Advertisement

Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 11–17 | Cite as

Prenatal care initiation among very low-income women in the aftermath of welfare reform: does pre-pregnancy Medicaid coverage make a difference?

  • Deborah Rosenberg
  • Arden Handler
  • Kristin M. Rankin
  • Meagan Zimbeck
  • E. Kathleen Adams
Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives: To examine pre-pregnancy Medicaid coverage and initiation of prenatal care among women likely eligible for Medicaid coverage regardless of pregnancy. Methods: The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) was used to identify very low-income women with Medicaid payment for delivery. We then compared prenatal care initiation among women with (Non-GAP) and without (Medicaid GAP) pre-pregnancy Medicaid coverage. Results: Rates of first trimester prenatal care were 47.3% for women in the Medicaid GAP, 70.0% for women who were not. The adjusted odds ratio for being in the Medicaid GAP and delayed prenatal care was 2.7 (95% CI 1.2, 6.2), although this varied by race/ethnicity and education. The relationship was strongest among White and Hispanic women with less than a high school education: OR=13.8, (95% CI 3.0, 62.7) and OR=19.0 (95% CI 2.4, 149.2), respectively. Conclusions: Pre-pregnancy Medicaid coverage appears to be associated with early initiation of prenatal care. Almost a decade after welfare reform, it is essential to preserve the Medicaid expansions for pregnant women, foster Medicaid family planning waivers, and promote access to primary care and early prenatal care, particularly for very low-income women.

