore, some counties provide care in their own facilities, others contract with private and community providers, and others use some combination of county, community, and private providers. This change in State policy raises some related issues. First, did the loss of Medi-Cal eligibility affect access to and use of health services by the MIA population? Second, did MIAs in different counties experience different levels of access to care related to differences in the way counties implemented their responsibilities? In summary, how has the MIA population fared in county indigent care programs compared with their prior use of health services under the Medi-Cal program? These questions are important for several reasons. First, indigent persons and their advocates are concerned about how well access to care has been preserved under the MIA transfer implemented in different counties. Second, the State is concerned as well with how successfully the counties have fulfilled their mandate to meet the needs of MIAs in particular and indigents in general, and how well they spent tax dollars given to them by the State to help meet their obligations. Finally, it is valuable to compare counties' performances with each other and with the level of access provided under the Medi-Cal program in order to assess the effectiveness of different models of delivering care. It is useful to evaluate the effectiveness in ensuring access to necessary services among alternative policies and modes of organizing and delivering care to indigent populations. Comparisons should be made between State-level entitlement and funding county-run programs, between county-run and contracted services, between fee-for-service and managed-care models, and between detailed and presumptive eligibility screening. These issues are gaining increased prominence as the problems of the growing uninsured population compel political dialogue and debate on public policy. There is considerable evidence that Medicaid has been responsible historically for a substantial share of increases in the use of health services among the poor. In , 2 years before the Medicaid program began operation, poor persons averaged 4. By , when nearly all States were operating Medicaid programs, poor adults averaged more physician visits than nonpoor adults, and the gap between poor and nonpoor children had been reduced but not eliminated Health Resources Administration, Despite their greater use of health services, the poor continued to have a substantial deficit compared with the nonpoor when health status is taken into account Aday and Andersen, Although the poor have not achieved equity with the nonpoor population, Medicaid coverage has made a clear difference in access to health services among the poor Blendon, Wilensky and Berk found that, among poor and near-poor persons who were sick, those who were uninsured during the entire year used far fewer medical services than those who had Medicaid even part of the year. Kasper also has documented the benefits of Medicaid for use of health services by the poor who are in fair or poor health. Few studies have attempted to assess the impact of the actual loss of Medicaid coverage. Lurie et al. They also followed a comparable group of Medi-Cal patients who did not lose their coverage. They found that, at 6-month and 1-year follow-ups, the MIA group had less access to health services and were in significantly poorer health than before they lost Medi-Cal and compared with the group who were still on Medi-Cal. However, larger studies of the loss of Medicaid have not been published. Although California historically has had an extensive system of public hospitals and health services in its 58 counties, the system had shrunk from 65 hospitals in 49 counties in , to 33 hospitals in 26 counties by the end of Brown, ; Office of County Health Services, MIAs needing care in different counties face different conditions. For example, counties vary in the types of facilities made available to them. Like many other large and medium size counties that still operate their own hospitals and clinics, Los Angeles County provides care only in county facilities, except for a very limited amount of emergency and specialty care for which it will reimburse private hospitals. Orange and San Diego Counties, which have no county hospitals or county medical clinics, contract all MIA care and other indigent health care to university medical schools, private hospitals and clinics, and physicians. Alameda County uses its county hospitals and clinics and also contracts with a consortium of community clinics. Many other counties also use some combination of county and contract services. In addition, most counties, including Los Angeles, do not distinguish between their MIA and other indigent medical care responsibilities. Counties, like Orange and San Diego, that contract for services with private providers tend to maintain separate MIA and other indigent care programs, with differing eligibility, benefits, and providers for each program. The substantial discretion given to counties to determine benefits, services, eligibility, and the share of costs imposed on patients creates still more variation among county programs. Some counties cover almost all care that had been previously available to MIAs under the Medi-Cal program, while others provide only those services that are deemed essential to prevent death or significant permanent disability. Some counties provide generous ability-to-pay ATP plans and procedures, while others create very restrictive ATP eligibility standards, procedures, and charges. Finally, most small counties operate a completely different arrangement from the larger counties. Small counties under , population have an option of contracting back to the State which then provides a modified Medi-Cal program for eligible MIAs in that county. All counties larger than , must operate their own MIA programs. How this variability among counties affects access to care has never been studied, in part because there have been no comparable sources of data among the counties. The reporting requirements to the State are extremely loose, requiring only totals of aggregated services. The specific research objectives of this study were to assess whether the MIA population used more, fewer, or the same volume of health services after their transfer from the Medi-Cal program to county responsibility, and to compare the relative effectiveness of each county in providing the indigent population with access to health services. The project further sought to identify valid and practical methods of accomplishing these objectives so that the methods would be readily available for use in similar situations to county, State, and academic researchers and policy analysts with limited resources. The methods developed in this project were then applied to assess the implementation of the MIA transfer in two California counties—Los Angeles and Orange. The research objectives involved two distinct steps. First, it was necessary to identify the MIAs and the groups included in a given county's program—that is, whether the county combines the former MIA group with other indigent medical responsibilities or keeps them separate. It was necessary to assess the ongoing impact of the change on the population of people who would have qualified as MIAs before the transfer, but who may or may not personally have been MIAs under the Medi-Cal program. This population orientation is relevant because former individual MIAs may no longer have needed medical financial assistance in and beyond, while new patients not eligible in might have become medically indigent in or in subsequent years. The legislation took account of this by requiring the counties to adopt eligibility standards for their county medical care programs to ensure that future indigent patients could become eligible for county subsidies. Therefore, the MIA population for whom a county became responsible in included adults in each county who were not linked to categorical welfare programs but who were at risk for medical indigency, rather than the particular group of individuals who lost Medi-Cal eligibility in Second, an indicator of health care needs was identified that would serve as a standard for comparisons between the Medi-Cal program and different counties' health services. This method would permit an assessment of the population's health status, their sources of medical care, their patterns of utilization, and their unmet medical needs. Comparing data collected before and after the MIA transfer would enable researchers, policymakers, beneficiaries, and the public to assess accurately the effects of the MIA transfer on access to care and on health status. However, this approach is quite expensive, particularly when conducted on a large scale. Although one study using this approach was conducted on a relatively small group of MIAs at one university medical center Lurie et al. Because of the limitation on resources, the retrospective nature of the study, and the focus on the population of MIAs rather than on individual MIAs, we adopted an alternative approach that relied on existing available data. We developed estimates of the health care needs of the MIA population based on their historical use of health services. This permitted us to compare the volume of services used by this population and paid for by Medi-Cal before the transfer with the volume of services they used in county indigent medical services IMS programs after the transfer. This historical method assumes that this population group's need for services remained about the same per eligible person after the transfer to county responsibility as it had been under the Medi-Cal program. The historical method adopted in this study used the rates of utilization by the MIA population when they were in Medi-Cal as the standard of need against which subsequent usage would be assessed. South Carolina Healthy Connections. Retrieved from " https: Hidden categories: Articles needing additional references from August All articles needing additional references Wikipedia articles needing clarification from August Namespaces Article Talk. Views Read Edit View history. Languages Add links. This page was last edited on 6 February , at Any discrepancies or differences created in the translation are not binding and have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement purposes. You're using an older browser which may not be able to function correctly on the following site. Please make sure you upgrade to one of the following browsers to make sure your transactions are secure:. Health Services Agency. Toggle navigation..

Kasper also has documented the benefits of Medicaid for use of health services by the poor who are in fair or poor health. Few studies have attempted to assess the impact Medically indigent adult the actual loss of Medicaid coverage.

Hardcore porn naughty america

Lurie et al. They also followed a comparable group of Medi-Cal patients who did not lose their coverage. They found that, at 6-month and 1-year follow-ups, the MIA group had less access to health services and were in significantly poorer health than before they lost Medi-Cal and compared with the group who were still on Medi-Cal. However, larger studies of the loss of Medicaid have not been published.

Although California historically has had an extensive Medically indigent adult of public hospitals and health services in Medically indigent adult 58 counties, the system had shrunk from 65 hospitals in 49 counties into 33 hospitals in 26 counties by the end of Brown, ; Office of County Health Services, MIAs needing care in Medically indigent adult counties face different conditions. For example, counties vary in the types of facilities made available to them.

Like many other large and medium size counties that still operate their own hospitals and clinics, Los Angeles County provides care only in county facilities, except for a very limited amount of emergency and specialty care for which it will reimburse private hospitals. Orange and San Diego Counties, which have no county hospitals or county medical clinics, contract all MIA care and other indigent health care to university medical schools, private hospitals and Medically indigent adult, and physicians.

Alameda County uses its county hospitals and clinics and also contracts with a consortium of community clinics.

  1. videos porno de guinness world records
  2. Stanislaus County offers these programs to indigent residents who would otherwise have little or no means of access to or coverage for medical services:.
  3. Campamento de música para adolescentes
  4. video de desnudo strip poker
  5. videos de lesbianas addison rose
  6. 40 months ago views 52.
  7. follar todos los agujeros con fuerza
    • websio 'briana banks throat fuck cum' Search, free sex videos.
    • Two hot busty brunette lesbian sluts are sitting on a bed, kissing and licking each other tits.

Many other counties Medically indigent adult use some combination of county and contract services. In addition, most counties, including Los Angeles, do not distinguish between their MIA and other indigent medical care responsibilities. Counties, like Orange and San Diego, that contract for services with private providers tend to maintain separate MIA and other indigent care programs, with differing eligibility, Medically indigent adult, and providers for each program.

Best hot adult threesomes

The substantial discretion given to counties to determine benefits, services, eligibility, and the share of costs imposed on patients creates still more variation among county programs. Some counties cover almost all care that had Medically indigent adult previously available to MIAs under the Medi-Cal program, while others provide only those services that are deemed essential to prevent death or significant permanent disability.

Porno holocaust Watch How to make a pimple go away Video Bibixxx Mydirtyhobby. Medically Indigent Adults MIAs in the health care system of the United States are persons who do not have health insurance and who are not eligible for other health care such as Medicaid , Medicare , or private health insurance. According to data reported by The Henry J. On March 23, the Affordable Care Act came into effect, which impacted the definition of medical indigence in the United States. The act is credited as benefiting thousands of Americans while also being detrimental to others. The initial intent for the act was to insure every person living in the United States, however in a article FiveThirtyEight stated that the act did not fix the entire problem as it did not cover undocumented and illegal aliens. The gap of not qualifying for insurance, as well as not being able to apply for insurance, leave these people in medical indigence. Many states do not allow people access to Medicaid, [ clarification needed ] even in cases of extreme poverty, if no minor children are present in the home and they have not proven they are disabled. These people have no recourse to government provided healthcare and must rely on private charitable health programs, if any exist, in their area. It also highlights the complexities of the state-county fiscal relationship and the potential impact that state budget and policy decisions can have on county medical care programs. Caring for Medically Indigent Adults in California: A History PDF. Skip to main content. Some of our findings did meet these stringent criteria. Total discharges increased in both fiscal years, consistent with the expected increase for each year—from , in FY , to , in FY an increase of The observed-to-expected ratio of 0. However, these absolute and percent changes, while in the expected direction, are less dramatic when compared with the expected magnitude of change. Medi-Cal discharges decreased less than expected, other third-party discharges increased more than expected, but non-third-party patients increased substantially less than expected. Thus, while the observed-to-expected ratio for total discharges was 0. Changes in Medi-Cal and non-third-party discharges during the next fiscal year also were not as large as expected Table 1. Thus, changes in hospital discharges indicate that former MIAs and other indigent patients used about one-fifth fewer hospital services in the 2 years following the transfer than they did before it. Total inpatient days of hospitalization also increased between FY and FY , but not as much as expected Table 2. As with discharges, Medi-Cal inpatient days decreased in each fiscal year but were 20 percent greater than expected in FY and 25 percent greater than expected in FY Other third-party days were near the expected level in both fiscal years. However, non-third-party days, while increasing substantially in both fiscal years, were still 35 percent below expected volumes in FY and 38 percent below the expected level in FY Thus, compared with discharges, changes in inpatient days indicate a bigger gap between the volume of services that former MIAs and other indigent patients would have been expected to use and the volume they actually used. However, little importance should be attached to this finding both because average length of stay declined in county as well as in other hospitals, and because discharges is a more relevant measure of access than patient days. In the first fiscal year, the ratio was 0. Because of declining average length of stay, Orange County's ratios of expected-to-observed discharges which are unavailable for IMS patients are probably somewhat closer to 1. MIA is medically indigent adults. IMS is indigent medical services. The number of outpatient visits paid for by the IMS program was dramatically different from the expected number see Table 4. In FY , the observed total of 32, was only 22 percent of the expected number of , or 78 percent below the expected level , while in FY , it reached 40,, or only 27 percent of the expected volume. That is, the outpatient visits provided by the Orange County IMS program was only about one-fourth of that which the medically indigent patients would have been expected to receive under the Medi-Cal program. Los Angeles maintained data on inpatient days and discharge, but did not provide usable outpatient data for the large system of county health services. While total discharges reached expected levels, service to more Medi-Cal patients than expected contributed to observed total discharges. This excess volume of Medi-Cal patients may result from more intensive efforts by the county to process patients into other Medi-Cal eligibility categories e. Although outpatient data for all county health facilities could not be analyzed in the same ways as inpatient care, monthly data for the three major comprehensive ambulatory care clinics were obtained for the first fiscal year. These data confirmed that during the 8 months of FY in which the county was responsible for the MIAs as well as for its previous load of other indigent patients, non-MIA Medi-Cal visits increased rather than decreased, and non-third-party visits increased in number but not in proportion to all visits to these health centers. Total non-third-party visits increased from 11, In this same period, Medi-Cal visits increased from 1, 9. Although these three large health centers may not have been representative of all county facilities or of later periods for which comparable data are not available, these data do support the tentative conclusion that ambulatory care for the medically indigent did not keep pace with expected volumes of service. The one finding that meets the criteria of large differences and some indirect confirmation from other sources is that inpatient care of medically indigent persons did not rise to expected levels in either FY or The number of the medically indigent being discharged reached only about four-fifths of the expected level, suggesting that barriers may discourage access to inpatient care. These barriers may be financial, resulting from inadequate implementation of the county's ability-to-pay program, or be due to the more centralized and geographically limited access to the six county hospitals compared with previous availability of numerous and widely distributed public and private providers under the Medi-Cal program. Other studies have demonstrated that access to ambulatory care has been restricted in Los Angeles County facilities Lurie et al. While the observed number of inpatient days seems reasonably close to the expected level, especially given the decline in average length of stay, the number of outpatient visits paid for by the IMS program reached only about one-fourth of its expected level. This finding confirms the results of an Orange County study that found significant barriers to access to necessary medical care for medically indigent patients Rucker et al. This confirmation from other evidence suggests that medically indigent persons in Orange County may face a serious access problem when they try to obtain ambulatory care. One explanation for inpatient care coming closer to its expected level than ambulatory care is the restriction placed on services provided by the program. Only services that meet this definition are reimbursable under the IMS program. However, since eligibility generally is determined after a user is referred to the County Department of Social Services DSS , persons who are eligible on the basis of income or financial resources may not be referred, or if referred may be denied eligibility, because their medical problem does not meet the criteria. Probably more important than the definition of medical necessity in explaining the difference between the observed-to-expected ratios of inpatient and outpatient care is the eligibility process for the IMS program that was in effect in Orange County during the period under study. Unlike Los Angeles, which provides care only in its six county hospitals and more numerous clinics and health centers, Orange County provides care through contracts with 34 hospitals and clinics and many doctors' offices dispersed throughout the county. In order to become eligible for the IMS program, patients had to visit a contract hospital for an illness or injury. The provider was required to screen the patient for third-party coverage, and refer those with no coverage and no ability to pay to the County DSS eligibility worker for IMS eligibility determination. Then, the person had to be screened by the eligibility worker or if none was present at the hospital appear at the DSS office, complete an application, and provide substantial documentation. Available evidence suggests that the number of people who submitted status reports was very small. Thus, the most likely point at which a person would be evaluated for eligibility was upon presentation at a contract hospital, which then had an incentive to refer uninsured patients for IMS determination to avoid either refusing treatment to the patient or providing treatment without compensation. However, in FY , only Two-thirds of the applicants were approved, or a little more than one-fourth of those referred to DSS. About the same proportion applied and were approved in FY The resulting monthly average of slightly more than 4, IMS eligibles in each year was a little more than one-third of what would have been expected, given the monthly average of 11, eligible Medi-Cal MIAs in the last quarter of The expected number is actually 11, after adjusting for those MIAs who remained eligible in Thus, fewer persons are eligible for IMS-funded care than would be expected as a result of transferring patients from Medi-Cal to county responsibility. Beginning in July , the eligibility process was substantially simplified to reduce access barriers. County officials have suggested that many patients for whom the county does not have to pay actually do receive care Maxwell, Although the county does not provide utilization data on patients who are referred but do not apply for IMS, or who apply but are denied eligibility, it would seem that this phenomenon could reduce access. In the short run, some indigent patients receive care as providers treat uninsured indigent patients without any assurance of payment. However, providers who do not get paid for the care they provide to three-fourths of their uninsured patients are likely to begin to deny care to the uninsured, rather than risk financial losses from uncompensated care. It appears that providers in Orange County have protected themselves against uncompensated care by limiting access to uninsured patients. After this study was completed, Orange County officials provided new summary data indicating improvements in inpatient and outpatient volume of care for FY Rosenzweig, ; Allen, Two general conclusions emerge from this study. First, it is clear that county health services need to improve their data systems. Although these systems may meet internal management needs, they do not permit evaluation of county fulfillment of State mandates. They do not permit State government or legislators, the public, or advocates for the low-income population served mainly by county health systems to assess how well counties are meeting community health needs. Counties collect and report data in almost as many ways as there are counties. It was, therefore, not possible to assess the relative effectiveness of these two counties—or for that matter, any two or more counties—in meeting indigent health care needs. This failure was due, in part, to deficiencies in the data, which precluded a complete analysis of expected-to-observed use of inpatient care in Orange County, and the virtual absence of adequate outpatient data for Los Angeles County. Of course, effectiveness should be judged on quality of care provided, which was not considered by this project, in addition to access to care, which was the main object of study. Methodological problems make it difficult to assess counties' performance and even more difficult to compare their effectiveness. Services can be provided without data, but State and local governments can be held accountable to meet the health needs of their communities only if adequate data are available by which to assess their efforts. Fortunately, since this study was completed, California has adopted statewide uniform standards for counties to use in collecting and reporting health services data. This Medically Indigent Care Reporting System MICRS stands as a model data system for indigent care services, trying to generate adequate data to assess performance but not to overburden county health systems with expensive and unessential data requirements. MICRS requires counties to collect and report individual-level demographic, income, source-of-payment, utilization, and expenditure data Abbott, With this system in operation, the State and advocates for the poor will be able to hold the counties more accountable for care to populations in need, as well as to compare the relative effectiveness of counties and different models of providing care. The Stancounty. Com website has been translated for your convenience using translation software powered by Google Translate. Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation, however, no automated translation is perfect nor is it intended to replace human translators. Translations are provided as a service to users of the Stancounty. Com website, and are provided "as is..

Some counties provide generous ability-to-pay ATP plans and procedures, while others create very restrictive ATP eligibility standards, procedures, and charges. Finally, most small counties operate a completely different arrangement from the larger counties.

Small counties underpopulation have an option of contracting back to the State which then provides a modified Medi-Cal program for Medically indigent adult MIAs in that county.

German rottweiler puppies for sale in los angeles Roxy camo bikini Hidden amateur sex cam. Northeastern midget hockey league. College boys ound ass tumhlr. Student lesbian maria haze. Pancake : teen dream magazine. Song tere bin main yun kaise jiya. Bree olson face fuck. Deepthroating inked girlfriend pussy eaten. Horny girl riding toys and squirt live webcam. Garon avec garon. Sex android game. Adult frieind finder. India girls porn in club. Danielle ftv hardcore porn. X-sensual - a tide of passion. Dbz female frieza xxx. Hot amateur teen pov. Desi indian aunty big boobs. Amateur average wife in hardcore photoshoot. Girl sex on bed. Monsters grabbed the girls and have sex. How to heat up the bedroom. White mature sucks big moroccan cock. Amateur cock sucking pics. Pool party porn movie. How to love as a christian. Huge bloated belly porn.

All counties larger thanmust operate their own MIA programs. How this variability among counties affects access to care has never been studied, in part Amateur exhibitionist there have been no comparable sources of data among the counties.

The reporting requirements to the State are extremely loose, requiring only totals of aggregated services. The specific research objectives of this study were to assess whether the MIA population used more, fewer, or the same volume of health services after their transfer from the Medi-Cal program to county responsibility, and to compare Medically indigent adult relative effectiveness of Medically indigent adult county in providing the indigent population with access to health services.

The project further sought to identify valid and practical methods Medically indigent adult accomplishing these objectives so that the methods would be readily available for use in similar situations to county, State, and academic researchers and policy analysts with limited resources. The methods developed in this project were then applied to assess the implementation of the MIA transfer in two California counties—Los Angeles and Orange.

Medically indigent adult

The research objectives involved two distinct steps. First, it was necessary to identify the MIAs and the groups included in a given county's program—that is, whether the county combines the former MIA group with other indigent Medically indigent adult responsibilities or keeps them separate.

How has the evolution of public policy in California affected health care delivery and financing for medically indigent adults?

It was necessary to assess the ongoing impact of the change on the population of people who would have qualified as MIAs before the transfer, but who may or may not personally have been MIAs under the Medi-Cal program. This population orientation is relevant because Medically indigent adult individual MIAs may no longer have needed medical financial assistance in and beyond, while new patients not eligible in might have become medically indigent in or in https://woodpornx.best/cute/page-22-08-2020.php years.

The legislation took account of this by requiring the counties to adopt eligibility standards for their county medical care programs to ensure that future indigent patients could become eligible for county subsidies.

Therefore, the MIA population for Medically indigent adult a county became responsible in included adults in each county who were not linked to categorical welfare programs but who were at risk for medical indigency, rather than the particular group of individuals who lost Medi-Cal eligibility in Second, an indicator of health care needs was identified that would serve as a standard for comparisons between the Medi-Cal program and different counties' health services.

This method would permit an Medically indigent adult of the population's health status, their sources Medically indigent adult medical care, their patterns Medically indigent adult utilization, and their unmet medical needs. Comparing data collected before and after the MIA transfer would enable researchers, policymakers, beneficiaries, and the public to assess accurately the effects of the MIA transfer on access to care and on health status.

However, this approach is quite expensive, particularly when conducted on a large scale. Although one study using this approach was conducted on a relatively small group of MIAs at one university medical center Lurie et al.

Free full lez movies

Because of the limitation on resources, the retrospective nature of the study, and the focus on the population of MIAs rather than on individual MIAs, we adopted an alternative approach that relied on just click for source available data. We developed estimates of the health care needs of the MIA population based on their historical use of health Medically indigent adult.

This permitted us to compare the volume of services used by this population and paid for by Medi-Cal before the transfer with the volume of services they used in county indigent medical services Medically indigent adult programs after the transfer.

This historical method assumes that this population group's need for services remained about the same per eligible person after the transfer to county responsibility as it had been under the Medi-Cal program. The historical method adopted in this study used the rates of utilization by the MIA population when they were in Medi-Cal as the standard of need against which subsequent usage would be assessed.

However, the former utilization rates of MIAs in Medi-Cal had to be adjusted to control for changes in Medically indigent adult of utilization by persons remaining in the Medi-Cal program. These are primarily the result of changes in definitions of Medically indigent adult necessity and treatment authorization requirements imposed on doctors and patients by the State.

Safe free adult videos

The computational method, based on this conceptual formula, is described in sufficient detail for the general reader. A more detailed description and tables are provided in an Appendix that is available from the authors upon request. The expected utilization of services is developed from State Medi-Cal paid claims data specifically, the number of MIA Medi-Cal inpatient days, discharges, or outpatient visits in calendar year California Center for Health Homemade sexy costume, Inpatient use was estimated by combining paid claims for acute medical, surgical, intensive care unit, and coronary care Medically indigent adult services.

Both outpatient Medically indigent adult inpatient use volumes were then reduced by appropriate percentages of MIA eligibles who remained Medi-Cal beneficiaries in The observed or actual utilization of services under the county MIA programs is derived from county data. We then obtained service data from the county, broken down Medically indigent adult patient's source of payment and covering the utilization of inpatient and ambulatory care at all providers covered by the county's MIA program.

Private party sex pic

We were dependent on the data that were collected and made available by each county, and had to adjust our method accordingly. These data were then analyzed to combine service data for indigent and MIA patients, and to sum the data separately for patients in other payment categories.

Because of Medically indigent adult differences in the indigent care systems in Los Angeles and Orange Counties and in the way they collect and report data, the method for deriving the expected volume of utilization and for compiling observed utilization data had to be adapted to each Medically indigent adult.

The specific methods used in each county are described briefly in this article. A more thorough discussion is provided in an Appendix that is available from the authors upon request.

We based Medically indigent adult expected utilization figures on total volume of use of county facilities in the baseline year, fiscal year FYplus the utilization by MIAs of private physicians and hospitals in that year.

Major nude Watch Ebony eat pussy Video cuckold photo. However, Orange County reports inpatient days and outpatient visits for its IMS program, but it does not report admissions or discharges. Therefore, we were limited to comparing expected and observed inpatient days, clearly a less desirable measure of access to inpatient care as previously noted. The computation of expected and observed volume of use are much simpler in Orange County than in Los Angeles. In Los Angeles, the expected utilization volumes of inpatient and outpatient services were based on corresponding volume of use by MIAs in the Medi-Cal program during the baseline year, In Orange County, we were able to generate a reasonably precise expected value because both Medi-Cal and IMS differentiated outpatient visits into comparable categories. Because all services were provided in noncounty settings under both the Medi-Cal MIA and County IMS programs, no adjustments were needed to account for transfers from private providers to county services. Furthermore, because we were concerned with only those services for which the county is financially responsible—that is, those billed to the IMS program—we included in our analysis only those services reported by the IMS program, rather than services delivered by community providers under other source-of-payment categories. Therefore, we have deleted this period from our analysis and focused on the subsequent 2 fiscal years. The most striking finding from this study is the difficulty of assessing differences between MIAs' experiences in the Medi-Cal program and in county IMS programs because of the dismal state of data systems for county health services. The problems with Los Angeles and Orange Counties' data systems are not exceptional among counties, but they make evaluation and comparative studies of performance exceedingly difficult. These problems include a failure to collect important types of data such as specific type of service, source of payment, and patient's income and relevant demographic characteristics; differences in method of collecting similar data among counties and even within counties; and a lack of a clear definition of method of collecting important data elements. In addition, there are at least five other limitations in the methods used in this analysis. First, the data used to derive the expected volume of use reflect the historical use of services by MIAs, rather than measure present needs for medical care. They are, nevertheless, a useful surrogate for direct measures because they reflect the previous demand for care under a system that, with its many imperfections, provides a floor below which access to care should not fall. Although we have adjusted the expected volume of services for changes in county population, we have applied this analysis of historical use for only 2 fiscal years beyond the fiscal year in which the transfer occurred. Second, the expected volume of use was calculated using data published in reports from the Medi-Cal paid claims data file. This file represents claims paid in a given month, rather than services actually provided in that month. This limitation, discussed more fully in the Appendix, should not significantly affect the findings. Third, the expected volume of care has not been adjusted to account for utilization controls imposed by other changes in the Medi-Cal program, such as the more stringent definition of medical necessity, increased use of treatment authorization requests, and increased share of cost imposed on beneficiaries. The State's Center for Health Statistics was not able to provide data from which such an adjustment factor could be computed. Thus, the expected volume of services does not fully reflect the level of service that would likely be used by the group of MIAs had they remained in the current Medi-Cal program. Fourth, the observed volume of services reflects utilization of only those services provided or paid for by the county. It does not include charity or uncompensated care in private or community facilities, or services paid for by MIAs or other indigents. Other studies have shown that some MIAs received care from private physicians for which they paid in full at the time of service or in installment payments, while others obtained reduced-fee or free care from community clinics. The Medi-Cal data, from which expected volume of service was computed, do not reflect other services for which MIAs paid or received as charity, although MIAs paid for less charity care and services under the Medi-Cal program than after their transfer. Although this limitation prohibits us from taking account of all care received by former MIAs, our concern was whether the counties were adequately replacing the care previously paid for by the State Medi-Cal program. If former MIAs have to pay for necessary care they previously received without charge, then they are spending more of their meager financial resources on medical care, an unintended consequence of the MIA transfer. Moreover, if a significant portion of their care is provided as uncompensated care by hospitals and community providers, then the resulting financial burden represents an unanticipated shift of costs to private and community health care providers, many of whom may further restrict access to care for the uninsured. Finally, notwithstanding our attempts to standardize measures of county performance, it remains difficult to compare counties' success and inadequacies in providing care to MIAs. Since there is no standardized collection and reporting of utilization data by MIAs in California counties, differences among the counties may reflect differences in measurement that is, idiosyncrasies in their data collection and reporting , as well as differences in their eligibility guidelines, and in the ways they deliver medical care to MIAs. With such problems, our findings are subject to error, the magnitude of which cannot be estimated. We have included only those analyses that are based on reasonably complete and verified data. Nevertheless, it would be precarious to draw conclusions too firmly from these data. Indeed, we suggest that any conclusions should be based on large differences and should be viewed as suggestive, requiring further verification by other methods before being accepted. Some of our findings did meet these stringent criteria. Total discharges increased in both fiscal years, consistent with the expected increase for each year—from , in FY , to , in FY an increase of The observed-to-expected ratio of 0. However, these absolute and percent changes, while in the expected direction, are less dramatic when compared with the expected magnitude of change. Medi-Cal discharges decreased less than expected, other third-party discharges increased more than expected, but non-third-party patients increased substantially less than expected. Thus, while the observed-to-expected ratio for total discharges was 0. Changes in Medi-Cal and non-third-party discharges during the next fiscal year also were not as large as expected Table 1. Thus, changes in hospital discharges indicate that former MIAs and other indigent patients used about one-fifth fewer hospital services in the 2 years following the transfer than they did before it. Total inpatient days of hospitalization also increased between FY and FY , but not as much as expected Table 2. As with discharges, Medi-Cal inpatient days decreased in each fiscal year but were 20 percent greater than expected in FY and 25 percent greater than expected in FY Other third-party days were near the expected level in both fiscal years. However, non-third-party days, while increasing substantially in both fiscal years, were still 35 percent below expected volumes in FY and 38 percent below the expected level in FY Thus, compared with discharges, changes in inpatient days indicate a bigger gap between the volume of services that former MIAs and other indigent patients would have been expected to use and the volume they actually used. However, little importance should be attached to this finding both because average length of stay declined in county as well as in other hospitals, and because discharges is a more relevant measure of access than patient days. In the first fiscal year, the ratio was 0. Because of declining average length of stay, Orange County's ratios of expected-to-observed discharges which are unavailable for IMS patients are probably somewhat closer to 1. MIA is medically indigent adults. IMS is indigent medical services. The number of outpatient visits paid for by the IMS program was dramatically different from the expected number see Table 4. In FY , the observed total of 32, was only 22 percent of the expected number of , or 78 percent below the expected level , while in FY , it reached 40,, or only 27 percent of the expected volume. That is, the outpatient visits provided by the Orange County IMS program was only about one-fourth of that which the medically indigent patients would have been expected to receive under the Medi-Cal program. Los Angeles maintained data on inpatient days and discharge, but did not provide usable outpatient data for the large system of county health services. While total discharges reached expected levels, service to more Medi-Cal patients than expected contributed to observed total discharges. This excess volume of Medi-Cal patients may result from more intensive efforts by the county to process patients into other Medi-Cal eligibility categories e. Although outpatient data for all county health facilities could not be analyzed in the same ways as inpatient care, monthly data for the three major comprehensive ambulatory care clinics were obtained for the first fiscal year. These data confirmed that during the 8 months of FY in which the county was responsible for the MIAs as well as for its previous load of other indigent patients, non-MIA Medi-Cal visits increased rather than decreased, and non-third-party visits increased in number but not in proportion to all visits to these health centers. Total non-third-party visits increased from 11, In this same period, Medi-Cal visits increased from 1, 9. Although these three large health centers may not have been representative of all county facilities or of later periods for which comparable data are not available, these data do support the tentative conclusion that ambulatory care for the medically indigent did not keep pace with expected volumes of service. The one finding that meets the criteria of large differences and some indirect confirmation from other sources is that inpatient care of medically indigent persons did not rise to expected levels in either FY or The number of the medically indigent being discharged reached only about four-fifths of the expected level, suggesting that barriers may discourage access to inpatient care. These barriers may be financial, resulting from inadequate implementation of the county's ability-to-pay program, or be due to the more centralized and geographically limited access to the six county hospitals compared with previous availability of numerous and widely distributed public and private providers under the Medi-Cal program. Other studies have demonstrated that access to ambulatory care has been restricted in Los Angeles County facilities Lurie et al. While the observed number of inpatient days seems reasonably close to the expected level, especially given the decline in average length of stay, the number of outpatient visits paid for by the IMS program reached only about one-fourth of its expected level. This finding confirms the results of an Orange County study that found significant barriers to access to necessary medical care for medically indigent patients Rucker et al. This confirmation from other evidence suggests that medically indigent persons in Orange County may face a serious access problem when they try to obtain ambulatory care. One explanation for inpatient care coming closer to its expected level than ambulatory care is the restriction placed on services provided by the program. Only services that meet this definition are reimbursable under the IMS program. However, since eligibility generally is determined after a user is referred to the County Department of Social Services DSS , persons who are eligible on the basis of income or financial resources may not be referred, or if referred may be denied eligibility, because their medical problem does not meet the criteria. Toggle navigation. Indigent Health Care Program Stanislaus County offers these programs to indigent residents who would otherwise have little or no means of access to or coverage for medical services: Translation Disclaimer. Security Warning. Please make sure you upgrade to one of the following browsers to make sure your transactions are secure: Retrieved South Carolina Healthy Connections. Retrieved from " https: Hidden categories: Articles needing additional references from August All articles needing additional references Wikipedia articles needing clarification from August Namespaces Article Talk. Views Read Edit View history. Languages Add links. Skip to main content. A History June 23, Deborah Reidy Kelch. This is archived content; for historical reference only..

These figures were adjusted to account for those MIAs who remained in the Medi-Cal program, Medically indigent adult and for differences in the average length of stay between private and county hospitals. We computed the total expected volume of use for all patients, and Medically indigent adult expected volume of use for three separate source-of-payment categories: Medi-Cal, other third party Medicare and private insuranceand non-third party self-pay and sliding fee-scale.

We used these three categories to permit an assessment of the extent to which changes in total volume of services reflect contributions by Medi-Cal patients that is, all Medi-Cal patients other than MIAs who lost their eligibilitythose with some other public Medically indigent adult private coverage, and those who are medically indigent that is, former MIAs and former county indigent patients who together comprise the present medically indigent population.

We then compared the observed volume of use with the expected volume of use in FY and beyond by computing a ratio which reflects the Medically indigent adult to which the observed use equals, exceeds, or is smaller than the expected utilization. Because reliable data on outpatient services by source of payment were not available from Los Angeles County, we could apply this method only to inpatient utilization. We estimated the change in volume of inpatient services attributable to MIAs by comparing the observed read article by link indigent patients that is, users of county DHS facilities without Medically indigent adult coverage with the expected utilization anticipated following the MIA Medically indigent adult that is, the changes in total volume of use and changes in each of the three source-of-payment categories attributable to the MIA transfer.

Although Medically indigent adult present findings for both inpatient discharges or admissions and days, the former are a better measure of access to inpatient hospital care than the latter. Discharges represent actual access to the hospital for an episode of illness, while the volume of inpatient days is influenced by average length of stay which is related to quality of care, an issue we do not address in this study. In Orange County, which has no county-owned hospital or medical clinics, all MIAs were treated in the University of California medical center, in private hospitals, in licensed clinics, or by private practitioners.

Thus, estimates of the expected volumes of inpatient and outpatient use were based simply on the average monthly Medi-Cal MIA discharges, inpatient days, and outpatient visits for Orange County providers.

Descreet sex Watch Teen transexual videos Video nude nigga. A History June 23, Deborah Reidy Kelch. This is archived content; for historical reference only. Recent Publications. Translation Disclaimer. Security Warning. Please make sure you upgrade to one of the following browsers to make sure your transactions are secure: Cancel Continue. Reach us Online Give us your questions, comments or feedback. MIAs needing care in different counties face different conditions. For example, counties vary in the types of facilities made available to them. Like many other large and medium size counties that still operate their own hospitals and clinics, Los Angeles County provides care only in county facilities, except for a very limited amount of emergency and specialty care for which it will reimburse private hospitals. Orange and San Diego Counties, which have no county hospitals or county medical clinics, contract all MIA care and other indigent health care to university medical schools, private hospitals and clinics, and physicians. Alameda County uses its county hospitals and clinics and also contracts with a consortium of community clinics. Many other counties also use some combination of county and contract services. In addition, most counties, including Los Angeles, do not distinguish between their MIA and other indigent medical care responsibilities. Counties, like Orange and San Diego, that contract for services with private providers tend to maintain separate MIA and other indigent care programs, with differing eligibility, benefits, and providers for each program. The substantial discretion given to counties to determine benefits, services, eligibility, and the share of costs imposed on patients creates still more variation among county programs. Some counties cover almost all care that had been previously available to MIAs under the Medi-Cal program, while others provide only those services that are deemed essential to prevent death or significant permanent disability. Some counties provide generous ability-to-pay ATP plans and procedures, while others create very restrictive ATP eligibility standards, procedures, and charges. Finally, most small counties operate a completely different arrangement from the larger counties. Small counties under , population have an option of contracting back to the State which then provides a modified Medi-Cal program for eligible MIAs in that county. All counties larger than , must operate their own MIA programs. How this variability among counties affects access to care has never been studied, in part because there have been no comparable sources of data among the counties. The reporting requirements to the State are extremely loose, requiring only totals of aggregated services. The specific research objectives of this study were to assess whether the MIA population used more, fewer, or the same volume of health services after their transfer from the Medi-Cal program to county responsibility, and to compare the relative effectiveness of each county in providing the indigent population with access to health services. The project further sought to identify valid and practical methods of accomplishing these objectives so that the methods would be readily available for use in similar situations to county, State, and academic researchers and policy analysts with limited resources. The methods developed in this project were then applied to assess the implementation of the MIA transfer in two California counties—Los Angeles and Orange. The research objectives involved two distinct steps. First, it was necessary to identify the MIAs and the groups included in a given county's program—that is, whether the county combines the former MIA group with other indigent medical responsibilities or keeps them separate. It was necessary to assess the ongoing impact of the change on the population of people who would have qualified as MIAs before the transfer, but who may or may not personally have been MIAs under the Medi-Cal program. This population orientation is relevant because former individual MIAs may no longer have needed medical financial assistance in and beyond, while new patients not eligible in might have become medically indigent in or in subsequent years. The legislation took account of this by requiring the counties to adopt eligibility standards for their county medical care programs to ensure that future indigent patients could become eligible for county subsidies. Therefore, the MIA population for whom a county became responsible in included adults in each county who were not linked to categorical welfare programs but who were at risk for medical indigency, rather than the particular group of individuals who lost Medi-Cal eligibility in Second, an indicator of health care needs was identified that would serve as a standard for comparisons between the Medi-Cal program and different counties' health services. This method would permit an assessment of the population's health status, their sources of medical care, their patterns of utilization, and their unmet medical needs. Comparing data collected before and after the MIA transfer would enable researchers, policymakers, beneficiaries, and the public to assess accurately the effects of the MIA transfer on access to care and on health status. However, this approach is quite expensive, particularly when conducted on a large scale. Although one study using this approach was conducted on a relatively small group of MIAs at one university medical center Lurie et al. Because of the limitation on resources, the retrospective nature of the study, and the focus on the population of MIAs rather than on individual MIAs, we adopted an alternative approach that relied on existing available data. We developed estimates of the health care needs of the MIA population based on their historical use of health services. This permitted us to compare the volume of services used by this population and paid for by Medi-Cal before the transfer with the volume of services they used in county indigent medical services IMS programs after the transfer. This historical method assumes that this population group's need for services remained about the same per eligible person after the transfer to county responsibility as it had been under the Medi-Cal program. The historical method adopted in this study used the rates of utilization by the MIA population when they were in Medi-Cal as the standard of need against which subsequent usage would be assessed. However, the former utilization rates of MIAs in Medi-Cal had to be adjusted to control for changes in rates of utilization by persons remaining in the Medi-Cal program. These are primarily the result of changes in definitions of medical necessity and treatment authorization requirements imposed on doctors and patients by the State. The computational method, based on this conceptual formula, is described in sufficient detail for the general reader. A more detailed description and tables are provided in an Appendix that is available from the authors upon request. The expected utilization of services is developed from State Medi-Cal paid claims data specifically, the number of MIA Medi-Cal inpatient days, discharges, or outpatient visits in calendar year California Center for Health Statistics, Inpatient use was estimated by combining paid claims for acute medical, surgical, intensive care unit, and coronary care unit services. Both outpatient and inpatient use volumes were then reduced by appropriate percentages of MIA eligibles who remained Medi-Cal beneficiaries in The observed or actual utilization of services under the county MIA programs is derived from county data. We then obtained service data from the county, broken down by patient's source of payment and covering the utilization of inpatient and ambulatory care at all providers covered by the county's MIA program. We were dependent on the data that were collected and made available by each county, and had to adjust our method accordingly. These data were then analyzed to combine service data for indigent and MIA patients, and to sum the data separately for patients in other payment categories. Because of the differences in the indigent care systems in Los Angeles and Orange Counties and in the way they collect and report data, the method for deriving the expected volume of utilization and for compiling observed utilization data had to be adapted to each county. The specific methods used in each county are described briefly in this article. A more thorough discussion is provided in an Appendix that is available from the authors upon request. We based the expected utilization figures on total volume of use of county facilities in the baseline year, fiscal year FY , plus the utilization by MIAs of private physicians and hospitals in that year. These figures were adjusted to account for those MIAs who remained in the Medi-Cal program, 7 and for differences in the average length of stay between private and county hospitals. We computed the total expected volume of use for all patients, and the expected volume of use for three separate source-of-payment categories: Medi-Cal, other third party Medicare and private insurance , and non-third party self-pay and sliding fee-scale. We used these three categories to permit an assessment of the extent to which changes in total volume of services reflect contributions by Medi-Cal patients that is, all Medi-Cal patients other than MIAs who lost their eligibility , those with some other public or private coverage, and those who are medically indigent that is, former MIAs and former county indigent patients who together comprise the present medically indigent population. We then compared the observed volume of use with the expected volume of use in FY and beyond by computing a ratio which reflects the degree to which the observed use equals, exceeds, or is smaller than the expected utilization. Because reliable data on outpatient services by source of payment were not available from Los Angeles County, we could apply this method only to inpatient utilization. We estimated the change in volume of inpatient services attributable to MIAs by comparing the observed utilization by county indigent patients that is, users of county DHS facilities without third-party coverage with the expected utilization anticipated following the MIA transfer that is, the changes in total volume of use and changes in each of the three source-of-payment categories attributable to the MIA transfer. Although we present findings for both inpatient discharges or admissions and days, the former are a better measure of access to inpatient hospital care than the latter. Discharges represent actual access to the hospital for an episode of illness, while the volume of inpatient days is influenced by average length of stay which is related to quality of care, an issue we do not address in this study. In Orange County, which has no county-owned hospital or medical clinics, all MIAs were treated in the University of California medical center, in private hospitals, in licensed clinics, or by private practitioners. Thus, estimates of the expected volumes of inpatient and outpatient use were based simply on the average monthly Medi-Cal MIA discharges, inpatient days, and outpatient visits for Orange County providers. However, Orange County reports inpatient days and outpatient visits for its IMS program, but it does not report admissions or discharges. Therefore, we were limited to comparing expected and observed inpatient days, clearly a less desirable measure of access to inpatient care as previously noted. The computation of expected and observed volume of use are much simpler in Orange County than in Los Angeles. In Los Angeles, the expected utilization volumes of inpatient and outpatient services were based on corresponding volume of use by MIAs in the Medi-Cal program during the baseline year, In Orange County, we were able to generate a reasonably precise expected value because both Medi-Cal and IMS differentiated outpatient visits into comparable categories. Because all services were provided in noncounty settings under both the Medi-Cal MIA and County IMS programs, no adjustments were needed to account for transfers from private providers to county services. Furthermore, because we were concerned with only those services for which the county is financially responsible—that is, those billed to the IMS program—we included in our analysis only those services reported by the IMS program, rather than services delivered by community providers under other source-of-payment categories. Therefore, we have deleted this period from our analysis and focused on the subsequent 2 fiscal years. The most striking finding from this study is the difficulty of assessing differences between MIAs' experiences in the Medi-Cal program and in county IMS programs because of the dismal state of data systems for county health services. The problems with Los Angeles and Orange Counties' data systems are not exceptional among counties, but they make evaluation and comparative studies of performance exceedingly difficult. These problems include a failure to collect important types of data such as specific type of service, source of payment, and patient's income and relevant demographic characteristics; differences in method of collecting similar data among counties and even within counties; and a lack of a clear definition of method of collecting important data elements. In addition, there are at least five other limitations in the methods used in this analysis. Government MIA programs at the state or county or municipal level may help MIAs access medical care by paying for all or part of the cost of their medical care. Such programs are typically of last resort, and are available only to those who meet the "last resort" socioeconomic eligibility standards. Many people can't afford the outrageous medical bills and fall into the MIA criteria. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources:.

​​​County Medically Indigent Services Program (CMISP) is a last resort health care program for low income adults Medically indigent adult are not eligible for other health care. Medically Indigent Assistance Program (MIAP).

This Healthy Connections program sponsors inpatient hospital care for individuals meeting eligibility criteria.

Medically Indigent Adults MIAs in the health care system of the United States are persons Medically indigent adult do not have health insurance and who are not eligible for other health care such as MedicaidMedicareor private health insurance.

An historically derived baseline of health services received by each county's medically indigent adults under Medicaid was compared with the volume of. West J Med. Mar;(3) Specialty care needs of a medically indigent adult population.

Hill LL. PMCID: PMC PMID: ; [Indexed for. Medically Indigent Adult Program (MIA). You may be eligible for the program if you: Are Medically indigent adult the ages of ; Are a verifiable Medically indigent adult of Stanislaus County.

Stylt island nude beach.

Related Videos

Next

Age Verification
The content accessible from this site contains pornography and is intended for adults only.
Age Verification
The content accessible from this site contains pornography and is intended for adults only.
Age Verification
The content accessible from this site contains pornography and is intended for adults only.
Age Verification
The content accessible from this site contains pornography and is intended for adults only.