Search

ImportanceLittle is known about small-area variations in health care spending and utilization across the 3 major funders of health care in the US: Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.ObjectiveTo measure regional health spending and utilization across Medicare, Medicaid, and the privately insured; to observe whether there are regions that are simultaneously low spending for all 3 payers; and to determine what factors are correlated with regional spending and utilization by payer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsObservational cross-sectional analysis of the US health system in 2016 and 2017 for 241 of 306 hospital referral regions (HRRs) and 2 states. Participants include individuals with employer-sponsored coverage from Aetna, Humana, or UnitedHealth; individuals with Medicaid fee-for-service coverage in 2016 and 2017; and individuals with Medicare coverage. The analysis was carried out from January 2020 to May 2022.Main Outcomes and MeasuresSpending per beneficiary and inpatient days per beneficiary by payer and overall.ResultsThe data include 25 381 167 individuals with employer-sponsored coverage, 69 891 299 with Medicaid coverage in 2016 and 2017, and 26 711 426 individuals with Medicare fee-for-service coverage. The percentage of enrollees who identified as female was 54.1% in the Medicaid program, 56.2% in the Medicare program, and 50.4% in private insurance. The mean (SD) age was 26.9 (21.8) years for Medicaid and 75.0 (7.9) years for Medicare enrollees; for private insurance enrollees, just age brackets were reported: 18 to 24 years (15.9%), 25 to 34 years (24.2%), 35 to 44 years (21.3%), 45 to 54 years (20.8%), and 55 to 64 years (17.8%). In 2017, the mean (SD) HRR-level spending per beneficiary was $4441 ($710) for private insurance, $10 281 ($1294) for Medicare, and $6127 ($1428) for Medicaid. Across HRRs, the correlation coefficients and 95% CIs were 0.020 (−0.106 to 0.146; P = .76) for private insurance and Medicare spending, 0.213 (0.090 to 0.330; P P P P P Conclusions and RelevanceThese findings suggest that payer-specific factors are correlated with health spending variation among Medicare beneficiaries, Medicaid beneficiaries, and the commercially insured and that payer-specific policies will be necessary to improve efficiency in the US health sector.

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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-020-05784-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundDisparities in multimorbidity prevalence indicate health inequalities. This study sought to determine if gaps in multimorbidity prevalence by race and ethnicity are decreasing over time.Methods and findingsSerial cross-sectional analysis of the National Health Interview Survey from years 1999 to 2018. The study included individuals ≥18 years old, categorized by self-reported race, ethnicity, age, and income. The main outcomes were temporal trends in multimorbidity prevalence based on the self-reported presence of ≥2 of 9 chronic conditions. The study sample included 596,355 individuals (4.7% Asian, 11.8% Black, 13.8% Latino/Hispanic, and 69.7% White). In 1999, the estimated prevalence of multimorbidity was 5.9% among Asian, 17.4% among Black, 10.7% among Latino/Hispanic, and 13.5% among White individuals. Prevalence increased for all racial/ethnic groups during the study period (PConclusionsFrom 1999 to 2018, a period of increasing multimorbidity prevalence for all the groups studied, there has not been any significant progress in eliminating disparities between Black and White people. The disparity began among young adults. Public health interventions that prevent the onset of chronic conditions in early life may be needed to eliminate these disparities.

BackgroundRacial and ethnic disparities in delayed medical care due to reasons not related to cost of care remain understudied. We aimed to describe recent 20-year trends in such disparities.MethodsThe study used data from the National Health Interview Survey from 1999–2018 and included individuals ≥18 years of age. Respondents were categorized by their sex, income, and self-reported race and ethnicity. The main outcomes were trends in disparities in any of 5 specific barriers to timely medical care: inability to get through by phone, no appointment available soon enough, long waiting times, inconvenient doctor’s office/clinic hours, or lack of transportation.ResultsThe study included 590,603 adults (mean age 46.0 [SE, 0.07] years; 51.9% female). Of these, 4.7% were Asian, 11.8% Black, 13.8% Latino/Hispanic, and 69.7% White. In 1999, the proportion reporting any of the barriers to timely medical care was 7.3% among Asian, 6.9% among Black, 7.9% among Latino/Hispanic, and 7.0% among White individuals (P >0.05 for each difference with White individuals). From 1999 to 2018, this proportion increased across all 4 race/ethnicity groups (PConclusionsFrom 1999 to 2018, barriers to timely medical care increased for all populations with increasing disparities between racial/ethnic groups.

Administrative records indicate that more than half of the 80 million Medicaid enrollees identify as belonging to a racial and ethnic minority group. Despite this, disparities within the Medicaid program remain understudied. For example, we know of no studies examining racial differences in Medicaid spending, a potential measure of how equitably state resources are allocated.To examine whether and to what extent there are differences in health care spending and utilization between Black and White enrollees in Medicaid.This cross-sectional study used calendar year 2016 administrative data from 3 state Medicaid programs and included 1 966 689 Black and White Medicaid enrollees. Analyses were performed between January 28, 2021, and October 18, 2021.Self-reported race.Rates and racial differences in health care spending and utilization (including Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set [HEDIS] access measures).Of 1 966 689 Medicaid adults and children (mean [SD] age, 20.3 [17.1] years; 1 119 136 [56.9%] female), 867 183 (44.1%) self-identified as non-Hispanic Black and 1 099 506 (55.9%) self-identified as non-Hispanic White. Results were adjusted for age, sex, Medicaid eligibility category, zip code, health status, and usual source of care. On average, annual spending on Black adult (19 years or older) Medicaid enrollees was $317 (95% CI, $259-$375) lower than White enrollees, a 6% difference. Among children (18 years or younger), annual spending on Black enrollees was $256 (14%) lower (95% CI, $222-$290). Adult Black enrollees also had 19.3 (95% CI, 16.78-21.84), or 4%, fewer primary care encounters per 100 enrollees per year compared with White enrollees. Among children, the differences in primary care utilization were larger: Black enrollees had 90.1 (95% CI, 88.2-91.8) fewer primary care encounters per 100 enrollees per year compared with White enrollees, a 23% difference. Black enrollees had lower utilization of most other services, including high-value prescription drugs, but higher emergency department use and rates of HEDIS preventive screenings.In this cross-sectional study of US Medicaid enrollees in 3 states, Black enrollees generated lower spending and used fewer services, including primary care and recommended care for acute and chronic conditions, but had substantially higher emergency department use. While Black enrollees had higher rates of HEDIS preventive screenings, ensuring equitable access to all services in Medicaid must remain a national priority.

ImportanceRacial and ethnic disparities in delayed medical care for reasons that are not directly associated with the cost of care remain understudied.ObjectiveTo describe trends in racial and ethnic disparities in barriers to timely medical care among adults during a recent 20-year period.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a serial cross-sectional study of 590 603 noninstitutionalized adults in the US using data from the National Health Interview Survey from 1999 to 2018. Data analyses were performed from December 2021 through August 2022.ExposuresSelf-reported race, ethnicity, household income, and sex.Main Outcomes and MeasuresTemporal trends in disparities regarding 5 specific barriers to timely medical care: inability to get through by telephone, no appointment available soon enough, long waiting times, inconvenient office or clinic hours, and lack of transportation.ResultsThe study cohort comprised 590 603 adult respondents (mean [SE] age, 46.00 [0.07] years; 329 638 [51.9%] female; 27 447 [4.7%] Asian, 83 929 [11.8%] Black, 98 692 [13.8%] Hispanic/Latino, and 380 535 [69.7%] White). In 1999, the proportion of each race and ethnicity group reporting any of the 5 barriers to timely medical care was 7.3% among the Asian group; 6.9%, Black; 7.9%, Hispanic/Latino; and 7.0%, White (P > .05 for each difference compared with White individuals). From 1999 to 2018, this proportion increased across all 4 race and ethnicity groups (by 5.7, 8.0, 8.1, and 5.9 percentage points [pp] among Asian, Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White individuals, respectively; P P = .03 and P = .001, respectively). There was no significant difference in prevalence between Asian and White individuals. There was a significant increase in the difference in prevalence between Black individuals and White individuals who reported delaying care because of long waiting times at the clinic or medical office and because of a lack of transportation (1.5 pp and 1.8 pp; P = .03 and P = .01, respectively). In addition, the difference in prevalence between Hispanic/Latino and White individuals who reported delaying care because of long waiting times increased significantly (2.6 pp; P Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this serial cross-sectional study of data from the National Health Interview Survey suggest that barriers to timely medical care in the US increased for all population groups from 1999 to 2018, with associated increases in disparities among race and ethnicity groups. Interventions beyond those currently implemented are needed to improve access to medical care and to eliminate disparities among race and ethnicity groups.

This cross-sectional regression discontinuity analysis compares deaths slightly younger and older than 65 years to examine the relationship between access to health insurance coverage and COVID-19 mortality.

Objective To evaluate the effect of a forced disruption to Medicaid managed care plans and provider networks on health utilization and outcomes for children with persistent asthma. Data sources Medicaid managed care administrative claims data from 2013 to 2016, obtained from a southeastern state. Study design A difference-in-difference analysis compared patients' outpatient, inpatient, and emergency department (ED) utilization and receipt of recommended services before and after implementation of a statewide redistribution of patients among nine managed care plans. Data collection/extraction methods Enrollment data for children with asthma were linked to the administrative claims. Children were included if they had a diagnosis of persistent asthma in 2013 and if they were enrolled continuously throughout 2014-2016. Principal findings Among the 28 537 children with asthma, 26% were forced to switch their managed care plan after the redistribution. Of these, 67% also switched their primary care provider (PCP). Relative to those who remained in their plan, disruption was associated with an additional 2.1 percentage-point decrease in the number of children who had an outpatient visit per quarter [95%CI -2.8, -1.3], from 71% to 66% (compared to plan stayers: 74% to 71%). Among children experiencing a change to their plan, there was overall a decrease in the proportion of children receiving an asthma-specific visit per quarter, but there was less of a decrease in children that also changed their PCP [1.6 percentage points, 95%CI 0.7, 2.5], from 9.7% to 8.3% (compared to those who did not switch their PCP: 12% to 8.6%). Indicators of asthma care quality and emergent care utilization were not significantly different between the two periods. Conclusions While there was a decrease in the number of outpatient visits associated with forced disruption of Medicaid managed care plans for children with persistent asthma, there were no consistent associations with worse asthma quality performance or higher emergent health care utilization.

Key Points Question How does the percentage of office-based physicians who participate in Medicaid compare with participation in health insurance exchange plans? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 67 057 office-based physicians in 5 states, Medicaid managed care plans included more physicians than health insurance exchange plans in the same geographic markets. Meaning These findings indicate that physicians are likelier to participate in Medicaid physician networks than previously believed, with important implications for the ongoing debate about the role of Medicaid in expanding health insurance and reforming the US health care system., This cross-sectional study examines state and county physician network data sets to compare physician participation in Medicare networks with health insurance exchange networks., 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 1 Medicaid managed care plan or, separately, at least 1 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

Objective To assess the impact of assignment to a Medicaid-focused versus mixed managed care plan on continuity of Medicaid coverage. Data sources 2011-2016 Medicaid claims from a Northeastern state. Study design Following the exit of a Medicaid managed care insurer, Medicaid administrators prioritized provider networks in reassigning enrollees, but randomly assigned beneficiaries whose providers were equally represented in the two plans. We leveraged the natural experiment created by random plan assignment and conducted an instrumental variable analysis. Data collection We analyzed Medicaid claims for 12,083 beneficiaries who were members of the exiting Blue Cross Blue Shield plan prior to January 1, 2011. Principal findings Managed care plan type did not significantly impact continuous enrollment in the Medicaid program. Greater outpatient utilization and the presence of a special need among children were associated with longer enrollment in Medicaid. Conclusions Managed care plans did not differ in their capacity to keep Medicaid beneficiaries continuously enrolled in coverage, despite differences in plan features.

Key Points Question Are higher-performing hospitals more likely to advertise their services directly to consumers? Findings In this cross-sectional study of more than 4500 acute care hospitals per year, almost half advertised their services to consumers, yet there was no clear association between advertising and objective performance measures. Hospitals that advertised were more likely to have more net assets and income. Meaning The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that advertising is not an effective means to inform consumers about quality; instead, it may mislead consumers and undermine, not complement, public reporting efforts., This cross-sectional study uses data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to assess whether higher-performing hospitals are more likely to advertise their services directly to consumers., 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

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.

Background Declining job satisfaction and concurrent reductions in Medicaid participation among primary care providers have been documented, but there is limited qualitative work detailing their first-hand experiences treating Medicaid patients. The objective of this study is to describe the experiences of some primary care providers who treat Medicaid patients using in-depth qualitative analysis. Methods We conducted qualitative interviews with 15 primary care providers treating Medicaid patients in a Northeastern state. Participant recruitment efforts focused on including different types of primary care providers practicing in diverse settings. Qualitative interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview protocol. We developed a coding scheme to analyze interview transcripts and identify themes. Results Providers expressed challenges effectively meeting their patients’ needs under current policy. They described low Medicaid reimbursement and underinvestment in care coordination programs to adequately address the social determinants of health. Providers shared other concerns including poor access to behavioral health services, discontinuous Medicaid coverage due to enrollment and renewal policies, and limited reimbursement for alternative pain treatment. Providers offered their own suggestions for the allocation of financial investments, Medicaid policy, and primary care practice. Conclusions Underinvestment in primary care in Medicaid may detract from providers’ professional satisfaction and hinder care coordination for Medicaid patients with complex healthcare needs. Policy solutions that improve the experience of primary care providers serving Medicaid patients are urgently needed to ensure sustainability of the workforce and improve care delivery.

Objective To assess the effect of the 2014 Medicaid expansion on Medicaid managed care plan quality. Data Sources Three composite measures of plan-level quality constructed from the Health Care Effectiveness Data and Information Set. Study Setting One hundred and sixty-three plans in 27 Medicaid expansion states and 100 plans in 14 nonexpansion states. Study Design Quasi-experimental difference-in-differences (DID) analysis, comparing quality before (2011–13) and after (2014–15) Medicaid expansion in states that elected to expand Medicaid eligibility and those that did not. Principal Findings Mean plan enrollment increased from 130,533 to 274,259 in expansion states and from 105,449 to 148,194 in nonexpansion states. The proportion of enrollees receiving recommended preventive care increased from 62.6 to 65.2 percent in expansion states and from 59.3 to 62.5 percent in nonexpansion states (adjusted DID: −0.7 percentage points [95% CI −2.2, 0.7]). The proportion of enrollees receiving recommended chronic disease care management increased from 65.4 to 66.0 percent in expansion states and from 62.5 to 63.1 percent in nonexpansion states (adjusted DID: 1.1 percentage points [95% CI −0.5, 2.6]). We observed similar patterns for the receipt of recommended maternity care. Conclusions Medicaid expansion increased enrollment in managed care plans, but it did not result in erosion of quality.

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.

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.

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. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-014-3105-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

We summarized the recently published, peer-reviewed literature that examined the impact of investments in social services or investments in integrated models of health care and social services on health outcomes and health care spending. Of 39 articles that met criteria for inclusion in the review, 32 (82%) reported some significant positive effects on either health outcomes (N = 20), health care costs (N = 5), or both (N = 7). Of the remaining 7 (18%) studies, 3 had non-significant results, 2 had mixed results, and 2 had negative results in which the interventions were associated with poorer health outcomes. Our analysis of the literature indicates that several interventions in the areas of housing, income support, nutrition support, and care coordination and community outreach have had positive impact in terms of health improvements or health care spending reductions. These interventions may be of interest to health care policymakers and practitioners seeking to leverage social services to improve health or reduce costs. Further testing of models that achieve better outcomes at less cost is needed.

Primary care site may play an important role in cardiovascular disease prevalence; however, the distribution of risk factors and outcomes across care sites is not known. In this study, a cross-sectional analysis of 21,778 adult participants from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES; 1999 to 2008) using multivariate logistic regression was conducted to assess the relation between site of usual care and disease prevalence. Patients' self-reported histories of several chronic conditions (hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia), awareness of chronic conditions, and associated cardiovascular events (angina, coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke) were examined. After adjustment for demographic and health care utilization characteristics, there were no significant differences in the prevalence of diabetes or hypercholesterolemia among patients receiving usual care at private doctors' offices, hospital outpatient clinics, community-based clinics, and emergency rooms (ER). However, participants without usual sources of care and those receiving usual care at ERs had significantly lower awareness of their chronic conditions than participants at other sites. The odds of having a history of each of the adverse cardiovascular events ranged from 2.21 to 4.18 times higher for patients receiving usual care at ERs relative to private doctors' offices. In conclusion, participants who report using ERs as their usual sites of care are disproportionately more likely to have histories of poor cardiovascular outcomes and are more likely to be unaware of having hypertension or hypercholesterolemia. As health care reform takes place and millions more begin seeking care, it is imperative to ensure access to longitudinal care sites designed for continuous disease management.

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.To examine the consequences of increasing and decreasing copayments on the use of outpatient mental health services among the elderly.Difference-in-differences (DID) design comparing the use of outpatient mental health care in Medicare plans that changed mental health copayments compared with concurrent trends in matched control plans with unchanged copayments.A total of 1,147,916 enrollees aged 65 years and older in 14 Medicare plans that increased copayments by ≥ 25%, 3 plans that decreased copayments by ≥ 25%, and 17 matched control plans with unchanged copayments.In 14 plans that increased mental health copayments from a mean of $14.43 to $21.07, the proportion of enrollees who used mental health services remained at 2.2% in the year before and year after the increase (adjusted DID, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 0.0-0.1). Among 3 plans that decreased copayments from a mean of $25.00 to $8.33, utilization rates were 1.2% before and after the decrease (adjusted DID, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -0.2 to 0.3). Stratified analyses by age, gender, race, and presence of a disability yielded similar results.Few older adults in managed care plans used outpatient mental health services. Among this population, increasing or decreasing mental health copayments had negligible effects on the likelihood of using outpatient mental health care.

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.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.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.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: The Community, Health Center, and Academic Medicine Partnership Project (CHAMPP) is a partnership between medical researchers, community health centers (CHCs), and a community advisory committee focused on reducing cardiovascular morbidity related to hypertension and diabetes for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic populations in Boston, Massachusetts. Objective: We conducted site visits at seven participating CHCs, located in Boston. The visits were to solicit health center staff opinions about site-specific barriers and enabling factors for optimum preventative cardiovascular care for racial/ethnic minority patients receiving hypertension and diabetes care at their centers. Methods: Site visits included a tour of each health center and a series of directed interviews with center personnel. Site visit notes were reviewed to identify themes that emerged during the course of each site visit. A summary matrix was developed for each health center, which included information regarding the most salient and persistent themes of the visit. Results: Site visits uncovered several patient-, provider-, CHC-, and community-based factors that either facilitate or hinder optimal care of chronic disease patients. Commonly referenced barriers included the need for improved patient adherence to provider recommendations; insufficient time for providers to address complex health issues presented by patients and the need for a broader range of healthier food options in surrounding communities. Interactive patient groups and community health workers (CHWs) have been well received when implemented. Conclusion: Recommendations included adopting case management as a part of usual care for chronic disease patients; additionally, widespread implementation of CHWs may to provide a platform for more comprehensive care for patients.

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.To determine the reasons, timing, and predictors of potentially harmful medication discrepancies.Prospective observational study.Admitted general medical patients.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).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.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.

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.

Medication reconciliation at transitions in care is a national patient safety goal, but its effects on important patient outcomes require further evaluation. We sought to measure the impact of an information technology-based medication reconciliation intervention on medication discrepancies with potential for harm (potential adverse drug events [PADEs]).We performed a controlled trial, randomized by medical team, on general medical inpatient units at 2 academic hospitals from May to June 2006. We enrolled 322 patients admitted to 14 medical teams, for whom a medication history could be obtained before discharge. The intervention was a computerized medication reconciliation tool and process redesign involving physicians, nurses, and pharmacists. The main outcome was unintentional discrepancies between preadmission medications and admission or discharge medications that had potential for harm (PADEs).Among 160 control patients, there were 230 PADEs (1.44 per patient), while among 162 intervention patients there were 170 PADEs (1.05 per patient) (adjusted relative risk [ARR], 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.99). A significant benefit was found at hospital 1 (ARR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.97) but not at hospital 2 (ARR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.57-1.32) (P = .32 for test of effect modification). Hospitals differed in the extent of integration of the medication reconciliation tool into computerized provider order entry applications at discharge.A computerized medication reconciliation tool and process redesign were associated with a decrease in unintentional medication discrepancies with potential for patient harm. Software integration issues are likely important for successful implementation of computerized medication reconciliation tools.