Dataset Information

Implications for cost and access of site-of-service referrals for ancillary medical services in a US Medicaid population: analysis of claims data from Maryland, USA.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Through analysis of claims and payment data, we quantified several implications of shifting ancillary healthcare services from regulated, more expensive to unregulated, less expensive sites. We also quantified the implications of this shift on access to services, with a focus on differences in access between rural and urban patients for a Medicaid (disadvantaged) population in Maryland, USA.

Design

Using a dataset of all Medicaid claims records for 1 year, we identified and extracted all bundles of regulated and unregulated ancillary services. Geospatial computing was used to approximate transportation costs required to access services. Including transportation enabled us to estimate net savings of any added transportation costs. We used location-allocation optimisation models to find the optimal sites to minimise net costs.

Setting

Coverage area included Medicaid patients throughout the state of Maryland.

Participants

All rural and urban members of this Medicaid cohort.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Change in payer costs and member travel times on shifting ancillary bundles from regulated to unregulated sites.

Results

Procedure cost and travel time differentials between regulated and unregulated sites strongly correlated with the percentage of procedures referred to regulated sites. Shifting regulated bundles to unregulated sites, while imposing the constraint of no increase in travel time, reduced expenditures by 15.9%. This figure exceeded 30% if no limit was placed on travel-time increases.

Conclusion

With reasonable constraints on allowable travel time increases, shifting ancillary service bundles from regulated to unregulated sites can benefit both patients and payers in terms of cost and access.

SUBMITTER: Singh S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9207954 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePredicting payments for particular conditions or populations is essential for research, benchmarking, public reporting, and calculations for population-based programs. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) models often group codes into disease categories, but using single, rather than grouped, diagnostic codes and leveraging present on admission (POA) codes may enhance these models.ObjectiveTo determine whether changes to the candidate variables in CMS models would improve risk models predicting patient total payment within 30 days of hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness research study used data from Medicare fee-for-service hospitalizations for AMI, HF, and pneumonia at acute care hospitals from July 1, 2013, through September 30, 2015. Payments across multiple care settings, services, and supplies were included and adjusted for geographic and policy variations, corrected for inflation, and winsorized. The same data source was used but varied for the candidate variables and their selection, and the method used by CMS for public reporting that used grouped codes was compared with variations that used POA codes and single diagnostic codes. Combinations of use of POA codes, separation of index admission diagnoses from those in the previous 12 months, and use of individual International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes instead of grouped diagnostic categories were tested. Data analysis was performed from December 4, 2017, to June 10, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresThe models' goodness of fit was compared using root mean square error (RMSE) and the McFadden pseudo R2.ResultsAmong the 1 943 049 total hospitalizations of the study participants, 343 116 admissions were for AMI (52.5% male; 37.4% aged ≤74 years), 677 044 for HF (45.5% male; 25.9% aged ≤74 years), and 922 889 for pneumonia (46.4% male; 28.2% aged ≤74 years). The mean (SD) 30-day payment was $23 103 ($18 221) for AMI, $16 365 ($12 527) for HF, and $17 097 ($12 087) for pneumonia. Each incremental model change improved the pseudo R2 and RMSE. Incorporating all 3 changes improved the pseudo R2 of the patient-level models from 0.077 to 0.129 for AMI, from 0.042 to 0.129 for HF, and from 0.114 to 0.237 for pneumonia. Parallel improvements in RMSE were found for all 3 conditions.Conclusions and relevanceLeveraging POA codes, separating index from previous diagnoses, and using single diagnostic codes improved payment models. Better models can potentially improve research, benchmarking, public reporting, and calculations for population-based programs.

Project description:ImportanceTo date, 32 states and the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid programs under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It is vital to understand whether expanded health insurance coverage of low-income individuals improves access to family planning services as a first step toward improving reproductive health outcomes.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of Medicaid expansion coverage with access to birth control and family planning services among women of reproductive age enrolled in the Michigan expansion plan.Design, setting, and participantsIn a survey study, from January 13 through December 15, 2016, telephone surveys of a stratified sample of enrollees in Michigan's Section 1115 Medicaid Expansion waiver program, the Healthy Michigan Plan (HMP), were conducted. Interviewers completed surveys for 4090 sampled enrollees, of whom 1166 were women aged 19 to 44 years. Surveys were conducted with a computer-assisted telephone interviewing system in English, Arabic, and Spanish. The sample was weighted to 113 565 women. Dates of data analysis were from January 27 through September 18, 2017.Main outcomes and measuresSelf-reported change in access to birth control and family planning services through HMP (better, worse, about the same, or don't know/doesn't apply), compared with before enrollment.ResultsAmong the 1166 survey respondents aged 19 to 44 years (mean [SD] age, 31.0 [0.3] years) and the weighted sample of 113?565, 74.7% (95% CI, 72.2%-76.9%) lived in very-low-income households (<100% federal poverty level), 64.0% (95% CI, 60.5%-67.3%) reported at least 1 chronic medical condition, 23.5% (95% CI, 20.6%-26.6%) reported fair or poor health, and 17.7% (95% CI, 15.7%-19.9%) lived in rural settings. Overall, 35.5% (95% CI, 32.2%-39.0%) reported increased access to family planning services. After adjusting, those most likely to report increased access were women without health insurance coverage in the year preceding HMP enrollment (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.02; 95% CI, 1.41-2.89) compared with women with health insurance for the full 12 months preceding enrollment; younger women (aOR for 19-24 years, 2.80 [95% CI, 1.75-4.50]; aOR for 25-34 years, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.60-3.45]) compared with women aged 35 to 44 years; and women with a recent visit to a primary care clinician (aOR 1.69; 95% CI, 1.03-2.76) compared with women without a primary care visit in the preceding 12 months.Conclusions and relevanceOne in 3 women of reproductive age reported better ability to access birth control and family planning services through HMP compared with before enrollment. This finding suggests that Medicaid expansion is associated with improved access to family planning services, which may enable low-income women to maintain optimal reproductive health.

Project description:ImportanceMedicaid enrollees typically report worse access to care than other insured populations. Expansions in Medicaid through less restrictive income eligibility requirements and the resulting influx of new enrollees may further erode access to care for those already enrolled in Medicaid.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of previous Medicaid expansions on self-reported access to care and the use of emergency department services by Medicaid enrollees.Design, setting, and participantsQuasi-experimental difference-in-differences design among 1714 adult Medicaid enrollees in 10 states that expanded Medicaid between June 1, 2000, and October 1, 2009, and 5097 Medicaid enrollees in 14 bordering control states that did not expand Medicaid.Main outcomes and measuresSelf-reported access to care and annualized emergency department use.ResultsAmong states expanding their Medicaid program for adults, the mean income eligibility level increased from 82.6% to 144.2% of the federal poverty level. Income eligibility in matched control states remained constant at 77.1% of the federal poverty level. The proportion of adults reporting being enrolled in Medicaid increased from 7.2% to 8.8% in expansion states and from 6.1% to 6.4% in matched control states. In Medicaid program expansion states, the proportion of Medicaid enrollees reporting poor access to care declined from 8.5% before the expansion to 7.3% after the expansion. In matched control states, the proportion of Medicaid enrollees reporting poor access to care remained constant at 5.3%. The proportion of enrollees reporting any emergency department use decreased from 41.2% to 40.1% in expansion states and from 37.3% to 36.1% in matched control states. In the period following expansions, newly eligible enrollees reported poorer access to care than previously enrolled beneficiaries, although the overall difference between groups did not reach statistical significance.Conclusions and relevanceWe found no evidence that expanding the number of individuals eligible for Medicaid coverage eroded perceived access to care or increased the use of emergency services among adult Medicaid enrollees.