Authors: Annette B. Ramírez de Arellano, DrPH, Sidney M. Wolfe, MD

Publication Year: 2007

Last Updated: 2016-04-06 13:51:42

Journal: Public Citizen Health Research Group

Keywords: Medicaid, eligibility, federal medical assistance program, scope of services, quality of care, reimbursement, state by state, assessment, expansion, eligibility, quality of care, disability, SCHIP

Short Abstract: 

While there are abundant data on Medicaid, these tend to avoid making value judgments. This report therefore seeks to fill the existing gap. We feel that it is not enough to say this is the way things are; instead, we should assess and say this is the way things should be. Almost 20 years ago, the Public Citizen Health Research Group published a report on Medicaid, Poor Medicine for Poor People, ranking state Medicaid programs. The current report seeks to update that report. But because programmatic mandates have changed and states now have considerably more latitude in how they run their programs, the indicators are different, as are the sources of data. As a result, there is greater variety among states, as well as greater differences within states.

Each state program has been evaluated in terms of four categories: eligibility, scope of services, quality of care, and reimbursement. These were in turn measured by 55 indicators, and the resulting scores were weighted according to the relative value given to each category by experts. The ranking system gives a state a score for each category as well as an overall score.

Abstract:

While there are abundant data on Medicaid, these tend to avoid making value judgments. This report therefore seeks to fill the existing gap. We feel that it is not enough to say this is the way things are; instead, we should assess and say this is the way things should be. Almost 20 years ago, the Public Citizen Health Research Group published a report on Medicaid, Poor Medicine for Poor People, ranking state Medicaid programs. The current report seeks to update that report. But because programmatic mandates have changed and states now have considerably more latitude in how they run their programs, the indicators are different, as are the sources of data. As a result, there is greater variety among states, as well as greater differences within states.

Each state program has been evaluated in terms of four categories: eligibility, scope of services, quality of care, and reimbursement. These were in turn measured by 55 indicators, and the resulting scores were weighted according to the relative value given to each category by experts. The ranking system gives a state a score for each category as well as an overall score.

File Download:

Source: Link to Original Article.

Funding:

Code: 0

Source: