Comparison of parental report of blood lead testing in children enrolled in Medicaid with Medicaid claims data and blood lead surveillance reports

Blood Lead Testing Among Medically Underserved and Socially Vulnerable Children in the United States 2012-2017

CONTEXT

Lead poisoning can affect intellectual development, growth, hearing, and other health problems. Children 6 years or younger are particularly susceptible to lead poisoning. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)-funded health centers (HCs) serve lower-income, minority, and vulnerable populations across the United States, who may be at a higher risk for lead exposure. At HCs, blood lead testing is monitored; however, little is known about testing rates and characteristics of children tested by HCs.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the prevalence and characteristics of children who received a blood lead test at HCs from 2012 to 2017.

DESIGN

We assessed characteristics of children 12 to 60 months of age who had a blood lead test using available self-reported data from HRSA's Health Center Patient Survey (2014-2015). In addition, using HRSA's Uniform Data System, an administrative performance data set, we calculated the annual percentage change of blood lead testing from 2012 to 2017.

RESULTS

During 2014-2015, 1.1 million (72.9%; 95% CI, 64.6-81.3) out of the 1.5 million (n = 365 unweighted) eligible children 12 to 60 months of age self-reported receiving a blood lead test at an HRSA-funded HC. There was a significant higher proportion of children with a blood lead test among urban HCs (74.1%; 95% CI, 59.4-88.8) and among those who reported HCs as their usual source of care (99.9%; 95% CI, 99.7-100) (P ≤ .05).The total HC population of children younger than 72 months increased from 2 674 500 in 2012 to 2 989 184 in 2017, and we observed a 34.4% increase in blood lead testing at HRSA-funded HCs over the same time period.

CONCLUSIONS

HCs play an important role in providing access to blood lead testing in underserved communities in the United States. While HRSA-funded HCs have made substantial efforts to screen and educate patients on lead exposure, nonetheless continued screening and education efforts with both health providers at HCs and parents/guardians are warranted to continue to improve blood lead screening rates among high-risk groups.

Using Medicaid Data to Improve Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program Outcomes and Blood Lead Surveillance

CONTEXT

Wisconsin-specific data revealed that not all Medicaid providers were testing children appropriately for blood lead levels and not all blood lead tests were reported to the Department of Health Services, Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program. The Medicaid program requires blood lead screening for all Medicaid-enrolled children at specific ages. Wisconsin state law requires reporting of all blood lead test results. Projects were implemented to encourage appropriate testing for Medicaid-enrolled children and improve blood lead surveillance.

METHODS

Medicaid billing data were linked to blood lead data to identify Medicaid-enrolled children who had not received the required tests. Medicaid provider report cards were distributed annually from 2006 to 2011 to inform providers of their compliance with federal testing requirements and of the names of children within their practice who had not been tested. Blood lead tests billed to Medicaid but not in the blood lead database were identified and billing providers were contacted to obtain the test report.

RESULTS

The number of children tested increased from 81 834 children per year in 2006 to 106 003 children per year in 2010. Testing of Medicaid-enrolled children increased by 31% from 2006 to 2010. The percentage of Medicaid-enrolled children receiving an age-appropriate test increased from 46% in 2004 to a high of 55% in 2010. There were 9035 blood lead tests identified in the Medicaid billing data that had not been reported from 2007 to 2015. There were 468 billing providers who had unreported tests. All sites with unreported tests were contacted, 84% of test results were obtained, and 14% of test records could not be retrieved. Outpatient clinics accounted for the majority of all unreported tests (72%) and irretrievable test records (74%).

DISCUSSION

Childhood lead poisoning prevention programs can effectively utilize Medicaid data to increase testing and improve blood lead surveillance. Primary health care providers should ensure that Medicaid-enrolled children in their care receive the age-appropriate tests. Many Wisconsin health care providers lack awareness of blood lead test reporting requirements. Outpatient clinics account for the largest proportion of unreported tests and highest priority should be given working with these sites to improve reporting practices.

Effectiveness of a pediatric verbal lead exposure screening protocol in emergency department patients

PURPOSE

The population demographics found in many urban emergency departments (EDs) often mirrors those of children at risk for elevated serum lead levels. We evaluated the effectiveness of a verbal lead screening program for screening high-risk children presenting to the ED.

METHODS

A prospective observational cohort study was conducted of children aged 9 months to 6 years, living in 2 target counties and presenting to an urban, academic, Midwestern ED. Those with a prior lead level, enrolled in a program requiring lead testing, or with an unstable medical condition were excluded. A 6-question validated verbal survey was administered to all parents of eligible children, and the results recorded in the patient's electronic medical record. Children who screened positive were referred to their local health department for blood lead testing. Health department records were reviewed for follow-up visits and blood lead levels.

RESULTS

During the study period, 3513 children were eligible (mean age, 2.6 years; 53.3% male), with 815 patients screened and 209 (25.6%) screening positive. Most positively screened patients (71.8%) documented only 1 affirmative question, most often indicating they lived in a home built before 1978. Of those children who screened positive, 14.8% (31/209) had a blood lead level performed within 6 months. Of those tested, 4 children had an elevated lead level (>10 µg/dL).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of an ED verbal lead exposure screening tool identified children requiring additional follow-up testing. However, health department-referred children had poor follow-up, and few children were ultimately documented with elevated lead levels.