↓ Skip to main content

Primary Care Clinicians’ Views About the Impact of Medicaid Expansion in Michigan: A Mixed Methods Study

Overview of attention for article published in JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Primary Care Clinicians’ Views About the Impact of Medicaid Expansion in Michigan: A Mixed Methods Study
Published in
JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-018-4487-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan Dorr Goold, Renuka Tipirneni, Edith Kieffer, Adrianne Haggins, Cengiz Salman, Erica Solway, Lisa Szymecko, Tammy Chang, Zachary Rowe, Sarah Clark, Sunghee Lee, Eric G. Campbell, John Z. Ayanian

Abstract

Michigan's approach to Medicaid expansion, the Healthy Michigan Plan (HMP), emphasizes primary care, prevention, and incentives for patients and primary care practitioners (PCPs). Assess PCPs' perspectives about the impact of HMP on their patients and practices. In 2014-2015, we conducted semi-structured interviews then a statewide survey of PCPs. Interviewees came from varied types of practices in five Michigan regions selected for racial/ethnic diversity and a mix of rural and urban settings. Surveys were sent via mail. Interviewees were physician (n = 16) and non-physician practitioners (n = 3). All Michigan PCPs caring for ≥ 12 HMP enrollees were surveyed (response rate 55.5%, N = 2104). PCPs' experiences with HMP patients and recent changes in their practices. Interviews include examples of the impact of Medicaid expansion on patients and practices. A majority of surveyed PCPs reported recent increases in new patients (52.3%) and patients who had not seen a PCP in many years (56.2%). For previously uninsured patients, PCPs reported positive impact on control of chronic conditions (74.4%), early detection of serious illness (71.1%), medication adherence (69.1%), health behaviors (56.5%), emotional well-being (57.0%), and the ability to work, attend school, or live independently (41.5%). HMP patients reportedly still had more difficulty than privately insured patients accessing some services. Most PCPs reported that their practices had, in the past year, hired clinicians (53.2%) and/or staff (57.5%); 15.4% had colocated mental health care. Few (15.8%) reported established patients' access to urgent appointments worsened. PCP reports of patient experiences may not be accurate. Results reflect the experiences of PCPs with ≥ 12 Medicaid patients. Differences between respondents and non-respondents present the possibility for response bias. PCPs reported improved patient access to care, medication adherence, chronic condition management, and detection of serious illness. Established patients' access did not diminish, perhaps due to reported practice changes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 21%
Unspecified 3 21%
Student > Master 3 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Researcher 2 14%
Other 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 4 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 21%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Neuroscience 1 7%
Other 2 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 July 2018.
All research outputs
#453,006
of 13,218,736 outputs
Outputs from JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine
#396
of 4,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,629
of 269,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine
#21
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,218,736 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,691 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,570 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.