Effectiveness of an insurance enrollment support tool on insurance rates and cancer prevention in community health centers: a quasi-experimental study

Table 1 Clinic-level characteristics among comparison and intervention groups

	Comparison (n = 23 clinics)	Intervention (n = 23 clinics)	p-value^d
State of the clinics, n (%)			0.419
California	9 (39.1)	5 (21.7)
Ohio	4 (17.4)	4 (17.4)
Oregon	10 (43.5)	14 (60.9)
Demographic characteristics^a, Mean (SD)
% Female	66.3 (14.6)	65.2 (7.2)	0.167
% Federal poverty level < 138%	62.3 (25.8)	55.0 (20.7)	<.001
% English speaking	86.9 (15.5)	81.4 (17.5)	<.001
% Non-Hispanic non-White or Hispanic	39.3 (29.1)	40.9 (29.8)	0.461
Insurance rates (per 100 visits)^b, Mean (SD)
% Uninsured	9.6 (6.8)	9.1 (10.1)	0.020
% Medicaid	67.5 (13.3)	63.2 (13.6)	0.060
% Other^c	22.9 (13.2)	27.7 (13.6)	0.003
Cancer screening preventive ratios^c, Mean (SD)
% Breast cancer screening	55.2 (16.5)	61.7 (15.1)	<.001
% Cervical cancer screening	61.7 (17.9)	66.0 (12.2)	<.001
% Colorectal cancer screening	49.6 (16.6)	44.3 (13.5)	<.001

Note: ^aAveraged visit across the 18-month pre-study period
^bAveraged visit paid by Medicaid, other insurance (private/other public) or self-paid across 36-month study period. Medicare insured visits were excluded
^cAveraged preventive ratio (%) across 36-month study period
^dP-values were derived from Chi-square tests and t-tests in order to assess the difference in categorical and continuous characteristics between comparison and intervention groups

ISSN: 1472-6963