Dataset Information

Changes in Health Care Use Associated With the Introduction of Hospital Global Budgets in Maryland.

ABSTRACT: Importance:In 2014, the State of Maryland placed the majority of its hospitals under all-payer global budgets for inpatient, hospital outpatient, and emergency department care. Goals of the program included reducing unnecessary hospital utilization and encouraging greater use of primary care. Objective:To compare changes in hospital and primary care use through the first 2 years of Maryland's hospital global budget program among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in Maryland vs matched control areas. Design, Setting, and Participants:We matched 8 Maryland counties (94 967 beneficiaries) with hospitals in the program to 27 non-Maryland control counties (206 389 beneficiaries). Using difference-in-differences analysis, we compared changes in hospital and primary care use in Maryland vs the control counties from before (2009-2013) to after (2014-2015) the payment change, using 2 different assumptions. First, we assumed that preintervention differences between Maryland and the control counties would have remained constant past 2014 had Maryland not implemented global budgets (parallel trend assumption). Second, we assumed that differences in preintervention trends would have continued without the payment change (differential trend assumption). Main Outcomes and Measures:Hospital stays (defined as admissions and observation stays); return hospital stays within 30 days of a prior hospital stay; emergency department visits that did not result in admission; price-standardized hospital outpatient department (HOPD) utilization; and visits with primary care physicians (overall and within 7 days of a hospital stay). Results:We matched 8 Maryland counties with hospitals in the program (94 967 beneficiaries; 41.8% male; mean [SD] age, 72.3 [12.2] years) to 27 non-Maryland control counties (206 389 beneficiaries; 42.8% male; mean [SD] age, 71.7 [12.5] years). Assuming parallel trends, we estimated a differential change in Maryland of -0.47 annual hospital stays per 100 beneficiaries (95% CI, -1.65 to 0.72; P = .43) from the preintervention period (2009-2013) to 2015, but assuming differential trends, we estimated a differential change in Maryland of -1.24 stays per 100 beneficiaries (95% CI, -2.46 to -0.02; P = .047). Assuming parallel trends, we found a significant increase in primary care visits (+10.6 annual visits/100 beneficiaries; 95% CI, 4.6 to 16.6 annual visits/100 beneficiaries; P = .001), but assuming differential trends, we found no change (-0.8 visits/100 beneficiaries; 95% CI, -10.6 to 9.0 visits/100 beneficiaries; P = .87). Comparing estimates with both trend assumptions, we found no consistent changes in emergency department visits, return hospital stays, HOPD use, or posthospitalization primary care visits associated with Maryland's program. Conclusions and Relevance:We did not find consistent evidence that Maryland's hospital global budget program was associated with reductions in hospital use or increases in primary care visits among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries after 2 years. Evaluations over longer periods should be pursued.

SUBMITTER: Roberts ET

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5838791 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceSince 2014, all hospitals in Maryland have operated under an all-payer global budget system. Hospital global budgets have gained renewed attention as a strategy for constraining cost growth, improving patient outcomes, and preserving health care access in rural and underserved communities. Lessons from the implementation of the Maryland All-Payer Model (MDAPM) may have implications for policy makers, payers, and hospitals in other settings seeking to adopt global budgets or other value-based payment models.ObjectiveTo examine perspectives on the implementation of the MDAPM among health care leaders who participated in its design and execution.Design setting and participantsThis qualitative study with semistructured telephone interviews was conducted from November 1, 2019, to February 11, 2020. The purposive sample of Maryland health care leaders represents diverse stakeholder groups, including hospitals, state government and regulatory agencies, the federal government, and payers.Main outcomes and measuresKey high-level themes were extracted from interviews using qualitative content analysis, with barriers and facilitators to implementation specified within each theme.ResultsA total of 20 interviews were conducted with hospital leaders (n = 6), state regulators (n = 4), federal regulators (n = 4), payer representatives (n = 3), and state leaders (n = 3). Key themes were labeled as (1) expectations (setting bold yet achievable goals), (2) autonomy (allowing hospitals to follow individual strategies within MDAPM parameters), (3) communication (encouraging early and ongoing communication between stakeholders), (4) actionable data (sharing useful hospital and patient-level data between stakeholders), (5) global budget calibration (anticipating technical challenges when negotiating budgets for individual hospitals), and (6) shared commitment to change (harnessing collective motivation for system change). Together, these themes suggest that implementing the payment model followed an evolving and collaborative process that requires stakeholder communication, data to guide decisions, and commitment to operating within the new payment system.Conclusions and relevanceThe implementation of hospital global budgets in the state of Maryland offers generalizable lessons that can inform the evolution and expansion of this approach to value-based payment in other states and settings.

Project description:ImportanceDisruptions of continuity of care may harm patient outcomes, but existing studies of continuity disruption are limited by an inability to separate the association of continuity disruption from that of other physician-related factors.ObjectivesTo examine changes in health care use and outcomes among patients whose primary care physician (PCP) exited the workforce and to directly measure the association of this primary care turnover with patients' health care use and outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used nationally representative Medicare billing claims for a random sample of 359 470 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with at least 1 PCP evaluation and management visit from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2017. Primary care physicians who stopped practicing were identified and matched with PCPs who remained in practice. A difference-in-differences analysis compared health care use and clinical outcomes for patients who did lose PCPs with those who did not lose PCPs using subgroup analyses by practice size. Subgroup analyses were done on visits from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2017.ExposurePatients' loss of a PCP.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary care, specialty care, urgent care, emergency department, and inpatient visits, as well as overall spending for patients, were the primary outcomes. Receipt of appropriate preventive care and prescription fills were also examined.ResultsDuring the study period, 9491 of 90 953 PCPs (10.4%) exited Medicare. We matched 169 870 beneficiaries whose PCP exited (37.2% women; mean [SD] age, 71.4 [6.1] years) with 189 600 beneficiaries whose PCP did not exit (36.9% women; mean [SD] age, 72.0 [5.0] years). The year after PCP exit, beneficiaries whose PCP exited had 18.4% (95% CI, -19.8% to -16.9%) fewer primary care visits and 6.2% (95% CI, 5.4%-7.0%) more specialty care visits compared with beneficiaries who did not lose a PCP. This outcome persisted 2 years after PCP exit. Beneficiaries whose PCP exited also had 17.8% (95% CI, 6.0%-29.7%) more urgent care visits, 3.1% (95% CI, 1.6%-4.6%) more emergency department visits, and greater spending ($189 [95% CI, $30-$347]) per beneficiary-year after PCP exit. These shifts were most pronounced for patients of exiting PCPs in solo practice, whose beneficiaries had 21.5% (95% CI, -23.8% to -19.3%) fewer primary care visits, 8.8% (95% CI, 7.6%-10.0%) more specialty care visits, 4.4% more emergency department visits (95% CI, 2.1%-6.7%), and $260 (95% CI, $12-$509) in increased spending.Conclusions and relevanceLoss of a PCP was associated with lower use of primary care and increased use of specialty, urgent, and emergency care among Medicare beneficiaries. Interrupting primary care relationships may negatively impact health outcomes and future engagement with primary care.

Project description:ImportanceRigorous evidence describing the relationship between private equity acquisition and changes in hospital spending and quality is currently lacking.ObjectiveTo examine changes in hospital income, use, and quality measures that may be associated with private equity acquisition.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study identified 204 hospitals acquired by private equity firms from 2005 to 2017 and 532 matched hospitals not acquired by private equity. Using a difference-in-differences design, this study evaluated changes in net income, charges, charge to cost ratios, case mix index (a measure of reported illness burden), share of discharges for patients with Medicare or Medicaid coverage, discharges per year, and aggregate hospital quality measures associated with private equity acquisition through 3 years after acquisition, adjusted for case mix, hospital beds, calendar year, and adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing. In subgroup analyses, changes in outcomes for private equity-owned Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) hospitals and non-HCA hospitals relative to matched controls were assessed.Primary outcomes and measuresEight hospital income and use measures and 3 aggregate hospital quality measures were examined.ResultsRelative to 532 control hospitals, the 204 private equity-acquired hospitals showed a mean increase of $2 302 391 (95% CI, $956 660-$3 648 123; P = .009) in annual net income, an increase of $407 (95% CI, $296-$518; P < .001) in total charge per inpatient day, an increase of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.48-0.73; P < .001) in emergency department charge to cost ratio, an increase of 0.31 (95% CI, 0.26-0.37; P < .001) in total charge to cost ratio, an increase of 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.02; P = .007) in case mix index, and a decrease of 0.96% (95% CI, 0.46%-1.45%; P = .002) in share of Medicare discharges. Medicaid's share of discharges (-0.16%; 95% CI, -0.86% to 0.53%; P > .99) and total hospital discharges (98; 95% CI, -54 to 250; P > .99) did not change differentially in a statistically significant manner. The aggregate quality score for acute myocardial infarction increased by 3.3% (95% CI, 1.6%-5.0%; P = .002), and the aggregate score for pneumonia increased by 2.9% (95% CI, 1.8%-3.9%; P < .001) in private equity-acquired hospitals relative to controls. The aggregate score for heart failure (1.3%; 95% CI, -0.2% to 2.7%; P = .92) did not differentially change in a statistically significant manner. In subgroup analyses, HCA hospitals showed similar findings to the entire sample. Among non-HCA hospitals, the only statistically significant relative changes were the increase in the emergency department charge to cost ratio (0.30; 95% CI, 0.12-0.48; P = .02) and the decrease in Medicare's share (-1.15%; 95% CI, -1.88% to -0.43%; P = .02). Non-HCA hospitals showed a decrease in the aggregate heart failure score (-3.3%; 95% CI, -5.3% to -1.3%; P = .01) and no statistically significant changes in the aggregate score for acute myocardial infarction (2.4%; 95% CI, -0.7% to 5.4%; P > .99) or pneumonia (0.2%; 95% CI, -1.4% to 1.7%; P > .99).Conclusions and relevanceHospitals acquired by private equity were associated with larger increases in net income, charges, charge to cost ratios, and case mix index as well as with improvement in some quality measures after acquisition relative to nonacquired controls. Heterogeneity in some findings was observed between HCA and non-HCA hospitals.

Dataset Information

Changes in Health Care Use Associated With the Introduction of Hospital Global Budgets in Maryland.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets