Search

Objective To assess the impact of Massachusetts Health Reform ( MHR) on access, quality, and costs of outpatient care for the already-insured. Data Sources/Study Setting Medicare data from before (2006) and after (2009) MHR implementation. Study Design We performed a retrospective difference-in-differences analysis of quantity of outpatient visits, proportion of outpatient quality metrics met, and costs of care for Medicare patients with ≥1 chronic disease in 2006 versus 2009. We used the remaining states in New England as controls. Data Collection/Extraction Methods We used existing Medicare claims data provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Principal Findings MHR was not associated with a decrease in outpatient visits per year compared to controls (9.4 prereform to 9.6 postreform in MA vs. 9.4-9.5 in controls, p = .32). Quality of care in MA improved more than controls for hemoglobin A1c monitoring, mammography, and influenza vaccination, and similarly to controls for diabetic eye examination, colon cancer screening, and pneumococcal vaccination. Average costs for patients in Massachusetts increased from $9,389 to $10,668, versus $8,375 to $9,114 in control states ( p < .001). Conclusions MHR was not associated with worsening in access or quality of outpatient care for the already-insured, and it had modest effects on costs. This has implications for other states expanding insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Electronic health records (EHRs) are a promising tool to improve the quality of health care, although it remains unclear who will benefit from this new technology. Given that a small group of providers care for most racial/ethnic minorities, we sought to determine whether minority-serving providers adopt EHR systems at comparable rates to other providers. Methods We used survey data from stratified random sample of all medical practices in Massachusetts in 2005. We determined rates of EHR adoption, perceived barriers to adoption, and satisfaction with EHR systems. Results Physicians who reported patient panels of more than 40% black or Hispanic had comparable levels of EHR adoption than other physicians (27.9% and 21.8%, respectively, P = 0.46). Physicians from minority-serving practices identified financial and other barriers to implementing EHR systems at similar rates, although these physicians were less likely to be concerned with privacy and security concerns of EHRs (47.1% vs. 64.4%, P = 0.01). Finally, physicians from high-minority practices had similar perceptions about the positive impact of EHRs on quality (73.7% vs. 76.6%, P = 0.43) and costs (46.9% vs. 51.5%, P = 0.17) of care. Conclusions In a state with a diverse minority population, we found no evidence that minority-serving providers had lower EHR adoption rates, faced different barriers to adoption or were less satisfied with EHRs. Given the importance of ensuring that minority-serving providers have equal access to EHR systems, we failed to find evidence of a new digital divide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthy Days at Home (HDAH) is a novel population-based outcome measure developed in conjunction with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission., Methods: We identified beneficiary age, sex, race, and Medicaid eligibility, death date, chronic conditions and healthcare utilization among a 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries in 2016. For each beneficiary we calculated HDAH for the year by subtracting the following measure components from 365 days: mortality days, the total number of days spent in inpatient, observation, skilled nursing facilities (SNF), inpatient psychiatry, inpatient rehabilitation and long-term hospital settings as well as the number of outpatient emergency department and home health visits. We examined how HDAH and its components varied by beneficiary demographic characteristics and chronic condition burden as well as by healthcare market (Hospital Referral Region). We specified a patient-level linear regression adjustment model with HDAH as the outcome and incorporated market fixed effects as well as beneficiary age, sex, and Chronic Conditions Warehouse categories as covariates. We examined the impact of including home health visits in the measure, as well as the association between market demographics and health system characteristics and mean market HDAH. We examined how HDAH changed from 2013 to 2016., Results: The 6,637,568 beneficiaries age 65 and older in our sample had a mean of 347.2 HDAH, those 80 and older had a mean of 325.3 while those with three or more chronic conditions had a mean of 333.7. The components that led to the largest reduction in HDAH were mortality (7.4 days), home health (2.7 visits), SNF utilization (2.4 days) and inpatient care (1.5 days). The worst performing market had 5.8 fewer adjusted HDAH on average compared to the national mean, while beneficiaries in the best-performing market had 5.0 more HDAH on average compared to the national mean, among all beneficiaries age 65 and older., Conclusions: HDAH is a population-based quality measure with substantial market-level variation., Implications: HDAH recognizes the multidimensional nature of healthcare and may afford providers greater flexibility to tailor quality-improvement initiatives to the unique needs of their patients., Level of Evidence: Level II., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors report no conflicts of interest regarding this research. This research was funded by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Recent reports have emphasized the importance of delivery systems in improving health care quality. However, few prior studies have assessed differences in primary care quality between physician groups that differ in size and organizational configuration. We examined whether larger physician group size and affiliation with networks of multiple groups are associated with higher quality of care., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional observational analysis of 132 physician groups (including 4,358 physicians) who delivered primary care services in Massachusetts in 2002. We compared physician groups on performance scores for 12 Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures reflecting processes of adult primary care., Results: Network-affiliated physician groups had higher performance scores than non-affiliated groups for 10 of the 12 HEDIS measures (p < 0.05). There was no consistent relationship between group size and performance scores. Multivariable models including group size, network affiliation, and health plan showed that network-affiliated groups had higher performance scores than non-affiliated groups on 8 of the 12 HEDIS measures (p < 0.05), and larger group size was not associated with higher performance scores. Adjusted differences in the performance scores of network-affiliated and non-affiliated groups ranged from 2% to 15%. For 4 HEDIS measures related to diabetes care, performance score differences between network-affiliated and non-affiliated groups were most apparent among the smallest groups., Conclusions: Physician group affiliation with networks of multiple groups was associated with higher quality, and for measures of diabetes care the quality advantage of network-affiliation was most evident among smaller physician groups.