EPSDT

Last updated

Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) is the child health component of Medicaid. Federal statutes and regulations state that children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medicaid are entitled to EPSDT benefits and that States must cover a broad array of preventive and treatment services. Unlike private insurance, EPSDT is designed to address problems early, ameliorate conditions, and intervene as early as possible. [1] [2] [3] For the 25 million children enrolled in Medicaid and entitled to EPSDT in 2012, the program is a vital source of coverage and a means to improve the health and well-being of beneficiaries.

Contents

While a small number of cases and anecdotes regarding high EPSDT costs have garnered public attention, spending per child is low compared with worker-age adults and seniors covered by Medicaid. This is true despite the breadth of coverage provided to children through EPSDT. Children account for approximately half of Medicaid beneficiaries but only roughly 20-25 percent of the costs of the program overall. [4] With Medicaid and EPSDT, however, poor children's access to health care is similar to that of non-poor, privately insured children and child Medicaid beneficiaries use care in approximately the same pattern as their privately insured counterparts. On average, Medicaid costs per child are less than private insurance. [5]

History

EPSDT was enacted in 1967 as part of Medicaid as the child health component of Medicaid, with a deliberate focus on prevention and early intervention to reduce health problems among poor children and offer them equal opportunity to succeed in life. The design of EPSDT encompasses the vision of President Johnson and the Congress in order "to discover, as early as possible, the ills that handicap our children" and to provide "continuing follow up and treatment so that handicaps do not go neglected." [6] [7] [8] While children were eligible for Medicaid from its original enactment in 1965, no specific standards related to child health coverage were included. Within two years, however, policymakers would focus on the range and depth of Medicaid coverage for infants, children, and adolescents. [9] President Johnson’s concern for the well-being of poor children was one political force. In 1967, as he transmitted his program for America’s children and youth, President Johnson said: “Recent studies confirm what we have long suspected. In education, in health, in all of human development, the early years are the critical years. Ignorance, ill health, personality disorder--these are disabilities often contracted in childhood: afflictions which linger to cripple the man and damage the next generation. Our nation must rid itself of this bitter inheritance. Our goal must be clear--to give every child the chance to fulfill his promise.” [10] Another set of arguments in support of EPSDT was in a report on young men found unqualified for military service, which concluded that the majority of those rejected for service in the early 1960s failed as a result of physical and mental health conditions which might have been prevented or treated in childhood. [11]

Over the past 40 years, federal EPSDT law has been amended and state efforts have evolved to match changes in standards of pediatric care, structures in the health care system, and our understanding of the physical, emotional, and developmental needs of low-income children. [12] [13] [14] [15] The amendments of 1989 clarified and broadened coverage to include all necessary diagnostic and treatment services approved under federal law. [16] The politics of EPSDT remain controversial. Some view the program as well designed and structured to meet child health needs, fitting professional guidelines and standards and focusing on prevention and optimal development. Others view the sweeping coverage as too generous for public coverage. As a result, the EPSDT benefit is guaranteed only for children with Medicaid coverage and not under other federal programs (see discussion below of CHIP). [17] [18] [19]

Design of EPSDT Benefit

EPSDT, as a set of benefits, offers a comprehensive approach to medical, dental, and mental health care for children which emphasizes prevention and early intervention. The core of the EPSDT benefit is a comprehensive, well-child visit known as an EPSDT screen. It must include: a comprehensive health and developmental history, comprehensive physical exam, appropriate immunizations, laboratory tests, and health education. The general design and content of the EPSDT screen is based on the Bright Futures guidelines [20] for well child visits developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and federal Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services.

Periodicity Schedule

The schedules for periodic well-child visits in EPSDT are known as periodicity schedules. States are required to develop schedules for periodic screening, vision, and hearing services at intervals that meet reasonable standards of medical practice. Federal law requires that states consult with recognized medical organizations involved in child health care in the development of their states’ EPSDT periodicity schedules. Alternatively, states may elect to use a nationally recognized pediatric periodicity schedule such as Bright Futures . [21] A separate children’s dental periodicity schedule is also required. One has been developed by the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. [22] [23] Improving periodicity schedules can improve access to and utilization of child health services. [24]

