ArticlePublic health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)
The Impact of the Affordable Care Act on Funding for Newborn Screening Services.
Article in Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dispatches from Biotech beginning BeginNGS: Rapid newborn genome sequencing to end the diagnostic and therapeutic odyssey.American journal of medical genetics. Part C, Seminars in medical genetics · 2022Article
- Inequities in newborn screening: Race and the role of medicaidSSM - population health · 2019Article
- Simple Test, Complex System: Multifaceted Views of Newborn Screening Science, Technology, and Policy.Global pediatric health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Affordable Care Act requires most health plans to cover the federal Recommended Uniform Screening Panel of newborn screening (NBS) tests with no cost sharing. However, state NBS programs vary widely in both the number of mandated tests and their funding mechanisms, including a combination of state laboratory fees, third-party billing, and other federal and state funding. We assessed the potential impact of the Affordable Care Act coverage mandate on states' NBS funding.
methodWe performed an extensive review of the refereed literature, federal and state agency reports, relevant organizations' websites, and applicable state laws and regulations; interviewed 28 state and federal officials from August to December 2014; and then assessed the interview findings manually.
resultsAlthough a majority of states had well-established systems for including laboratory-based NBS tests in bundled charges for newborn care, billing practices for critical congenital heart disease and newborn hearing tests were less uniform. Most commonly, birthing facilities either prepaid the costs of laboratory-based tests when acquiring the filter paper kits, or the facilities paid for the tests when the kits were submitted. Some states had separate arrangements for billing Medicaid, and smaller facilities sometimes contracted with hearing test vendors that billed families separately.
conclusionAlthough the Affordable Care Act coverage mandate may offset some state NBS funding for the screenings themselves, federal support is still required to assure access to the full range of NBS program services. Limiting reimbursement to the costs of screening tests alone would undermine the common practice of using screening charges to fund follow-up services counseling, and medical food or formula, particularly for low-income families.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.