Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Relationship Between State Capacity Measures and Allocations to Children and Youth with Special Needs Within the MCH Services Block Grant

  • Published:
Maternal and Child Health Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives To examine the association between state economic, political and health services capacity and state allocations for Title V capacity for Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs (CSHCN). Methods Numerous datasets were reviewed to select 13 state capacity measures: per capita Gross State Product (economic); governor’s institutional powers and legislative professionalism (political); percent of Children with Special Health Care Needs, percent of uninsured children, percent of children enrolled in Medicaid, state health funds as a percent of Gross State Product, ratio of Medicaid to Medicare fees, percent of children in Medicaid enrolled in managed care, per capita Medicaid expenditures for children, ratios of pediatricians/family practitioners and pediatric subspecialists per 10,000 children, and categorical versus functional state definition of CSHCN (health). Five measures of Title V capacity were selected from the Title V Information System, four that reflect allocation decisions by states and the fifth a state assessment of the role of families in Title V decision-making: ratio of state/federal Title V spending; per capita state Title V spending; percent of state Title V spending on CSHCN; state per child spending on CSHCN; and, state Title V Family Participation Score. OLS regression was used to model the association between state and Title V capacity measures. Results The percentage of the state’s gross state product (GSP) accounted for by state health funds and the per capita GSP were positively associated with the per capita expenditures on all children. The percentage of CSHCN in the state was negatively associated with the ratio of state to federal support for Title V and the per child expenditures on CSHCN. Lower family participation scores were associated with having a hybrid legislature; however, higher family participation scores were found in states using a functional definition of special needs. Conclusions Measures of state economic, political and health services capacity do not demonstrate consistent and significant associations with the Title V capacity measures that we explored. States with greater economic capacity appear to devote more financial resources to Title V. Our finding that per capita CSHCN expenditures are negatively associated with the percentage of CSHCN in the state suggests that there is an upper limit on what states devote to CSHCN. Our current understanding of what state factors influence Title V capacity remains limited.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Leichter, H. (1996). State governments and their capacity for health care reform. In R. Rich & W. White (Eds.), Health policy federalism and the American states. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gray, V., & Hanson, R. (Eds.). (2004). Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis (8th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Buehler, J., & Holtgrave, D. (2007). Who gets how much: Funding formulas in federal public health programs. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 13, 151–155.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Blewett, L., & Davern, M. (2007). Distributing State Children’s Health Insurance Program funds: A critical review of the design and implementation of the funding formula. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 32, 415–455. doi:10.1215/03616878-2007-010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McPherson, M., Arango, P., Fox, H., Lauver, C., McManus, M., Newacheck, P., et al. (1998). A new definition of Children with Special Health Care Needs. Pediatrics, 102, 137–139. doi:10.1542/peds.102.1.137.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Maternal and Child Health Bureau. (2003). Maternal and Child Health Services Title V Block Grant Program: Guidance and Forms for the Title V Application/Annual Report. Rockville, MD: MCHB. May 31, 2003.

  7. Margolis, L., Cole, G., & Kotch, J. (1997). Historical foundations of maternal, child health. In J. Kotch (Ed.), Maternal, child health programs, policies, problems. Gaithersburg, Maryland: Aspen Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Guyer, B. (1984). Needs assessment under the maternal and child health services block grant: Massachusetts. American Journal of Public Health, 74, 1014–1019.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rosenbaum, S. (1983). The maternal and child health block grant act of 1981: Teaching an old program new tricks. Clearinghouse Review August/September 1983.

  10. Margolis, L. H., & Farel, A. M. (1994). Characterizing state strategies to assure primary care for mothers and children. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 10, 103–107.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Farel, A. M., Margolis, L. H., & Lofy, L. (1994). The relationship between needs assessments and state strategies for meeting Healthy People 2000 objectives: Lessons from the Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant. Journal of Public Health Policy, 15, 173–185. doi:10.2307/3342988.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Margolis, L. H., Kotelchuck, M., Gamble, G., et al. (1995). The validity of the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant as an indicator of state infant mortality reduction initiatives. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 11, 40–45.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. General Accounting Office. Maternal and Child Health block grant funds should be distributed more equitably. 1992 Apr. GAO Report No.: HRD-92-5.

  14. Beers, N., Kemeny, A., et al. (2003). Variations in state-level definitions: Children with special health care needs. Public Health Reports, 118, 434–447.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. Gross State Product. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/

  16. Beyle, T. (2004). The governors. In V. Gray & R. Hanson (Eds.), Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis (8th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hamm, K., & Moncrief, G. (2004). Legislative politics in the states. In V. Gray & R. Hanson (Eds.), Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis (8th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

  18. Maternal and Child Health Bureau. Title V Information System. https://perfdata.hrsa.gov/mchb/mchreports/LEARN_More/Title_V_Information_System/title_v_information_system.asp.

  19. Van Dyck, P. C., McPherson, M., Strickland, B. B., Nesseler, K., Blumberg, S. J., Cynamon, M. L., et al. (2002). The national survey of children with special health care needs. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 2, 29–37. doi:10.1367/1539-4409(2002)002<0029:TNSOCW>2.0.CO;2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989. P.L. 101-239.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the guidance provided by Virginia Gray to enhance our understanding of the measurement of state-level capacities. Two anonymous reviewers made substantial contributions. This work was supported by HRSA/MCHB grant R40MC04295-01-00.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel HIll, Rosenau Hall, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7445, USA

    Lewis H. Margolis, Kathryn A. Clark & Anita M. Farel

  2. Department of Health Policy and Administration, Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA

    Michelle Mayer

Authors
  1. Lewis H. Margolis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michelle Mayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathryn A. Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anita M. Farel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lewis H. Margolis.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Title V capacity measures by state

STATE

RATIOa

PERSTATEb

PCTCSHCNc

PERCHILDd

PARTICIPATIONe

AK

9.79

47.51

51.65

261.30

15

AL

2.96

31.58

24.92

101.42

17

AR

0.99

8.74

15.27

32.54

17

AZ

5.31

9.65

60.60

95.30

13

CA

15.54

66.54

83.52

930.13

14

CO

0.75

5.23

73.93

32.48

16

CT

1.78

9.58

25.42

18.65

14

DE

5.36

48.66

0.00

0.00

8

FL

10.74

55.07

34.70

203.78

15

GA

7.56

59.21

11.05

88.45

9

HI

21.51

83.70

33.10

325.46

12

IA

1.04

7.50

42.03

35.56

11

ID

0.01

0.07

19.61

11.93

15

IL

2.55

19.37

32.28

67.02

15

IN

2.95

14.79

86.80

64.29

16

KS

0.79

5.52

18.34

10.70

10

KY

2.59

29.88

33.70

74.38

11

LA

1.32

15.13

17.98

27.24

16

MA

9.25

54.71

40.08

143.09

13

MD

0.75

6.74

4.81

2.23

13

ME

1.57

17.48

19.13

24.84

15

MI

1.57

12.69

32.98

77.67

18

MN

0.78

5.53

30.60

34.84

8

MO

1.10

7.05

20.72

11.18

10

MS

0.97

13.79

36.98

30.26

9

MT

0.47

5.25

14.80

17.57

9

NC

3.22

23.50

29.12

184.53

10

ND

0.52

4.94

61.19

79.90

13

NE

1.15

9.94

21.28

12.59

15

NH

2.54

12.29

46.92

56.32

16

NJ

1.10

5.44

46.13

20.00

16

NM

1.13

10.40

39.75

30.05

12

NV

0.75

2.27

44.63

16.21

12

NY

8.14

52.25

58.13

676.65

6

OH

1.36

10.53

60.23

70.91

18

OK

0.90

7.84

21.26

11.93

13

OR

2.00

14.94

8.79

12.32

10

PA

2.10

18.44

2.59

4.45

13

RI

3.65

23.91

51.64

145.31

18

SC

2.19

25.56

26.51

123.81

16

SD

1.05

8.72

26.51

31.40

12

TN

1.29

9.67

32.30

30.49

14

TX

2.45

9.63

41.23

43.44

11

UT

2.47

16.45

24.24

85.52

13

VA

1.13

6.67

35.83

17.78

5

VT

0.86

10.08

45.87

32.50

15

WA

1.67

10.02

13.00

9.25

17

WI

0.82

7.03

13.23

9.99

14

WV

1.46

25.19

48.68

120.38

14

WY

1.86

19.04

67.90

105.19

16

  1. aRatio of State/Federal Title V spending
  2. bPer capita State Title V expenditures using state population of children
  3. cPercent of State Title V expenditures spent on CSHCN
  4. dState per child expenditures on CSHCN
  5. eTotal score on family participation

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Margolis, L.H., Mayer, M., Clark, K.A. et al. The Relationship Between State Capacity Measures and Allocations to Children and Youth with Special Needs Within the MCH Services Block Grant. Matern Child Health J 13, 435–444 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-008-0378-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-008-0378-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation