Search

Objective: To compare patient experiences and disparities for older adults with depressive symptoms in managed care (Medicare Advantage [MA]) versus Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS).Data Sources: Data came from the 2010 Medicare CAHPS survey, to which 220,040 MA and 135,874 FFS enrollees aged 65 and older responded.Study Design: Multivariate linear regression was used to test whether case-mix-adjusted associations between depressive symptoms and patient experience differed for beneficiaries in MA versus FFS. Dependent measures included four measures of beneficiaries' experiences with doctors (e.g., reports of doctor communication) and seven measures of beneficiaries' experiences with plans (e.g., customer service).Principal Findings: Beneficiaries with depressive symptoms reported worse experiences than those without depressive symptoms regardless of coverage type. For measures assessing interactions with the plan (but not for measures assessing interactions with doctors), the disadvantage for beneficiaries with versus without depressive symptoms was larger in MA than in FFS.Conclusions: Disparities in care experienced by older Medicare beneficiaries with depressive symptoms tend to be more negative in managed care than in FFS. Efforts are needed to identify and address the barriers these beneficiaries encounter to help them better traverse the managed care environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy Points Community mental health facilities often do not offer the full range of evidence-based clinical and support services for individuals with serious mental illness. Facilities were no more likely to offer six of seven services studied in 2019 compared with 2010 in both Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states. For-profit facilities generally experienced the largest declines in service availability, while public facilities experienced the smallest declines with small increases in availability of select services. New payment models that incentivize the offer of specialty support services may be needed to encourage adoption of clinical and support services by specialty mental health organizations., Context: Community mental health facilities often do not offer the full range of evidence-based clinical and support services for individuals with serious mental illness. This creates equity issues, particularly when low-income and minority communities have access to fewer facilities. Medicaid expansion might encourage facilities to offer these services. However, this decision may also be affected by facility ownership type or mediated by service cost structure, particularly in the absence of innovative payment mechanisms. In this study, we determine whether and how Medicaid expansion and facility ownership are associated with changes in specialty mental health service availability in organized settings over time., Methods: We estimated two-way fixed effects models using six cross-sections of the National Mental Health Services Survey and compared changes in facility-reported offering of seven services from 2010 to 2019 (54,885 facility years): psychotropic medication, case management, family psychoeducation, psychiatric emergency walk-in services, supported employment, assertive community treatment, illness management, and recovery services. We tested whether Medicaid expansion and facility ownership (private for-profit, private not-for-profit, public) were associated with differential changes in service availability from 2010 to 2019., Findings: Overall, facilities were no more likely to offer nearly all services in 2019 than 2010. We found smaller declines for psychotropic medication and psychiatric emergency walk-in services among facilities in Medicaid expansion states compared to declines in non-Medicaid expansion states (6.3 (95% CI 95% CI = 1.8-10.7) and 5.5 (95% CI = 0.2-10.8) percentage points respectively). For-profit facilities experienced the largest declines in availability from 2010 to 2019, while public facilities experienced the smallest declines and some increases in availability of select services., Conclusions: Specialty mental health services are still not widely offered in community outpatient settings despite significant investments in Medicaid, although Medicaid expansion was associated with slower declines in availability. New payment models that incentivize outpatient facilities to offer clinical and support services may be needed., (© 2022 Milbank Memorial Fund.)

Health systems continue to grow in size. Financial integration-the ownership of hospitals or physician practices-often has anticompetitive effects that contribute to the higher prices for health care seen in the US. To determine whether the potential harms of financial integration are counterbalanced by improvements in quality, we surveyed nationally representative samples of hospitals ( n = 739) and physician practices ( n = 2,189), stratified according to whether they were independent or were owned by complex systems, simple systems, or medical groups. The surveys included nine scales measuring the level of adoption of diverse, quality-focused care delivery and payment reforms. Scores varied widely across hospitals and practices, but little of this variation was explained by ownership status. Quality scores favored financially integrated systems for four of nine hospital measures and one of nine practice measures, but in no case favored complex systems. Greater financial integration was generally not associated with better quality.

Providing high-quality primary care is key to improving health care in the United States. The Affordable Care Act sharpened the emerging focus on primary care as a critical lever to use in improving health care delivery, lowering costs, and improving the quality of care. We describe primary care delivery system reform models that were developed and tested over the past decade by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation-which was created by the Affordable Care Act-and reflect on key lessons and remaining challenges. Considerable progress has been made in understanding how to implement and support different approaches to improving primary care delivery in that decade, though evaluations showed little progress in spending or quality outcomes. This may be because none of the models was able to test substantial increases in primary care payment or strong incentives for other providers to coordinate with primary care to reduce costs and improve quality.