Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Impact of Family Health Insurance and Other Environmental Factors on Universal Hearing Screen Program Effectiveness

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to evaluate the relationship among health insurance type, other demographic factors, and newborn hearing screen compliance and outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: The cohort consisted of 39,153 infants screened in Rhode Island between July 1, 1995 and June 30, 1998. Multivariate analyses were completed to evaluate relationships between health insurance type and completion of the in-hospital hearing screen and the rescreen, if indicated.

RESULTS: Successful newborn screen rates ranged from 98.1% to 99.8%. Infants with traditional Medicaid insurance were more likely to not be screened (p<0.0001) and to not return for a rescreen (p<0.0001). Infants in families with managed care Medicaid had screen compliance similar to infants with commercial health insurance. Multivariate analyses revealed that Medicaid insurance, no insurance, neonatal intensive care unit status, and out-of-state address predicted no initial screen (p<0.001) and no rescreen (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION: In population-based health services, it is important that the effects of socioeconomic and demographic variables on outcomes be evaluated.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Newborn and Infant Hearing. Newborn and infant hearing loss: detection and intervention Pediatrics 1999 (February); 3: 2 527–30

  2. Vohr B, Carty LM, Moore PE, Letourneau K . The Rhode Island Hearing Assessment Program: experience with statewide hearing screening (1993–1996) J Pediatr 1998; 133: 3 353–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pool KD . Infant hearing detection programs: accountability and information management Semin Hear 1996 (May); 172: 2 139–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Moore P . Data and quality management for a universal newborn hearing screening program In: Spivak L, editor Universal Newborn Hearing Screening NY: Thieme 1998; p 167–85

    Google Scholar 

  5. Finitzo T, Crumley WG . The role of the pediatrician in hearing loss from detection to connection Pediatr Clin North Am 1999; 46: 1 15–34

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Grossman LK, Rich LN, Michelson S, Hagerty G . Managed care of children with special health care needs: the ABC Program Clin Pediatr (Philadelphia) 1999 (March); 38: 3 153–60

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Roulidis ZC, DeChant HK, Schulman KA . Resource utilization control processes as indicators of quality in managed care organizations: a proposal Am J Med 1997 (August); 103: 2 146–51

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dobalian A, Rivers PA . Ensuring quality and accountability in managed care J Health Hum Serv Adm 1998 (Summer); 21: 1 30–41

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Applebaum RA, McGinnis R . What price quality? Assuring the quality of case-managed in-home care J Case Manage 1992 (Spring); 1: 1 9–13

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Armstead R, Leong D . Outcomes improvement: the true mark of quality in managed care Am J Med Qual 1999 (September–October); 14: 5 202–10 (Review)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Reid RJ, Hurtado MP, Starfield B . Managed care, primary care, and quality for children Curr Opin Pediatr 1996 (April); 8: 2 164–70

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Moody-Williams JD, Dawson D, Miller DR, Schafermeyer RW, Wright J, Athey J . Quality and accountability: children's emergency services inamanaged care environment Ann Emerg Med 1999 (December); 34: 6 753–60

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ireys HT, Nelson RP . New federal policy for children with special health care needs: implications for pediatricians Pediatrics 1992 (September); 90: 3 321–7

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. White KR, Vohr BR, Maxon AB, Behrens TR, McPherson MG, Mauk G . Screening all newborns for hearing loss using transient evoked otoacoustic emissions Int J Pediatr 1994; 29: 203–17

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Downs MP . The case for detection and intervention at birth Semin Hear 1994 (May); 15: 2 76–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gabbard SA, Thomson V, Brown AS . Considerations for universal newborn hearing screening, audiologic assessment and intervention Audiol Today 1998 (December); X: Y 8–10

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hermann BS, Thornton AR, Joseph JM . Automated infant hearing screening using the ABR: development and validation Am J Audiol 1995 (July); 4: 2 6–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Johnson JL, Mauk GW, Takekawa KM, Simon PR, Sia CCJ, Blackwell PM . Implementing a statewide system of services for infants and toddlers with hearing disabilities Semin Hear 1993 (February); 14: 1 105–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mehl AL, Thomson V . Newborn hearing screening: the great omission Am Acad Pediatr 1998 (January); 101: 1 E4

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. White KR, Mauk GW, Culpepper NB, Weirather Y . Newborn hearing screening in the United States: is it becoming the standard of care? In: Spivak L, editor Universal Newborn Hearing Screening NY: Thieme 1997; p 225–55

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jacobson JT, Jacobson CA, Spahr RC . Automated and conventional ABR screening techniques in high-risk infants J Am Acad Audiol 1990 (October); 1: 4 187–95

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Das VK . Aetiology of bilateral sensorineural hearing impairment in children: a 10 year study Arch Dis Child 1996; 74: 2–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Year 2000 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs Am J Audiol 2000; 9: 9–20

  24. Leslie GI, Kalaw MB, Bowen JR, Arnold JD . Risk factors for sensorineural hearing loss in extremely premature infants J Paediatr Child Health 1995; 31: 312–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Mauk GW, White KR, Mortensen LB, Behrens TR . The effectiveness of screening programs based on high risk characteristics in early identification of hearing impairment Ear Hear 1991; 12: 5 312–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Sutton GJ, Rowe SJ . Risk factors for childhood sensorineural hearing loss in the Oxford region Br J Audiol 1997; 31: 1 39–54

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Disability and Health to the RI Department of Health/Disability & Health Program (Grant no. U59/CCU 106953-07).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vohr, B., Moore, P. & Tucker, R. Impact of Family Health Insurance and Other Environmental Factors on Universal Hearing Screen Program Effectiveness. J Perinatol 22, 380–385 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7210750

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7210750

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links