Results Summary

What was the research about?

Children who do not have health insurance are less likely to get necessary care, such as regular checkups to identify health problems early and vaccines to prevent common diseases. Low-cost public health insurance (Medicaid) is available to many children whose families can’t get private insurance. But signing up for Medicaid and keeping it can be hard.

The research team wanted to see if using a health insurance enrollment tracking form could help families get and keep health insurance and access health care. They developed a tracking form that community health centers used with electronic health records. The form tracked the help given to families applying for Medicaid. This included providing updates on the status of insurance applications and next steps.

What were the results?

The community health centers that had the tracking form used it with only 15 percent of children who visited the community health centers.

When the tracking form was used in their health records, uninsured children were more likely to get and keep health insurance. They were also more likely to come back to the doctor within six months of when the centers started using the tracking form, get all their checkups in the first 15 months after birth, and get all their recommended shots on time.

Who was in the study?

The research team looked at the health records of 27,251 children who got health care at eight community health centers in Oregon. The children either had no insurance or they had Medicaid. The children were from low-income families of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. The four community health centers that had access to the tracking form used it with 2,240 children.

What did the research team do?

The research team looked at electronic health records from the eight community health centers. All eight centers used the same kind of electronic health record. Four centers added the tracking form to their electronic health records. The other four used electronic health records without the tracking form. The research team looked at differences in getting health insurance and health care between children at clinics with the tracking form and children at clinics without the tracking form. In the study, the community health centers that had the tracking forms did not end up using them with all the children. The research team also compared children who did and did not have the tracking forms used at the centers that had the forms.

What were the limits of the study?

All research studies have some limits. In this study, the research team couldn’t say for sure that the tracking form was the reason children got and kept health insurance and got health care. There may have been other reasons for these results. For example, the community health centers that used the form may have been different from the community health centers that did not use the form. Likewise, patients who had the tracking form used in their health records might have been different from patients at the same center who did not have the form. Also, there were changes being made to children’s insurance coverage at the time of this study. The center staff did not use the tracking form with all their patients as the research team had wanted. This may have changed the results of the study. Future studies could look at how to get health center staff to use the form with all patients. This would help the research team understand if the tracking form led to patients getting health insurance and better health care.

How can people use the results?

Community health centers may decide to use electronic health records with tracking forms to help more children get health insurance and health care.

Final Research Report

View this project's final research report.

Journal Citations

Related Journal Citations

Peer-Review Summary

Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also assesses how the project addressed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts read a draft report of the research and provide comments about the report. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. These reviewers cannot have conflicts of interest with the study.

The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve descriptions of the conduct of the study or to clarify the connection between results and conclusions. Sometimes, awardees revise their draft reports twice or more to address all of the reviewers’ comments. 

The awardee made the following revisions in response to peer review:

  • The awardee presented more detail to explain that intervention and comparison group participants were equivalent at the start of the study, in that the awardee recruited participants using the target clinics, regardless of whether the patients were already seeking help with insurance enrollment. 
  • The awardee confirmed that all participants in the study had gone through at least one reenrollment period for Medicaid benefits. Therefore, all participants had an opportunity to use the study’s intervention tool. In addition, the awardee confirmed that the intervention and control clinics had workflows already in place to flag any patients who were at risk of losing insurance coverage. As a result, the awardee had an equal likelihood of identifying patients in either the intervention or comparison group who lacked insurance, or who were at risk of losing insurance.
  • The awardee edited the methods and intervention section to explain that the Tracking and Documentation Form tool  ties to enrollment assistance actions taken for individual patients, if clinic staff entered the need for enrollment assistance in the form. The investigators were able to link patients’ use of the tool to insurance enrollment status and dates only retrospectively.
  • The awardee revised the report to make study conclusions more tentative, responding to reviewers’ note that low use of the tool in intervention clinics reflected inherent difficulties in - intervention studies based on electronic health records and clinic workflows.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Project Information

Jennifer E. DeVoe, MD, DPhil
Oregon Community Health Information Network
Innovative Methods for Parents and Clinics to Create Tools (IMPACCT) for Kids Care

Key Dates

December 2012
February 2017

Study Registration Information


Has Results
Award Type
Health Conditions Health Conditions These are the broad terms we use to categorize our funded research studies; specific diseases or conditions are included within the appropriate larger category. Note: not all of our funded projects focus on a single disease or condition; some touch on multiple diseases or conditions, research methods, or broader health system interventions. Such projects won’t be listed by a primary disease/condition and so won’t appear if you use this filter tool to find them. View Glossary
Populations Populations PCORI is interested in research that seeks to better understand how different clinical and health system options work for different people. These populations are frequently studied in our portfolio or identified as being of interest by our stakeholders. View Glossary
Intervention Strategy Intervention Strategies PCORI funds comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) studies that compare two or more options or approaches to health care, or that compare different ways of delivering or receiving care. View Glossary
State State The state where the project originates, or where the primary institution or organization is located. View Glossary
Last updated: January 25, 2023