Treatment and Medical Necessity

EPSDT also provides coverage for treatment. All types of child health conditions — medical, dental, mental, developmental, acute, and chronic — must be treated, including pre-existing conditions or those detected outside of an EPSDT comprehensive well-child “screening” visit. EPSDT coverage is set by a federal standard and goes beyond what states may cover for adults in Medicaid. Specifically, states are required by federal law to provide any additional health care services that are covered under the federal Medicaid program and found to be medically necessary regardless of whether the service is covered in a state’s Medicaid plan. Some common EPSDT treatment and intervention services beyond what is typically covered for adults include: eyeglasses, hearing aids, orthodontia, wheelchairs and prosthetic devices, occupational and physical therapy, prescribed medical formula foods, assistive communication devices, personal care, therapeutic behavioral services, and substance abuse treatment [25] Medicaid, as well as private insurers, will not pay for treatment for a covered individual unless they consider it to be medically necessary. In most private health plans, this means the service must be justified as reasonable, necessary, and/or appropriate, using evidence-based clinical standards of care. For children, federal Medicaid law requires coverage of “necessary health care, diagnostic services, treatment, and other measures . . . to correct or ameliorate defects and physical and mental illnesses and conditions.” [26] Thus, the EPSDT medical necessity standard assures a level of coverage sufficient not only to treat an already-existing illness or injury but also to prevent the development or worsening of conditions, illnesses, and disabilities. [27]

Dental

Dental services must meet standards of dental practice. These standards should be determined by the state following discussion regarding the health of the child. Minimum services should include pain relief, restoration of teeth and maintenance for dental health. EPSDT individuals below the age of 21 are not to be limited emergency services. Medical care providers should provide direct referral to a dentist as part of a comprehensive EPSDT screening visit. If a condition requiring treatment is discovered for a child, EPSDT provides financing for nearly all medically necessary dental services. [28] [29]

Vision

Vision services, at a minimum, include diagnosis and treatment for defects in vision and eyeglasses when appropriate. Vision services must be provided according to a distinct, separate periodicity schedule developed by the state and at other intervals as medically necessary.

Hearing

At a minimum, hearing services include diagnosis and treatment for defects in hearing, including hearing aids. Speech, language, and hearing services are related and are covered when medically necessary.

Mental Health

Children’s mental health services are an integral part of the design and scope of EPSDT. From behavioral/social/emotional screening tests as part of EPSDT well-child visits, to diagnosis, to treatment, and systems of care, Medicaid and EPSDT are critical to financing evidence-based mental health services for children. [30] Federal law requires comprehensive well-child examinations with screening services through EPSDT, including screening for potential developmental, mental, behavioral, and/or substance use disorders. Where states choose, requiring providers to use objective and standardized tools to assess mental/behavioral/social/emotional health make the process more effective. EPSDT also finances diagnostic and treatment services, if medically necessary, for these conditions. Some states contract with managed care organizations or community mental health centers to deliver certain Medicaid financed services for children, and in other states Medicaid financing for children’s mental health services is administered by state mental health agencies. [31]

State Implementation

Federal law requires that children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medicaid be entitled to EPSDT benefits and that States must cover a broad array of prevention and treatment services. In turn, states have responsibility for certain policy implementation decisions. For example, states determine provider qualifications, set payment levels, create benefit definitions, and make medical necessity determinations.

As state Medicaid agencies adopt managed care approaches, Medicaid has evolved. Early studies of Medicaid managed care indicated that children may have received fewer visits or services. More recent studies point to states use of quality improvement projects, improved contracts, and other mechanisms which can optimize care. [32] [33] [34] How states implement and manage EPSDT is important to millions of children, particularly the youngest and most vulnerable. To conform with the prevention and early intervention goals of the program, states need to ensure coverage of development screening, optimize the frequency of covered visits, and offer incentives to provide comprehensive, age-appropriate care. [35] [36] [37]

Where states have failed to implement EPSDT law, families have sometimes brought lawsuits in an effort to secure a remedy. [38] [39]

Barriers to Care

Expanding health coverage for low-income since the mid-1980s has made a significant contribution to their appropriate use of health services and to their health status. While EPSDT is a primary reason for improvements in the health, barriers to care beyond coverage inhibit the potential of this benefit. [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]

A number of studies have documented low performance of EPSDT programs in some states or communities. This includes the US Government Accountability Office, which has conducted a series of studies of EPSDT over the years. [47] [48] [49]

In a 2010 report, the U.S. Health and Human Services Inspector General found that three out of four children did not receive all required medical, vision and hearing screenings under EPSDT. Moreover, nearly 60 percent of the children in selected states who had an EPSDT screening visit did not receive all five required components of the visit. Lab tests were most often missing. [50]

By promoting and vigorously implementing the EPSDT program and its various components, states can improve the quality of health care, reduce the prevalence of preventable conditions, and have measurable impact. A series of 18 state leadership workshops on EPSDT identified key actions states can take to improve services, coordination, and administration. [51]

State reports, research, and federal recommendations together point to several general approaches that states can use to reduce barriers and improve EPSDT. These are beyond efforts to ensure that eligible children are enrolled in Medicaid, and, where appropriate, connected to a managed care plan or medical home.

First, every state should adopt a periodic visit (periodicity) schedule that conforms to the model of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The visit content should conform to the Bright Futures guidelines. These professional guidelines are based on the best available evidence regarding what works for children in pediatric care and what can be achieved through well-child visits. [52]

Second, states should clearly communicate to families and providers regarding the range of services covered. Federal law requires that states adequately inform parents about the benefits of EPSDT. Some states’ communications with parents have often focused primarily on screening and provided limited information regarding the range of treatment and intervention services that may be covered when medically necessary. In particular, offering training, clear provider manuals, specific website content, and routine communication can assist providers in delivering high-quality well-child visits financed through EPSDT, as well as visits financed by other payer sources. [53] [54] [55] [56]

Third, improving the quality and structure of services. Quality improvement projects and efforts to accurately measure program performance are important. [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] Equally important is maximizing the available health professionals, including an array of physicians, nurses, and other in the delivery of EPSDT services. Use of a medical/health home and creation of integrated delivery systems also has shown promise for improving child outcomes, particularly for children with special health needs and chronic or disabling conditions. [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]

Fourth, states’ use of case management and other mechanisms to coordinate services have the potential to connect families to appropriate and needed services. By strengthening the linkages between primary health care providers and other child and family services, case management and care coordination can better ensure that children receive needed services on a timely basis. Without these supports, children and families are more likely to delay or not receive services to address risks and prevent conditions from worsening. This work often demands strengthening state interagency partnerships. [73] [74]

Fifth, designing policies and delivery system structures that address the needs of children with special needs. This includes children with special health care needs, with mental conditions and disorders, those in foster care, adolescents in transition to adulthood, and infants and toddlers whose risks point to future health or developmental problems. [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]

National EPSDT Improvement Workgroup

In December 2010, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) convened a National EPSDT Improvement Workgroup that included state representatives, children’s health providers, consumer representatives, and other experts in the areas of maternal and child health and Medicaid. The members of the group provided advice to help CMS identify key opportunities for improvement of EPSDT. The group, which meets periodically, also discussed steps that the federal government might take in partnership with states and private sector organizations to both increase the number of children accessing services, and improve the quality of the data reporting.

Title V Maternal and Child Health Programs

Title V of the Social Security Act was enacted in 1935 as a health services safety net for all women and children. It was the first programs to provide grants to states to improve health. Today, the Title V Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant continues as the only federal program with the goal of improving the health of all mothers and children. Title V is administered by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services.

From the beginning, EPSDT and Title V were linked in federal statute. Simultaneous amendments to Medicaid and Title V law were added in 1967 to create the framework for EPSDT. Between 1967 and 1989, Congress enacted a number of amendments to Title V, adding requirements to work closely with and assist Medicaid in a number of activities. Currently, the Title V law requires that state MCH programs to: assist with coordination of EPSDT, establish coordination agreements for with their State Medicaid programs, provide a toll-free number for families seeking Title V or Medicaid providers, provide outreach and facilitate enrollment of Medicaid eligible children and pregnant women, share data collection responsibilities, and provide services for children with special health care needs and disabilities not covered by Medicaid. [80]

Reciprocally, federal EPSDT rules call for coordination with Title V. These requirements call for Medicaid agencies to: 1. establishment of written agreements which provide for maximum utilization of Title V-supported services and aims to improve child health status; and 2. reimbursement of Title V providers for services rendered, even if such services are provided free of charge to low-income uninsured families. [81] [82] [83] [84]

Children’s Health Insurance Program

The Children’s Health Insurance Program was created in 1997 and reauthorized in 2009. Known as CHIP, the program was enacted following the 1994 failure of national health reform. The purpose of CHIP was to expand health insurance coverage for targeted, uninsured, low-income children with family incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. The program provides states with federal funding to expand health insurance beyond Medicaid eligibility levels. In some states, CHIP is administered as part of the Medicaid program (referred to as Medicaid expansion states) and the covered children are eligible for EPSDT benefits. In other states, CHIP may be administered by the state and designed similar to Medicaid but not provide full EPSDT coverage, or CHIP may be administered as a private plan without the more comprehensive EPSDT benefits. Separate administration has proved to be the more popular implementation approach, in large part because the funding for each state is limited and does not provide for an entitlement. [85] [86]

Health Reform

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Medicaid is expanded, particularly for adults. Only a small proportion of children are uninsured, an estimate 5-7 million. About half of the children currently uninsured are eligible for Medicaid or CHIP coverage but have not been enrolled in these programs. In some cases, eligible children are not enrolled because their parents are unaware of the potential coverage or are reluctant to apply for public benefits. Researchers at the Urban Institute estimate that, with full implementation of the health reforms contained in the Affordable Care Act, the number of uninsured children would be cut by 40 percent and the number of uninsured parents cut in half. The actual impact will depend on states’ implementation of Medicaid expansions. [87]

Under the Affordable Care Act, states are required to continue current Medicaid and CHIP eligibility; however, they are not required to expand Medicaid. The Supreme Court decided in 2012 that the federal government may offer incentives for states to expand Medicaid but may not mandate such expansions. The number of states that will extend Medicaid coverage to individuals below 133 percent of the federal poverty level in January 2014 or thereafter remains uncertain. Overall, states’ decisions relative to Medicaid expansion are an important component of the national health reform plan. [88]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Medicaid</span> United States social health care program for families and individuals with limited resources

