Dataset Information

Managing care? Medicare managed care and patient use of cardiologists.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine the impact of Medicare managed care (MMC) versus Medicare fee for service (MFFS) on stent patients' use of physicians with lower resource use and better outcomes.

Data sources/study setting

Retrospective secondary data from 2003 through 2006 for 67,476 patients without acute myocardial infarction, staying 2 or more days in hospital, and treated by 486 physicians in Florida performing 10 or more cases per quarter.

Study design

Analysis was at the patient level. Multivariate logistic models estimated the probability of an MMC patient using a physician with a particular risk-adjusted profile rank with respect to hospital peers.

Principal findings

No differences were found in usage of physicians with shorter admissions. Compared with MFFS, MMC patients were significantly less likely to use physicians whose average mortality was the lowest/lowest quartiles/below median among facility peers, and more likely to use a physician ranked below median on live discharges directly home (not needing home health care, skilled nursing care, or a subacute hospital convalescence). Similar results were found with emergency admissions, and where physicians both attended and treated.

Conclusions

Florida percutaneous coronary interventions patients insured by MMC used physicians with worse outcome profiles than those of MFFS patients. Results were not consistent with hospital care differences, physician-patient, or payor-physician selection, but they were consistent with selection of unobservably sicker members into MMC and concentration of MMC among physicians.

SUBMITTER: Huesch MD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2838149 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Managing care? Medicare managed care and patient use of cardiologists.

Huesch Marco D MD

Health services research 20091230 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the impact of Medicare managed care (MMC) versus Medicare fee for service (MFFS) on stent patients' use of physicians with lower resource use and better outcomes.<h4>Data sources/study setting</h4>Retrospective secondary data from 2003 through 2006 for 67,476 patients without acute myocardial infarction, staying 2 or more days in hospital, and treated by 486 physicians in Florida performing 10 or more cases per quarter.<h4>Study design</h4>Analysis was at the patient ...[more]

PMID: 20050932

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceWomen cardiologists receive lower salaries than men; however, it is unknown whether US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reimbursement also differs by gender and contributes to the lower salaries.ObjectiveTo determine whether gender differences exist in the reimbursements, charges, and reimbursement per charge from CMS.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional analysis used the CMS database to obtain 2016 reimbursement data for US cardiologists. These included reimbursements to cardiologists, charges submitted, and unique billing codes. Gender differences in reimbursement for evaluation and management and procedural charges from both inpatient and outpatient settings were also assessed. Analysis took place between April 2019 and December 2020.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included median CMS payments received and median charges submitted in the inpatient and outpatient settings in 2016.ResultsIn 2016, 17 524 cardiologists (2312 women [13%] and 15 212 men [87%]) received CMS payments in the inpatient setting, and 16 929 cardiologists (2151 women [13%] and 14 778 men [87%]) received CMS payments in the outpatient setting. Men received higher median payments in the inpatient (median [interquartile range], $62 897 [$30 904-$104 267] vs $45 288 [$21 371-$73 191]; P < .001) and outpatient (median [interquartile range], $91 053 [$34 820-$196 165] vs $51 975 [$15 622-$120 175]; P < .001) practice settings. Men submitted more median charges in the inpatient (median [interquartile range], 1190 [569-2093] charges vs 959 [569-2093] charges; P < .001) and outpatient settings (median [interquartile range], 1685 [644-3328] charges vs 870 [273-1988] charges; P < .001). In a multivariable-adjusted linear regression analysis, women received less CMS payments compared with men (log-scale β = -0.06; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.02) after adjustment for number of charges, number of unique billing codes, complexity of patient panel, years since graduation of physicians, and physician subspecialty. Payment by billing codes, both inpatient and outpatient, did not differ by gender.Conclusions and relevanceThere may be potential differences in CMS payments between men and women cardiologists, which appear to stem from gender differences in the number and types of charges submitted. The mechanisms behind these differences merit further research, both to understand why such gender differences exist and also to facilitate reductions in pay disparities.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study uses the Consumer Assessments of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS((R))) survey to examine the experiences of Hispanics enrolled in Medicare managed care. Evaluations of care are examined in relationship to primary language (English or Spanish) and region of the country.Data sourcesCAHPS 3.0 Medicare managed care survey data collected in 2002.Study designThe dependent variables consist of five CAHPS multi-item scales measuring timeliness of care, provider communication, office staff helpfulness, getting needed care, and health plan customer service. The main independent variables are Hispanic primary language (English or Spanish) and region (California, Florida, New York/New Jersey, and other states). Ordinary least squares regression is used to model the effect of Hispanic primary language and region on CAHPS scales, controlling for age, gender, education, and self-rated health.Data collection/extraction methodsThe analytic sample consists of 125,369 respondents (82 percent response rate) enrolled in 181 Medicare managed care plans across the U.S. Of the 125,369 respondents, 8,463 (7 percent) were self-identified as Hispanic. The survey was made available in English and Spanish, and 1,353 Hispanics completed one in Spanish.Principal findingsHispanic English speakers had less favorable reports of care than whites for all dimensions of care except provider communication. Hispanic Spanish speakers reported more negative experiences than whites with timeliness of care, provider communication, and office staff helpfulness, but better reports of care for getting needed care. Spanish speakers in all regions except Florida had less favorable scores than English-speaking Hispanics for provider communication and office staff helpfulness, but more positive assessments for getting needed care. There were greater regional variations in CAHPS scores among Hispanic Spanish speakers than among Hispanic English speakers. Spanish speakers in Florida had more positive experiences than Spanish speakers in other regions for most dimensions of care.ConclusionsHispanics in Medicare managed care face barriers to care; however, their experiences with care vary by language and region. Spanish speakers (except FL) have less favorable experiences with provider communication and office staff helpfulness than their English-speaking counterparts, suggesting language barriers in the clinical encounter. On the other hand, Spanish speakers reported more favorable experiences than their English-speaking counterparts with the managed care aspects of their care (getting needed care and plan customer service). Medicare managed care plans need to address the observed disparities in patient experiences among Hispanics as part of their quality improvement efforts. Plans can work with their network providers to address issues related to timeliness of care and office staff helpfulness. In addition, plans can provide incentives for language services, which have the potential to improve communication with providers and staff among Spanish speakers. Finally, health plans can reduce the access barriers faced by Hispanics, especially among English speakers.

Project description:ImportanceBetter evidence is needed on whether Medicare Advantage (MA) plans can control the use of postacute care services while achieving excellent outcomes.ObjectiveTo compare self-reported use of postacute care services and outcomes among traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries and MA enrollees.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) with linked Medicare enrollment data from 2015 to 2017. Participants were community-dwelling MA or TM beneficiaries 70 years and older; those with dual Medicare and Medicaid eligibility were also identified. Analyses were conducted from May 2022 to February 2023 and were weighted to account for the complex survey design.ExposuresEnrollment in MA and dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid.Main outcomes and measuresPostacute care service use including site of use, duration, primary indication, and whether participants met their goals or experienced improved functional status during or after services.ResultsIncluded in the analysis were 2357 Medicare beneficiaries who used postacute care. Of these beneficiaries, 815 (32.6%; 62.0% were females [weighted percentages]) had MA and 1542 (67.4%; 59.5% were females [weighted percentages]) had TM. Enrollees in MA reported using postacute care services across all NHATS survey rounds: between 16.2% (95% CI, 14.3%-18.4%) and 17.7% (95% CI, 15.4%-20.4%) of MA enrollees reported using postacute care services each round, vs 22.4% (95% CI, 20.9%-24.1%) to 24.1% (95% CI, 21.8%-26.6%) of TM beneficiaries (P for all rounds <.002). Enrollees in MA reported less functional improvement during postacute care use (63.1% [95% CI, 59.2%-66.8%] vs 71.7% [95% CI, 68.9%-74.3%], P < .001). Among beneficiaries who ended postacute service use, fewer MA enrollees than TM enrollees reported that they met their goals (70.5% [95% CI, 65.1%-75.3%] vs 76.2% [95% CI, 73.1%-79.1%]; P = .053) or had improved functional status (43.9% [95% CI, 38.9%-49.1%] vs 46.0% [95% CI, 42.5%-49.5%]; P = .42), but differences were not statistically significant. Differences in postacute care use and functional improvement were not statistically significant between MA and TM enrollees with dual eligibility.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries, we found that MA enrollees overall used less postacute care services than their TM counterparts. Among users of postacute care services, MA enrollees reported less favorable outcomes compared with TM enrollees. These findings highlight the importance of assessing patient-reported outcomes, especially as MA and other payment models seek to reduce inefficient use of postacute care services.

Dataset Information

Managing care? Medicare managed care and patient use of cardiologists.

Objective

Data sources/study setting

Study design

Principal findings

Conclusions

Publications

Managing care? Medicare managed care and patient use of cardiologists.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets