Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38880660›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2024

Sampling coverage of the Arkansas all-payer claims database by County's persistent poverty designation.

Chenghui Li, Cheng Peng, Peter DelNero, Mahima Saini, Mario Schootman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Chenghui LiDivision of Pharmaceutical Evaluation and Policy, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Pharmacy, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2778-5149
Cheng PengDivision of Pharmaceutical Evaluation and Policy, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Pharmacy, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.
Peter DelNeroDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Medicine, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.
Mahima SainiDivision of Pharmaceutical Evaluation and Policy, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Pharmacy, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.
Mario SchootmanDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Medicine, Springdale, Arkansas, USA.

Funding

Expanding Translational Research in ArkansasUL1TR003107 · NCATS · UNIV OF ARKANSAS FOR MED SCIS · PI JAMES, LAURA P · 2019 to 2023
$21.6M
American Cancer Society RSGI-23-1039245-01-HOPSArkansas Biosciences InstituteNCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003107NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003107-02S2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the quality of Arkansas All-Payer Claims Database (APCD) for disparity research in persistent poverty areas by determining (1) its representativeness of Arkansas population, (2) variation by county, and (3) differences in coverage between persistent poverty and other counties. DATA SOURCES: Cross-sectional study using 2019 Arkansas APCD member enrollment data and county-level data from various agencies. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION

methodsAn alias identifier linked persons across insurance plans. County FIPS codes were used to extract county-level variables. STUDY

designCohort 1 included individuals with ≥1 day of medical coverage in 2019. Cohort 2 included individuals with medical coverage in June, 2019. Cohort 3 included individuals with continuous medical coverage in 2019. Sampling proportions of a county's population in the three cohorts were compared between persistent poverty and other counties. Inverse-variance weighted linear regression was used to identify county-level socioeconomic and demographic characteristics associated with inclusion in each cohort. PRINCIPAL

findingsIn 2019, 73.6% of Arkansans had medical coverage for ≥1 day (Cohort 1), 66.3% had coverage in June (Cohort 2), and 58.8% had continuous coverage (Cohort 3) in APCD. Sampling proportions varied by county (median[range]: Cohort 1, 78% [58%-95%]; Cohort 2, 71% [51%-88%]; and Cohort 3, 64% [44%-80%]), and were higher among persistent poverty counties than others for all three cohorts (mean [SD], persistent poverty vs. other: Cohort 1: 80.9% [6.4%] vs. 77.1% [6.3%], p = 0.04; Cohort 2: 74.0% [6.4%] vs. 70.1% [6.2%], p = 0.03; Cohort 3: 66.4% [6.1%] vs. 62.7% [6.0%], p = 0.03). In the 2019 APCD, larger counties and those with higher proportions of females or persons 65+ years had higher coverage, whereas counties with higher per capita household income, median home value, or disproportionately more persons of other races (non-White and non-Black) had lower coverage (p < 0.05 for all three cohorts).

conclusionsThe Arkansas APCD had good coverage of Arkansas population. Coverage was higher in persistent poverty counties than others.

Indexed as

PovertyAdolescentAdultAgedArkansasChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansInfantInsurance Claim ReviewInsurance CoverageInsurance, HealthMaleall‐payer claims databaseArkansasdisparitypersistent poverty areas

Identifiers

PMID38880660
PMCPMC11249802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.