Search

Key Points: Question: How many excess deaths and years of potential life lost for the Black population, compared with the White population, occurred in the United States from 1999 through 2020? Findings: Based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, excess deaths and years of potential life lost persisted throughout the period, with initial progress followed by stagnation of improvement and substantial worsening in 2020. The Black population had 1.63 million excess deaths, representing more than 80 million years of potential life lost over the study period. Meaning: After initial progress, excess mortality and years of potential life lost among the US Black population stagnated and then worsened, indicating a need for new approaches. Importance: Amid efforts in the US to promote health equity, there is a need to assess recent progress in reducing excess deaths and years of potential life lost among the Black population compared with the White population. Objective: To evaluate trends in excess mortality and years of potential life lost among the Black population compared with the White population. Design, setting, and participants: Serial cross-sectional study using US national data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 1999 through 2020. We included data from non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black populations across all age groups. Exposures: Race as documented in the death certificates. Main outcomes and measures: Excess age-adjusted all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, age-specific mortality, and years of potential life lost rates (per 100 000 individuals) among the Black population compared with the White population. Results: From 1999 to 2011, the age-adjusted excess mortality rate declined from 404 to 211 excess deaths per 100 000 individuals among Black males (P for trend <.001). However, the rate plateaued from 2011 through 2019 (P for trend =.98) and increased in 2020 to 395—rates not seen since 2000. Among Black females, the rate declined from 224 excess deaths per 100 000 individuals in 1999 to 87 in 2015 (P for trend <.001). There was no significant change between 2016 and 2019 (P for trend =.71) and in 2020 rates increased to 192—levels not seen since 2005. The trends in rates of excess years of potential life lost followed a similar pattern. From 1999 to 2020, the disproportionately higher mortality rates in Black males and females resulted in 997 623 and 628 464 excess deaths, respectively, representing a loss of more than 80 million years of life. Heart disease had the highest excess mortality rates, and the excess years of potential life lost rates were largest among infants and middle-aged adults. Conclusions and relevance: Over a recent 22-year period, the Black population in the US experienced more than 1.63 million excess deaths and more than 80 million excess years of life lost when compared with the White population. After a period of progress in reducing disparities, improvements stalled, and differences between the Black population and the White population worsened in 2020. This study focuses on differences in mortality and years of potential life lost between Black and White populations to understand recent trends. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medicaid, the primary source of insurance coverage for disadvantaged Americans, was originally designed as a temporary safety-net program. No studies have used long-run data to assess the recent use of the program by beneficiaries.Objective: To assess patterns of short- and long-term enrollment among beneficiaries, using a 10-year longitudinal panel of Michigan Medicaid eligibility data.Design: Primary analyses assessing trends in Medicaid enrollment among cohorts of existing and new beneficiaries.Setting: Administrative records from Michigan Medicaid for the period 2011 to 2020.Participants: 3.97 million Medicaid beneficiaries.Measurements: Short- and long-term enrollment in the program.Results: The sample includes 3.97 million unique beneficiaries enrolled at some point between 2011 and 2020. Among a cohort of 1.23 million beneficiaries enrolled in 2011, over half (53%) were also enrolled in Medicaid in June 2020, spending, on average, two-thirds of that period (67%) on Medicaid. These beneficiaries, however, experienced substantial lapses in coverage, as only 25% were continuously enrolled throughout the period. Enrollment was less stable when assessed from the perspective of newly enrolled beneficiaries, of whom only 37% remained enrolled at the end of the study period.Limitation: Primary estimates from a single state.Conclusion: For many beneficiaries, Medicaid has served as their primary source of coverage for at least a decade. This pattern would justify increasing investments in the program to improve long-term health outcomes.Primary Funding Source: Self-funded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Risk adjustment is used widely in payment systems and performance assessments, but the extent to which it distinguishes plan or provider effects from confounding due to patient differences is typically unknown.Objective: To assess the degree to which risk-adjusted measures of health plan performance adequately adjust for the variation across plans that arises because of differences in patient characteristics (residual confounding).Design: Comparison between plan performance estimates based on enrollees who made plan choices (observational population) and estimates based on enrollees assigned to plans (randomized population).Setting: Natural experiment in which more than two thirds of a state's Medicaid population in 1 region was randomly assigned to 1 of 5 plans.Participants: 137 933 enrollees in 2013 to 2014, of whom 31.1% selected a plan and 68.9% were randomly assigned to 1 of the same 5 plans.Measurements: Annual total spending (that is, payments to providers), primary care use, dental care use, and avoidable emergency department visits, all scored as plan-specific deviations from the "average" plan performance within each population.Results: Enrollee characteristics were appreciably imbalanced across plans in the observational population, as expected, but were not in the randomized population. Annual total spending varied across plans more in the observational population (SD, $147 per enrollee) than in the randomized population (SD, $70 per enrollee) after accounting for baseline differences in the observational and randomized populations and for differences across plans. On average, a plan's spending score (its deviation from the "average" performance) in the observational population differed from its score in the randomized population by $67 per enrollee in absolute value (95% CI, $38 to $123), or 4.2% of mean spending per enrollee (P = 0.009, rejecting the null hypothesis that this difference would be expected from sampling error). The difference was reduced modestly by risk adjustment to $62 per enrollee (P = 0.012). Residual confounding was similarly substantial for most other performance measures. Further adjustment for social factors did not materially change estimates.Limitation: Potential heterogeneity in plan effects between the 2 populations.Conclusion: Residual confounding in risk-adjusted performance assessments can be substantial and should caution policymakers against assuming that risk adjustment isolates real differences in plan performance.Primary Funding Source: Arnold Ventures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance Several recent policy proposals have sought to expand the role of Medicaid in providing health insurance for low-income Americans, but there is little recent information on how physician participation in Medicaid compares with alternative forms of coverage for low-income Americans. Objective To compare the number of office-based physicians included in Medicaid managed care and health insurance exchange plans that operate in the same geographic markets. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study used administrative data from physician network directories and survey data from office-based physicians for Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Tennessee, and Washington. The number of participants totaled 67 057 office-based physicians in the 5 sample states. Data were collected and analyzed from May 2018 to June 2019. Exposures Physician participation in a Medicaid managed care or health insurance exchange plan network. Main Outcomes and Measures The percentage of office-based physicians in a county who indicated during a phone survey that they participated in Medicaid; the percentage of office-based physicians in a county who participated in each Medicaid managed care and health insurance exchange plan network; and the percentage of office-based physicians in a county who participated in at least one Medicaid managed care plan or, separately, at least one health insurance exchange plan. Results Of the 67 057 office-based physicians in our sample, 49 983 reported in a telephone survey that they accepted Medicaid. This survey-based measure undercounted the percentage of physicians participating in Medicaid by 5.2% (95% CI, 2.3%-8.1%; P < .001) relative to a measure based on physician network directories. Medicaid managed care physician networks covered a mean (SD) of 63.4% (20.5%) of office-based physicians compared with health insurance exchange physician networks, which covered 51.0% (25.2%). In adjusted analyses, Medicaid managed care plans covered 6.2% (95% CI, 3.2%-9.3%, P < .001) more office-based physicians than health insurance exchange plans operating in the same counties. In the states where the same insurers participated in both markets (New York, Tennessee, Washington), the Medicaid managed care physician networks were 6.5% (95% CI, 3.2%-9.8%, P < .001) larger than the health insurance exchange networks offered by the same insurer. Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional study of physician network data, Medicaid managed care physician networks included more office-based physicians than the physician networks of health insurance exchange plans operating in the same geographic markets. This suggests that Medicaid remains a viable option for expanding coverage in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Privately insured individuals frequently use out-of-network psychiatrists. Yet, whether treatment provided by psychiatrists who do not accept private insurance differs from treatment provided by those who do has not been studied. The investigators described provider characteristics, patient characteristics, and treatment patterns among psychiatrists who do not accept new patients with private insurance.Methods: Data for this study came from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2011-2014), a nationally representative annual cross-sectional survey of physicians providing ambulatory care. Responses of psychiatrists who report accepting any new patients (N=440) were examined, representing 7,634 visits.Results: Compared with psychiatrists accepting privately insured patients, those not accepting privately insured patients had fewer visits with patients with serious mental illness (42% versus 53%; p=0.016). These psychiatrists had a higher proportion of visits lasting longer than 30 minutes (48% versus 34%; p=0.026), and their patients were more likely to have had 10 or more visits in the past 12 months (41% versus 28%; p=0.013). There were no differences in the proportion of visits in which treatment included psychotherapy (48% versus 44%).Conclusions: Although psychiatrists not accepting patients with private insurance were less likely than other psychiatrists to treat patients with serious mental illness, their patients were more likely to have longer visits and a relatively high number of visits in the past year. The low rate of acceptance of insurance among psychiatrists may have the greatest effect among those most in need of services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health plans use selective physician networks to control costs while improving quality. However, narrow (limited) networks raise concerns about reduced access to and continuity of care. In the period 2010-15, the proportion of Medicaid managed care plans in fourteen states with narrow primary care physician networks--that is, the plans that employed 30 percent or less of those physicians in their market--declined from a peak of 42 percent in 2011 to 27 percent in 2015. On average, plans experienced a 12 percent annual turnover rate, with 34 percent of primary care physicians exiting within five years. Turnover was 3 percentage points higher in plans with narrow networks after one year, and 20 percentage points higher after five years, compared to turnover in plans with non-narrow networks. These findings suggest that efforts to maintain adequate physician networks must monitor not only the breadth of the networks, but also the continuity within them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: State Medicaid programs have increasingly contracted with insurers to provide medical care services for enrollees (Medicaid managed care plans). Insurers that provide these plans can exit Medicaid programs each year, with unclear effects on quality of care and health care experiences.Objective: To determine the frequency and interstate variation of health plan exit from Medicaid managed care and evaluate the relationship between health plan exit and market-level quality.Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort of all comprehensive Medicaid managed care plans (N = 390) during the interval 2006-2014.Exposures: Plan exit, defined as the withdrawal of a managed care plan from a state's Medicaid program.Main Outcomes and Measures: Eight measures from the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set were used to construct 3 composite indicators of quality (preventive care, chronic disease care management, and maternity care). Four measures from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems were combined into a composite indicator of patient experience, reflecting the proportion of beneficiaries rating experiences as 8 or above on a 0-to-10-point scale. Outcome data were available for 248 plans (68% of plans operating prior to 2014, representing 78% of beneficiaries).Results: Of the 366 comprehensive Medicaid managed care plans operating prior to 2014, 106 exited Medicaid. These exiting plans enrolled 4 848 310 Medicaid beneficiaries, with a mean of 606 039 beneficiaries affected by plan exits annually. Six states had a mean of greater than 10% of Medicaid managed care recipients enrolled in plans that exited, whereas 10 states experienced no plan exits. Plans that exited from a state's Medicaid market performed significantly worse prior to exiting than those that remained in terms of preventive care (57.5% vs 60.4%; difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 0.3% to 5.5%]), maternity care (69.7% vs 73.6%; difference, 3.8% [95% CI, 1.7% to 6.0%]), and patient experience (73.5% vs 74.8%; difference, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.6% to 1.9%]). There was no significant difference between exiting and nonexiting plans for the quality of chronic disease care management (76.2% vs 77.1%; difference, 1.0% [95% CI, -2.1% to 4.0%]). There was also no significant change in overall market performance before and after the exit of a plan: 0.7-percentage point improvement in preventive care quality (95% CI, -4.9 to 6.3); 0.2-percentage point improvement in chronic disease care management quality (95% CI, -5.8 to 6.2); 0.7-percentage point decrease in maternity care quality (95% CI, -6.4 to 5.0]); and a 0.6-percentage point improvement in patient experience ratings (95% CI, -3.9 to 5.1). Medicaid beneficiaries enrolled in exiting plans had access to coverage for a higher-quality plan, with 78% of plans in the same county having higher quality for preventive care, 71.1% for chronic disease management, 65.5% for maternity care, and 80.8% for patient experience.Conclusions and Relevance: Between 2006 and 2014, health plan exit from the US Medicaid program was frequent. Plans that exited generally had lower quality ratings than those that remained, and the exits were not associated with significant overall changes in quality or patient experience in the plans in the Medicaid market. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract:The relative effectiveness of strategies to recruit minority patients, populations traditionally difficult to engage in research, for focus groups is unclear. We conducted a systematic review of all peer-reviewed focus group studies targeting Black and/or Hispanic participants with diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and/or cardiovascular disease reported in Pubmed, MEDLINE, and CINAHL from January 1993 through August 2009. Reviewers extracted data on each study's characteristics, methods, and outcomes. Forty-five studies were eligible. While most described recruitment strategies, only 21 presented any metric of their success in recruiting participants. Among studies with high recruitment success rates, no discernable trends regarding effectiveness of recruitment strategies were found, largely due to variation in reporting of the use of incentives and follow-up mechanisms. Increased rigor is necessary for describing methodology of focus group research in the literature. It is incumbent upon researchers to ensure clear and detailed methodology in qualitative articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of risk adjustment is not to predict spending accurately but to support the social goals of a payment system, which include equity. Setting population-based payments at accurate predictions risks entrenching spending levels that are insufficient to mitigate the impact of social determinants on health care use and effectiveness. Instead, to advance equity, payments must be set above current levels of spending for historically disadvantaged groups. In analyses intended to guide such reallocations, we found that current risk adjustment for the community-dwelling Medicare population overpredicts annual spending for Black and Hispanic beneficiaries by $376-$1,264. The risk-adjusted spending for these populations is lower than spending for White beneficiaries despite the former populations' worse risk-adjusted health and functional status. Thus, continued movement from fee-for-service to population-based payment models that omit race and ethnicity from risk adjustment (as current models do) should result in sizable resource reallocations and incentives that support efforts to address racial and ethnic disparities in care. We found smaller overpredictions for less-educated beneficiaries and communities with higher proportions of residents who are Black, Hispanic, or less educated, suggesting that additional payment adjustments that depart from predictive accuracy are needed to support health equity. These findings also suggest that adding social risk factors as predictors to spending models used for risk adjustment may be counterproductive or accomplish little. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competing Interests: Disclosures Drs Lu and Krumholz had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Dr Jastreboff conducts multicenter trials with Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; serves on scientific advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, Scholar Rock, Structure Therapeutics, Terms Pharmaceutical, WeightWatchers, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals; was the site principal investigator for the SELECT (Semaglutide Effects on Cardiovascular Outcomes in People with Overweight or Obesity) trial at Yale University; and receives institutional grant funding from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Dr Rodriguez reports consulting relationships with Healthpals, Novartis, Esperion, NovoNordisk (Clinical Events Committee), Movano Health, and Kento Health. In the past three years, Harlan Krumholz received expenses or personal fees from Element Science, Eyedentify, and F-Prime. He is a co-founder of Hugo Health, Refactor Health, and Ensight-AI. He is the co-editor of Journal Watch: Cardiology of the Massachusetts Medical Society and is a section editor of UpToDate. He is associated with contracts, through Yale New Haven Hospital, from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and through Yale University from Janssen, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, and Pfizer. Dr. Lu received support from the Sentara Research Foundation, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (under awards R01HL69954 and R01HL169171), and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (under award HM-2022C2-28354). Dr. Khera is an Associate Editor of JAMA. He receives support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (under award K23HL153775) and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (under award 2022060). He also receives research support, through Yale, from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novo Nordisk. He is a coinventor of U.S. Provisional Patent Applications 63/177,117, 63/428,569, 63/346,610, 63/484,426, and 63/508,315. He is a co-founder of Ensight-AI and Evidence2Health, health platforms to improve cardiovascular diagnosis and evidence-based cardiovascular care. All data used in this study are publicly available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/index.htm. The other authors report no conflicts.

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.

Objective: To determine whether health systems in the United States modify treatment or discharge decisions for otherwise similar patients based on health insurance coverage., Design: Regression discontinuity approach., Setting: American College of Surgeons' National Trauma Data Bank, 2007-17., Participants: Adults 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., Interventions: Eligibility for Medicare at age 65 years., Main Outcome Measures: The 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., Results: 1 586 577 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., Conclusions: The 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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organization for the submitted work; support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for JWS as principal investigator (grant K08-HS028672) and as a co-investigator (grant R01-HS027788). JWS also receives salary support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan through the collaborative quality initiative known as Michigan Social Health Interventions to Eliminate Disparities (MSHIELD), outside the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

States have increasingly outsourced the provision of Medicaid services to private managed care plans. To ensure that plans maintain access to care, many states set network adequacy standards that require plans to contract with a minimum number of physicians. In this study we used data from the period 2015-17 for four states to assess the level of Medicaid participation among physicians listed in the provider network directories of each managed care plan. We found that about one-third of outpatient primary care and specialist physicians contracted with Medicaid managed care plans in our sample saw fewer than ten Medicaid beneficiaries in a year. Care was highly concentrated: 25 percent of primary care physicians provided 86 percent of the care, and 25 percent of specialists, on average, provided 75 percent of the care. Our findings suggest that current network adequacy standards might not reflect actual access; new methods are needed that account for beneficiaries' preferences and physicians' willingness to serve Medicaid patients.