Search

Each year, thousands of older adults develop delirium, a serious, preventable condition. At present, there is no well-validated method to identify patients with delirium when using Medicare claims data or other large datasets. We developed and assessed the performance of classification algorithms based on longitudinal Medicare administrative data that included International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition diagnostic codes.Using a linked electronic health record (EHR)-Medicare claims dataset, 2 neurologists and 2 psychiatrists performed a standardized review of EHR records between 2016 and 2018 for a stratified random sample of 1002 patients among 40,690 eligible subjects. Reviewers adjudicated delirium status (reference standard) during this 3-year window using a structured protocol. We calculated the probability that each patient had delirium as a function of classification algorithms based on longitudinal Medicare claims data. We compared the performance of various algorithms against the reference standard, computing calibration-in-the-large, calibration slope, and the area-under-receiver-operating-curve using 10-fold cross-validation (CV).Beneficiaries had a mean age of 75 years, were predominately female (59%), and non-Hispanic Whites (93%); a review of the EHR indicated that 6% of patients had delirium during the 3 years. Although several classification algorithms performed well, a relatively simple model containing counts of delirium-related diagnoses combined with patient age, dementia status, and receipt of antipsychotic medications had the best overall performance [CV- calibration-in-the-largelt;0.001, CV-slope 0.94, and CV-area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.88 95% confidence interval: 0.84-0.91)].A delirium classification model using Medicare administrative data and International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition diagnosis codes can identify beneficiaries with delirium in large datasets.

Background: Older adults occasionally receive seizure prophylaxis in an acute ischemic stroke (AIS) setting, despite safety concerns. There are no trial data available about the net impact of early seizure prophylaxis on post-AIS survival. Methods: Using a stroke registry (American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines) individually linked to electronic health records, we examined the effect of initiating seizure prophylaxis (ie, epilepsy-specific antiseizure drugs) within 7 days of an AIS admission versus not initiating in patients ≥65 years admitted for a new, nonsevere AIS (National Institutes of Health Stroke Severity score ≤20) between 2014 and 2021 with no recorded use of epilepsy-specific antiseizure drugs in the previous 3 months. We addressed confounding by using inverse-probability weights. We performed standardization accounting for pertinent clinical and health care factors (eg, National Institutes of Health Stroke Severity scale, prescription counts, seizure-like events). Results: The study sample included 151 patients who received antiseizure drugs and 3020 who did not. The crude 30-day mortality risks were 219 deaths per 1000 patients among epilepsy-specific antiseizure drugs initiators and 120 deaths per 1000 among noninitiators. After standardization, the estimated mortality was 251 (95% CI, 190–307) deaths per 1000 among initiators and 120 (95% CI, 86–144) deaths per 1000 among noninitiators, corresponding to a risk difference of 131 (95% CI, 65–200) excess deaths per 1000 patients. In the prespecified subgroup analyses, the risk difference was 52 (95% CI, 11–72) among patients with minor AIS and 138 (95% CI, 52–222) among moderate-to-severe AIS patients. Similarly, the risk differences were 86 (95% CI, 18–118) and 157 (95% CI, 57–219) among patients aged 65 to 74 years and ≥75 years, respectively. Conclusions: There was a higher risk of 30-day mortality associated with initiating versus not initiating seizure prophylaxis within 7 days post-AIS. This study does not support the role of seizure prophylaxis in reducing 30-day poststroke mortality.

Older adults receive benzodiazepines for agitation, anxiety, and insomnia after acute ischemic stroke (AIS). No trials have been conducted to determine if benzodiazepine use affects post-stroke mortality in the elderly.We examined the association between initiating benzodiazepines within one week after AIS and 30-day mortality. We included patients ≥65 years, admitted for new non-severe AIS (NIH-Stroke-Severity[NIHSS]≤ 20), 2014-2020, with no recorded benzodiazepine use in the previous three months and no contraindication for use. We linked a stroke registry to electronic health records, used inverse-probability weighting to address confounding, and estimated the risk difference(RD). A process of cloning, weighting, and censoring was used to avoid immortal time bias.Among 2,584 patients, 389 received benzodiazepines. The crude 30-day mortality risk from treatment initiation was 212/1,000 among patients who received benzodiazepines, while the 30-day mortality was 34/1,000 among those who did not. When follow-up was aligned on day of AIS admission and immortal time was assigned to the two groups, the estimated risks were 27/1,000 and 22/1,000, respectively. Upon further adjustment for confounders, the RD was 5 (-12 to 19) deaths/1,000 patients.The observed higher 30-day mortality associated with benzodiazepine initiation within seven days was largely due to bias.

OBJECTIVE The Affordable Care Act mandates that primary preventive services have no out-of-pocket costs but does not exempt secondary prevention from out-of-pocket costs. Most commercially insured patients with diabetes have high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) that subject key microvascular disease–related services to high out-of-pocket costs. Brief treatment delays can significantly worsen microvascular disease outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This cohort study used a large national commercial (and Medicare Advantage) health insurance claims data set to examine matched groups before and after an insurance design change. The study group included 50,790 patients with diabetes who were continuously enrolled in low-deductible (≤$500) health plans during a baseline year, followed by up to 4 years in high-deductible (≥$1,000) plans after an employer-mandated switch. HDHPs had low out-of-pocket costs for nephropathy screening but not retinopathy screening. A matched control group included 335,178 patients with diabetes who were contemporaneously enrolled in low-deductible plans. Measures included time to first detected microvascular disease screening, severe microvascular disease diagnosis, vision loss diagnosis/treatment, and renal function loss diagnosis/treatment. RESULTS HDHP enrollment was associated with relative delays in retinopathy screening (0.7 months [95% CI 0.4, 1.0]), severe retinopathy diagnosis (2.9 months [0.5, 5.3]), and vision loss diagnosis/treatment (3.8 months [1.2, 6.3]). Nephropathy-associated measures did not change to a statistically significant degree among HDHP members relative to control subjects at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS People with diabetes in HDHPs experienced delayed retinopathy diagnosis and vision loss diagnosis/treatment of up to 3.8 months compared with low-deductible plan enrollees. Findings raise concerns about visual health among HDHP members and call attention to discrepancies in Affordable Care Act cost sharing exemptions.

In 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic caused millions to lose their jobs and, consequently, their employer-sponsored health insurance. Enacted in 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) created safeguards for such events by expanding Medicaid coverage and establishing Marketplaces through which people could purchase health insurance. Using a novel national data set with information on ACA-compliant individual insurance plans, we found large increases in Marketplace enrollment in 2020 compared with 2019 but with varying percentage increases and spending risk implications across states. States that did not expand Medicaid had enrollment and spending risk increases. States that expanded Medicaid but did not relax 2020 Marketplace enrollment criteria also had spending risk increases. In contrast, states that expanded Medicaid and relaxed 2020 enrollment criteria experienced enrollment increases without spending risk changes. The findings are reassuring with respect to the ability of Marketplaces to buffer employment shocks, but they also provide cautionary signals that risks and premiums could begin to rise either in the absence of Medicaid expansion or when Marketplace enrollment is constrained.

The 2021 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) increased the availability and magnitude of premium tax credits (PTCs) for consumers purchasing individual marketplace plans in 2021-2022. Millions currently purchase PTC-ineligible plans off of the marketplace. We estimate the proportion of off-marketplace enrollees who would be eligible for the expanded PTCs under ARPA, calculate PTC amounts for eligible enrollees, and examine factors influencing plan choice that could inform outreach efforts.We analyzed data from a survey of a random sample of off-marketplace enrollees in California in 2017 (n = 829).Using survey data including self-reported income, household size, and employment status combined with 2021 benchmark premium data from Covered California, we estimate eligibility for PTCs and potential PTC amounts under ARPA among off-marketplace enrollees. We adjust for both survey design weights and poststratification weights.Among off-marketplace enrollees, we estimate that approximately 12% are potentially ineligible for PTCs because they reported incomes less than 100% of the poverty level or because they had access to employer-sponsored coverage for their family through themselves or their partner. The median annual PTC in 2021 for eligible off-marketplace enrollees was $311 but varied greatly by age, family or individual plan, and household income (5%-95% range, $0-$14,836). In 2017, 69% of off-marketplace enrollees were unaware that they had to enroll in marketplace plans to receive PTCs, and 51% received enrollment assistance from insurance brokers.These findings suggest the need for targeted outreach to encourage off-marketplace enrollees to switch to marketplace plans.

The papers in this volume examine a series of important questions that influence the transition from full time employment to complete retirement. Retirement is shown to be a process as individuals move from career jobs to bridge jobs to being out of the labor force. The articles examine the characteristics of bridge jobs and the employment conditions that older workers prefer. Analysis provided by the authors show the importance of saving throughout work life and how pension plans and retirement saving plans influence the timing of retirement.

This article, prepared as part of a special issue on multiarmed experiments, describes the design of the RAND Health Insurance Experiment, paying particular attention to the choice of arms. It also describes how the results of the Experiment were used in a simulation model and, looking back, how the design might have differed, and how the results apply today, 4 decades after the Experiment was conducted.

Purpose To examine indications for, duration of use, and rate of adverse drug events (ADE) attributable to anticonvulsant initiation, as adjudicated by expert review of electronic health records (EHR) of older adults. Methods We identified a cohort of community dwelling Medicare beneficiaries with linked EHR (aged 65+, continuously enrolled with a large health system/until death between 2012 and 2014, n = 20 945) and drew a stratified EHR review sample (n = 1534). An expert reviewed all records to adjudicate anticonvulsant use, years of use, indication for use, and evidence of ADEs attributable to anticonvulsant initiation. After excluding patients with insufficient EHR data (n = 37; 2%), we reconstructed the cohort using inverse probability weights to resemble the original cohort of eligible beneficiaries (n = 20 380). Among incident users of a single anticonvulsant, we estimated the rate of ADEs and described the type and severity of ADEs. Results Overall, 12% (n = 2469) of eligible beneficiaries used at least one anticonvulsant in the 2012 to 2014 period (4% [n = 757] incident users, 8% [n = 1712] prevalent users). Incident users were most frequently prescribed gabapentin (n = 461/757, 61%), benzodiazepines (n = 122/757, 16%), and levetiracetam (n = 74/757, 10%); the most common indication was pain relief (n = 214; 28%) followed by epilepsy (n = 53; 7%). Among incident users, the overall ADE rate was 10/100 person-years (95% CI 4-20/100 person-years), of which 29% (n = 28/97) were life threatening (eg, somnolence). Most ADEs among incident monotherapy users were nervous system related (68%, n = 66/97). Conclusion Many older adult community dwelling traditional Medicare beneficiaries had clinically significant ADEs likely attributable to the initiation of anticonvulsant therapy, which was begun for a range of indications.

Improvements in medical treatment have contributed to rising health spending. Yet there is relatively little evidence on whether the spending increase is “worth it” in the sense of producing better health outcomes of commensurate value—a critical question for understanding productivity in the health sector and, as that sector grows, for deriving an accurate quality-adjusted price index for an entire economy. We analyze individual-level panel data on medical spending and health outcomes for 123,548 patients with type 2 diabetes in four health systems: Japan, The Netherlands, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Using a “cost-of-living” method that measures value based on improved survival, we find a positive net value of diabetes care: the value of improved survival outweighs the added costs of care in each of the four health systems. This finding is robust to accounting for selective survival, end-of-life spending, and a range of values for a life-year or fraction of benefits attributable to medical care. Since the estimates do not include the value from improved quality of life, they are conservative. We, therefore, conclude that the increase in medical spending for management of diabetes is offset by an increase in quality.

Before the implementation of cost-sharing parity in Medicare, beneficiaries faced higher cost sharing for mental health services than for other medical services. The Medicare Improvements for Patie...

Purpose of the ReviewTo evaluate the quality of evidence about the association of primary seizure prophylaxis with antiseizure medication (ASM) within 7 days postinjury and the 18- or 24-month epilepsy/late seizure risk or all-cause mortality in adults with new-onset traumatic brain injury (TBI), in addition to early seizure risk.ResultsTwenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria (7 randomized and 16 nonrandomized studies). We analyzed 9,202 patients, including 4,390 in the exposed group and 4,812 in the unexposed group (894 in placebo and 3,918 in no ASM groups). There was a moderate to serious bias risk based on our assessment. Within the limitations of existing studies, our data revealed a lower risk for early seizures in the ASM prophylaxis group compared with placebo or no ASM prophylaxis (risk ratio [RR] 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33–0.57,p< 0.00001,I2= 3%). We identified high-quality evidence in favor of acute, short-term primary ASM use to prevent early seizures. Early ASM prophylaxis was not associated with a substantial difference in the 18- or 24-month risk of epilepsy/late seizures (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.61–1.68,p= 0.96,I2= 63%) or mortality (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89–1.51,p= 0.26,I2= 0%). There was no evidence of strong publication bias for each main outcome. The overall quality of evidence was low and moderate for post-TBI epilepsy risk and all-cause mortality, respectively.SummaryOur data suggest that the evidence showing no association between early ASM use and 18- or 24-month epilepsy risk in adults with new-onset TBI was of low quality. The analysis indicated a moderate quality for the evidence showing no effect on all-cause mortality. Therefore, higher-quality evidence is needed as a supplement for stronger recommendations.

Background The Affordable Care Act (ACA) increased funding for Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). We defined FQHC service areas based on patient use and examined the characteristics of areas that gained FQHC access post-ACA. Methods We defined FQHC service areas using total patient counts by ZIP code from the Uniform Data System (UDS) and compared this approach with existing methods. We then compared the characteristics of ZIP codes included in Medically Underserved Areas/Populations (MUA/Ps) that gained access vs. MUA/P ZIP codes that did not gain access to FQHCs between 2011–15. Results FQHC service areas based on UDS data vs. Primary Care Service Areas or counties included a higher percentage of each FQHC’s patients (86% vs. 49% and 71%) and ZIP codes with greater use of FQHCs among low-income residents (29% vs. 22% and 22%), on average. MUA/Ps that gained FQHC access 2011–2015 included more poor, uninsured, publicly insured, and foreign-born residents than underserved areas that did not gain access, but were less likely to be rural (p Conclusions Measures of actual patient use provide a promising method of assessing FQHC service areas and access. Post-ACA funding, the FQHC program expanded access into areas that were more likely to have higher rates of poverty and uninsurance, which could help address disparities in access to care. Rural areas were less likely to gain access to FQHCs, underscoring the persistent challenges of providing care in these areas.

In 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic caused millions to lose their jobs and, consequently, their employer-sponsored health insurance. Enacted in 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) created safeguards for such events by expanding Medicaid coverage and establishing Marketplaces through which people could purchase health insurance. Using a novel national data set with information on ACA-compliant individual insurance plans, we found large increases in Marketplace enrollment in 2020 compared with 2019 but with varying percentage increases and spending risk implications across states. States that did not expand Medicaid had enrollment and spending risk increases. States that expanded Medicaid but did not relax 2020 Marketplace enrollment criteria also had spending risk increases. In contrast, states that expanded Medicaid and relaxed 2020 enrollment criteria experienced enrollment increases without spending risk changes. The findings are reassuring with respect to the ability of Marketplaces to buffer employment shocks, but they also provide cautionary signals that risks and premiums could begin to rise either in the absence of Medicaid expansion or when Marketplace enrollment is constrained.

Objective: The Affordable Care Act mandates that primary preventive services have no out-of-pocket costs but does not exempt secondary prevention from out-of-pocket costs. Most commercially insured patients with diabetes have high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) that subject key microvascular disease-related services to high out-of-pocket costs. Brief treatment delays can significantly worsen microvascular disease outcomes. Research Design and Methods: This cohort study used a large national commercial (and Medicare Advantage) health insurance claims dataset to examine matched groups before and after an insurance design change. The study group included 50,790 patients with diabetes who were continuously enrolled in low-deductible (<$500) health plans during a baseline year followed by up to 4 years in high-deductible (≥$1000) plans after an employer-mandated switch. HDHPs had low out-of-pocket costs for nephropathy screening but not retinopathy screening. A matched control group included 335,178 patients with diabetes who were contemporaneously enrolled in low-deductible plans. Measures included time to first detected microvascular disease screening, severe microvascular disease diagnosis, vision loss diagnosis/treatment, and renal function loss diagnosis/treatment. Results: HDHP enrollment was associated with relative delays in retinopathy screening (0.7 months, 95% confidence interval: [0.4-1.0]), severe retinopathy diagnosis (2.9 months, [0.5-5.3]), and vision loss diagnosis/treatment (3.8 months, [1.2-6.3]). Nephropathy-associated measures did not change to a statistically significant degree among HDHP members relative to controls at follow up. Conclusions: People with diabetes in HDHPs experienced delayed retinopathy diagnosis and vision loss diagnosis/treatment of up to 3.8 months compared with low-deductible plan enrollees. Findings raise concerns about visual health among HDHP members and call attention to discrepancies in Affordable Care Act cost sharing exemptions.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Coverage policy may be an important tool to reduce spending while discouraging low‐value medical services. Government and private insurers may also differ in their scope of coverage restrictions for suspected low‐value services. However, basic facts about coverage denials are unknown because denials are not identifiable in standard research datasets. In this study, we characterized fundamental features of coverage denials for medical necessity using data on all claims denied by a large Medicare Advantage health insurer. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed medical benefit claims for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. We detected all claims that were denied for failing to meet medical necessity rules. Some rules were made by the government (i.e. national or local coverage determinations) and other rules were made by the private insurer. We measured the frequency of denials, associated spending, affected service types and provider specialties, the reasons for denials, and temporal trends in denials. We also quantified differences between denials due to government coverage rules and denials due to private insurer coverage rules. POPULATION STUDIED: We analyzed 2014–2019 claims for all Medicare Advantage beneficiaries enrolled with the health insurer Aetna. Our sample included 2.9 million unique beneficiaries (mean age = 73, 56% female, 5% Medicaid dual eligible). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: There were 0.84 denials per beneficiary per year (95% CI 0.83–0.84), corresponding to 1.45% of claims (95% CI 1.44–0.46), with 31.8% of beneficiaries affected each year (95% CI 31.8–31.9). Denied claims accounted for $64 per beneficiary per year (95% CI 63–65), or 0.73% of medical spending (95% CI 0.71–0.76). Denial rates increased over time, from 0.59% of spending in 2014 to 0.85% of spending in 2019 (p

Importance Limited evidence is available concerning optimal seizure prophylaxis after spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH). Objective To evaluate which of 4 seizure prophylaxis strategies provides the greatest net benefit for patients with sICH. Design, setting, and participants This decision analysis used models to simulate the following 4 common scenarios: (1) a 60-year-old man with low risk of early (≤7 days after stroke) (10%) and late (3.6% or 9.8%) seizures and average risk of short- (9%) and long-term (30%) adverse drug reaction (ADR); (2) an 80-year-old woman with low risk of early (10%) and late (3.6% or 9.8%) seizures and high short- (24%) and long-term (80%) ADR risks; (3) a 55-year-old man with high risk of early (19%) and late (34.8% or 46.2%) seizures and low short- (9%) and long-term (30%) ADR risks; and (4) a 45-year-old woman with high risk of early (19%) and late (34.8% or 46.2%) seizures and high short- (18%) and long-term (60%) ADR risks. Interventions The following 4 antiseizure drug strategies were included: (1) conservative, consisting of short-term (7-day) secondary early-seizure prophylaxis with long-term therapy after late seizure; (2) moderate, consisting of long-term secondary early-seizure prophylaxis or late-seizure therapy; (3) aggressive, consisting of long-term primary prophylaxis; and (4) risk guided, consisting of short-term secondary early-seizure prophylaxis among low-risk patients (2HELPS2B score, 0), short-term primary prophylaxis among patients at higher risk (2HELPS2B score, ≥1), and long-term secondary therapy for late seizure. Main outcomes and measures Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results For scenario 1, the risk-guided strategy (8.13 QALYs) was preferred over the conservative (8.08 QALYs), moderate (8.07 QALYs), and aggressive (7.88 QALYs) strategies. For scenario 2, the conservative strategy (2.18 QALYs) was preferred over the risk-guided (2.17 QALYs), moderate (2.09 QALYs), and aggressive (1.15 QALYs) strategies. For scenario 3, the aggressive strategy (9.21 QALYs) was preferred over the risk-guided (8.98 QALYs), moderate (8.93 QALYs), and conservative (8.77 QALYs) strategies. For scenario 4, the risk-guided strategy (11.53 QALYs) was preferred over the conservative (11.23 QALYs), moderate (10.93 QALYs), and aggressive (8.08 QALYs) strategies. Sensitivity analyses suggested that short-term strategies (conservative and risk guided) are preferred under most scenarios, and the risk-guided strategy performs comparably to or better than alternative strategies in most settings. Conclusions and relevance This decision analytical model suggests that short-term (7-day) prophylaxis dominates longer-term therapy after sICH. Use of the 2HELPS2B score to guide clinical decisions for initiation of short-term primary vs secondary early-seizure prophylaxis should be considered for all patients after sICH.

Few studies have used preference-based quality-of-life outcomes to assess how autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) affect children and parents, and none have examined variation by ASD severity. Our objective was to derive parent valuations of child and parent health associated with varying ASD severity levels. Parents of children aged 3–17 years with and without ASD were selected from a nationally representative research panel to complete a survey. We asked parents time trade-off (TTO) questions to value their own and their child’s current health. Parents of children with ASD were asked to report the severity of their child’s core ASD symptoms. We calculated utility values from each TTO amount, and used a two-part regression model to estimate the change in parent-reported child health utility, as well as parent health utility, associated with ASD diagnosis and increasing symptom severity, controlling for respondent and child characteristics. Sixty-nine percent of parents responded (final sample size was 135 in the ASD group and 120 in the comparison group). In adjusted analyses, there was a 0.12 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03–0.21) decrease in the parent-reported health utility of children with ASD, a 15% decrease from the mean health utility of children without ASD. On average, having a child with ASD was not significantly associated with a decrease in parent health utility, but there was a 0.14 (95% CI 0.01–0.26) reduction in health utility among parents of children with severe ASD, a 15% decrease from the comparison group mean. Overall, ASD had a significant impact on parent-reported child health utility, and the health utility of parents of children with severe ASD.

The tax penalty for noncompliance with the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is to be eliminated starting in 2019. We investigated the potential impact of this change on enrollees' decisions to purchase insurance and on individual-market premiums. In a survey of enrollees in the individual market in California in 2017, 19 percent reported that they would not have purchased insurance had there been no penalty. We estimated that premiums would increase by 4-7 percent if these enrollees were not in the risk pool. The percentages of enrollees who would forgo insurance were higher among those with lower income and education, Hispanics, and those who had been uninsured in the prior year, relative to the comparison groups. Compared to older enrollees and those with two or more chronic conditions, respectively, younger enrollees and those with no chronic conditions were also more likely to say that they would not have purchased insurance. Eliminating the mandate penalty alone is unlikely to destabilize the California individual market but could erode coverage gains, especially among groups whose members have historically been less likely to be insured.

Young adults historically have had the highest uninsured rates among all age groups. In 2014, in addition to Medicaid expansion for adults with low income (≤133% of the federal poverty level [FPL]) through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Massachusetts also extended eligibility for children (≤150% FPL) to beneficiaries aged 19 to 20 years.To examine changes in insurance coverage continuity for Medicaid enrollees who turned age 19 years before and after eligibility policy changes.This cohort study used data from the Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database (2012 to 2016) to compare coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries turning age 19 years before and after Medicaid expansion. Monthly coverage was examined for each cohort for 3 years as beneficiaries aged from 18 and 19 years to 19 and 20 years to 20 and 21 years. Analyses were performed between November 1, 2020, and May 12, 2022.In each year, the likelihood of being uninsured or having Medicaid, employer-sponsored insurance, or individual commercial coverage for 3 or more months was examined along with the likelihood of having continuous Medicaid enrollment for 12 or more and 24 or more months. Multivariable linear probability models were used to compare the likelihood of these outcomes for those in the postexpansion vs preexpansion cohorts, adjusting for sex, comorbidity levels, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and neighborhood race and ethnicity.A total of 41 247 young adults turning age 18 to 19 years in the baseline year (20 876 [50.6%] men) were included in the study, with 20 777 in the preexpansion cohort and 20 470 in the postexpansion cohort. Enrollees who turned age 19 years after vs before the Medicaid eligibility expansion were less likely to have 3 or more uninsured months at ages 18 to 19 years (4.4% [n = 891] vs 22.9% [n = 4750]; adjusted difference, -18.4 [95% CI, -19.0 to -17.7] percentage points) and 19 to 20 years (13.2% [n = 2702] vs 35.8% [n = 7447]; adjusted difference, -22.4 [95% CI, -23.2 to -21.6] percentage points) and more likely to have continuous insurance coverage for 12 or more months (94.1% [n = 19 272] vs 63.7% [n = 13 234]; adjusted difference, 30.5 [95% CI, 29.7-31.2] percentage points) or 24 or more months (77.5% [n = 15 868] vs 44.4% [n = 9221]; adjusted difference, 33.0 [95% CI, 32.1-33.9] percentage points). Differences in the likelihood of having 3 or more uninsured months diminished at ages 20 to 21 years, when both groups had access to Medicaid (ie, in calendar years 2014 for the preexpansion cohort and 2016 for the postexpansion cohort).In this cohort study of young adults in Massachusetts, the combination of expanding Medicaid to lower-income adults and increasing the age threshold for child Medicaid eligibility was associated with reduced likelihood of becoming uninsured among Medicaid enrollees entering adulthood.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: No data exist regarding the validity of International Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 dementia diagnoses against a clinician-adjudicated reference standard within Medicare claims data. We examined the accuracy of claims-based diagnoses with respect to expert clinician adjudication using a novel database with individual-level linkages between electronic health record (EHR) and claims. DESIGN: In this retrospective observational study, two neurologists and two psychiatrists performed a standardized review of patients’ medical records from January-2016 to December-2018, and adjudicated dementia status. We measured the accuracy of three claims-based definitions of dementia against the reference standard. SETTING: Mass-General-Brigham Healthcare (MGB), Massachusetts, USA. PARTICIPANTS: From an eligible population of 40,690 fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries, aged 65-years and older, within the MGB Accountable Care Organization (ACO), we generated a random sample of 1,002 patients, stratified by the pretest likelihood of dementia using administrative surrogates. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS: We evaluated the accuracy (area-under-receiver-operating-curve [AUROC]) and calibration (calibration-in-the-large [CITL] and calibration slope) of three ICD-10 claims-based definitions of dementia against clinician-adjudicated standards. We applied inverse probability weighting to reconstruct the eligible population and reported the mean and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for all performance characteristics, using 10-fold cross-validation (CV). RESULTS: Beneficiaries had an average age of 75.3-years and were predominately female (59%) and non-Hispanic white (93%). The adjudicated prevalence of dementia in the eligible population was 7%. The best performing definition demonstrated excellent accuracy (CV-AUC 0.94; 95% CI 0.92-0.96) and was well-calibrated to the reference standard of clinician-adjudicated dementia (CV-CITL

BACKGROUND Physicians often receive lower payments for dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries versus nondual Medicare beneficiaries because of state reimbursement caps. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) primary care fee bump temporarily eliminated this differential in 2013-2014. OBJECTIVE To examine how dual payment policy impacts primary care physicians' (PCP) acceptance of duals. RESEARCH DESIGN We assessed differences in the likelihood that PCPs had dual caseloads of ≥10% or 20% in states with lower versus full dual reimbursement using linear probability models adjusted for physician and area-level traits. Using a triple-difference approach, we examined changes in dual caseloads for PCPs versus a control group of specialists in states with fee bumps versus no change during years postbump versus prebump. SUBJECTS PCPs and specialists (cardiologists, orthopedic surgeons, general surgeons) that billed fee-for-service Medicare. MEASURES State dual payment policies and physicians' dual caseloads as a percentage of their Medicare patients. RESULTS In 2012, 81% of PCPs had dual caseloads of ≥10% and this was less likely among PCPs in states with lower versus full dual reimbursement (eg, difference=-4.52 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -6.80 to -2.25). The proportion of PCPs with dual caseloads of ≥10% or 20% decreased significantly between 2012 and 2017 and the fee bump was not consistently associated with increases in dual caseloads. CONCLUSIONS Pre-ACA, PCPs' participation in the dual program appeared to be lower in states with lower reimbursement for duals. Despite the ACA fee bump, dual caseloads declined over time, raising concerns of worsening access to care.

Key Points Question Was the Affordable Care Act’s increase in Medicaid fees to Medicare levels for primary care practitioners (fee bump) associated with increases in visits for dual-eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries? Findings In this cohort study of 3 052 044 Medicare beneficiaries, primary care visit rates for dual-eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries did not increase during years of the fee bump compared with Medicare beneficiaries with low income whose fees did not change. Decreases in relative visit rates with primary care physicians were partially offset by increases in visits with nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Meaning In this study, the policy eliminated payment differentials for dual-eligible vs non–dual-eligible Medicare beneficiaries, but it was not associated with gains in primary care use for dual-eligible beneficiaries., This cohort study evaluates whether the Affordable Care Act’s increase in Medicaid fees to Medicare levels for primary care practitioners was associated with increases in primary care visits for dual-eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries., Importance The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) temporarily increased primary care practitioners’ (PCP) Medicaid fees to that of Medicare for 2013 to 2014 (fee bump) to help accommodate potential increases in demand for care with ACA coverage expansion. This also increased fees for PCPs treating dual-eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries in many states and eliminated payment differentials for dual-eligible vs non–dual-eligible Medicare beneficiaries that could limit access to care. Objective To examine the association between the ACA fee bump and primary care visits for dual-eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study used a difference-in-difference design and Medicare claims data from 2012 to 2016 to compare changes in visit rates for full-subsidy dual-eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries vs non–dual-eligible Medicare beneficiaries with low income whose fees did not change. Changes were examined overall and separately in states with temporary, extended, or minimal fee increases for dual-eligible vs non–dual-eligible beneficiaries in 2013 to 2014 (mandatory bump) and 2015 to 2016 (postbump or bump extension) vs 2012 (prebump). The study used linear regression models with beneficiary fixed effects, adjusting for time-changing area and beneficiary characteristics. Statistical analysis was performed from February 2018 to November 2019. Exposure ACA-mandated Medicaid fee bump. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary care visits per 100 beneficiaries overall and visits billed by physicians vs nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Results The study included 3 052 044 dual-eligible and non–dual-eligible beneficiaries in 2012; 1 516 534 (49.7%) were aged 65 years or younger, 1 797 556 (58.9%) were women, and 1 754 626 (57.5%) had non-Hispanic White race/ethnicity. Overall primary care visit rates for dual-eligible beneficiaries were unchanged or decreased slightly relative to non–dual-eligible beneficiaries during the fee bump (2013-2014) and the postbump or bump extension period (2015-2016) vs baseline. Compared with non–dual-eligible beneficiaries, visit rates with primary care physicians declined more uniformly for dual-eligible beneficiaries across state groups and time periods (difference-in-difference: −0.37 [95% CI, −0.43 to −0.32] visits per 100 beneficiaries in 2013-2014 vs 2012; P

This cohort study evaluates the ascertainment of Alzheimer disease and related dementia using diagnostic codes in various health care settings.

Importance Medicare has historically imposed higher beneficiary coinsurance for behavioral health services than for medical and surgical care but gradually introduced parity between 2009 and 2014. Although Medicare insures many people with serious mental illness (SMI), there is limited information on the impact of coinsurance parity in this population. Objective To examine the association between coinsurance parity and outpatient behavioral health care use among low-income beneficiaries with SMI. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study used Medicare claims data for a 50% national sample of lower-income Medicare beneficiaries from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016. The study sample included patients with SMI (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depressive disorder). Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2018, to July 15, 2020. Exposures Reduction in behavioral health care coinsurance from 50% to 20% between January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2014. Main Outcomes and Measures Total annual spending for outpatient behavioral health care visits and the percentage of beneficiaries with an annual outpatient behavioral health care visit overall, with a prescriber, and with a psychiatrist. A difference-in-difference approach was used to compare outcomes before and after the reduction in coinsurance for beneficiaries with and without cost-sharing decreases. Linear regression models with beneficiary fixed effects that adjusted for time-changing beneficiary- and area-level covariates were used to examine changes in outcomes. Results The study included 793 275 beneficiaries with SMI in 2008; 518 893 (65.4%) were younger than 65 years (mean [SD] age, 57.6 [16.1] years), 511 265 (64.4%) were female, and 552 056 (69.6%) were White. In 2008, the adjusted percentage of beneficiaries with an outpatient behavioral health care visit was 40.7% (95% CI, 40.4%-41.0%) among those eligible for the cost-sharing reduction and 44.9% (95% CI, 44.9%-45.0%) among those with free care. The mean adjusted out-of-pocket costs for outpatient behavioral health care visits decreased from $132 (95% CI, $129-$136) in 2008 to $64 (95% CI, $61-$66) in 2016 among those with reductions in cost-sharing. The adjusted percentage of beneficiaries with behavioral health care visits increased to 42.2% (95% CI, 41.9%-42.5%) in the group with a reduction in coinsurance and to 47.2% (95% CI, 47.0%-47.3%) in the group with free care. The cost-sharing reduction was not positively associated with visits (eg, relative change of −0.76 percentage points [95% CI, −1.12 to −0.40 percentage points] in the percentage of beneficiaries with outpatient behavioral health care visits in 2016 vs 2008). Conclusions and Relevance This cohort study found that beneficiary costs for outpatient behavioral health care decreased between 2009 and 2014. There was no association between cost-sharing reductions and changes in behavioral health care visits. Low levels of use in this high-need population suggest the need for other policy efforts to address additional barriers to behavioral health care.

OBJECTIVE: Access to specialty mental health care may be poor because many psychiatrists do not accept health insurance reimbursement, whereas many patients rely on insurance to help pay for care. The objective of this study was to examine the extent of participation in private insurance by licensed psychiatrists. METHODS: Using 2013 Massachusetts licensing data and the All-Payer Claims Database, a cross-sectional analysis of licensed psychiatrists in Massachusetts was undertaken. The fraction who filed insurance claims, number of unique patients with insurance claims per psychiatrist, and physician characteristics associated with insurance participation were evaluated. RESULTS: In 2013, 2,348 psychiatrists were licensed in Massachusetts. Overall, 78.5% had at least one paid claim for an outpatient visit in the APCD but only 6.4% had claims for at least 300 patients/year (a full caseload). Psychiatrists had a median number of 18 patients with claims (mean = 73). Compared to those 30-39 years from medical school graduation, psychiatrists within 19 years of graduation were less likely to bill for an outpatient (Odds Ratio [OR]=0.67 for 7-19 years, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]=0.47-0.94) and less likely to have claims for 300+ patients/year (OR=0.49 for 7-19 years, CI=0.29-0.83). Participation varied across insurance types (93.3% for group commercial plans vs 32.7% for Medicaid Managed Care plans). CONCLUSIONS: Among Massachusetts psychiatrists, participation in the private insurance market appears to be limited. Currently, older psychiatrists are more likely to participate, and access to psychiatrists for patients seeking care using insurance could worsen as these psychiatrists retire.

Key Points Question Are high-deductible health plans associated with an increased risk of major cardiovascular events? Finding This cohort study included 156 962 individuals with cardiovascular disease risk factors who experienced mandated enrollment in health insurance plans with high deductibles but relatively low medication costs, a common value-based feature. Members with high-deductible health plans did not have detectable increases in major adverse cardiovascular events compared with 1 467 758 members with low-deductible health plans. Meaning Among patients with cardiovascular disease risk factors in this study, enrollment in typical high-deductible health plans was not associated with increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events during 4 follow-up years., Importance Most people with commercial health insurance in the US have high-deductible plans, but the association of such plans with major health outcomes is unknown. Objective To describe the association between enrollment in high-deductible health plans and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study examined matched groups before and after an insurance design change. Data were from a large national commercial (and Medicare Advantage) health insurance claims data set that included members enrolled between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2014. The study group included 156 962 individuals with risk factors for cardiovascular disease who were continuously enrolled in low-deductible (≤$500) health plans during a baseline year followed by up to 4 years in high-deductible (≥$1000) plans with typical value-based features after an employer-mandated switch. The matched control group included 1 467 758 individuals with the same risk factors who were contemporaneously enrolled in low-deductible plans. Data were analyzed from December 2017 to March 2020. Exposures Employer-mandated transition to a high-deductible health plan. Main Outcomes and Measures Time to first major adverse cardiovascular event defined as myocardial infarction or stroke. Results The study group included 156 962 individuals and the control group included 1 467 758 individuals; the mean age of members was 53 years (SD: high-deductible group, 6.7 years; control group, 6.9 years), 47% were female, and approximately 48% lived in low-income neighborhoods. First major adverse cardiovascular events among high-deductible health plan members did not differ relative to controls at follow-up vs baseline (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.13). Findings were similar among subgroups with diabetes (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.75-1.16) and with other cardiovascular risk factors (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.81-1.07). Conclusions and Relevance Mandated enrollment in high-deductible health plans with typical value-based features was not associated with increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events., This cohort study assesses whether an employer-mandated switch from a low-deductible health plan to high-deductible health plan is associated with the risk of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes among more than 1.5 million individuals in the US.

High-deductible health plans (HDHP) that require large out-of-pocket payments for retinopathy screening and ophthalmologist visits could delay retinopathy screening, retinopathy diagnosis, and vision loss diagnosis. We studied 2004-2014 data in a large commercial and Medicare Advantage claims database. We included a national sample of 39,798 HDHP members with diabetes enrolled for 1 year in a low deductible (≤$500) plan followed by up to 4 years in a HDHP (≥$1000) after an employer-mandated switch. We matched HDHP patients to 305,852 contemporaneous controls whose employers offered only low-deductible plans. Outcomes included time to first: (a) retinopathy screening, (b) diagnosis of mild-to-moderate and (c) severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy, and (d) vision loss diagnosis. We used Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for multiple baseline characteristics to estimate baseline and follow-up hazard ratios. At baseline, adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) between HDHP members and controls were not statistically different. At follow up, HDHP members experienced delays in first retinopathy screening (aHR: 0.89 [085, 0.92]), diagnosis of mild-to-moderate non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (aHR: 0.82 [0.76, 0.89]), diagnosis of severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (aHR: 0.90 [0.81, 1.00]), and vision loss diagnosis (aHR: 0.93 [0.88, 0.99]). HDHP members with diabetes experienced delayed retinopathy screening, retinopathy diagnosis, and vision loss diagnosis compared with similar patients in more generous health plans. Reducing financial barriers to care might improve retinopathy outcomes. Disclosure J. Wharam: None. F. Zhang: None. C. Lu: None. T. Stryjewski: Other Relationship; Self; Aldeyra Therapeutics, Pykus Therapeutics. K. Callaway: None. J. Wallace: None. J.P. Newhouse: None. D. Ross-Degnan: None. Funding National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases

The U.S. healthcare system is undergoing a period of substantial change, with hospitals purchasing many physician practices (“vertical integration"). In theory, this vertical integration could improve quality by promoting care coordination, but could also worsen it by impacting the care delivery patterns. The evidence quantifying these effects is limited, because of the lack of understanding of how physicians' behaviors alter in response to the changes in financial ownership and incentive structures of the integrated organizations. We study the impact of vertical integration by examining Medicare patients treated by gastroenterologists, a specialty with a large outpatient volume, and a recent increase in vertical integration. Using a causal model and large-scale patient-level national panel data that includes 2.6 million patient visits across 5,488 physicians between 2008-2015, we examine changes in various measures of care delivery, including care processes, patient outcomes, operational efficiency, and spending. We find that physicians significantly alter their care process (e.g., in using anesthesia with deep sedation) after they vertically integrate, which in turn results in a substantial increase in patients' post-procedure complications. We further provide evidence that the financial incentive structure of the integrated practices is the main reason for the changes in physician behavior, since it discourages the integrated practices from allocating expensive resources to relatively unprofitable procedures. We also find that although integration improves operational efficiency (measured by physicians' throughput), it negatively affects quality and overall spending. Finally, to shed light on potential mechanisms through which policymakers can mitigate the negative consequences of vertical integration, we perform both mediation and cost-effectiveness analyses. Our results indicate that additional payment for encouraging the use of deep sedation, up to the price that is 150% of the current price for a colonoscopy alone, for providing deep sedation during colonoscopy, can be viewed as a cost-effective mechanism to prevent the vertical integration trends from degrading the quality of care.

I look at prevention through an economic lens and make three main points. First, those advocating preventive measures are often asked how much money a given measure saves. This question is misguided. Rather, preventive measures can be thought of as insurance, with a certain cost in the present that may or may not pay off in the future. In fact, although most medical preventive measures improve expected health, they do not save money. Various lifestyle and early childhood interventions, however, may both save money and improve health. Second, preventive measures, including medical and life style measures, are heterogeneous in their value, both across measures and within measure, across individuals. As a result, generalizations in everyday discourse about the value of prevention can be overly broad. Third, health insurance coverage for medical preventive measures should generally be more extensive than coverage for the treatment of a medical condition, though full coverage of preventive services is not necessarily optimal.

Importance Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) receive federal funding to serve medically underserved areas and provide a range of services including comprehensive primary care, enabling services, and behavioral health care. Greater funding for FQHCs could increase the local availability of clinic-based care and help reduce more costly resource use, such as emergency department visits (ED). Objective To examine the impact of funding increases for FQHCs after the ACA on the use of FQHCs and EDs. Methods Retrospective study using the Massachusetts All Payer Claims Database (APCD) 2010–2013 that included APCD enrollees in 559 Massachusetts ZIP codes (N = 6,173,563 in 2010). We calculated shift-share predictions of changes in FQHC funding at the ZIP code-level for FQHCs that received Community Health Center funds in any year, 2010–13 (N = 31). Outcomes were the number of ZIP code enrollees with visits to FQHCs and EDs, overall and for emergent and non-emergent diagnoses. Results In 2010, 4% of study subjects visited a FQHC, and they were more likely to be younger, have Medicaid, and live in low-income areas. We found that a standard deviation increase in prior year FQHC funding (+31 percentage point (pp)) at the ZIP code level was associated with a 2.3pp (95% CI 0.7pp to 3.8pp) increase in enrollees with FQHC visits and a 1.3pp (95% CI -2.3pp to -0.3pp) decrease in enrollees with non-emergent ED visits, but no significant change in emergent ED visits (0.3pp, 95% CI -0.8pp to 1.4pp). Conclusions We found that areas exposed to greater FQHC funding increases had more growth in the number of enrollees seen by FQHCs and greater reductions in ED visits for non-emergent conditions. Investment in FQHCs could be a promising approach to increase access to care for underserved populations and reduce costly ED visits, especially for primary care treatable or non-emergent conditions.

We investigated labor force and health outcomes in cities experiencing fiscal difficulties to assess how those difficulties might impact their employees. We matched 23 cities with bond downgrades and 31 cities with stable bond ratings to sampling units in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Starting the year before the downgrade and for the four subsequent years, the rate of separation from local public employment fell in the cities with downgrades relative to the comparison group. Self-reported health may have worsened, but there were no statistically significant effects on health care use or spending.

Trials of various approaches to health insurance and other policy issues can help policymakers decide how to structure incentives to provide the best value. This review examines this type of trial, addressing issues common to and distinct from trials of drugs or devices.

We investigate the role of physician agency in determining health care sup- ply and patient outcomes. We show that an increase in health care supply due to a change in private physician incentives has a theoretically ambiguous impact on patient welfare. The increase can reflect either induced demand for ineffective care or a reduction in prior rationing of effective care. Furthermore, physician market structure matters in determining the welfare effects of changes in private physician incentives. We then analyze a change to Medicare fees that caused physicians to increase their provision of chemotherapy. We find that this increase in treatment improved patient survival, extending median life expectancy for lung cancer patients by about 18%. Consistent with the model, we find that while the treatment response was larger in less concentrated markets, survival improvements were larger in more concentrated markets.