Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33137130›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Impact of the affordable care act on utilization of benefits of eye care and primary care examinations.

Yi Pang, Zhiyong Ren, Jingyun Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yi PangIllinois College of Optometry, Chicago, IL, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7602-1076
Zhiyong RenIllinois College of Optometry, Chicago, IL, United States of America.
Jingyun WangSUNY College of Optometry, New York, NY, United States of America.
Illinois College of Optometry · USSUNY College of Optometry · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on utilization of benefits of both eye care and primary care examinations in individuals who did not have health insurance prior to the ACA.

methodsPatients examined in an urban eye clinic from 2017 to 2018 were invited to participate. Patients were classified into two groups: Insured Group, who had health insurance before and after the ACA; The ACA Group, who had insurance only after the ACA. Patients were surveyed on how often they were examined by their eye care and primary care physicians before and after the ACA. The care utilization frequency was categorized into 3 levels: Frequent Care Use, Rare Care Use, and Never. To test the utilization of benefits frequency difference between two groups, the z-ratio was calculated.

resultsA total of 4,355 patients were enrolled with 87.1% in the Insured Group and 12.9% in the ACA Group. After the ACA implementation, the percentage of "Frequent Care Use" of the eye care and primary care in the ACA Group patients significantly increased from 31.2% and 53.7% to 57.9% and 74.9%, respectively (P<0.001), but were significantly lower than those in the Insured Group (76.6% and 93.9%, P < 0.001).

conclusionThe ACA significantly improved utilization of benefits of eye care and primary care for individuals in the ACA Group. Although improved, those patients who received health insurance through the ACA still had lower utilization of benefits than those in the Insured Group.

Indexed as

OphthalmologyPatient Protection and Affordable Care ActPrimary Health CareAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID33137130
PMCPMC7605705
OpenAlexW3094923817

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.