Dataset Information

Impacts of innovation in dental care delivery and payment in Medicaid managed care for children and adolescents.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We evaluated a 14-county quality improvement program of care delivery and payment of a dental care organization for child and adolescent managed care Medicaid beneficiaries after 2 years of implementation.

Methods

Counties were randomly assigned to either the intervention (PREDICT) or control group. Using Medicaid administrative data, difference-in-difference regression models were used to estimate PREDICT intervention effects (formally, "average marginal effects") on dental care utilization and costs to Medicaid, controlling for patient and county characteristics.

Results

Average marginal effects of PREDICT on expected use and expected cost of services per patient (child or adolescent) per quarter were small and insignificant for most service categories. There were statistically significant effects of PREDICT (p < .05), though still small, for certain types of service: (1) Expected number of diagnostic services per patient-quarter increased by .009 units; (2) Expected number of sealants per patient-quarter increased by .003 units, and expected cost by $0.06; (3) Total expected cost per patient-quarter for all services increased by $0.64. These consistent positive effects of PREDICT on diagnostic and certain preventive services (i.e., sealants) were not accompanied by increases in more costly service types (i.e., restorations) or extractions.

Conclusion

The major hypothesis that primary dental care (selected preventive services and diagnostic services in general) would increase significantly over time in PREDICT counties relative to controls was supported. There were small but statistically significant, increases in differential use of diagnostic services and sealants. Total cost per beneficiary rose modestly, but restorative and dental costs did not. The findings suggest favorable developments within PREDICT counties in enhanced preventive and diagnostic procedures, while holding the line on expensive restorative and extraction procedures.

SUBMITTER: Conrad DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8188686 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceManaged care payment formulas commonly allocate more money for medically complex populations, but ignore most social determinants of health (SDH).ObjectiveTo add SDH variables to a diagnosis-based payment formula that allocates funds to managed care plans and accountable care organizations.Design, setting, and participantsUsing data from MassHealth, the Massachusetts Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program, we estimated regression models predicting Medicaid spending using a diagnosis-based and SDH-expanded model, and compared the accuracy of their cost predictions overall and for vulnerable populations. MassHealth members enrolled for at least 6 months in 2013 in fee-for-service (FFS) programs (n = 357 660) or managed care organizations (MCOs) (n = 524 607).ExposuresWe built cost prediction models from a fee-for-service program. Predictors in the diagnosis-based model are age, sex, and diagnoses from claims. The SDH model adds predictors describing housing instability, behavioral health issues, disability, and neighborhood-level stressors.Main outcomes and measuresOverall model explanatory power and overpayments and underpayments for subgroups of interest for all Medicaid-reimbursable expenditures excepting long-term support services (mean annual cost = $5590 per member).ResultsWe studied 357 660 people who were FFS participants and 524 607 enrolled in MCOs with a combined 806 889 person-years of experience. The FFS program experience included more men (49.6% vs 43.6%), older patients (mean age of 26.1 years vs 21.6 years), and sicker patients (mean morbidity score of 1.16 vs 0.89) than MCOs. Overall, the SDH model performed well, but only slightly better than the diagnosis-based model, explaining most of the spending variation in the managed care population (validated R2 = 62.4) and reducing underpayments for several vulnerable populations. For example, raw costs for the quintile of people living in the most stressed neighborhoods were 9.6% ($537 per member per year) higher than average. Since greater medical morbidity accounts for much of this difference, the diagnosis-based model underpredicts costs for the most stressed quintile by about 2.1% ($130 per member per year). The expanded model eliminates the neighborhood-based underpayment, as well as underpayments of 72% for clients of the Department of Mental Health (observed costs of about $30 000 per year) and of 7% for those with serious mental illness (observed costs of about $16 000 per year).Conclusions and relevanceSince October 2016, MassHealth has used an expanded model to allocate payments from a prespecified total budget to managed care organizations according to their enrollees' social and medical risk. Extra payments for socially vulnerable individuals could fund activities, such as housing assistance, that could improve health equity.

Project description:ImportanceThere is a recommendation for children to have a dental home by 6 months of age, but there is limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of early preventive dental care or whether primary care providers (PCPs) can deliver it.ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of preventive dental care in reducing caries-related treatment visits among Medicaid enrollees.Design, setting, and participantsHigh-dimensional propensity scores were used to address selection bias for a retrospective cohort study of children continuously enrolled in coverage from the Alabama Medicaid Agency from birth between 2008 and 2012, adjusting for demographics, access to care, and general health service use.ExposuresChildren receiving preventive dental care prior to age 2 years from PCPs or dentists vs no preventive dental care.Main outcome and measuresTwo-part models estimated caries-related treatment and expenditures.ResultsAmong 19 658 eligible children, 25.8% (n = 3658) received early preventive dental care, of whom 44% were black, 37.6% were white, and 16.3% were Hispanic. Compared with matched children without early preventive dental care, children with dentist-delivered preventive dental care more frequently had a subsequent caries-related treatment (20.6% vs 11.3%, P < .001), higher rate of visits (0.29 vs 0.15 per child-year, P < .001), and greater dental expenditures ($168 vs $87 per year, P < .001). Dentist-delivered preventive dental care was associated with an increase in the expected number of caries-related treatment visits by 0.14 per child per year (95% CI, 0.11-0.16) and caries-related treatment expenditures by $40.77 per child per year (95% CI, $30.48-$51.07). Primary care provider-delivered preventive dental care did not significantly affect caries-related treatment use or expenditures.Conclusions and relevanceChildren with early preventive care visits from dentists were more likely to have subsequent dental care, including caries-related treatment, and greater expenditures than children without preventive dental care. There was no association with subsequent caries-related treatment and preventive dental care from PCPs. We observed no evidence of a benefit of early preventive dental care, regardless of the provider. Additional research beyond administrative data may be necessary to elucidate any benefits of early preventive dental care.

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.