In the United States, Medicaid is a government program that provides health insurance for adults and children with limited income and resources. The program is partially funded and primarily managed by state governments, which also have wide latitude in determining eligibility and benefits, but the federal government sets baseline standards for state Medicaid programs and provides a significant portion of their funding.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is the largest professional association of pediatricians in the United States. It is headquartered in Itasca, Illinois, and maintains an office in Washington, D.C. The AAP has published hundreds of policy statements, ranging from advocacy issues to practice recommendations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario</span> Hospital in Ontario, Canada

CHEO is a pediatric health-care and research centre located in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. CHEO is also a tertiary trauma centre for children in Eastern Ontario, Nunavut, Northern Ontario and the Outaouais region of Quebec and one of only seven Level I trauma centres for children in Canada. It is affiliated with The Ottawa Hospital and the University of Ottawa, and is funded by the provincial Government of Ontario. CHEO first opened its doors on May 17, 1974, and is located at 401 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Julius B. Richmond</span> American governmental official

Julius Benjamin Richmond was an American pediatrician and public health administrator. He was a vice admiral in the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and served as the United States Surgeon General and the United States Assistant Secretary for Health during the Carter Administration, from 1977 to 1981. Richmond is noted for his role in the creation of the Head Start program for disadvantaged children, serving as its first national director.

The TeenScreen National Center for Mental Health Checkups at Columbia University was a national mental health and suicide risk screening initiative for middle- and high-school age adolescents. On November 15, 2012, according to its website, the program was terminated. The organization operated as a center in the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Department at Columbia University, in New York City. The program was developed at Columbia University in 1999, and launched nationally in 2003. Screening was voluntary and offered through doctors' offices, schools, clinics, juvenile justice facilities, and other youth-serving organizations and settings. As of August 2011, the program had more than 2,000 active screening sites across 46 states in the United States, and in other countries including Australia, Brazil, India and New Zealand.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mental Health Parity Act</span> 1996 U.S. law

The Mental Health Parity Act (MHPA) is legislation signed into United States law on September 26, 1996 that requires annual or lifetime dollar limits on mental health benefits to be no lower than any such dollar limits for medical and surgical benefits offered by a group health plan or health insurance issuer offering coverage in connection with a group health plan. Prior to MHPA and similar legislation, insurers were not required to cover mental health care and so access to treatment was limited, underscoring the importance of the act.

The Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System is the state agency that administers Arizona's Medicaid program. Medicaid was created to provide healthcare to individuals who qualify by financial need. The $14.6 billion program covers the behavioral and physical health care services for more than 1.9 million Arizonans. In 2019, AHCCCS covers approximately 48% of Arizona's children and 54% of babies born in the state.

The California Medical Assistance Program is the California implementation of the federal Medicaid program serving low-income individuals, including families, seniors, persons with disabilities, children in foster care, pregnant women, and childless adults with incomes below 138% of federal poverty level. Benefits include ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder treatment, dental (Denti-Cal), vision, and long-term care and support. Medi-Cal was created in 1965 by the California Medical Assistance Program a few months after the national legislation was passed. Approximately 15.28 million people were enrolled in Medi-Cal as of September 2022, or about 40% of California's population; in most counties, more than half of eligible residents were enrolled as of 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigrant health care in the United States</span> Overview of social and economic factors in health policies for immigrants

Immigrant health care in the United States refers to the collective systems in the United States that deliver health care services to immigrants. The term "immigrant" is often used to encompass non-citizens of varying status; this includes permanent legal residents, refugees, and undocumented residents.

The Oregon Health Plan is Oregon's state Medicaid program. It is overseen by the Oregon Health Authority.

Early detection of children with developmental-behavioral delays and disabilities is essential to ensure that the benefits of early intervention are maximized.

The Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMSC) program is a US federal government health initiative. It is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB). Its aim is to reduce child and youth disability and death due to severe illness or injury by increasing awareness among health professionals, provider and planners and the general public of the special needs of children receiving emergency medical care.

The community health center (CHC) in the United States is the dominant model for providing integrated primary care and public health services for the low-income and uninsured, and represents one use of federal grant funding as part of the country's health care safety net. The health care safety net can be defined as a group of health centers, hospitals, and providers willing to provide services to the nation's uninsured and underserved population, thus ensuring that comprehensive care is available to all, regardless of income or insurance status. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 29 million people in the country were uninsured in 2015. Many more Americans lack adequate coverage or access to health care. These groups are sometimes called "underinsured". CHCs represent one method of accessing or receiving health and medical care for both underinsured and uninsured communities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kool Smiles</span> American dental company

Kool Smiles is a dental services provider, based in the United States. Its headquarters are in the Kool Smiles Patient Support Center in Marietta, Georgia, U.S., in Greater Atlanta and has over 100 offices located across sixteen states.

School-based health centers (SBHCs) are primary care clinics based on primary and secondary school campuses in the United States.  Most SBHCs provide a combination of primary care, mental health care, substance abuse counseling, case management, dental health, nutrition education, health education and health promotion. An emphasis is placed on prevention and early intervention. School-based health centers generally operate as a partnership between the school district and a community health organization, such as a community health center, hospital, or the local health department. Most SBHCs report that the majority of their student population is eligible for the National School Lunch program, a common indicator of low socioeconomic status.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mental health reform in North Carolina</span>

The state of North Carolina is undertaking a comprehensive policy shift on how the government budgets for and manages resources for mental health, developmental disability, and substance abuse services. The 1915 (b)(c) Medicaid Waiver Program was chosen by the North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services, Division of Medical Assistance as a way to control and more accurately budget for the rising costs of Medicaid funded services. The 1915 (b)(c) Waiver Program was initially implemented at one pilot site in 2005 and evaluated for several years. Two expansion sites were then added in 2012. Full statewide implementation is expected by July 1, 2013.

Children with Special Healthcare Needs (CSHCN) are defined by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau as:

Healthy Way LA (HWLA) was a free public health care program available to underinsured or uninsured, low-income residents of Los Angeles County. The program, administered by the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, was a Low Income Health Program (LIHP) approved under the 1115 Waiver. HWLA helped to narrow the large gap in access to health care among low-income populations by extending health care insurance to uninsured LA County residents living at 0 percent to 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Individuals eligible for HWLA were assigned to a medical home within the LA County Department of Health Services (LADHS) or its partners, thus gaining access to continuous primary care, preventive and specialty services, mental health services, and other support systems. HWLA was one of the few sources of coordinated health care for disadvantaged adults without dependents in LA County. HWLA was succeeded by My Health LA, a no-cost health care program for low-income Los Angeles County residents launched on October 1, 2014.

The Pediatric Symptom Checklist (PSC) is a 35-item parent-report questionnaire designed to identify children with difficulties in psychosocial functioning. Its primary purpose is to alert pediatricians at an early point about which children would benefit from further assessment. A positive result on the overall scale indicates that the child in question would benefit from further evaluation. It is not a diagnostic tool. The PSC has subscales which measure inner distress and mood, interpersonal relations and behavior, and attention. The PSC is also used in pediatrics and other settings to measure changes in psychosocial functioning over time. Michael Jellinek, MD, created the PSC and has researched it over more than thirty years in collaboration with J. Michael Murphy, Ed.D. and other investigators. The PSC has been used in more than 200 studies in the US and other countries and has been endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the state of Massachusetts, the government of Chile and many other organizations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Surgeon General of California</span> Public health official in California, US

The Surgeon General of California is the leading spokesperson on matters of public health within the State of California. The Surgeon General is one of only five State Surgeons General in the United States. The office was created on January 7, 2019, by Governor Gavin Newsom and requires confirmation from the California State Senate.

References

  1. ↑ Federal Medicaid EPSDT page Archived 2012-12-28 at the Wayback Machine , December 2012
  2. ↑ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Chapter 5 Early and Periodic Screening manual.
  3. ↑ EPSDT Services in Medicaid Knowledge Path. Maternal and Child Health Library at Georgetown University. Archived 2012-10-19 at the Wayback Machine
  4. ↑ "EPSDT and Children's Coverage Costs. The Commonwealth Fund. 2005". Archived from the original on 2007-04-08. Retrieved 2012-12-28.
  5. ↑ "EPSDT Factsheet. Kaiser Family Foundation" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-02-11. Retrieved 2012-12-28.
  6. ↑ Rosenbaum S, Johnson K. Providing health care for low-income children: reconciling child health goals with child health financing realities. Milbank Quarterly. 1986; 64(3):442-78
  7. ↑ Foltz AM. An Ounce of Prevention: Child health politics under Medicaid. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1981.
  8. ↑ Children’s Defense Fund. EPSDT: Does it spell health care for poor children? Washington, DC: Children’s Defense Fund. 1977. Archived 2013-01-02 at the Wayback Machine
  9. ↑ The Social Security Act Amendments of 1967, added the EPSDT benefit. Sec. 1905(a)(4)(B), added by sec. 302(a), P.L. 90-248.
  10. ↑ Lyndon B. Johnson. Special Message to the Congress Recommending a 12-Point Program for America’s Children and Youth, February 8, 1967. Transcript available at:
  11. ↑ Rosenbaum S, Mauery DR, Shin P, Hildalgo. National Security and US Child Health Policy: The origins and continuing role of Medicaid and EPSDT. George Washington University. 2005.
  12. ↑ Rosenbaum S, Wise PH. Crossing the Medicaid-private insurance divide: the case of EPSDT. Health Affairs. 2007; 26(2):382-93.
  13. ↑ Rosenbaum S, Wilensky S, Allen K. EPSDT at 40: Modernizing a Pediatric Health Policy to Reflect a Changing Health Care System. Center for Health Care Strategies. 2008.
  14. ↑ Olson K, Perkins J, Pate T. Children Health under Medicaid: A national review of Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment. National Health Law Program. Important modifications were made in 1972 and 1981 to add requirements for outreach and family support.
  15. ↑ Social Security Amendments of 1972. October 30, 1972. Pub. L. 92-603.
  16. ↑ Rosenbaum S, Mauery DR, Shin P, Hildalgo. National Security and US Child Health Policy: The origins and continuing role of Medicaid and EPSDT. George Washington University. 2005.
  17. ↑ Sardell A, Johnson K. The Politics of EPSDT in the 1990s: Policy entrepreneurs, political streams, and children’s health benefits. The Milbank Quarterly. 1998;76(2):175-205).
  18. ↑ Rosenbaum S, Sonosky CA. Medicaid Reforms and SCHIP: Health care coverage and the changing policy environment. In CJ DeVita and R Mosher-Willisams (Eds), Who Speaks for America’s Children” The Role of Child Advocates in Public Policy (pp.81-104). Washington DC: Urban Institute Press.
  19. ↑ Foltz AM and Brown D. State response to federal policy: children, EPSDT, and the Medicaid muddle. Medical Care. 1977; 13(8):630-42.
  20. ↑ Hagan JF, Shaw JS, Duncan PM, eds. Bright Futures: Guidelines for Health Supervision of Infants, Children, and Adolescents, Third Edition. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics. 2008.
  21. ↑ American Academy of Pediatrics. Recommendations for Preventive Pediatric Health Care.
  22. ↑ Schneider D, Crall JJ. EPSDT Periodicity Schedules and their Relation to Pediatric Oral Health Standards in Health Start and Early Head Start. Oral Health Policy Center.
  23. ↑ State Dental Periodicity Schedules. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Archived 2012-12-23 at the Wayback Machine
  24. ↑ Kaye N, Johnson K, May J. Improving EPSDT Periodicity Schedules to Promote Healthy Development.
  25. ↑ Johnson K. Managing the "T" in EPSDT. National Academy for State Health Policy. 2010 .
  26. ↑ 42 USC § 1396d(r)(5)
  27. ↑ American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Child Health Financing Model Contractual Language for Medical Necessity. Pediatrics. 2005b 116(1): 261-262.
  28. ↑ Medicaid Dental Coverage. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Archived 2007-11-08 at the Wayback Machine
  29. ↑ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. Guide to Children’s Dental Care in Medicaid. Archived 2013-02-15 at the Wayback Machine
  30. ↑ Howell Em, Teich J. Variations in Medicaid Mental Health Service Use and Cost for Children. Administrative Policy in Mental Health. 2008 May;35(3):220-8.
  31. ↑ "Mental Health and EPSDT. Health Resources and Services Administration". Archived from the original on 2013-01-04. Retrieved 2012-12-28.
  32. ↑ Rosenbaum S et al. Federal EPST Coverage Policy: An analysis of state Medicaid plans and state Medicaid managed care contracts. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, 2001.
  33. ↑ Millar JS, Mitchell L, McCauley D, Winston T, Hays C. Early and periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment examination completion rates for Oklahoma Medicaid managed care: 1995-1998. Journal of the Oklahoma State Medical Association. 2001; 94(5):151-4.
  34. ↑ Berman S, Armon C, & Todd J. Impact of a decline in Colorado Medicaid managed care enrollment on access and quality of preventive primary care services. Pediatrics. 2005; 116(6):1474-9.
  35. ↑ Schor EL, Abrams M, Shea K. Medicaid: health promotion and disease prevention for school readiness. Health Affairs. 2007; 26(2):420-9.
  36. ↑ Rosenthal J and Kaye N, Improving the Delivery of Health Care that Supports Young Children's Health Mental Development: Update on the Accomplishments and Lessons from a Five-State Consortium. National Academy of State Health Policy, 2008
  37. ↑ Johnson K. Maximizing the Use of EPSDT to Improve the Health and Development of Young Children. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty (Project THRIVE, Short Take No. 2). 2006.
  38. ↑ Perkins J. Fact Sheet Medicaid EPSDT Litigation National Health Law Program. October 2, 2009. [www.healthlaw.org/library/attachment.157461]
  39. ↑ EPSDT. National Health Law Program
  40. ↑ Gavin NI, Adams EK, Herz EJ, Chawla AJ, Ellwood MR, Hill IT, Zimmerman BL, Wasserman J. The use of EPSDT and other health care services by children enrolled in Medicaid: the impact of OBRA'89. Milbank Quarterly. 1998; 76(2):207-50.
  41. ↑ Howell EM, Kenney GM. The impact of the Medicaid/CHIP expansions on children: a synthesis of the evidence. Medical Care Research Review. 2012 Aug;69(4):372-96.
  42. ↑ Liptak GS, Shone LP, Auinger P, Dick AW, Ryan SA, Szilagyi PG. Short-term persistence of high health care costs in a nationally representative sample of children. Pediatrics. 2006; 118(4):e1001-9.
  43. ↑ Pittard WB 3rd, Laditka JN, Laditka SB. Infant health outcomes associated with voluntary health care model change in a choice-based Medicaid system. Southern Medical Journal. 2009; 102(8):784-8.
  44. ↑ Riportella-Muller R, Selby-Harrington ML, Richardson LA, Donat PLN, Luchok KJ, Quade D. Barriers to the Use of Preventive Health Care Services for Children. Public Health Reports. 1996; 111:71-77.
  45. ↑ Copeland VC, Wexler S. EPSDT in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1967-1991: a case study of a federally-sponsored, state-administered program. Journal of Health and Social Policy. 2000;11(4):59-73.
  46. ↑ Van Dyck P and Johnson K. “EPSDT Services for Children,” Maternal and Child Health Practices, (4th edition), Editors: Wallace, Nelson, and Sweeney PJ. Oakland, CA, Third Party Publishing Co., 1994.
  47. ↑ U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Stronger Efforts Needed to Ensure Children’s Access to Health Screening Services. (Pub no GAO-01- 749) Washington, DC: GAO, July 2001. [www.gao.gov/new.items/d01749.pdf]
  48. ↑ U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Concerted Efforts Needed to Ensure Beneficiaries Receive Services. (Pub no GAO-09-578) Washington, DC: GAO, Aug. 2009.
  49. ↑ U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Concerns Remain about Sufficiency of Data for Oversight of Children’s Dental Services. (Pub no GAO-07-826T) Washington, DC: GAO, May 2007.
  50. ↑ Office of Inspector General. Most Medicaid Children in Nine States are Not Receiving All Required Services Preventive Screening Services. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. May, 2010. (Pub. No. OEI-05-08-00520).
  51. ↑ State Leadership Workshops on Improving EPSDT through Medicaid and Title V Collaboration. Health Resources and Services Administration. 2011. Archived 2013-02-15 at the Wayback Machine
  52. ↑ Johnson K, Kaye N, Cullen A, and May J. Improving EPSDT Periodicity Schedules to Promote Healthy Development. Portland, ME: National Academy of State Health Policy. 2009.
  53. ↑ Snowden LR, Masland M, Wallace N, Fawley-King K, Cuellar AE. Increasing California children's Medicaid-financed mental health treatment by vigorously implementing Medicaid's Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) Program. Medical Care. 2008; 46(6):558-64.
  54. ↑ Patterson BL, Gregg WM, Biggers C, Barkin S. Improving delivery of EPSDT well-child care at acute visits in an academic pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 2012 Oct;130(4):e988-95.
  55. ↑ Fox HB, McManus MA. A national study of commercial health insurance and Medicaid definitions of medical necessity: What do they mean for children? Ambulatory Pediatrics. 2001; 1:16-22.
  56. ↑ Hakim RB, Bye BV. Effectiveness of compliance with pediatric preventive care guidelines among Medicaid beneficiaries. Pediatrics. 2001; 108(1):90-97.
  57. ↑ Schneider KM, Wiblin RT, Downs KS, O'Donnell BE. Methods for evaluating the provision of well child care. Joint Commission Journal of Quality Improvement. 2001 Dec;27(12):673-82.
  58. ↑ Scholle SH, Sampsel SL, Davis NE, Schor EL. Quality of child health care: expanding the scope and flexibility of measurement approaches. The Commonwealth Fund. 2009.
  59. ↑ James CV, Rosenbaum S. Paying for quality care: implications for racial and ethnic health disparities in pediatric asthma. Pediatrics. 2009; 123 (Suppl) 3:S205-10.
  60. ↑ Smith KD, Merchen E, Turner CD, Vaught C, Fritz T, Mold J. Improving the rate and quality of Medicaid well child care exams in primary care practices. Journal of the Oklahoma State Medical Association. 2010 Jul;103(7):248-53.
  61. ↑ Bethell C, Reuland CP, Abrams M. Ensuring comprehensive, sustainable and actionable measurement of EPSDT services in Medicaid using an integrated, consumer-centered measurement model. Abstract AcademyHealth Meeting. 2005; 22: abstract no. 4368.
  62. ↑ Richardson LA, Selby-Harrington M, Krowchuk HV, Cross AW, Quade D. Health outcomes of children receiving EPSDT checkups: a pilot study. Journal Pediatric Health Care. 1995; 9(6):242-50.
  63. ↑ Patterson BL, Gregg WM, Biggers C, Barkin S. Improving delivery of EPSDT well-child care at acute visits in an academic pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 2012 Oct;130(4):e988-95.
  64. ↑ Okunseri C, Szabo A, Jackson S, Pajewski NM, Garcia RI. Increased children's access to fluoride varnish treatment by involving medical care providers: effect of a Medicaid policy change. Health Services Research. 2009; 44(4):1144-56.
  65. ↑ Kenney GM, Ruhter J, Selden TM. Containing costs and improving care for children in Medicaid and CHIP. Health Affairs. 2009; 28(6):w1025-36.
  66. ↑ Cooley WC, McAllister JW, Sherrieb K, Kuhlthau K. Improved outcomes associated with medical home implementation in pediatric primary care. Pediatrics. 2009; 124(1):358-64.
  67. ↑ Brousseau DC, Gorelick MH, Hoffmann RG, Flores G, Nattinger AB. Primary care quality and subsequent emergency department utilization for children in Wisconsin Medicaid. Academic Pediatrics. 2009; 9(1):33-9.
  68. ↑ Seid M, Stevens GD, Varni JW. Parents' perceptions of pediatric primary care quality: effects of race/ethnicity, language, and access. Health Services Research. 2003; 38(4):1009-31.
  69. ↑ Hull PC, Husaini BA, Tropez-Sims S, Reece M, Emerson J, Levine R. EPSDT preventive services in a low-income pediatric population: impact of a nursing protocol. Clinical Pediatrics. 2008 Mar;47(2):137-42.
  70. ↑ Selby ML, Riportella-Muller R, Sorenson JR, Quade D, Luchok KJ. Increasing participation by private physicians in the EPSDT Program in rural North Carolina. Public Health Reports. 1992; 107(5):561-8.
  71. ↑ Selby-Harrington ML, Riportella-Muller R. Easing the burden on health departments: a cost-effective method for public health nurses to increase private sector participation in the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment program. Public Health Nursing. 1993; 10(2):eleven4-21.
  72. ↑ Adams EK, Graver LJ. Medicaid providers of children’s preventive and EPSDT services, 1989 and 1992. Health Care Financing Review. 1998; 19(4):5-23.
  73. ↑ Rosenbaum S, Johnson K, Jones E, Markus AR. Medicaid and Case Management to Promote Healthy Child Development. George Washington University, 2009.
  74. ↑ Johnson K, Rosenthal J. Improving Care Coordination, Case Management, and Linkages to Service for Young Children: Opportunities for States. The Commonwealth Fund and National Academy for State Health Policy. 2009. [ permanent dead link ]
  75. ↑ Rubin D, Halfon N, Raghavan R, Rosenbaum S, and Johnson K. Protecting Children in Foster Care. Seattle: Casey Family Programs, 2005.
  76. ↑ Ruptier NM. Ensuring health care for foster children through Medicaid's EPSDT program. American Journal of Public Health. 1997; 7(2):290-291.
  77. ↑ Schor EL, Abrams M, Shea K. Medicaid: health promotion and disease prevention for school readiness. Health Affairs. 2007; 26(2):420-9.
  78. ↑ English A. Early and periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment program (EPSDT): A model for improving adolescent’s access to health care. Journal of Adolescent Health. 1993; 14:524-526.
  79. ↑ "Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health". Archived from the original on 2013-03-08. Retrieved 2012-12-28.
  80. ↑ EPSDT and Title V [www.hrsa.gov/epsdt]
  81. ↑ "EPSDT and Title V. Health Resources and Services Administration". Archived from the original on 2013-01-04. Retrieved 2012-12-27.
  82. ↑ Starfield B. U.S. Child Health: What’s amiss, and what should be done about it? Health Affairs. 2004; 23(5)165-170.
  83. ↑ Ormond BA, Tierney M, Macri J. EHRs, Consensus Standards, and the EPSDT Benefit: Care for Children with Behavioral Health Problems or Developmental Disabilities. Urban Institute. 2011.
  84. ↑ Six Ways to Access Medicaid. Vermont Family Network. 2009
  85. ↑ Rosenbaum S. SCHIP reconsidered. Health Affairs. 2007 Sep-Oct;26(5):w608-17.
  86. ↑ Rosenbaum S, Johnson K, Sonosky C, Markus A, DeGraw C. The children's hour: the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Health Affairs. 1998 Jan-Feb;17(1):75-89.
  87. ↑ Howell EM, Kenney GM. The impact of the Medicaid/CHIP expansions on children: a synthesis of the evidence. Medical Care Research Review. 2012 Aug;69(4):372-96.
  88. ↑ Rosenbaum S. Medicaid and National Health Care Reform. New England Journal of Medicine. 2009 Nov 19;361(21):2009-12.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.