The Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Model and Health Care Spending, Service Use, and Quality.

Importance: Implemented in 18 regions, Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) was the largest US primary care delivery model ever tested. Understanding its association with health outcomes is critical in designing future transformation models. Objective: To test whether CPC+ was associated with lower health care spending and utilization and improved quality of care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Difference-in-differences regression models compared changes in outcomes between the year before CPC+ and 5 intervention years for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to CPC+ and comparison practices. Participants included 1373 track 1 (1 549 585 beneficiaries) and 1515 track 2 (5 347 499 beneficiaries) primary care practices that applied to start CPC+ in 2017 and met minimum care delivery and other eligibility requirements. Comparison groups included 5243 track 1 (5 347 499 beneficiaries) and 3783 track 2 (4 507 499 beneficiaries) practices, matched, and weighted to have similar beneficiary-, practice-, and market-level characteristics as CPC+ practices. Interventions: Two-track design involving enhanced (higher for track 2) and alternative payments (track 2 only), care delivery requirements (greater for track 2), data feedback, learning, and health information technology support. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary outcome was annualized Medicare Part A and B expenditures per beneficiary per month (PBPM). Secondary outcomes included expenditure categories, utilization (eg, hospitalizations), and claims-based quality-of-care process and outcome measures (eg, recommended tests for patients with diabetes and unplanned readmissions). Results: Among the CPC+ patients, 5% were Black, 3% were Hispanic, 87% were White, and 5% were of other races (including Asian/Other Pacific Islander and American Indian); 85% of CPC+ patients were older than 65 years and 58% were female. CPC+ was associated with no discernible changes in the total expenditures (track 1: $1.1 PBPM [90% CI, -$4.3 to $6.6], P = .74; track 2: $1.3 [90% CI, -$5 to $7.7], P = .73), and with increases in expenditures including enhanced payments (track 1: $13 [90% CI, $7 to $18], P < .001; track 2: $24 [90% CI, $18 to $31], P < .001). Among secondary outcomes, CPC+ was associated with decreases in emergency department visits starting in year 1, and in acute hospitalizations and acute inpatient expenditures in later years. Associations were more favorable for practices also participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program and independent practices. CPC+ was not associated with meaningful changes in claims-based quality-of-care measures. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the timing of the associations of CPC+ with reduced utilization and acute inpatient expenditures was consistent with the theory of change and early focus on episodic care management of CPC+, CPC+ was not associated with a reduction in total expenditures over 5 years. Positive interaction between CPC+ and the Shared Savings Program suggests transformation models might be more successful when provider cost-reduction incentives are aligned across specialties. Further adaptations and testing of primary care transformation models, as well as consideration of the larger context in which they operate, are needed.

Long-Term Effects of the Comprehensive Primary Care Model on Health Care Spending and Utilization.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services launched the 4-year Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative (CPC Classic) in 2012 and its 5-year successor, CPC Plus (CPC+), in 2017 to test whether improving primary care delivery in five areas-and providing practices with financial and technical support-reduced spending and improved quality. This is the first study to examine long-term effects of a primary care practice transformation model. OBJECTIVE: To test whether long-term primary care transformation-the 4-year CPC Classic and the first 2 years of its successor, CPC+-reduced hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and spending over 6 years. DESIGN: We used a difference-in-differences analysis to compare outcomes for beneficiaries attributed to CPC Classic practices with outcomes for beneficiaries attributed to comparison practices during the year before and 6 years after CPC Classic began. PARTICIPANTS: The study involved 565,674 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to 502 CPC Classic practices and 1,165,284 beneficiaries attributed to 908 comparison practices, with similar beneficiary-, practice-, and market-level characteristics as the CPC Classic practices. INTERVENTIONS: The interventions required primary care practices to improve 5 care areas and supported their transformation with substantially enhanced payment, data feedback, and learning support and, for CPC+, added health information technology support. MAIN MEASURES: Hospitalizations (all-cause), ED visits (outpatient and total), and Medicare Part A and B expenditures. KEY RESULTS: Relative to comparison practices, beneficiaries in intervention practices experienced slower growth in hospitalizations-3.1% less in year 5 and 3.5% less in year 6 (P < 0.01) and roughly 2% (P < 0.1) slower growth each year in total ED visits during years 3 through 6. Medicare Part A and B expenditures (excluding care management fees) did not change appreciably. CONCLUSIONS: The emergence of favorable effects on hospitalizations in years 5 and 6 suggests primary care transformation takes time to translate into lower hospitalizations. Longer tests of models are needed.

Features of health care interventions associated with reduced services and spending.

OBJECTIVES: This study examines 14 independent and diverse health care interventions funded under the second round of Health Care Innovation Awards by CMS to determine if any organizational, model, or implementation features were strongly associated with the programs' estimated impacts on total expenditures, hospitalizations, or emergency department visits. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated program impacts using awardee-specific difference-in-differences models based on Medicare and Medicaid enrollment and claims data for treatment and matched comparison groups from 2012 to 2018. METHODS: We used 2 analytic approaches to identify program features associated with favorable impacts. The first method identified program characteristics that were common among programs that had estimated reductions in costs and service use and uncommon among those that did not. The second approach compared median impacts among awardees with a given distinguishing feature with median impacts among awardees that lacked the characteristic. RESULTS: Of the 23 program features examined, 7 were associated with favorable estimated impacts: 3 intervention components (behavioral health, telehealth, and health information technology) and 4 program design and organizational characteristics (having prior experience implementing similar programs, targeting patients with substantial nonmedical needs in addition to medical problems, being focused on individual patient care rather than transforming provider practice, and using nonclinical staff as frontline providers of the intervention). CONCLUSIONS: Innovative health care service delivery models with 2 or more of these 7 identified features were more likely than programs without them to reduce Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries' needs for costly health care services.

Participation in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Initiative.

PURPOSE: Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) is the largest test of primary care payment and delivery reform. This program aims to strengthen primary care via enhanced and alternative payment, data feedback, learning, and health information technology support for practice transformation for more than 3,000 practices. We analyzed participation rates and how CPC+ practices differ from other primary care practices in CPC+ regions. METHODS: We assembled a unique data set describing all US primary care practices and compared primary care practices in CPC+ regions, CPC+ applicants, and CPC+ participants. Among CPC+ participants, we compared across 2 model tracks. RESULTS: Of the primary care practices in CPC+ regions, 22% applied for CPC+ and 15% participated. Practices that applied to CPC+ were diverse, but they were generally larger, more sophisticated electronic health record users, more likely to be owned by a hospital or health system, more likely to have experience with transformation efforts, and more likely to be in urban areas than practices that did not apply. Applicants also generally served slightly healthier and more advantaged Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Differences between practices that applied but did not join CPC+ and CPC+ participants were smaller yet systematic. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in CPC+ are diverse but not representative of all primary care practices, underscoring the need to further engage practices that are small, independent, in rural areas, and lack experience with practice and payment transformation models, as well as the need to extrapolate evaluation results carefully.

The Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative: Effects On Spending, Quality, Patients, And Physicians.

The Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative (CPC), a health care delivery model developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), tested whether multipayer support of 502 primary care practices across the country would improve primary care delivery, improve care quality, or reduce spending. We evaluated the initiative's effects on care delivery and outcomes for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries attributed to initiative practices, relative to those attributed to matched comparison practices. CPC practices reported improvements in primary care delivery, including care management for high-risk patients, enhanced access, and improved coordination of care transitions. The initiative slowed growth in emergency department visits by 2 percent in CPC practices, relative to comparison practices. However, it did not reduce Medicare spending enough to cover care management fees or appreciably improve physician or beneficiary experience or practice performance on a limited set of Medicare claims-based quality measures. As CMS and other payers increasingly use alternative payment models that reward quality and value, CPC provides important lessons about supporting practices in transforming care.

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.

Two-Year Costs and Quality in the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The 4-year, multipayer Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative was started in October 2012 to determine whether several forms of support would produce changes in care delivery that would improve the quality and reduce the costs of care at 497 primary care practices in seven regions across the United States. Support included the provision of care-management fees, the opportunity to earn shared savings, and the provision of data feedback and learning support. METHODS: We tracked changes in the delivery of care by practices participating in the initiative and used difference-in-differences regressions to compare changes over the first 2 years of the initiative in Medicare expenditures, health care utilization, claims-based measures of quality, and patient experience for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to initiative practices and a group of matched comparison practices. RESULTS: During the first 2 years, initiative practices received a median of $115,000 per clinician in care-management fees. The practices reported improvements in approaches to the delivery of primary care in areas such as management of the care of high-risk patients and enhanced access to care. Changes in average monthly Medicare expenditures per beneficiary did not differ significantly between initiative and comparison practices when care-management fees were not taken into account (-$11; 95% confidence interval [CI], -$23 to $1; P=0.07; negative values indicate less growth in spending at initiative practices) or when these fees were taken into account ($7; 95% CI, -$5 to $19; P=0.27). The only significant differences in other measures were a 3% reduction in primary care visits for initiative practices relative to comparison practices (P<0.001) and changes in two of the six domains of patient experience--discussion of decisions regarding medication with patients and the provision of support for patients taking care of their own health--both of which showed a small improvement in initiative practices relative to comparison practices (P=0.006 and P<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Midway through this 4-year intervention, practices participating in the initiative have reported progress in transforming the delivery of primary care. However, at this point these practices have not yet shown savings in expenditures for Medicare Parts A and B after accounting for care-management fees, nor have they shown an appreciable improvement in the quality of care or patient experience. (Funded by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02320591.).

Staffing patterns of primary care practices in the comprehensive primary care initiative.

PURPOSE: Despite growing calls for team-based care, the current staff composition of primary care practices is unknown. We describe staffing patterns for primary care practices in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative. METHODS: We undertook a descriptive analysis of CPC initiative practices' baseline staffing using data from initial applications and a practice survey. CMS selected 502 primary care practices (from 987 applicants) in 7 regions based on their health information technology, number of patients covered by participating payers, and other factors; 496 practices were included in this analysis. RESULTS: Consistent with the national distribution, most of the CPC initiative practices included in this study were small: 44% reported 2 or fewer full-time equivalent (FTE) physicians; 27% reported more than 4. Nearly all reported administrative staff (98%) and medical assistants (89%). Fifty-three percent reported having nurse practitioners or physician assistants; 47%, licensed practical or vocational nurses; 36%, registered nurses; and 24%, care managers/coordinators-all of these positions are more common in larger practices. Other clinical staff were reported infrequently regardless of practice size. Compared with other CPC initiative practices, designated patient-centered medical homes were more likely to have care managers/coordinators but otherwise had similar staff types. Larger practices had fewer FTE staff per physician. CONCLUSIONS: At baseline, most CPC initiative practices used traditional staffing models and did not report having dedicated staff who may be integral to new primary care models, such as care coordinators, health educators, behavioral health specialists, and pharmacists. Without such staff and payment for their services, practices are unlikely to deliver comprehensive, coordinated, and accessible care to patients at a sustainable cost.

Examining effectiveness of medical interpreters in emergency departments for Spanish-speaking patients with limited English proficiency: results of a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: This study examines whether availability of in-person professional interpreter services during emergency department (ED) visits affects satisfaction of limited English proficient patients and their health providers, using a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We randomized time blocks during which in-person professional interpreters were available to Spanish-speaking patients in the EDs of 2 central New Jersey hospitals. We assessed the intervention's effects on patient and provider satisfaction through a multilevel regression model that accounted for the nesting of patients within time blocks and controlled for the patient's age and sex, hospital, and when the visit occurred (weekday or weekend). RESULTS: During the 7-month intake period, 242 patients were enrolled during 101 treatment time blocks and 205 patients were enrolled during 100 control time blocks. Regression-adjusted results indicate that 96% of treatment group patients were "very satisfied" (on a 5-point Likert scale) with their ability to communicate during the visit compared with 24% of control group patients (odds ratio=72; 95% confidence interval 31 to 167). (Among control group members who were not very satisfied, responses ranged from "very dissatisfied" to "somewhat satisfied.") Similarly, physicians, triage nurses, and discharge nurses were more likely to be very satisfied with communication during treatment time blocks than during control time blocks. We did not assess acuity of illness or global measures of satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Use of in-person, professionally trained medical interpreters significantly increases Spanish-speaking limited English proficient patients' and their health providers' satisfaction with communication during ED visits.

Costs to Medicare of the Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine (IDEATel) home telemedicine demonstration: findings from an independent evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impacts on Medicare costs of providing a particular type of home telemedicine to eligible Medicare beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Two cohorts of beneficiaries (n = 1,665 and 504, respectively) living in two medically underserved areas of New York between 2000 and 2007 were randomized to intensive nurse case management via televisits or usual care. Medicare service use and costs covering a 6-year follow-up period were drawn from claims data. Impacts were estimated using regression analyses. RESULTS: Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine (IDEATel) did not reduce Medicare costs in either site. Total costs were between 71 and 116% higher for the treatment group than for the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Although IDEATel had modest effects on clinical outcomes (reported elsewhere), it did not reduce Medicare use or costs for health services. The intervention's costs were excessive (over $8,000 per person per year) compared with programs with similar-sized clinical impacts.

The research design and methodological issues for the Cash and Counseling Evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the design, research questions, data sources, and methods used to evaluate the Cash and Counseling Demonstration and resolution of analytic concerns that arose. The methodology was designed to provide statistically rigorous estimates while presenting the findings in a manner easily accessible to a broad, non-technical audience. STUDY SETTING: Eligible Medicaid beneficiaries in Arkansas, Florida, and New Jersey who volunteered to participate in the demonstration were randomly assigned to receive an allowance and direct their own Medicaid supportive services as Cash and Counseling consumers (the treatment group) or to rely on Medicaid services as usual (the control group). The demonstration included elderly and non-elderly adults in all three states and children in Florida. Both age groups in Arkansas and New Jersey and the elderly adults group in Florida primarily included individuals with physical disabilities. In Florida, the children and non-elderly adults primarily included individuals with developmental disabilities. The intervention was conducted from 1999 through 2003. DATA SOURCES: Data included baseline and 9-month follow-up surveys of consumers, surveys of the primary informal caregiver and the primary paid worker for sample members, program data, interviews with program staff, and Medicaid and Medicare claims data. METHODS: Descriptive data analyses were conducted on program participation, program implementation, and the experiences of hired workers. Program impacts on consumers, caregivers, and costs were estimated using an intent-to-treat-approach, comparing the regression-adjusted means of outcomes for the full treatment and control groups. A broad set of control variables from the baseline interview and prior Medicaid claims data controlled for possible preexisting differences. Ordinal scale responses were converted to binary outcome indicators for high and for low values for ease of presentation and interpretation of effects. Two-tailed statistical tests of the estimated effects were conducted at the .05 level. Separate estimates were provided for each state and for each age group. Sensitivity tests were conducted of the robustness of estimates to outliers (for continuous outcome measures) and to proxy use. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS/CONCLUSION: The experimental design, high survey response rates, and available sample sizes led to valid, unbiased estimates of program impacts, with adequate power to detect moderate-size impacts on most outcomes for the key age subgroups examined. For certain survey-based outcome measures related to satisfaction with paid care, the sample had to be restricted to those who received care and those without proxy respondents who were also hired workers. Sensitivity tests suggest that these necessary restrictions were unlikely to have led to over statement of favorable program effects on these outcome measures. The high proportions of sample members with proxy respondents reflect the frailty of the sample members. Similar rates for treatment and control groups cases with proxy respondents suggest the high use of proxy respondents has not biased the estimated program effects on survey measures.

Effects of Cash and Counseling on personal care and well-being.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how a new model of consumer-directed care changes the way that consumers with disabilities meet their personal care needs and, in turn, affects their well-being. STUDY SETTING: Eligible Medicaid beneficiaries in Arkansas, Florida, and New Jersey volunteered to participate in the demonstration and were randomly assigned to receive an allowance and direct their own Medicaid supportive services as Cash and Counseling consumers (the treatment group) or to rely on Medicaid services as usual (the control group). The demonstration included elderly and non-elderly adults in all three states and children in Florida. DATA SOURCES: Telephone interviews administered 9 months after random assignment. METHODS: Outcomes for the treatment and control group were compared, using regression analysis to control for consumers' baseline characteristics. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Treatment group members were more likely to receive paid care, had greater satisfaction with their care, and had fewer unmet needs than control group members in nearly every state and age group. However, among the elderly in Florida, Cash and Counseling had little effect on these outcomes because so few treatment group members actually received the allowance. Within each state and age group, consumers were not more susceptible to adverse health outcomes or injuries under Cash and Counseling. CONCLUSIONS: Cash and Counseling substantially improves the lives of Medicaid beneficiaries of all ages if consumers actually receive the allowance that the program offers.

How does Cash and Counseling affect costs?

OBJECTIVE: To test the effect of a consumer-directed model (Cash and Counseling) of Medicaid personal care services (PCS) or home- and community-based waiver services (HCBS) on the cost of Medicaid services. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Medicaid claims data were collected for all enrollees in the Cash and Counseling demonstration. Demonstration enrollees included those eligible for PCS (in Arkansas), those assessed to receive such services (in New Jersey), and recipients of Medicaid HCBS (in Florida). Enrollment occurred from December 1998 through April 2001. The follow-up period covered up to 24 months after enrollment. STUDY DESIGN: Demonstration volunteers were randomly assigned to have the option to participate in Cash and Counseling (the treatment group), or to receive Medicaid services as usual from an agency (the control group). Ordinary least squares regressions were used to estimate the effect of the program on costs for Medicaid PCS/waiver services and other Medicaid services, while controlling for consumers' preenrollment characteristics and preenrollment Medicaid spending. Models were estimated separately for nonelderly and elderly adults in each state and for children in Florida. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: Each state supplied claims data for demonstration enrollees. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Largely because the program increased consumers' ability to get the authorized amount of paid care, expenditures for personal care/waiver services were higher for the treatment group than for the control group in each state and age group, except among the elderly in Florida. Higher costs for personal care/waiver services were partially offset by savings in other Medicaid services, particularly those related to long-term care. During year 1, total Medicaid costs were generally higher for the treatment group than for the control group, with treatment-control cost differences ranging from 1 percent (and statistically insignificant) for the elderly in Florida to 17 percent for the elderly in Arkansas. In year 2, these cost differences were generally greater than in year 1. Only in Arkansas did the treatment-control difference in total cost shrink over time-to less than 5 percent (and statistically insignificant) in year 2. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid costs were generally higher under Cash and Counseling because those in the traditional system did not get the services they were entitled to. Compared with the treatment group, (1) control group members were less likely to receive any services at all (despite being authorized for them), and (2) service recipients received a lower proportion of the amount of care that was authorized. In addition, a flaw in Florida's reassessment procedures led to treatment group members receiving more generous benefit amounts than control group members. To keep total Medicaid costs per recipient at the level incurred under the traditional system, consumer-directed programs need to be carefully designed and closely monitored.

How caregivers and workers fared in Cash and Counseling.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of Cash and Counseling on Medicaid beneficiaries' primary informal caregivers and describe the experiences of their directly hired workers. STUDY SETTING: Beneficiaries in Arkansas, Florida, and New Jersey voluntarily enrolled in the demonstration and were randomly assigned to direct their own Medicaid supportive services as Cash and Counseling consumers (the treatment group) or to rely on Medicaid services as usual (the control group). Beneficiaries identified their primary informal caregiver during a baseline interview and their primary paid worker during a 9-month follow-up interview. DATA SOURCES: Data were collected through telephone interviews with caregivers and workers. These interviews were conducted about 10 months after beneficiaries' random assignment, between February 2000 and May 2003, depending on the state. DATA ANALYSIS METHODS: We estimated program effects with regression and logit models and compared the mean characteristics of directly hired workers and agency workers, by state. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Compared with caregivers in the control group, those in the treatment group had modestly to substantially better outcomes for measures of satisfaction with care, worry, and physical and financial strain. For hours of care and emotional strain, outcomes in the treatment group were similar to or somewhat better than those in the control group. Directly hired workers reported greater satisfaction with wages, similar satisfaction with working conditions, and similar rates of injuries as agency workers. Workers who were related to the beneficiary reported more emotional strain than agency workers. CONCLUSIONS: Cash and Counseling can lessen some of the burden associated with caring for a child or adult with disabilities. The experiences of hired workers suggest consumer direction is a sustainable option, but support networks for workers might be a welcome program improvement.

Reducing nursing home use through consumer-directed personal care services.

CONTEXT: Personal care services (PCS) are intended to enable beneficiaries with physical or cognitive impairments to live safely at home rather than in nursing facilities. The quality and flexibility of these services, typically provided by home care agencies, may not be sufficient to allow some beneficiaries to continue living at home. OBJECTIVE: We sought to test whether consumer direction of PCS under Arkansas's Cash and Counseling demonstration reduces nursing facility use and expenditures, compared with traditional Medicaid PCS, and how it affects total Medicaid cost. DESIGN: Interested adult Medicaid beneficiaries in Arkansas who were eligible to receive Medicaid PCS were randomly assigned (1) to have the option to receive an allowance instead of PCS (the treatment group) or (2) to receive traditional PCS through an agency (the control group). Between December 1998 and April 2001, 2008 beneficiaries enrolled. MEASURES: : Nursing facility use and costs, PCS costs, and total Medicaid costs (according to Medicaid claims data). RESULTS: Nursing facility use was 18% lower for the treatment group than for the control group during the 3-year follow-up period. Among those who had received PCS before the demonstration, nursing facility savings, together with savings in other long-term care costs, fully offset the higher PCS costs. These savings did not offset the higher PCS costs of new PCS applicants, since the increase in the proportion receiving paid care was so large for this subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Consumer-directed PCS in Arkansas reduces nursing facility use and costs more effectively than providing services in the traditional manner. This favorable reduction in nursing facility costs was much more pronounced in Arkansas than in the other 2 states (New Jersey and Florida) where the Cash and Counseling demonstration was carried out.

How do hired workers fare under consumer-directed personal care?

PURPOSE: This study describes the experiences of workers hired under consumer direction. DESIGN AND METHODS: Medicaid beneficiaries who volunteered for the Cash and Counseling demonstration were randomly assigned to the treatment group, which could participate in the consumer-directed program, or the control group, which was referred to agency care. Paid workers for both groups were surveyed about 10 months after demonstration enrollment. RESULTS: Directly hired workers for the treatment group were nearly always the consumers' friends or relatives. The two groups received similar wages and both were highly satisfied with their working conditions and the supervision they received. Compared with agency workers, directly hired workers who lived with or were related to the consumer were more likely to report emotional strain and a desire for more respect from the consumer's family; however, no such differences were observed for directly hired workers who were not relatives. Directly hired workers and agency workers providing comparable amounts of care reported similar levels of injury and physical strain, although directly hired workers received less formal training. IMPLICATIONS: The Cash and Counseling model does not appear to cause adverse consequences for the hired workers. Directly hired workers report high levels of job satisfaction and do not suffer physical or emotional hardship beyond what might be expected for individuals providing care to relatives. However, states might be able to reduce emotional strain and injuries by providing educational materials and referrals for consumers, their families, and workers, and by having counselors monitor workers' well-being.

The effects of cash and counseling on personal care services and Medicaid costs in Arkansas.

The Cash and Counseling Demonstration gives Medicaid beneficiaries who are eligible for personal care services a consumer-directed allowance in lieu of traditional agency services. Using survey and Medicaid claims data on 2,008 adult applicants randomly assigned to treatment or control groups, we find the program increased the receipt of paid care but reduced unpaid care. The treatment group had higher Medicaid personal care expenditures than controls did, because many controls received no paid help, and recipients obtained only two-thirds of entitled services. By the second year after enrollment, these higher personal care expenditures were offset by lower spending for nursing homes and other Medicaid services.