Search

Background: Medicaid managed care plans change provider networks frequently, yet there is no evidence about the performance of exiting providers relative to those that remain., Objectives: To investigate the association between provider cost and quality and network exit., Design: Observational study with provider network directory data linked to administrative claims from managed care plans in Tennessee's Medicaid program during the period 2010-2016., Participants: 1,966,022 recipients assigned to 9593 unique providers., Main Measures: Exposures were risk-adjusted total costs of care and nine measures from the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) were used to construct a composite annual indicators of provider performance on quality. Outcome was provider exit from a Medicaid managed care plan. Differences in quality and cost between providers that exited and remained in managed care networks were estimated using a propensity score model to match exiting to nonexiting providers., Key Results: Over our study period, we found that 21% of participating providers exited at least one of the Medicaid managed care plans in Tennessee. As compared with providers that remained in networks, those that exited performed 3.8 percentage points [95% CI, 2.3, 5.3] worse on quality as measured by a composite of the nine HEDIS quality metrics. However, 22% of exiting providers performed above average in quality and cost and only 29% of exiting providers had lower than average quality scores and higher than average costs. Overall, exiting providers had lower aggregate costs in terms of the annual unadjusted cost of care per-member-month - $21.57 [95% CI, - $41.02, - $2.13], though difference in annual risk-adjusted cost per-member-month was nonsignificant., Conclusions: Providers exiting Medicaid managed care plans appear to have lower quality scores in the year prior to their exit than the providers who remain in network. Our study did not show that managed care plans disproportionately drop high-cost providers.

The current study explored factors that predict referral from pediatric primary care to mental health specialty care among a nationally representative sample of visits (N = 2056). Results of a logistic regression indicated that patient visits that included rarer/serious diagnoses (e.g., bipolar disorder) were more likely to receive a referral in comparison to those with ADHD (OR = 4.75, SE = 1.37). Other characteristics associated with increased likelihood of referral were those with comorbid mental health conditions (OR = 2.20, SE = 0.84) and those from a metropolitan area (OR = 2.23, SE = 0.75). Implications are discussed.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded Medicaid to millions of low-income near-elderly Americans, facilitating access to health care services, but did not change income eligibility for Medicaid for those 65 years and older. Therefore, following the ACA's coverage expansion, many newly-insured older enrollees will face a complex insurance transition on their 65th birthday: they will lose Medicaid coverage and transition from Medicaid to Medicare as their primary insurer. This transition in primary health insurance coverage includes changes to benefits, patient cost-sharing, and provider reimbursement, which could have profound consequences on the use of health services and associated health outcomes for low-income seniors. Using data from 2012, we estimate that 1.6 million current Medicaid beneficiaries and an additional 1.6 to 2.9 million low-income individuals who will gain Medicaid coverage under the ACA will be likely to make this transition in the next decade. Primary care physicians and policymakers can help mitigate the potential consequences of this insurance transition by preparing patients for Medicare's more restrictive insurance coverage, encouraging patients to sign up for available low-income subsidies, and understanding how the loss of Medicaid coverage impacts out-of-pocket costs.

Background: Despite recent reductions in national unplanned readmission rates, we have relatively little understanding of which hospital strategies are most associated with changes in risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRR)., Objective: We examined associations between the change in hospital 30-day RSRR for patients with heart failure and the uptake of strategies over 12-18 months in a national sample of hospitals., Design: We conducted a prospective study of hospitals using a Web-based survey at baseline (November 2010-May 2011, n = 599, 91.0% response rate) and 12-18 months later (November 2011-October 2012, n = 501, 83.6% response rate), with RSRR measured at the same time points. The final analytic sample included 478 hospitals., Participants: The study included hospitals participating in the Hospital-to-Home (H2H) and State Action on Avoidable Rehospitalizations (STAAR) initiatives., Main Measures: We examined associations between change in hospital 30-day RSRR for patients with heart failure and the uptake of strategies previously demonstrated to have increased between baseline and follow-up, using unadjusted and adjusted linear regression., Key Results: The average number of strategies taken up from baseline to follow-up was 1.6 (SE = 0.06); approximately one-quarter (25.3%) of hospitals took up at least three new strategies. Hospitals that adopted the strategy of routinely discharging patients with a follow-up appointment already scheduled experienced significant reductions in RSRR (reduction of 0.63 percentage point, p value < 0.05). Hospitals that took up three or more strategies had significantly greater reductions in RSRR compared to hospitals that took up only zero to two strategies (reduction of 1.29 versus 0.57 percentage point, p value < 0.05). Among the 117 hospitals that took up three or more strategies, 93 unique combinations of strategies were used., Conclusions: Although most individual strategies were not associated with RSRR reduction, hospitals that took up any three or more strategies showed significantly greater reduction in RSRR compared to hospitals that took up fewer than three strategies.

Background: Racial/ethnic disparities exist in the prevalence and outcomes of diabetes and hypertension in the U.S. A better understanding of the health beliefs and experiences of non-Hispanic Blacks and Latinos with these diseases could help to improve their care outcomes., Methods: We conducted eight focus groups stratified by participants' race/ethnicity, with 34 non-Hispanic Blacks and Latinos receiving care for diabetes and/or hypertension in one of 7 community health centers in Boston. Focus groups were designed to determine participants' levels of understanding about their chronic illness, assess their barriers to the management of their illness, and inquire about interventions they considered may help achieve better health outcomes., Results: Among both groups of participants, nutrition (traditional diets), genetics and environmental stress (e.g. neighborhood crime and poor conditions) were described as primary contributors to diabetes and hypertension. Unhealthy diets were reported as being a major barrier to disease management. Participants also believed that they would benefit from attending groups on management and education for their conditions that include creative ways to adopt healthy foods that complement their ethnic diets, exercise opportunities, and advice on how to prevent disease manifestation among family members., Conclusions: Interactive discussion groups focused on lifestyle modification and disease management should be created for patients to learn more about their diseases. Future research evaluating the effectiveness of interactive diabetes and hypertension groups that apply patient racial/ethnic traditions should be considered.

Background: Failure to reconcile medications across transitions in care is an important source of potential harm to patients. Little is known about the predictors of unintentional medication discrepancies and how, when, and where they occur., Objective: To determine the reasons, timing, and predictors of potentially harmful medication discrepancies., Design: Prospective observational study., Patients: Admitted general medical patients., Measurements: Study pharmacists took gold-standard medication histories and compared them with medical teams' medication histories, admission and discharge orders. Blinded teams of physicians adjudicated all unexplained discrepancies using a modification of an existing typology. The main outcome was the number of potentially harmful unintentional medication discrepancies per patient (potential adverse drug events or PADEs)., Results: Among 180 patients, 2066 medication discrepancies were identified, and 257 (12%) were unintentional and had potential for harm (1.4 per patient). Of these, 186 (72%) were due to errors taking the preadmission medication history, while 68 (26%) were due to errors reconciling the medication history with discharge orders. Most PADEs occurred at discharge (75%). In multivariable analyses, low patient understanding of preadmission medications, number of medication changes from preadmission to discharge, and medication history taken by an intern were associated with PADEs., Conclusions: Unintentional medication discrepancies are common and more often due to errors taking an accurate medication history than errors reconciling this history with patient orders. Focusing on accurate medication histories, on potential medication errors at discharge, and on identifying high-risk patients for more intensive interventions may improve medication safety during and after hospitalization.