Search

IMPORTANCE: Several state Medicaid agencies have transitioned from traditional fee-for-service to a value-centric alternative payment model (APM) to reimburse federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Little is known about the effects of this shift on FQHC performance. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between APMs and the clinical performance, payer mix, risk profile, and financial sustainability of FQHCs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cohort study was performed in 684 FQHCs (representing 37 states plus the District of Columbia) that continuously operated between January 2009 and December 2021. Data on payer mix (eg, type of insurance) and risk profile (eg, proportion of patients with chronic conditions) of FQHC patients were obtained from the Uniform Data System, and clinic-level financial data (eg, revenue) were obtained from Internal Revenue Service form 990 tax documents. Data were analyzed between November 2022 and October 2023. EXPOSURE: Initial rollout of a value-based payment model (ie, an APM) for FQHCs, as offered by state Medicaid program, between January 2013 and December 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcomes were 4 audited process measures of health care quality (cervical and colorectal cancer screening and body mass index [BMI] assessment for adults and children) and 2 intermediate health outcome measures (hypertension control and diabetes control). A difference-in-differences design was used with staggered implementation comparing FQHCs before and after the initial APM rollout vs contemporaneous changes in FQHCs in states without APMs. RESULTS: A total of 684 FQHCs (8892 FQHC-years) that served 17 823 959 patients in 2021 (57.3% female) were included in the study. Among FQHCs in states implementing APMs, significant differential increases in 3 of the 4 process quality measures were observed compared with FQHCs in states that did not implement an APM: colorectal cancer screening (3.24 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, 1.40-5.08 pp), adult BMI (3.19 pp; 95% CI, 0.70-5.68 pp), and child BMI (4.50 pp; 95% CI, 1.83-7.17 pp). There were also modest differential improvements in blood pressure control for individuals with hypertension (1.02 pp; 95% CI, 0.04-2.00 pp) and blood glucose control for individuals with type 2 diabetes (1.02 pp; 95% CI, 0.02-2.02 pp) compared with FQHCs in states without an APM. There was no evidence that the APM rollout was associated with clinics selecting healthier patients (–0.01 pp; 95% CI, –0.21 to 0.19 pp) or stinting on care (–0.02 visits; 95% CI, –0.08 to 0.04 visits). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study, introduction of Medicaid APM options for FQHCs was associated with modest, statistically significant increases in quality concentrated among FQHCs with APM models that explicitly incentivized quality. This finding suggests that APMs can be both a financially viable and a health-promoting model for reimbursement in the health care safety net.

Since 1965, the US federal government has incentivized physicians to practice in high-need areas of the country through the designation of Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs). Despite its being in place for more than half a century and directing more than a billion dollars annually, there is limited evidence of the HPSA program’s effectiveness at reducing geographic disparities in access to care and health outcomes. Using a generalized difference-in-differences design with matching, we found no statistically significant changes in mortality or physician density from 1970 to 2018 after a county-level HPSA designation. As a result, we found that 73 percent of counties designated as HPSAs remained physician shortage areas for at least ten years after their inclusion in the program. Fundamental improvements to the program’s design and incentive structure may be necessary for it to achieve its intended results.

IMPORTANCE: Enrollment in Medicaid managed care plans has increased rapidly, particularly in national commercial insurance plans. Whether the type of managed care plan is associated with the use of health services for Medicaid beneficiaries is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of outpatient and acute care between Medicaid enrollees randomly assigned to a national commercial managed care plan or a local Medicaid-focused managed care plan. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This natural experiment of a cohort of Medicaid enrollees randomly assigned to 2 managed care plans in a Northeastern US state was conducted from June 30, 2009, to June 30, 2013. Statistical analysis was performed from September 1, 2019, to August 30, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Assignment to a Medicaid-focused insurance plan or a commercial managed care plan. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outpatient visits, emergency department visits, and total inpatient and ambulatory care–sensitive hospitalizations. RESULTS: A total of 8010 patients were included in the analysis: 4737 were assigned to a Medicaid-focused plan (2795 female [59.0%]; mean [SD] age, 17.8 [3.2] years) and 3273 to a commercial managed care plan (1915 female [58.5%]; mean [SD] age, 17.9 [3.3] years). Those randomly assigned to the Medicaid-focused plan had a mean (SD) of 6.67 (9.18) annual outpatient visits per person, and those assigned to the commercial plan had a mean (SD) of 8.36 (11.77) annual outpatient visits per person (adjusted absolute difference, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.31-2.13]; 22% relative difference). The increased use of outpatient visits in the commercial plan was associated with an increase in specialty care visits (mean [SD], 2.34 [6.31] visits in Medicaid-focused plan vs 3.75 [9.32] visits in commerical plan; adjusted absolute difference, 1.43 visits [95% CI, 1.25-1.56 visits]; 61% relative difference). Mean (SD) annual emergency department visits were 0.49 (1.39) per person in the Medicaid-focused plan and 0.51 (1.40) in the commercial plan (adjusted absolute difference, 0.02 [95% CI, −0.02 to 0.05]). Mean (SD) annual inpatient admissions were 0.067 (0.45) per person in the Medicaid-focused plan and 0.069 (0.53) in the commercial plan (adjusted absolute difference, 0.003 [95% CI, −0.01 to 0.02]). Plan assignment was not significantly associated with ambulatory care–sensitive admissions. Results were consistent in instrumental variables analyses that accounted for disenrollment and switching. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Compared with Medicaid managed care enrollees assigned to a Medicaid-focused plan, those assigned to a commercial plan had more outpatient visits, particularly for specialty care, but had similar rates of emergency department visits and hospitalizations. These findings suggest that the type of managed care plan may be associated with health services use and spending among Medicaid beneficiaries and that random assignment may help states understand how well different plans perform for enrollees.

IMPORTANCE: Medicaid recipients have consistently reported less timely access to specialists than patients with other types of coverage. By 2018, state Medicaid agencies will be required by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to enact time and distance standards for managed care organizations to ensure an adequate supply of specialist physicians for enrollees; however, there have been no published studies of whether these policies have significant effects on access to specialty care. OBJECTIVE: To compare ratings of access to specialists for adult Medicaid and commercial enrollees before and after the implementation of specialty access standards. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey data to conduct a quasiexperimental difference-in-differences (DID) analysis of 20 163 nonelderly adult Medicaid managed care (MMC) enrollees and 54 465 commercially insured enrollees in 5 states adopting access standards, and 37 290 MMC enrollees in 5 matched states that previously adopted access standards. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Reported access to specialty care in the previous 6 months. RESULTS: Seven thousand six hundred ninety-eight (69%) Medicaid enrollees and 28 423 (75%) commercial enrollees reported that it was always or usually easy to get an appointment with a specialist before the policy implementation (or at baseline) compared with 11 889 (67%) of Medicaid enrollees in states that had previously implemented access standards. Overall, there was no significant improvement in timely access to specialty services for MMC enrollees in the period following implementation of standard(s) (adjusted difference-in-differences, −1.2 percentage points; 95% CI, −2.7 to 0.1), nor was there any impact of access standards on insurance-based disparities in access (0.6 percentage points; 95% CI, −4.3 to 5.4). There was heterogeneity across states, with 1 state that implemented both time and distance standards demonstrating significant improvements in access and reductions in disparities. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Specialty access standards did not lead to widespread improvements in access to specialist physicians. Meaningful improvements in access to specialty care for Medicaid recipients may require additional interventions.

ObjectiveTo determine whether health systems in the United States modify treatment or discharge decisions for otherwise similar patients based on health insurance coverage.DesignRegression discontinuity approach.SettingAmerican College of Surgeons’ National Trauma Data Bank, 2007-17.ParticipantsAdults aged between 50 and 79 years with a total of 1 586 577 trauma encounters at level I and level II trauma centers in the US.InterventionsEligibility for Medicare at age 65 years.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome measure was change in health insurance coverage, complications, in-hospital mortality, processes of care in the trauma bay, treatment patterns during hospital admission, and discharge locations at age 65 years.Results1 586 577 trauma encounters were included. At age 65, a discontinuous increase of 9.6 percentage points (95% confidence interval 9.1 to 10.1) was observed in the share of patients with health insurance coverage through Medicare at age 65 years. Entry to Medicare at age 65 was also associated with a decrease in length of hospital stay for each encounter, of 0.33 days (95% confidence interval −0.42 to −0.24 days), or nearly 5%), which coincided with an increase in discharges to nursing homes (1.56 percentage points, 95% confidence interval 0.94 to 2.16 percentage points) and transfers to other inpatient facilities (0.57 percentage points, 0.33 to 0.80 percentage points), and a large decrease in discharges to home (1.99 percentage points, −2.73 to −1.27 percentage points). Relatively small (or no) changes were observed in treatment patterns during the patients’ hospital admission, including no changes in potentially life saving treatments (eg, blood transfusions) or mortality.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that differences in treatment for otherwise similar patients with trauma with different forms of insurance coverage arose during the discharge planning process, with little evidence that health systems modified treatment decisions based on patients’ coverage.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

IMPORTANCE Medicaid enrollees typically report worse access to care than other insured populations. Expansions in Medicaid through less restrictive income eligibility requirements and the resulting influx of new enrollees may further erode access to care for those already enrolled in Medicaid. OBJECTIVE To assess the effect of previous Medicaid expansions on self-reported access to care and the use of emergency department services by Medicaid enrollees. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design among 1714 adult Medicaid enrollees in 10 states that expanded Medicaid between June 1, 2000, and October 1, 2009, and 5097 Medicaid enrollees in 14 bordering control states that did not expand Medicaid. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Self-reported access to care and annualized emergency department use. RESULTS Among states expanding their Medicaid program for adults, the mean income eligibility level increased from 82.6% to 144.2% of the federal poverty level. Income eligibility in matched control states remained constant at 77.1% of the federal poverty level. The proportion of adults reporting being enrolled in Medicaid increased from 7.2% to 8.8% in expansion states and from 6.1% to 6.4% in matched control states. In Medicaid program expansion states, the proportion of Medicaid enrollees reporting poor access to care declined from 8.5% before the expansion to 7.3% after the expansion. In matched control states, the proportion of Medicaid enrollees reporting poor access to care remained constant at 5.3%. The proportion of enrollees reporting any emergency department use decreased from 41.2% to 40.1% in expansion states and from 37.3% to 36.1% in matched control states. In the period following expansions, newly eligible enrollees reported poorer access to care than previously enrolled beneficiaries, although the overall difference between groups did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE We found no evidence that expanding the number of individuals eligible for Medicaid coverage eroded perceived access to care or increased the use of emergency services among adult Medicaid enrollees.

Recent parity legislation will require many insurers and the federal Medicare program to reduce mental health copayments, so that they are equivalent to copayments for other covered services. The effect of changes in mental health cost sharing has not been well studied, particularly among elderly populations.

IMPORTANCE: Hospital advertising has been touted as a tool to improve consumer decision-making, but little is known about its association with objective measures of hospital quality. OBJECTIVE: To document recent trends in hospital advertising in the US and examine the association between concurrent measures of hospital advertising and quality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cross-sectional study of all general acute care hospitals operating in the US between January 2008 and December 2016. Data were analyzed from December 6, 2019, to July 15, 2020. EXPOSURE: Annualized advertising spending for each hospital as measured by a market research firm. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Four composites of hospital performance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Compare database were used: risk-standardized mortality rate, risk-standardized readmission rate, Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers & Systems (CAHPS) Overall Patient Experience Rating (scale of 1-5; higher scores indicate a more positive patient experience rating), and overall 5-star rating. Linear models adjusted for hospital bed size, hospital revenue, and geographic census region. RESULTS: The study sample included, on average, 4569 general acute care hospitals per year between 2008 and 2016. During this time, approximately half of acute care hospitals (2239 of 4569 [49%]) advertised their services to consumers and spent a total of $3.39 billion. Relative to hospitals that never advertised, advertising hospitals were more likely to be nonprofit facilities (mean [SD], 66% [47%] vs 51% [50%]; P?<?.001), had larger bed sizes (mean [SD], 234.3 [210.7] beds vs 84.8 [110.6] beds; P?<?.001), and had higher net incomes (mean [SD], $17 800 000 [$49 000 000] vs $134 099 [$51 600 000]; P?<?.001). There was no observed association between hospital advertising and performance. For example, hospitals that advertised had a mean (SD) CAHPS 5-star rating of 3.2 (0.9) stars compared with 3.3 (1.0) stars among hospitals that did not advertise, an insignificant difference (P?=?.92). We observed no difference in performance between advertising and nonadvertising hospitals in 30-day readmission rates (mean [SD], 15.5% [0.8%] vs 15.6% [1.0%]; P?=?.25), mortality rates (mean [SD], 12.7% [4.0%] vs 12.0% [4.1%]; P?=?.46), and overall 5-star hospital ratings (mean [SD], 3.1 [0.8] stars vs 3.0 [0.9] stars; P?=?.50). A significant difference was observed in adjusted mortality rates across terciles of advertising spending, with lower mortality rates for the hospitals with higher ad spending (2016, mean [SD] mortality composite for hospitals in the highest tercile, 11.2% [4.2%] vs hospitals in the middle tercile, 12.0% [3.8%], and for hospitals in the lowest tercile, 12.7% [4.1%]; P?=?.003). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that the amount hospitals spent on direct-to-consumer advertising was not associated with publicly reported measures of hospital quality; instead, hospital advertising spending was higher for financially stable hospitals with higher net incomes.