Dataset Information

New evidence of state variation in Medicaid payment policies for dual Medicare-Medicaid enrollees.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To develop the first longitudinal database of state Medicaid policies for paying the cost sharing in Medicare Part B for services provided to dual Medicare-Medicaid enrollees ("duals") and an index summarizing the impact of these policies on payments for physician office services.

Data sources

Medicaid policy data collected from electronic sources and inquiries with states.

Study design

We constructed a national database of Medicaid payment policies for the period 2004-2018, consolidating information from online Medicaid policy documents, state laws, and policy data reported to us by state Medicaid programs. Using this database and state Medicaid fee schedules, we constructed a Medicaid payment index for duals. This index represented the proportion of the Medicare allowed amount that physicians would expect to be paid from Medicare and Medicaid for a subset of physician office services (evaluation and management services) based on annual state payment policies and Medicaid fee schedules.

Principal findings

In 2018, 42 states had policies to limit Medicaid payments of Medicare cost sharing when Medicaid's fee schedule was lower than Medicare's-an increase from 36 such states in 2004. In the preponderance of states with these policies, combined Medicare and Medicaid payments for evaluation and management services provided to duals averaged 78 percent of the Medicare allowed amount for these services, reflecting relatively low Medicaid fee schedules in these states. In 2013 and 2014, physicians who qualified for the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid "fee bump" were paid 100 percent of the Medicare allowed amount for these services.

Conclusions

Medicaid programs vary across states and over time in their payments of cost sharing for physician office services provided to duals. Our database and index can facilitate monitoring of these policies and research on the consequences of policy changes for duals.

SUBMITTER: Roberts ET

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7518808 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceLittle is known about small-area variations in health care spending and utilization across the 3 major funders of health care in the US: Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.ObjectiveTo measure regional health spending and utilization across Medicare, Medicaid, and the privately insured; to observe whether there are regions that are simultaneously low spending for all 3 payers; and to determine what factors are correlated with regional spending and utilization by payer.Design, setting, and participantsObservational cross-sectional analysis of the US health system in 2016 and 2017 for 241 of 306 hospital referral regions (HRRs) and 2 states. Participants include individuals with employer-sponsored coverage from Aetna, Humana, or UnitedHealth; individuals with Medicaid fee-for-service coverage in 2016 and 2017; and individuals with Medicare coverage. The analysis was carried out from January 2020 to May 2022.Main outcomes and measuresSpending per beneficiary and inpatient days per beneficiary by payer and overall.ResultsThe data include 25 381 167 individuals with employer-sponsored coverage, 69 891 299 with Medicaid coverage in 2016 and 2017, and 26 711 426 individuals with Medicare fee-for-service coverage. The percentage of enrollees who identified as female was 54.1% in the Medicaid program, 56.2% in the Medicare program, and 50.4% in private insurance. The mean (SD) age was 26.9 (21.8) years for Medicaid and 75.0 (7.9) years for Medicare enrollees; for private insurance enrollees, just age brackets were reported: 18 to 24 years (15.9%), 25 to 34 years (24.2%), 35 to 44 years (21.3%), 45 to 54 years (20.8%), and 55 to 64 years (17.8%). In 2017, the mean (SD) HRR-level spending per beneficiary was $4441 ($710) for private insurance, $10 281 ($1294) for Medicare, and $6127 ($1428) for Medicaid. Across HRRs, the correlation coefficients and 95% CIs were 0.020 (-0.106 to 0.146; P = .76) for private insurance and Medicare spending, 0.213 (0.090 to 0.330; P < .001) for private insurance and Medicaid, and 0.162 (0.037 to 0.282; P < .01) for Medicare and Medicaid. Just 3 HRRs (Boulder, Colorado; Bloomington, Illinois; and Olympia, Washington) were in the lowest spending quintile for all 3 insurance programs; 4 HRRs were in the highest (The Bronx, New York; Manhattan, New York; White Plains, New York; and Dallas, Texas). By contrast, the correlation coefficients and 95% CIs for utilization, measured in hospital days, were 0.465 (0.361 to 0.559; P < .001) for private insurance and Medicare, 0.527 (0.429 to 0.612; P < .001) for private insurance and Medicaid, and 0.278 (0.157 to 0.390; P < .001) for Medicare and Medicaid.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that payer-specific factors are correlated with health spending variation among Medicare beneficiaries, Medicaid beneficiaries, and the commercially insured and that payer-specific policies will be necessary to improve efficiency in the US health sector.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study examines the relationship between evidence-based appropriateness criteria for neurologic imaging procedures and Medicare payment determinations. The primary research question is whether Medicare is more likely to pay for imaging procedures as the level of appropriateness increases.Data sourcesThe American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria (ACRAC) for neurological imaging, ICD-9-CM codes, CPT codes, and payment determinations by the Medicare Part B carrier for Florida and Connecticut.Study designCross-sectional study of appropriateness criteria and Medicare Part B payment policy for neurological imaging. In addition to descriptive and bivariate statistics, multivariate logistic regression on payment determination (yes or no) was performed.Data collection methodsThe American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria (ACRAC) documents specific to neurological imaging, ICD-9-CM codes, and CPT codes were used to create 2,510 medical condition/imaging procedure combinations, with associated appropriateness scores (coded as low/middle/high).Principal findingsAs the level of appropriateness increased, more medical condition/imaging procedure combinations were payable (low = 61 percent, middle = 70 percent, and high = 74 percent). Logistic regression indicated that the odds of a medical condition/imaging procedure combination with a middle level of appropriateness being payable was 48 percent higher than for an otherwise similar combination with a low appropriateness score (95 percent CI on odds ratio=1.19-1.84). The odds ratio for being payable between high and low levels of appropriateness was 2.25 (95 percent CI: 1.66-3.04).ConclusionsMedicare could improve its payment determinations by taking advantage of existing clinical guidelines, appropriateness criteria, and other authoritative resources for evidence-based practice. Such an approach would give providers a financial incentive that is aligned with best-practice medicine. In particular, Medicare should review and update its payment policies to reflect current information on the appropriateness of alternative imaging procedures for the same medical condition.