Dataset Information

Assessment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Increase in Fees for Primary Care and Access to Care for Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries.

ABSTRACT:

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?Conclusions and relevanceThe ACA fee bump was not associated with increases in primary care visits for dual-eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. Visits for dual-eligible beneficiaries with primary care physicians decreased after the ACA, a decrease that was partially offset by increases in visits with nonphysician clinicians.

SUBMITTER: Fung V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7821030 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Increase in Fees for Primary Care and Access to Care for Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries.

Fung Vicki V Price Mary M Hull Peter P Cook Benjamin Lê BL Hsu John J Newhouse Joseph P JP

JAMA network open 20210104 1

<h4>Importance</h4>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 limi ...[more]

PMID: 33475756

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextThe Affordable Care Act (ACA) is predicted to expand health insurance to 25 million individuals. Since insurance reduces the price of medical care, the quantity of services demanded by these newly covered individuals is expected to rise. In this article I provide a comprehensive picture of the demographics, health status, and medical care utilization of the population targeted for the ACA's expansion of coverage, contrasted with that of other nonelderly, insured populations. In addition, I synthesize the current evidence regarding the causal impact of insurance on medical care demand, drawing heavily on recent evidence from Massachusetts and Oregon.MethodsUsing the 2008 to 2010 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, I conducted bivariate and multivariate analyses to examine differences between the ACA target population and other insured groups. I used the results from the descriptive analysis and quasi-experimental literature to generate "back of the envelope" estimates of the potential impact of the coverage expansion on total medical care utilization by the noninstitutionalized US population.FindingsComparisons of the potential ACA target population with the privately and publicly insured reveal that the former is younger and more likely to be male. The ACA target population, and particularly the uninsured with incomes under 200% of the federal poverty line, reports lower rates of several medical conditions relative to those of the privately and publicly insured. Future changes in rates of inpatient hospitalization and ED use among the newly insured could vary widely, based on descriptive findings and inferences from the quasi-experimental literature. Results also suggest moderate increases in ambulatory care. Total increases in overall demand for medical care by the newly insured comprise a modest proportion of the aggregate utilization.ConclusionsWith the expected increases in utilization resulting from the coverage expansion, stakeholders will need to monitor local health care delivery system capacity and respond where needed with policy- and/or market-based innovations.

Project description:ImportanceThe Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) increased 2013 to 2014 Medicaid payment rates for qualifying primary care physicians (PCPs) and services to higher Medicare payment levels, with the goal of improving primary care access for Medicaid enrollees.ObjectivesTo evaluate the payment increase policy and to assess whether it was associated with changes in Medicaid participation rates or Medicaid service volume among PCPs.Design, setting, and participantsThis study used 2012 to 2015 IMS Health aggregated medical claims and encounter data from PCPs eligible for the payment increase practicing in all states except Alaska and Hawaii and included 20 723 PCPs with observations in each month from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2015. Data are for professional services performed in ambulatory settings, including office, hospital outpatient department, and emergency department. Regression models were used to test whether outcomes differed in months subject to higher payment rates relative to months before the increase and after the expiration of the increase in some states. The models controlled for time-invariant physician characteristics and time-varying characteristics, such as Medicaid enrollment. Interaction terms were included to estimate differential associations in subgroups of states (eg, by Medicaid managed care penetration) and physicians (eg, by specialty).Main outcomes and measuresPhysician-month records subject to higher Medicaid payment rates were flagged using state-specific implementation and end dates for the payment increase. Five outcomes were measured for each physician-month observation, including (1) an indicator for seeing any patients enrolled in Medicaid, (2) an indicator for seeing more than 5 patients enrolled in Medicaid, (3) the Medicaid share of total patients, (4) a count of new patient evaluation and management visits furnished to patients enrolled in Medicaid, and (5) a count of existing patient evaluation and management visits furnished to patients enrolled in Medicaid.ResultsAmong 20 723 PCPs, the payment increase had no association with PCP participation in Medicaid or Medicaid service volume. The estimated average marginal effects for all 5 outcomes were not statistically distinguishable from 0. This null result was robust to sensitivity analyses, including different time trend specifications and analyses focusing on the payment increase implementation and expiration time frames. Descriptively, the Medicaid share of patients increased by about 25% from 2012 to 2015, although the share did not increase differentially in states and months subject to higher payment rates.Conclusions and relevanceThe limited duration and design of the payment increase may have dampened its effectiveness. Future efforts to improve access through payment changes or other means can benefit from better understanding of the outcomes of this policy.

