Dataset Information

Association Between Extending CareFirst's Medical Home Program to Medicare Patients and Quality of Care, Utilization, and Spending.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

CareFirst, the largest commercial insurer in the mid-Atlantic Region of the United States, runs a medical home program focusing on financial incentives for primary care practices and care coordination for high-risk patients. From 2013 to 2015, CareFirst extended the program to Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries in participating practices. If the model extension improved quality while reducing spending, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services could expand the program to Medicare beneficiaries broadly.

Objective

To test whether extending CareFirst's program to Medicare FFS patients improves care processes and reduces hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and spending.

Design, setting, and participants

This difference-in-differences analysis compared outcomes for roughly 35 000 Medicare FFS patients attributed to 52 intervention practices (grouped by CareFirst into 14 "medical panels") to outcomes for 69 000 Medicare patients attributed to 42 matched comparison panels during a 1-year baseline period and 2.5-year intervention at Maryland primary care practices.

Main outcomes and measures

Hospitalizations (all-cause and ambulatory-care sensitive), emergency department visits, Medicare Part A and B spending, and 3 quality-of-care process measures: ambulatory care within 14 days of a hospital stay, cholesterol testing for those with ischemic vascular disease, and a composite measure for those with diabetes.

Interventions

CareFirst hired nurses who worked with patients' usual primary care practitioners to coordinate care for 3656 high-risk Medicare patients. CareFirst paid panels rewards for meeting cost and quality targets for their Medicare patients and advised panels on how to meet these targets based on analyses of claims data.

Results

On average, each of the 14 intervention panels had 9.3 primary care practitioners and was attributed 2202 Medicare FFS patients in the baseline period. The panels' attributed Medicare patients were, on average, 73.8 years old, 59.2% female, and 85.1% white. The extension of CareFirst's program to Medicare patients was not statistically associated with improvements in any outcomes, either for the full Medicare population or for a high-risk subgroup in which impacts were expected to be largest. For the full population, the difference-in-differences estimates were 1.4 hospitalizations per 1000 patients per quarter (P = .54; 90% CI, -2.1 to 5.0), -2.5 outpatient ED visits per 1000 patients per quarter (P = .26; 90% CI, -6.2 to 1.1), and -$1 per patient per month in Medicare Part A and B spending (P = .98; 90% CI, -$40 to $39). For hospitalizations and Medicare spending, the 90% CIs did not span CareFirst's expected impacts. Hospitalizations for the intervention group declined by 10% from baseline year to the final 18 months of the intervention, but this was matched by similar declines in the comparison group.

Conclusion and relevance

The extension of CareFirst's program to Medicare did not measurably improve quality-of-care processes or reduce service use or spending for Medicare patients. Further program refinement and testing would be needed to support scaling the program more broadly to Medicare patients.

SUBMITTER: Peterson GG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5710572 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMedicare Advantage (MA) has entailed a major expansion of government-financed, privately administered health insurance in the US. As policy makers consider options to expand Medicare further, it is informative to compare the performance of traditional Medicare (TM) and MA.ObjectiveTo assess whether MA is associated with differential changes in health care utilization and spending for beneficiaries entering Medicare from commercial insurance compared with beneficiaries entering TM.Design setting and participantsThis retrospective cohort study with a difference-in-differences analysis and propensity score matching compared health care utilization and spending between beneficiaries enrolling in MA and beneficiaries enrolling in TM with a Medicare Supplement plan 1 year before vs 1 year after their initial Medicare enrollment. Participants included beneficiaries aged 65 to 70 years who remained enrolled with a large insurer when transitioning from commercial insurance to Medicare between June 2018 and December 2018. Data were analyzed from February 2020 to October 2021.Main outcomes and measuresUse of, and spending on, institutional (Part A) and professional (Part B) medical services, measured as overall spending per member per month, and as rates of services per thousand members per year, including inpatient stays, inpatient days, physician visits, and injectable drug administrations.ResultsAmong 1082 matched beneficiaries (541 joining MA, 541 joining TM with a Supplement plan), 585 (54.1%) were female, and the mean (SD) age at Medicare enrollment was 66 (1.4) years. Prior to Medicare enrollment, there was no statistically significant difference in outcome trends between the MA and TM groups. The first year of MA enrollment was associated with a differential reduction in institutional (Part A) spending of $95 (95% CI, $7-$183) per member per month, corresponding to a differential reduction in inpatient stays of 63 (95% CI, 10-116) per thousand members per year. Medicare Advantage was associated with a differential reduction in total spending (Parts A and B) of $142 (95% CI, $0-$282) per member per month, which was 36% of total spending in TM. There was no differential reduction in professional (Part B) spending (per member per month, $47; 95% CI, $51-$145) or utilization.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study with a difference-in-differences analysis, during the first year of Medicare coverage, MA was associated with large reductions in institutional (Part A) utilization and spending.

Project description:ImportanceInterventions to transform primary care practices into medical homes are increasingly common, but their effectiveness in improving quality and containing costs is unclear.ObjectiveTo measure associations between participation in the Southeastern Pennsylvania Chronic Care Initiative, one of the earliest and largest multipayer medical home pilots conducted in the United States, and changes in the quality, utilization, and costs of care.Design, setting, and participantsThirty-two volunteering primary care practices participated in the pilot (conducted from June 1, 2008, to May 31, 2011). We surveyed pilot practices to compare their structural capabilities at the pilot's beginning and end. Using claims data from 4 participating health plans, we compared changes (in each year, relative to before the intervention) in the quality, utilization, and costs of care delivered to 64,243 patients who were attributed to pilot practices and 55,959 patients attributed to 29 comparison practices (selected for size, specialty, and location similar to pilot practices) using a difference-in-differences design.ExposuresPilot practices received disease registries and technical assistance and could earn bonus payments for achieving patient-centered medical home recognition by the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA).Main outcomes and measuresPractice structural capabilities; performance on 11 quality measures for diabetes, asthma, and preventive care; utilization of hospital, emergency department, and ambulatory care; standardized costs of care.ResultsPilot practices successfully achieved NCQA recognition and adopted new structural capabilities such as registries to identify patients overdue for chronic disease services. Pilot participation was associated with statistically significantly greater performance improvement, relative to comparison practices, on 1 of 11 investigated quality measures: nephropathy screening in diabetes (adjusted performance of 82.7% vs 71.7% by year 3, P < .001). Pilot participation was not associated with statistically significant changes in utilization or costs of care. Pilot practices accumulated average bonuses of $92,000 per primary care physician during the 3-year intervention.Conclusions and relevanceA multipayer medical home pilot, in which participating practices adopted new structural capabilities and received NCQA certification, was associated with limited improvements in quality and was not associated with reductions in utilization of hospital, emergency department, or ambulatory care services or total costs over 3 years. These findings suggest that medical home interventions may need further refinement.

Project description:The Medicare accountable care organization (ACO) programs rely on delivery system integration and health care provider risk sharing to lower spending while improving quality of care.To compare spending and quality between larger and smaller provider groups and examine how size-related differences vary by 2 factors considered central to ACO performance: group primary care orientation and financial risk sharing by health care providers.Using 2009 Medicare claims and linked American Medical Association Group Practice data, we assigned 4.29 million beneficiaries to health care provider groups based on primary care use. We categorized group size according to eligibility thresholds for the Shared Savings (?5000 assigned beneficiaries) and Pioneer (?15,000) ACO programs and distinguished hospital-based from independent groups. We assessed the primary care orientation of larger groups' specialty mix and used health maintenance organization market penetration and data from the Community Tracking Study to measure the extent of financial risk accepted by different types of provider groups in different areas for managed care patients. We estimated linear regression models comparing spending and quality between larger and smaller health care provider groups, allowing size-related differences to vary by measures of group primary care orientation and risk sharing. Spending and quality measures included total medical spending, spending by type of service, 5 process measures of quality, and 30-day readmissions, all adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.Compared with smaller groups, larger hospital-based groups had higher total per-beneficiary spending in 2009 (mean difference, +$849), higher 30-day readmission rates (+1.3 percentage points), and similar performance on 4 of 5 process measures of quality. In contrast, larger independent physician groups performed better than smaller groups on all process measures and exhibited significantly lower per-beneficiary spending in counties where risk sharing by these groups was more common (-$426). Among all groups sufficiently large to participate in ACO programs, a strong primary care orientation was associated with lower spending, fewer readmissions, and better quality of diabetes care.Spending was lower and quality of care better for Medicare beneficiaries served by larger independent physician groups with strong primary care orientations in environments where health care providers accepted greater risk.

Project description:ImportanceValue-based insurance design (VBID) has mostly been used in improving medication use and adherence for certain conditions or patients, but its outcomes remain uncertain when applied to other services and to all health plan enrollees.ObjectiveTo determine the association of participation in a California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) VBID program with its enrollees' health care spending and utilization.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study with difference-in-differences propensity-weighted 2-part regression models was performed in 2021 to 2022. A VBID cohort was compared with a non-VBID cohort both before and after VBID implementation in California in 2019 with 2 years' follow-up. The study sample included CalPERS preferred provider organization continuous enrollees from 2017 through 2020. Data were analyzed from September 2021 to August 2022.ExposuresThe key VBID interventions include (1) if selecting and using a primary care physician (PCP) for routine care, PCP office visit copayment is $10 (otherwise, PCP office visit copayment is $35 as for specialist visit); and (2) annual deductibles reduced by a half through completion of the following 5 activities: annual biometric screening, influenza vaccine, nonsmoking certification, second opinion for elective surgical procedures, and disease management participation.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measures included annual per member total approved payments for multiple inpatient and outpatient services.ResultsThe 2 compared cohorts of 94 127 participants (48 770 were female [52%]; 47 390 were younger than 45 years old [50%]) had insignificant baseline differences after propensity-weighting adjustment. The VBID cohort had significantly lower probabilities of inpatient admissions (adjusted relative odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.95), and higher probabilities of receiving immunizations (adjusted relative OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21) in 2019. Among those with positive payments, VBID was associated with higher mean total allowed amounts for PCP visits in 2019 and 2020 (adjusted relative payments ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08). There were no significant differences for inpatient and outpatient combined totals in 2019 and 2020.Conclusions and relevanceThe CalPERS VBID program achieved desired goals for some interventions with no added total costs in its first 2 years of operation. VBID may be used to promote valued services while containing costs for all enrollees.

Project description:BackgroundHealth care providers who participate as an accountable care organization (ACO) in the voluntary Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) have incentives to lower spending for Medicare patients while achieving high performance on a set of quality measures. Little is known about the extent to which early savings achieved by ACOs in the program have grown and been replicated by ACOs that entered the program in later years. ACOs that are physician groups have stronger incentives to lower spending than hospital-integrated ACOs.MethodsUsing fee-for-service Medicare claims from 2009 through 2015, we performed difference-in-differences analyses to compare changes in Medicare spending for patients in ACOs before and after entry into the MSSP with concurrent changes in spending for local patients served by providers not participating in the MSSP (control group). We estimated differential changes (i.e., the between-group difference in the change from the pre-entry period) separately for hospital-integrated ACOs and physician-group ACOs that entered the MSSP in 2012, 2013, or 2014.ResultsMSSP participation was associated with differential spending reductions in physician-group ACOs. These reductions grew with longer participation in the program and were significantly greater than the reductions in hospital-integrated ACOs. By 2015, the mean differential change in per-patient Medicare spending was -$474 (-4.9% of the pre-entry mean, P<0.001) for physician-group ACOs that entered in 2012, -$342 (-3.5% of the pre-entry mean, P<0.001) for those that entered in 2013, and -$156 (-1.6% of the pre-entry mean, P=0.009) for those that entered in 2014. The corresponding differential changes for hospital-integrated ACOs were -$169 (P=0.005), -$18 (P=0.78), and $88 (P=0.14), which were significantly lower than for physician-group ACOs (P<0.001). Spending reductions in physician-group ACOs constituted a net savings to Medicare of $256.4 million in 2015, whereas spending reductions in hospital-integrated ACOs were offset by bonus payments.ConclusionsAfter 3 years of the MSSP, participation in shared-savings contracts by physician groups was associated with savings for Medicare that grew over the study period, whereas hospital-integrated ACOs did not produce savings (on average) during the same period. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging.).