Skip Navigation

Strengthening the evidence base for maternal and child health programs

New: MCH Best strategies database for sample ESMs

Evidence Tools
MCH Best. NPM 13.2: Preventive Dental Visit: Childhood

MCH Best Logo young girl receiving oral health exam

Strategy. Public Insurance Coverage

Approach. Collaborate with Medicaid to increase the number of children and youth who have had a preventive dental visit in the past year.

Return to main MCH Best page >>

Overview. Those with established public health insurance had greater utilization of dental services compared to recent enrollees.1

Evidence. Moderate Evidence. Public insurance coverage appears to be effective in increasing access to oral health services. Access the peer-reviewed evidence about public insurance coverage through the MCH Digital Library. (Read more about understanding evidence ratings).

Target Audience. State, provider.

Outcome. Percent of infants and children ages 1 to 17 with a past-year preventive dental visit. For detailed outcomes related to each study supporting this strategy, click on the peer-reviewed evidence link above and read the "Intervention Results" for each study.

Examples from the Field. There are currently 12 ESMs across all states/jurisdictions that use this strategy directly or intervention components that align with this strategy. Access descriptions of these ESMs through the MCH Digital Library. You can use these ESMs to see how other Title V agencies are addressing the NPM.

Sample ESMs. Using the approach “Collaborate with Medicaid to increase the number of children and youth who have had a preventive dental visit in the past year,” here are sample ESMs you can use as a model for your own measures using the Results-Based Accountability framework (for suggestions on how to develop programs to support this strategy, see The Role of Title V in Adapting Strategies):

Quadrant 1:
Measuring Quantity of Effort
("What/how much did we do?")

  • Number of Medicaid dental providers who received training on how to process reimbursement claims.

Quadrant 2:
Measuring Quality of Effort
("How well did we do it?")

  • Percentage of Medicaid dental providers who received training on how to process reimbursement claims.

Quadrant 3:
Measuring Quantity of Effect
("Is anyone better off?")

  • Number of children enrolled and newly enrolled in Medicaid who had a preventive dental visit in the past year.
  • Number of Medicaid dental providers who received training and indicated that they filed reimbursement claims.

Quadrant 4:
Measuring Quality of Effect
("How are they better off?")

  • Percentage of children enrolled and newly enrolled in Medicaid who had a preventive dental visit in the past year.
  • Percentage of Medicaid dental providers who received training and indicated that they filed reimbursement claims.

Note. ESMs become stronger as they move from measuring quantity to measuring quality (moving from Quadrants 1 and 3, respectively, to Quadrants 2 and 4) and from measuring effort to measuring effect (moving from Quadrants 1 and 2, respectively, to Quadrants 3 and 4).

Possible Data Sources for ESMs:

Learn More. Read how to create stronger ESMs and how to measure ESM impact more meaningfully through Results-Based Accountability.


Reference:

1 Clemans-Cope L, Kenney G, Waidmann T, Huntress M, Anderson N. How well is CHIP addressing oral health care needs and access for children? Acad Pediatr. 2015;15(3 Suppl):S78-84.

This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number U02MC31613, MCH Advanced Education Policy, $3.5 M. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the U.S. Government.