Project description:Importance:Several Medicare alternative payment models were implemented in recent years, but their implications for socioeconomic gaps in postacute care (PAC) are unknown. Objectives:To determine the longitudinal trends in PAC use and outcomes after hip and knee replacements and in gaps among 3 groups: Medicare-only patients, dual-eligible patients with full Medicaid benefits, and dual-eligible patients with partial Medicaid benefits. Design, Setting, and Participants:A cohort study was conducted of PAC use and outcomes among Medicare fee-for-service patients undergoing hip or knee replacement surgery from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016, in approximately 3000 hospitals, using Medicare claims, assessment, hospital, and skilled nursing facility (SNF) files. Statistical analysis was performed from October 1, 2018, to December 17, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:Risk-adjusted differences among dual-eligible groups in institutional PAC use (SNF, inpatient rehabilitation, or long-term hospital care), readmission rate, and payment for readmissions; for patients discharged to a SNF, risk-adjusted differences in SNF quality measured by star ratings, proportion successfully discharged to the community, proportion transitioned to long-stay residence, and SNF length of stay and payments. Results:The sample included 1 302 256 patients (837 256 women [64.3%]; mean [SD] age, 75.4 [7.2] years) who underwent joint replacement. The proportion of patients discharged to institutional PAC and the 30-day and 90-day readmission rates decreased for all 3 groups during the period from 2013 to 2016. In 2013, institutional PAC use was 43.7% (95% CI, 43.5%-43.9%) for Medicare-only patients (n = 1 182 555), 70.1% (95% CI, 69.4%-70.8%; n = 60 461) for dual-eligible patients with full benefits, and 70.3% (95% CI, 69.6%-71.0%; n = 59 240) for dual-eligible patients with partial benefits; in 2016, the rates decreased to 32.5% (95% CI, 32.4%-32.7%) for Medicare-only patients, 62.3% (95% CI, 61.5%-63.0%) for dual-eligible patients with full benefits, and 61.5% (95% CI, 60.7%-62.3%) for dual-eligible patients with partial benefits. Among patients discharged to SNFs, outcomes remained flat over time. For example, the proportion of patients successfully discharged to the community remained at 80.5% (95% CI, 80.4%-80.7%) for Medicare-only patients, 59.8% (95% CI, 59.3%-60.3%) for dual-eligible patients with full benefits, and 50.0% (95% CI, 49.4%-50.5%) for dual-eligible patients with partial benefits. Multivariable analyses with adjustment for patient, hospital (or SNF), and geographical covariates suggested maintained or enlarged gaps in all outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance:This study suggests that, during the period from 2013 to 2016, Medicare patients undergoing hip or knee replacement showed reduced institutional PAC use, reduced readmissions, and, among those discharged to SNFs, roughly unchanged outcomes. However, dual-eligible patients, especially those with partial Medicaid benefits, had persistently worse outcomes than Medicare-only patients.

Project description:IntroductionDespite abundant information on the negative impacts of smoking, more than 40 million adult Americans continue to smoke. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires tobacco cessation as a preventive service with no patient cost share for all FDA-approved cessation medications. Health plans have a vital role in supporting smoking cessation by managing medication access, but uncertainty remains on the gaps between smoking cessation requirements and what is actually occurring in practice. This study presents current cessation patterns, real-world drug costs and plan benefit design data, and estimates the 1- to 5-year pharmacy budget impact of providing ACA-required coverage for smoking cessation products to understand the fiscal impact to a US healthcare plan.MethodsA closed cohort budget impact model was developed in Microsoft Excel® to estimate current and projected costs for US payers (commercial, Medicare, Medicaid) covering smoking cessation medicines, with assumptions for coverage and smoking cessation product utilization based on current, real-world national and state-level trends for hypothetical commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid plans with 1 million covered lives. A Markov methodology with five health states captures quit attempt and relapse patterns. Results include the number of smokers attempting to quit, number of successful quitters, annual costs, and cost per-member per-month (PMPM).ResultsThe projected PMPM cost of providing coverage for smoking cessation medications is $0.10 for commercial, $0.06 for Medicare, and $0.07 for Medicaid plans, reflecting a low incremental PMPM impact of covering two attempts ranging from $0.01 for Medicaid to $0.02 for commercial and Medicare payers.ConclusionThe projected PMPM impact of covering two quit attempts with access to all seven cessation medications at no patient cost share remains low. Results of this study reinforce that the impact of adopting the ACA requirements for smoking cessation coverage will have a limited near-term impact on health plan's budgets.FundingPfizer Inc.

Dataset Information

Assessment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Increase in Fees for Primary Care and Access to Care for Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Exposure

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Publications

Assessment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Increase in Fees for Primary Care and Access to Care for Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets