Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [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]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [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]