IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0321208.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative analysis of influenza healthcare disparities in the United States using retrospective administrative claims from Medicaid and commercial databases, 2015–2019

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer L Matas
  • Kira Raskina
  • Sabine Tong
  • Derrick Forney
  • Bruno Scarpellini
  • Mario Cruz-Rivera
  • Gary Puckrein
  • Liou Xu

Abstract

Background: Influenza-related healthcare utilization among Medicaid patients and commercially insured patients is not well-understood. This study compared influenza-related healthcare utilization and assessed disease management among individuals diagnosed with influenza during the 2015–2019 influenza seasons. Methods: This retrospective cohort study identified influenza cases among adults (18–64 years) using data from the Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) Analytic Files (TAF) Research Identifiable Files (RIF) and Optum’s de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database (CDM). Influenza-related healthcare utilization rates were calculated per 100,000 patients by setting (outpatient, emergency department (ED), inpatient hospitalizations, and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions) and demographics (sex, race, and region). Rate ratios were computed to compare results from both databases. Influenza episode management assessment included the distribution of the index point-of-care, antiviral prescriptions, and laboratory tests obtained. Results: The Medicaid population had a higher representation of racial/ethnic minorities than the CDM population. In the Medicaid population, influenza-related visits in outpatient and ED settings were the most frequent forms of healthcare utilization, with similar rates of 652 and 637 visits per 100,000, respectively. In contrast, the CDM population predominantly utilized outpatient settings. Non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics exhibited the highest rates of influenza-related ED visits in both cohorts. In the Medicaid population, Black (64.5%) and Hispanic (51.6%) patients predominantly used the ED as their index point-of-care for influenza. Overall, a greater proportion of Medicaid beneficiaries (49.8%) did not fill any influenza antiviral prescription compared to the CDM population (37.0%). Conclusion: Addressing disparities in influenza-related healthcare utilization between Medicaid and CDM populations is crucial for equitable healthcare access. Targeted interventions are needed to improve primary care and antiviral access and reduce ED reliance, especially among racial/ethnic minorities and low-income populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer L Matas & Kira Raskina & Sabine Tong & Derrick Forney & Bruno Scarpellini & Mario Cruz-Rivera & Gary Puckrein & Liou Xu, 2025. "Comparative analysis of influenza healthcare disparities in the United States using retrospective administrative claims from Medicaid and commercial databases, 2015–2019," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(5), pages 1-20, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0321208
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0321208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0321208
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0321208&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0321208?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0321208. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.