Keywords

Prenatal Care Welfare Reform Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System Medicaid Coverage Medicaid Expansion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This analysis was conducted with funding support from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau Research Program, Grant R40MC00209. The authors thank members of the PRAMS staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the PRAMS staff from the eight states included in this analysis for permitting us to use the PRAMS data and for reviewing and providing feedback on the completed manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Fiscella K. Does prenatal care improve birth outcomes? A critical review. Obstet Gynecol 1995;85:468–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Huntington J, Connell F. (Sounding Board). For every dollar spent-the cost-savings argument for prenatal care. N Eng J Med 1994;331:1303–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Martin J, Hamilton B, Sutton P, Ventura S, Menacker F, Munson M. Births: Final data for 2003. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2005;54(2).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vintzileos A, Ananth C, Smulian J, Scorza W, Knuppel R. The impact of prenatal care on preterm births in the presence and absence of antenatal high-risk conditions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187(5):1254–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vintzileos A, Ananth C, Smulian J, Scorza W, Knuppel R. Prenatal care and black-white fetal death disparity in the United States: Heterogeneity by high-risk conditions. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99:483–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vintzileos A, Ananth C, Smulian J, Scorza W, Knuppel R. The impact of prenatal care on neonatal deaths in the presence and absence of antenatal high-risk conditions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:1011–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vintzileos A, Ananth C, Smulian J, Scorza W. The impact of prenatal care on preterm births among twin gestations in the United States, 1989–2000. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;189(3):818–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kogan M, Alexander G, Jack B, Allen M. The association between adequacy of prenatal care utilization and subsequent pediatric care utilization in the United States. Pediatrics 1998;102:25–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kogan M, Martin J, Alexander G, Kotelchuck M, Ventura S, Frigoletto F. Letter. Benefits and limitations of prenatal care. JAMA 1998;280:2071–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meis P, Klebanoff M, Thorn E. Prevention of recurrent preterm delivery by 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate. N Engl J Med 2003;348(24):2379–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kotelchuck M. An evaluation of the Kessner adequacy of prenatal care index and a proposed adequacy of prenatal care utilization index. Am J Public Health 1994;84:1414–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010, Conference Edition. Available at: http://www.health.gov/healthypeople/Document/tableofcontents.htm. Access-ed January, 2004.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Howell E. The impact of the Medicaid expansions for pregnant women: A synthesis of the evidence. Med Care Res Rev 2001;58(1):3–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dubay L, Joyce T, Kaestner R, Kenney G. Changes in prenatal care timing and low birth weight by race and socioeconomic status: Implications for the Medicaid expansions for pregnant women. Health Serv Res 2001;36(2):373–403.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kramer M, Seguin L, Lydon J, Goulet L. Socio-economic disparities in pregnancy outcome: Why do the poor fare so poorly? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2000;14:194–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Misra D, Grason H, Weisman C. An intersection of women's and perinatal health: The role of chronic conditions. Women's Health Issues 2000;10(5):256–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jack B, Culpepper L. Preconception Care. In: Merkatz I, Thompson J, editors. New perspectives on prenatal care. New York, NY: Elsevier Science, 1990:69–88.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Egerter S, Braveman P, Marchi K. Timing of insurance and use of prenatal care among low-income women. Am J Public Health 2002;92(3):423–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Braveman P, Marchi K, Sarnoff R, Egerter S, Rittenhouse D. Promoting access to prenatal care: Lessons from the California experience. Washington, DC: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2003.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ellwood M. The Medicaid eligibility maze: Coverage expands, but enrollment problems persist. Findings from a five state study. Cambridge, MA: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 1999.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Handler A, Rosenberg D, Rankin K, Zimbeck M, Adams K. The effect of welfare reform on the pre-pregnancy insurance status of public aid recipients: Women in the Medicaid GAP. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2006;17(1):162--179.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rogers M, Ahluwalia I, Melvin C. The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS). J Womens Health 1998;7(7):799–801.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wilson J. The crucial link between literacy and health. Ann Intern Med 2003;139(10):875–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ku L, Fremstad S, Broaddus M. Noncitizens' use of public benefits has declined since 1996: Recent report paints misleading picture of impact of eligibility restrictions on immigrant families. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2003.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gold RB. Immigrants and Medicaid after welfare reform. The Guttmacher report on public policy. 2003;6(2):6–9.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Feld P, Power B. Immigrants' access to health care after welfare reform: Findings from focus groups in four cities. Washington, DC: Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2000.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. Medicaid eligibility and citizenship status: Policy Implications for immigrant populations. Washington, DC: Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2000.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Augustyn M, Maiman L. Psychological and sociological barriers to prenatal care. Women's Health Issues 1994;4(1):20–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kost K, Landry D, Darroch J. Predicting maternal behaviors during pregnancy: Does intention status matter? Fam Plann Pers 1998;30(2):79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sanders-Phillips K, Davis S. Improving prenatal care services for low-income African-American women and infants. J Health Care Poor Underserved 1998;9(1):14–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nothnagle M, Marchi K, Egerter S, Braveman P. Risk factors for late or no prenatal care following Medicaid expansions in California. Matern Child Health J 2000;4(4):251–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    National Governor's Association for Best Practices. MCH update 2002; State health coverage for low-income pregnant women, children and parents. June 9, 2003.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Piper J, Ray W, Griffin M. Effects of Medicaid eligibility expansion on prenatal care and pregnancy outcome in Tennessee. JAMA 1990;264(17):2219–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Braveman P, Bennett T, Lewis C, Egerter S, Showstack J. Access to prenatal care following major Medicaid eligibility expansions. JAMA 1993;269:1285–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Haas J, Udvarhelyi S, Morris C, Epstein A. The effect of providing health coverage to poor uninsured pregnant women in Massachusetts. JAMA 1993;269(1):87–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ray W, Mitchel E Jr, Piper J. Effect of Medicaid expansions on preterm birth. Am J Prev Med 1997;13:292–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Baldwin LM, Larson E, Connell F, Nordlund D, Cain K, Cawthon ML, Bryns P, Rosenblatt R. The effect of expanding Medicaid prenatal services on birth outcomes. Am J Public Health 1998;88:1623–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Long S, Marquis MS. The effects of Florida's Medicaid eligibility expansion for pregnant women. Am J Public Health 1998;88:371–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kaiser Family Foundation. Medicaid: A critical source of support for family planning in the United States. Issue Brief. Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, April, 2005.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Blumberg S, Cynamon M. Misreporting Medicaid enrollment: Results of three studies linking telephone surveys to state administrative records. In: Cynamon M, Kulka M, editors. Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Health Survey Research Methods. DHHS. Hyattsville, MD, 2001. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 01–1013.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    National Conference of State Legislatures and American Public Welfare Association. Analysis of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Revised August 30, 1996.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Williams L, Morrow B, Lansky A, Becky L, Barfield W, Helms K, Lipscomb L, Whitehead N. Surveillance for selected maternal behaviors and experiences before, during and after pregnancy. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Surveillance Summaries, 52/SS-11, 2003.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Phares T, Morrow B, Lansky A, Barfield C, Prince C, Marchi K, Braveman P, Williams L, Kinniburgh B. Surveillance for disparities in maternal health-related behaviors-selected states, Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), 2000–2001. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Surveillance Summaries, 53/SS-4, July 2, 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah Rosenberg
    • 1
  • Arden Handler
    • 2
  • Kristin M. Rankin
    • 3
  • Meagan Zimbeck
    • 4
  • E. Kathleen Adams
    • 5
  1. 1.Epidemiology and BiostatisticsSchool of Public Health, University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Community Health SciencesSchool of Public Health, University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Center for the Advancement of Distance EducationSchool of Public Health, University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  4. 4.Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale (INSERM)ParisFrance
  5. 5.Emory School of Public HealthAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations