Senior-Focused Primary Care Organizations Increase Access For Medicare Advantage Members, Especially Underserved Groups.

Population-based payment in Medicare Advantage (MA) can foster innovation in care delivery by giving risk-bearing providers flexibility and strong incentives to enhance care and engage patients. This may particularly benefit historically underserved groups for whom payments often exceed costs. In this study, using data from Humana MA plans, we examined "senior-focused" primary care organizations that are supported predominantly by population-based payments in contracts with MA plans. We explored whether such organizations supported by such payment are associated with better care and improved equity compared with other primary care organizations receiving other forms of payment in MA. Analyses of data from 462,872 MA beneficiaries in 2021 showed that senior-focused primary care organizations served more Black and dually eligible beneficiaries than other primary care organizations serving MA beneficiaries, and regression-adjusted analysis showed that senior-focused primary care patients received 17 percent more primary care visits. Differences were largest among Black and dual-eligible beneficiaries. These findings suggest that risk-bearing organizations in MA are responding to current payment dynamics and providing enhanced care and access to patients, particularly historically underserved populations.

Burden Of Health-Related Social Needs Among Dual- And Non-Dual-Eligible Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries.

Little information exists to inform stakeholders' efforts to screen for, address, and risk-adjust for the health-related social needs (HRSNs) of Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees, particularly those not dually Medicaid-Medicare eligible and those younger than age sixty-five. HRSNs can include food insecurity, housing instability, transportation issues, and other factors. We examined the prevalence of HRSNs in 2019 among 61,779 enrollees in a large, national MA plan. Although HRSNs were more common among dual-eligible beneficiaries, with 80 percent reporting at least one (average, 2.2 per beneficiary), 48 percent of non-dual-eligible beneficiaries reported one or more, indicating that dual eligibility alone would have inadequately captured HRSN risk. HRSN burden was unequally distributed across multiple beneficiary characteristics, notably with beneficiaries younger than age sixty-five more likely than those ages sixty-five and older to report having an HRSN. We also found that some HRSNs were more strongly associated with hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and physician visits than others. These findings suggest the importance of considering the HRSNs of dual- and non-dual-eligible beneficiaries, as well as those of beneficiaries of all ages, when exploring how to address HRSNs in the MA population.

Intensive care management for high-risk veterans in a patient-centered medical home - do some veterans benefit more than others?

BACKGROUND: Primary care intensive management programs utilize interdisciplinary care teams to comprehensively meet the complex care needs of patients at high risk for hospitalization. The mixed evidence on the effectiveness of these programs focuses on average treatment effects that may mask heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) among subgroups of patients. We test for HTEs by patients' demographic, economic, and social characteristics. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a VA randomized quality improvement trial. 3995 primary care patients at high risk for hospitalization were randomized to primary care intensive management (n = 1761) or usual primary care (n = 1731). We estimated HTEs on ED and hospital utilization one year after randomization using model-based recursive partitioning and a pre-versus post-with control group framework. Splitting variables included administratively collected demographic characteristics, travel distance, copay exemption, risk score for future hospitalizations, history of hospital discharge against medical advice, homelessness, and multiple residence ZIP codes. RESULTS: There were no average or heterogeneous treatment effects of intensive management one year after enrollment. The recursive partitioning algorithm identified variation in effects by risk score, homelessness, and whether the patient had multiple residences in a year. Within each distinct subgroup, the effect of intensive management was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care intensive management did not affect acute care use of high-risk patients on average or differentially for patients defined by various demographic, economic, and social characteristics. IMPLICATIONS: Reducing acute care use for high-risk patients is complex, and more work is required to identify patients positioned to benefit from intensive management programs.

How Did Veterans' Reliance on Veterans Health Administration Outpatient Care Change After Expansion of the Veterans Community Care Program?

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP) aims to address access constraints in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) by reimbursing care from non-VA community providers. Little existing research explores how veterans' choice of VA versus VCCP providers has evolved as a significant VCCP expansion in 2014 as part of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act. OBJECTIVES: We examined changes in reliance on VA for primary care (PC), mental health (MH), and specialty care (SC) among VCCP-eligible veterans. RESEARCH DESIGN: We linked VA administrative data with VCCP claims to retrospectively examine utilization during calendar years 2016-2018. SUBJECTS: 1.78 million veterans enrolled in VA before 2013 and VCCP-eligible in 2016 due to limited VA capacity or travel hardship. MEASURES: We measured reliance as the proportion of total annual outpatient (VA+VCCP) visits occurring in VA for PC, MH, and SC. RESULTS: Of the 26.1 million total outpatient visits identified, 45.6% were for MH, 29.9% for PC, and 24.4% for SC. Over the 3 years, 83.2% of veterans used any VA services, 23.8% used any VCCP services, and 20.0% were dual VA-VCCP users. Modest but statistically significant declines in reliance were observed from 2016-2018 for PC (94.5%-92.2%), and MH (97.8%-96.9%), and a more significant decline was observed for SC (88.5%-79.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Veterans who have the option of selecting between VA or VCCP providers continued using VA for most of their outpatient care in the initial years after the 2014 VCCP expansion.

Effects of Medicaid expansion on self-reported use of dental services in socioeconomically vulnerable subgroups.

OBJECTIVE: Research suggests Medicaid expansion led to modest increases in the use of dental services among low-income adults, especially in states with more generous Medicaid dental benefits. We expand upon this research by examining whether the effect of Medicaid expansion differed across important socioeconomic subgroups. METHODS: Using Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from 2012 to 2016, we employed a difference-in-differences framework to estimate the effect of Medicaid expansion on annual use of dental services overall and by whether states offered more-than-emergency Medicaid dental benefits. We used generalized linear mixed-effects model trees to estimate effects across socioeconomic subgroups (e.g., age, education, race, income). RESULTS: The effect of Medicaid expansion varied by state's generosity of Medicaid dental coverage and combinations of socioeconomic subgroups. Overall, there was no significant association between Medicaid expansion and probability of using dental services (-0.1 pp percentage points [pp], p = 0.914). Medicaid expansion was associated with a modest increase in the probability of using dental services in states with more-than-emergency Medicaid dental benefits (2.3 pp, p < 0.001) and with a modest decrease in states with no or emergency-only benefits (-4.3 pp, p < 0.001). Among adults aged 21-35 without a high school diploma, Medicaid expansion was associated with an 8.1 pp (p = 0.003) increase in dental use probability, but there were no associated effects of Medicaid expansion for other subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: While Medicaid expansion alone is not sufficient to ensure adults receive recommended dental care, some vulnerable subgroups appear to have benefited. Efforts to mitigate barriers to dental care may be needed to increase uptake of dental services by low-income adults.

Primary Care Practice Transformation Introduces Different Staff Roles.

PURPOSE: Practices in the 4-year Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative changed staffing patterns during 2012-2016 to improve care delivery. We sought to characterize these changes and to compare practice patterns with those in similar non-CPC practices in 2016. METHODS: We conducted an online survey among selected US primary care practices. We statistically tested 2012-2016 changes in practice-reported staff composition among 461 CPC practices using 2-tailed t tests. Using logistic regression analysis, we compared differences in staff types between the CPC practices and 358 comparison practices that participated in the survey in 2016. RESULTS: In 2012, most CPC practices reported having physicians (100%), administrative staff (99%), and medical assistants (90%). By 2016, 84% reported having care managers/care coordinators (up from 24% in 2012), and 29% reported having behavioral health professionals, clinical psychologists, or social workers (up from 19% in 2014). There were also smaller increases (of less than 10 percentage points) in the share of practices having pharmacists, nutritionists, registered nurses, quality improvement specialists, and health educators. Larger and system-affiliated practices were more likely to report having care managers/care coordinators and behavioral health professionals. In 2016, relative to comparison practices, CPC practices were more likely to report having various staff types-notably, care managers/care coordinators (84% of CPC vs 36% of comparison practices), behavioral health professionals (29% vs 12%), and pharmacists (18% vs 4%). CONCLUSIONS: During the CPC initiative, CPC practices added different staff types to a fairly traditional staffing model of physicians with medical assistants. They most commonly added care managers/care coordinators and behavioral health staff to support the CPC model and, at the end of CPC, were more likely to have these staff members than comparison practices.

Patient experience during a large primary care practice transformation initiative.

OBJECTIVES: To determine how the multipayer Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative that transformed primary care delivery affected patient experience of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. The study examines whether patient experience changed during the 4-year initiative, whether ratings of CPC practices changed relative to ratings of comparison practices, and areas in which practices still have an opportunity to improve patient experience. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study using 2 cross-sectional samples of more than 25,000 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to 490 CPC practices and more than 8000 beneficiaries attributed to 736 comparison practices. METHODS: We analyzed patient experience 8 to 12 months and 45 to 48 months after CPC began, measured using 5 domains of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group survey with Patient-Centered Medical Home items, version 2.0. A regression-adjusted analysis compared differences in the proportion of beneficiaries giving the best responses (and, as a sensitivity test, mean responses) to survey questions over time and between CPC and comparison practices. RESULTS: Patient ratings of care over time were generally comparable for CPC and comparison practices. CPC had favorable effects on measures of follow-up care after hospitalizations and emergency department visits. CONCLUSIONS: Practice transformation did not alter patient experience. The lack of favorable findings raises questions about how future efforts in primary care can succeed in improving patient experience.

Patient experience midway through a large primary care practice transformation initiative.

OBJECTIVES: To determine how the multipayer Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative that transforms primary care delivery affects the patient experience of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. The study examines how experience changed between the first and second years of CPC, how ratings of CPC practices have changed relative to ratings of comparison practices, and areas in which practices still have opportunities to improve patient experience. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study using 2 serial cross-sectional samples of more than 25,000 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to 496 CPC practices and nearly 9000 beneficiaries attributed to 792 comparison practices. METHODS: We analyzed patient experience 8 to 12 months and 21 to 24 months after CPC began, measured using 6 domains of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group 12-Month Survey with Patient-Centered Medical Home supplemental items. We compared changes over time in patients giving the best responses between CPC and comparison practices using a regression-adjusted difference-in-differences analysis. RESULTS: Patient ratings of care over time were generally comparable for CPC and comparison practices, with slightly more favorable differences-generally of small magnitude-for CPC practices than expected by chance. There were small, statistically significant, favorable effects for 2 of 6 composite measures measured using both the proportion giving the best responses and mean responses: getting timely appointments, care, and information; providers support patients in taking care of their own health; and providers discuss medication decisions. There was an additional small favorable effect on the proportion of patients giving the best response in getting timely appointments, care, and information; there was no effect on the mean. CONCLUSIONS: During the first 2 years of CPC, CPC practices showed slightly better year-to-year patient experience ratings for selected items, indicating that transformation did not negatively affect patient experience and improved some aspects slightly. Patient ratings for the 2 groups were generally comparable, and both faced substantial room for improvement.