Methods We surveyed state officials in 'stand-alone' SCHIP programs (N=31). These preliminary results are based on a 48% response rate (N=15). Of these 15 states, 9 have SCHIP adolescents enrolled in FFS (fee-for-service) systems; 3 enroll in primary care case management (PCCM);11 had risk plans (e.g., HMOs). We evaluated policies for adolescent-specific standards on health guidance, screening, testing, frequency of well-adolescent visits, and quality. Results: Fewer than half of states require guidance on diet, exercise, injury prevention, sexual behavior or substance use in any type of system (FFS, PCCM, or risk plan). Fewer than half of states require screening for abuse, depression, nutrition, reproductive, school problems or substance use in any type of system (FFS, PCCM, or risk plan). Less than one-third of states require testing for cholesterol, HIV, PAP, STD or TB when risk factors warrant. 100% of SCHIP programs report covering annual well-child visits for adolescents, compared to only 28% (N=13/47) of state Medicaid programs. Conclusions Although adolescents are the age group of children most likely to be uninsured, SCHIP policies generally do not meet current medical or public health standards for adolescents.
Learning Objectives: To identify the extent to which 'stand-alone' SCHIP programs incorporate Bright Futures guidelines for adolescent preventive services.
Keywords: Adolescent Health, Policy/Policy Development
Presenting author's disclosure statement:
Organization/institution whose products or services will be discussed: None
Disclosure not received
Relationship: Not Received.