Dataset Information

Use of long-term services and supports among dual-eligible beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To respect people's preference for aging in place and control costs, many state Medicaid programs have enacted policies to expand home and community-based services as an alternative to nursing facility care. However, little is known about the use of Medicaid long-term services and supports (LTSS) at a national level, particularly among dual-eligible beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD).

Methods

Using Medicare and Medicaid claims of 30 states from 2016, we focused on dual-eligible beneficiaries 65 years or older with ADRD and described their use of any form of LTSS and sub-types of LTSS (home-based, community-based, and nursing facility services) across states.

Results

We found that 80.5% of dual-eligible beneficiaries with ADRD received some form of Medicaid LTSS in 2016. The most common LTSS setting was nursing facility (46.7%), followed by home (31.5%) and community (12.2%). There was sizeable state variation in the percentage of dual-eligible beneficiaries with ADRD who used any form of LTSS (ranging from 61% in Maine to 96% in Montana). The type of LTSS used also varied widely across states. For example, home-based service use ranged from 9% in Maine, Arizona, and South Dakota to 62% in Oregon. Nursing facility services were the most common type of LTSS in most states. However, home-based service use exceeded nursing facility use in Oregon, Alaska, and California.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest substantially different use of LTSS across states among dual-eligible beneficiaries with ADRD. Given the importance of LTSS for this population and their families, a deeper understanding of state LTSS policies and other factors that contribute to wide state variation in LTSS use will be necessary to improve access to LTSS across states.

SUBMITTER: Kim H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9957784 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of long-term services and supports among dual-eligible beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.

Kim Hyunjee H Senders Angela A Simeon Erika E Juarez Cesar C Huang Sean S Dodge Hiroko H McConnell K John KJ

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 20221105 2

<h4>Background</h4>To respect people's preference for aging in place and control costs, many state Medicaid programs have enacted policies to expand home and community-based services as an alternative to nursing facility care. However, little is known about the use of Medicaid long-term services and supports (LTSS) at a national level, particularly among dual-eligible beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD).<h4>Methods</h4>Using Medicare and Medicaid claims of 30 stat ...[more]

PMID: 36334026

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionChronic pain is prevalent among older adults with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Alzheimer's disease-related dementias (ADRD). Memantine and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (ACHEI; donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine) are approved for the treatment of dementia symptoms and may also have analgesic properties. However, findings on the clinical utility of these dementia medications for chronic pain treatment are mixed, and little is known about differences in the use of pain medication according to whether an older adult with AD/ADRD is using dementia medications.MethodsWe selected a 20% national sample of Medicare enrollees with a diagnosis of AD/ADRD and chronic pain in 2020. We calculated the odds of having any pain management prescription (opioids, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake, gapapentinoids, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), having an opioid prescription, and having a long-term (≥ 90 days) opioid prescription, by dementia medication (none, memantine, ACHEI, or memantine and ACHEI).ResultsAmong 103,564 patients, 5.5% received a memantine prescription, 14.4% received an ACHEI prescription, and 8.6% received a prescription for both. Over 70% of all patients had a pain management prescription. The percentage of patients who had an opioid prescription ranged from 54.5% for those without a dementia medication prescription to 44.0% for those with a prescription for both memantine and ACHEI. Similarly, the percentage of patients who had a long-term opioid prescription was highest for those without a dementia medication prescription (12.2%) and lowest for those with a prescription for both memantine and ACHEI (8.8%). Having a prescription for memantine only was associated with lower odds of any pain management prescription (odds ratio [OR]: 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-1.00; p < 0.05). Having a prescription for either memantine (OR: 0.79; 95% CI 0.75-0.84), ACHEI (OR: 0.85; 95% CI 0.82-0.89), or both (OR: 0.75; 95% CI 0.72-0.79) was associated with lower odds of having an opioid prescription (p < 0.05). Lastly, having a prescription for either memantine (OR: 0.85; 95% CI 0.77-0.94), ACHEI (OR: 0.92; 95% CI 0.86-0.98), or both (OR: 0.83; 95% CI 0.77-0.90) was associated with lower odds of having a long-term opioid prescription.DiscussionOlder adults with co-occurring AD/ADRD and chronic pain who were on dementia medications had lower odds of being prescribed opioid analgesics. Memantine and ACHEIs should be explored as potential opioid-sparing medications for older adults with AD/ADRD, given their relatively safe profiles. Future studies are needed to examine repurposing dementia medications for pain treatment.

Project description:ObjectiveTo measure the impact of Medicaid managed long-term services and supports (MLTSS) on nursing home (NH) quality and rebalancing.Data sources/study settingThis study analyzes secondary data from annual NH recertification surveys and the minimum dataset (MDS) in three states that implemented MLTSS: Massachusetts (2001-2007), Kansas and Ohio (2011-2017).Study designWe utilized a difference-in-difference approach comparing NHs in border counties of states that implemented MLTSS with a control group of NHs in neighboring border counties in states that did not implement MLTSS. Sensitivity analyses included a triple-difference model (stratified by Medicaid payer mix) and a within-state comparison. We examined changes in six NH-level outcomes (percentage of low-care NH residents, facility occupancy, and four NH quality measures) after MLTSS implementation.Data collection/extraction methodsFor each state, all freestanding NHs in border counties were included, as were NHs in neighboring counties located in other states. Information on low-care residents was aggregated to the NH level from MDS data, then combined with Online Survey Certification and Reporting (OSCAR) and Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reporting (CASPER) data.Principal findingsMLTSS had no statistically significant effects on NH quality outcomes in Massachusetts or Kansas. In Ohio, MLTSS led to an increase of 0.21 nursing hours per resident day [95% CI: 0.03, 0.40], and a decrease of 1.47 deficiencies [95% CI: -2.52, -0.42] and 9.38 deficiency points [95% CI: -18.53, -0.24] per certification survey. After MLTSS, occupancy decreased by 1.52 percentage points [95% CI: -2.92, -0.12] in Massachusetts, but increased by 3.17 percentage points [95% CI: 0.36, 5.99] in Ohio. We found no effect on low-care residents in any state. Findings were moderately sensitive to the choice of comparator group.ConclusionThe study provides little evidence that MLTSS reduces quality of care, occupancy, or the percentage of low-care residents in NHs.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the impact of COVID-19 on clinical health outcomes and health-related social needs among Medicaid-Medicare dual-eligible beneficiaries.DesignScoping review.Setting and participantsDual eligibles during COVID-19.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive scoping review including observational studies, clinical trials, and original empirical research studies of PubMed and CINAHL. We generated a list of terms related to programs that both serve dual eligibles and address our desired outcomes. With the assistance of a medical librarian, we identified relevant abstracts published during COVID-19 meeting our inclusion criteria. We performed full-text reviews of relevant abstracts and selected the final studies. We extracted the study population, design, and major findings, then conducted thematic analysis.Results1100 articles were identified, with 439 deemed relevant. On full text-review, 15 articles met inclusion criteria representing more than 86 million Medicare beneficiaries. No studies were specific only to dual eligibles. Topic areas included in this review include COVID-19 case counts (2 articles), mortality (8 articles), hospitalizations (7 articles), food insecurity (1 article), self-reported mental health (1 article), and social connectedness (2 articles). Dual eligibles had disparate COVID-19-related outcomes from Medicare-only enrollees in 12 of 15 studies. Studies show higher mortality for dual eligibles overall, but this was not true for dual eligibles in nursing homes and assisted living communities. Dual eligibles were more likely to experience food insecurity. More favorably, dual eligibles reported greater social connectedness.Conclusions and implicationsDual eligibles had different outcomes from Medicare-only recipients in multiple health outcomes and health-related social needs during COVID-19, but studies are limited, particularly in terms of health-related social needs. Future work focusing on outcomes only among dual-eligible beneficiaries, integrated care programs, and fiscal alignment between Medicare and Medicaid plans may help stakeholders address health needs specific to dual eligibles.

Project description:ObjectivesTo characterize the (1) distribution of outpatient care for dual-eligible Medicare beneficiaries ("duals") and (2) intensity of outpatient care utilization of duals vs non-dual-eligible beneficiaries ("nonduals").Study designUsing data preceding the introduction of several outpatient alternative payment models, as well as Medicaid expansion, we evaluated the distribution of outpatient care across physician practices using a Lorenz curve and compared utilization of different outpatient services between duals and nonduals.MethodsWe defined practices that did (high dual) and did not (low dual and no dual) account for the large majority of visits based on the Lorenz curve and then performed descriptive statistics between these groups of practices. Practice-level outcomes included patient demographics, practice characteristics, and county measures of structural disadvantage and population health. Patient-level outcomes included number of outpatient visits and unique outpatient physicians, primary vs subspecialty care visits, and expenditures.ResultsNearly 80% of outpatient visits for duals were provided by 35% of practices. Compared with low-dual and no-dual practices, high-dual practices served more patients (1117.6 patients per high-dual practice vs 683.8 patients per low-dual practice and 447.5 patients per no-dual practice; P < .001) with more comorbidities (3.9 mean total Elixhauser comorbidities among patients served by high-dual practices vs 3.6 among low-dual practices and 3.3 among no-dual practices; P < .001). With regard to utilization, duals had 2 fewer outpatient visits per year compared with nonduals (13.3 vs 15.2; P < .001), with particularly fewer subspecialty care visits (6.5 vs 7.9; P < .001) despite having more comorbidities (3.5 vs 2.7; P < .001).ConclusionsOutpatient care for duals was concentrated among a small number of practices. Despite having more chronic conditions, duals had fewer outpatient visits. Duals and the practices that serve them may benefit from targeted policies to promote access and improve outcomes.

Dataset Information

Use of long-term services and supports among dual-eligible beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Use of long-term services and supports among dual-eligible beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets