Skip to main content
Log in

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Use of Pregnancy-Related Health Care Among Medicaid Pregnant Women

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

Abstract

Objective: To assess the extent to which racial and ethnic disparities exist in the use of prenatal services among Medicaid pregnant women. Methods: Medicaid claims data for Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, and Texas, with linked birth certificate data for Georgia and Texas, were used to investigate the use of selected prenatal services, including the initiation and adequacy of prenatal care visits; prescriptions for multiple vitamins and iron supplements; and claims for complete blood cell counts, blood type and RH status, hepatitis B surface antigen, ultrasound, maternal serum alphafetoprotein, drug screening, and HIV tests. We computed raw and adjusted odds ratios of having the health service of interest during pregnancy for women in three minority groups: black non-Hispanics, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific Islanders. Results: We found racial and ethnic disparities in the use of every health service investigated. Compared with white non-Hispanics, minority women were less likely to receive services that the woman initiates, discretionary services, and services potentially requiring specialized follow-up care, whereas they were more likely to receive screening tests for diseases related to high-risk behaviors. Disparities were generally larger, more consistent across states, and less likely to be explained by other factors among black non-Hispanics than among either Hispanics or Asian/Pacific Islanders. Conclusions: Even among women who are provided equal financial access to health care services, unexplained racial and ethnic disparities persist in the initiation and use of both routine and specialized prenatal care services.

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

Access this article

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. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Press Office. President Clinton announces new racial and ethnic health disparities initiative. White House Fact Sheet, February 21, 1998. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/news/ prress/1998pres/980221.html. Accessed May 12, 2003.

  2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52, No. 2. Infant mortality statistics from the 2001 period linked birth/infant death data set. Hyattesville, MD: Public Health Service, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alexander GR, KoganMD, Nabukera S. Racial differences in prenatal care use in the United States: Are disparities decreasing? Am J Public Health 2002;92(12):1970–75.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Frisbie WP, Echevarria S, Hummer RA. Prenatal care utilization among non-Hispanic whites, African Americans, and Mexican Americans. Matern Child Health J 2001;5(1):21–33.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lewis CT, Matthews TJ, Heuser RL. Prenatal care in the United States, 1980-94. Vital Health Stat 21 1996;(54):1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.Data 2010... the Healthy People 2010 Database,April 2004Edition,Objective 16-06b.Available at: http://wonder.cdc.gov/data2010/obj.htm. Accessed May 20,2004.

  7. Kogan MD, Kotelchuck M, Alexander GR, Johnson WE. Racial disparities in reported prenatal care advice from health care providers. Am J Public Health 1994;84(9):1521–3.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brett KM, Schoendorf KC, Kiley JL. Differences between black and white women in the use of prenatal care technologies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;170(1):41–6.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kirby, RS. The quality of vital perinatal statistics data, with special reference to prenatal care. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1997;11:122–8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Misra DP, Guyer B. Benefits and limitations of prenatal care: From counting visits to measuring content. JAMA 1998;279(20):1661–2.

    Google Scholar 

  11. McCormick, MC. Prenatal care-necessary but not sufficient. Health Serv Res 2001;36(2):399–403.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Alexander GR, Kotelchuck M. Assessing the role and effectiveness of prenatal care: History, challenges, and directions for future research. Public Health Rep 2001;116:306–16.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Albrecht SL, Miller MK. Hispanic subgroup differences in prenatal care. Soc Biol 1996;43(1/2):38–58.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Reichman NE, Kenney GM. Prenatal care, birth outcomes and newborn hospitalization costs: Patterns among Hispanics in New Jersey. Fam Plann Perspect 1998;30(4):182–7, 200.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kogan MD, Alexander GR, Mor JM, Kieffer EC. Ethnicspecific predictors of prenatal care utilization in Hawaii. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1996;12(2):152–62.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Yu SM, Alexander GR, Schwalberg R, Kogan MD. Prenatal care use among selected Asian American groups. Am J Public Health 2001;91(11):1865–8.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Alexander GR, Kotelchuck M. Quantifying the adequacy of prenatal care: A comparison of indices. Public Health Rep 1996;111:408–16.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Expert Panel on the Content of Prenatal Care. Caring for our future: The content of prenatal care. (NIH Publication No. 90-3182).Washington, DC: Public Health Service, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  19. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services, 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  20. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.Educational Bulletin #174-Viral hepatitis in pregnancy.Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  21. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Educational Bulletin #248-Viral hepatitis in pregnancy.Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  22. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.ACOG Practice Patterns #5-Routine ultrasound in low-risk pregnancies.Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  23. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.NationalVital Statistics Reports,Vol.5,No.10.Births: Final Data for 2002.Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Services, 2003. 24._ American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.ACOG Technical Bulletin #195-Substance abuse in pregnancy. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  24. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.Statement of policy: Joint statement of ACOB/AAP on human immunodeficiency virus screening, 1999.Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Adams EK, Gavin NI, Handler A, Manning W, Raskind-Hood C. Transitions in insurance coverage from before pregnancy through delivery in nine states, 1996-1999. Health Aff 2003;22(1):219–29.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Braveman PT, Bennett T, Lewis C, Egerter S, Showstack J. Access to prenatal care following major Medicaid eligibility expansions. JAMA 1993;269:1285–9.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Egerter S, Braveman P, Kristen M. Timing of insurance coverage and use of prenatal care among low-income women. Am J Public Health 1999;92(3):423–7.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kaestner R. Health insurance, the quantity and quality of prenatal care and infant health. Inquiry 1999;36:162–75.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cunningham PJ, Grossman JM, St. Peter RF, Lesser CS.Managed care and physician's provision of charity care. JAMA 1999;281(12): 1087–92.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Cunningham PJ. Pressures on the safety net access: The level of managed care penetration and uninsurance rate in a community. Health Serv Res 1999;34(1, Pt 2):255–70.

    Google Scholar 

  31. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2002. Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  32. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. NationalVital Statistics Reports,Vol. 51,No. 2. Births: Final Data for 2001. Hyattesville, MD: Public Health Service, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bronstein JM, Cliver SP, Goldenberg RL. Practice variation in the use of interventions in high-risk obstetrics. Health Serv Res 1998;32 (6):825–39.

  34. Browner CH, Preloran HM, Cox SJ. Ethnicity, bioethics, and prenatal diagnosis: the amniocentesis decisions of Mexicanorigin women and their partners. Am J Public Health 1999;89(11):1658–66.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Institute of Medicine. Unequal treatment: Confronting racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare.Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gavin, N.I., Adams, E.K., Hartmann, K.E. et al. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Use of Pregnancy-Related Health Care Among Medicaid Pregnant Women. Matern Child Health J 8, 113–126 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MACI.0000037645.63379.62

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MACI.0000037645.63379.62

Navigation