Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 6/2018

01-06-2018 | Original Research

Rideshare-Based Medical Transportation for Medicaid Patients and Primary Care Show Rates: A Difference-in-Difference Analysis of a Pilot Program

Authors: Krisda H. Chaiyachati, MD, Rebecca A. Hubbard, PhD, Alyssa Yeager, MD, Brian Mugo, MD, Judy A. Shea, PhD, Roy Rosin, MBA, David Grande, MD

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 6/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Transportation to primary care is a well-documented barrier for patients with Medicaid, despite access to non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) benefits. Rideshare services, which offer greater convenience and lower cost, have been proposed as an NEMT alternative.

Objective

To evaluate the impact of rideshare-based medical transportation on the proportion of Medicaid patients attending scheduled primary care appointments.

Design

In one of two similar practices, all eligible Medicaid patients were offered rideshare-based transportation (“rideshare practice”). A difference-in-difference analytical approach using logistic regression with robust standard errors was employed to compare show rate changes between the rideshare practice and the practice where rideshare was not offered (“control practice”).

Participants

Our study population included residents of West Philadelphia who were insured by Medicaid and were established patients at two academic general internal medicine practices located in the same building.

Intervention

We designed a rideshare-based transportation pilot intervention. Patients were offered the service during their reminder call 2 days before the appointment, and rides were prescheduled by research staff. Patients then called research staff to schedule their return trip home.

Main Measures

We assessed the effect of offering rideshare-based transportation on appointment show rates by comparing the change in the average show rate for the rideshare practice, from the baseline period to the intervention period, with the change at the control practice.

Key Results

At the control practice, the show rate declined from 60% (146/245) to 51% (34/67). At the rideshare practice, the show rate improved from 54% (72/134) to 68% (41/60). In the adjusted model, controlling for patient demographics and provider type, the odds of showing up for an appointment before and after the intervention increased 2.57 (1.10–6.00) times more in the rideshare practice than in the control practice.

Conclusions

Results of this pilot program suggest that offering a rideshare-based transportation service can increase show rates to primary care for Medicaid patients.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Silver D, Blustein J, Weitzman BC. Transportation to clinic: findings from a pilot clinic-based survey of low-income suburbanites. J Immigr Minor Health. 2012;14(2):350–5.CrossRefPubMed Silver D, Blustein J, Weitzman BC. Transportation to clinic: findings from a pilot clinic-based survey of low-income suburbanites. J Immigr Minor Health. 2012;14(2):350–5.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
go back to reference National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Transportation Research Board; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice. Exploring Data and Metrics of Value at the Intersection of Health Care and Transportation: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2016. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Transportation Research Board; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice. Exploring Data and Metrics of Value at the Intersection of Health Care and Transportation: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2016.
4.
go back to reference Kangovi S, Barg FK, Carter T, Long JA, Shannon R, Grande D. Understanding why patients of low socioeconomic status prefer hospitals over ambulatory care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(7):1196–1203.CrossRefPubMed Kangovi S, Barg FK, Carter T, Long JA, Shannon R, Grande D. Understanding why patients of low socioeconomic status prefer hospitals over ambulatory care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(7):1196–1203.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Nguyen DL, Dejesus RS. Increased frequency of no-shows in residents’ primary care clinic is associated with more visits to the emergency department. J Prim Care Community Health. 2010;1(1):8–11.CrossRefPubMed Nguyen DL, Dejesus RS. Increased frequency of no-shows in residents’ primary care clinic is associated with more visits to the emergency department. J Prim Care Community Health. 2010;1(1):8–11.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Hwang AS, Atlas SJ, Cronin P, et al. Appointment "no-shows" are an independent predictor of subsequent quality of care and resource utilization outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(10):1426–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hwang AS, Atlas SJ, Cronin P, et al. Appointment "no-shows" are an independent predictor of subsequent quality of care and resource utilization outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(10):1426–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. National Quality Measures Clearinghouse. Ambulatory care sensitive conditions age-standardized acute care hospitalization rate for conditions where appropriate ambulatory care prevents or reduces the need for admission to the hospital per 100,000 population younger than age 75 years. 2014; https://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/summaries/summary/48964. Accessed December 15, 2017. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. National Quality Measures Clearinghouse. Ambulatory care sensitive conditions age-standardized acute care hospitalization rate for conditions where appropriate ambulatory care prevents or reduces the need for admission to the hospital per 100,000 population younger than age 75 years. 2014; https://​www.​qualitymeasures.​ahrq.​gov/​summaries/​summary/​48964. Accessed December 15, 2017.
10.
go back to reference Kaplan-Lewis E, Percac-Lima S. No-show to primary care appointments: why patients do not come. J Prim Care Community Health. 2013;4(4):251–5.CrossRefPubMed Kaplan-Lewis E, Percac-Lima S. No-show to primary care appointments: why patients do not come. J Prim Care Community Health. 2013;4(4):251–5.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference The National Academy of Medicine. Accounting for Social Risk Factors in Medicare Payment: Identifying Social Risk Factors. Washington, DC: National Academies Press;2016. The National Academy of Medicine. Accounting for Social Risk Factors in Medicare Payment: Identifying Social Risk Factors. Washington, DC: National Academies Press;2016.
14.
go back to reference Powers BW, Rinefort S, Jain SH. Nonemergency Medical Transportation: Delivering Care in the Era of Lyft and Uber. JAMA. 2016;316(9):921–2.CrossRefPubMed Powers BW, Rinefort S, Jain SH. Nonemergency Medical Transportation: Delivering Care in the Era of Lyft and Uber. JAMA. 2016;316(9):921–2.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Chaiyachati KH, Asch DA, Grande DT. Patient Inducements—High Graft or High Value? N Engl J Med. 2017;376(12):1107–9.CrossRefPubMed Chaiyachati KH, Asch DA, Grande DT. Patient Inducements—High Graft or High Value? N Engl J Med. 2017;376(12):1107–9.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Hasvold PE, Wootton R. Use of telephone and SMS reminders to improve attendance at hospital appointments: a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare. 2011;17(7):358–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hasvold PE, Wootton R. Use of telephone and SMS reminders to improve attendance at hospital appointments: a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare. 2011;17(7):358–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference McLean SM, Booth A, Gee M, et al. Appointment reminder systems are effective but not optimal: results of a systematic review and evidence synthesis employing realist principles. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:479–99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral McLean SM, Booth A, Gee M, et al. Appointment reminder systems are effective but not optimal: results of a systematic review and evidence synthesis employing realist principles. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:479–99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Schroeder SA. Shattuck Lecture. We can do better--improving the health of the American people. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(12):1221–8.CrossRefPubMed Schroeder SA. Shattuck Lecture. We can do better--improving the health of the American people. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(12):1221–8.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Marmot M, Friel S, Bell R, Houweling TA, Taylor S; Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Lancet. 2008;372(9650):1661–9.CrossRefPubMed Marmot M, Friel S, Bell R, Houweling TA, Taylor S; Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Lancet. 2008;372(9650):1661–9.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Braveman P, Gottlieb L. The social determinants of health: it’s time to consider the causes of the causes. Public Health Rep. 2014;129(Suppl 2):19–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Braveman P, Gottlieb L. The social determinants of health: it’s time to consider the causes of the causes. Public Health Rep. 2014;129(Suppl 2):19–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Kangovi S, Mitra N, Turr L, Huo H, Grande D, Long JA. A randomized controlled trial of a community health worker intervention in a population of patients with multiple chronic diseases: Study design and protocol. Contemp Clin Trials. 2017;53:115–21.CrossRefPubMed Kangovi S, Mitra N, Turr L, Huo H, Grande D, Long JA. A randomized controlled trial of a community health worker intervention in a population of patients with multiple chronic diseases: Study design and protocol. Contemp Clin Trials. 2017;53:115–21.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Rideshare-Based Medical Transportation for Medicaid Patients and Primary Care Show Rates: A Difference-in-Difference Analysis of a Pilot Program
Authors
Krisda H. Chaiyachati, MD
Rebecca A. Hubbard, PhD
Alyssa Yeager, MD
Brian Mugo, MD
Judy A. Shea, PhD
Roy Rosin, MBA
David Grande, MD
Publication date
01-06-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4306-0

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

Journal of General Internal Medicine 6/2018 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine