Lessons Learned in Providing Claims-Based Data to Participants in Health Care Innovation Models.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has been providing data to organizations participating in a range of innovation models to help them implement interventions and to provide feedback on performance. The authors studied 18 CMS models to gain a better understanding of factors contributing to model participants' use or nonuse of CMS-provided data. Factors that contribute to greater use include providing data that participants view as actionable, some type of accountability for performance, robust learning support, participants having resources to work with the data, and soliciting ongoing feedback about the data and related learning needs. Factors that discourage data uptake include time lag, lack of aggregated multi-payer data, exclusion of data for sensitive diagnoses, and small sample sizes. Claims-based data from payers can be an important source of information to innovation model participants. Lessons from this study can increase the usefulness of such data.

Changes in Utilization and Expenditures for Medicare Beneficiaries in Patient-centered Medical Homes: Findings From the Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Practice Demonstration.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered medical homes are expected to reduce expenditures by increasing the use of primary care services, shifting care from inpatient to outpatient settings, and reducing avoidable utilization. Under the Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Practice (MAPCP) Demonstration, Medicare joined Medicaid and commercial payers in 8 states to support ongoing patient-centered medical home initiatives. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of the MAPCP Demonstration on health care utilization and expenditures for Medicare beneficiaries. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used difference-in-differences regression modeling to estimate changes in utilization and expenditures before and after the start of the MAPCP Demonstration, comparing beneficiaries engaged with MAPCP Demonstration practices to beneficiaries engaged with primary care practices that were not medical homes. Qualitative data collected during annual site visits provided contextual information on participating practices to inform interpretations of the demonstration outcomes. SUBJECTS: Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries attributed to MAPCP Demonstration practices or to comparison group practices. MEASURES: Medicare claims were used to measure total Medicare expenditures and utilization and expenditures for inpatient, emergency room, primary care, and specialist services. RESULTS: Despite the transformation of practices over the demonstration period, there was minimal evidence of a shift to more efficient utilization of health care services, and only 1 state saw a statistically significant reduction in total per-beneficiary expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: Although the MAPCP Demonstration did not have strong, consistent impacts on utilization and expenditures, this evaluation provides insights that may be useful for the design of future health care transformation models.

Utilization of health care services among Medicare beneficiaries who visit federally qualified health centers.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have disagreed on whether patients who receive primary care from federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) have different utilization patterns than patients who receive care elsewhere. Our objective was to compare patterns of healthcare utilization between Medicare beneficiaries who received primary care from FQHCs and Medicare beneficiaries who received primary care from another source. METHODS: We compared characteristics and ambulatory, emergency department (ED), and inpatient utilization during 2013 between 130,637 Medicare beneficiaries who visited an FQHC for the majority of their primary care in 2013 (FQHC users) and a random sample of 1,000,000 Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries who did not visit an FQHC (FQHC non-users). We then created a propensity-matched sample of 130,569 FQHC users and 130,569 FQHC non-users to account for differences in observable patient characteristics between the two groups and repeated all comparisons. RESULTS: Before matching, the two samples differed in terms of age (42% below age 65 for FQHC users vs. 16% among FQHC non-users, p < 0.001 for all comparisons), disability (52% vs. 24%), eligibility for Medicaid (56% vs. 21%), severe mental health disorders (17% vs. 10%), and substance abuse disorders (6% vs. 3%). FQHC users had fewer ambulatory visits to primary care or specialist providers (10.0 vs. 12.0 per year), more ED visits (1.2 vs. 0.8), and fewer hospitalizations (0.3 vs. 0.4). In the matched sample, FQHC users still had slightly lower utilization of ambulatory visits to primary care or specialist providers (10.0 vs. 11.2) and slightly higher utilization of ED visits (1.2 vs. 1.0), compared to FQHC users. Hospitalization rates between the two groups were similar (0.3 vs. 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: In this population of Medicare FFS beneficiaries, FQHC users had slightly lower utilization of ambulatory visits and slightly higher utilization of ED visits, compared to FQHC non-users, after accounting for differences in case mix. This study suggests that FQHC care and non-FQHC care are associated with broadly similar levels of healthcare utilization among Medicare FFS beneficiaries.

Use of Welcome to Medicare Visits Among Older Adults Following the Affordable Care Act.

INTRODUCTION: To encourage greater utilization of preventive services among Medicare beneficiaries, the 2010 Affordable Care Act waived coinsurance for the Welcome to Medicare visit, making this benefit free starting in 2011. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of the Affordable Care Act on Welcome to Medicare visit utilization. METHODS: A 5% sample of newly enrolled fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries for 2005-2016 was used to estimate changes in Welcome to Medicare visit use over time. An interrupted time series model examined whether Welcome to Medicare visits increased significantly after 2011, controlling for pre-intervention trends and other autocorrelation. RESULTS: Annual Welcome to Medicare visit rates began at 1.4% in 2005 and increased to 12.3% by 2016. The quarterly Welcome to Medicare visit rate, which was almost 1% at baseline, was increasing by 0.06% before the 2011 Affordable Care Act provision (p<0.001). Immediately following the 2011 Affordable Care Act provision, the rate increased by about 1% in the first quarter of 2011 (intercept, p<0.001), followed by an increase of 0.13% every subsequent quarter (slope, p<0.001). This general trend was observed in subgroup analyses, although this trend varied by subgroups where the pre-Affordable Care Act trends of lower utilization persisted over time for non-whites and improved less quickly for men, regions other than Northeast, and beneficiaries without any supplemental insurance. CONCLUSIONS: The Affordable Care Act, and perhaps the removal of cost sharing, was associated with increased use of the Welcome to Medicare visit; however, even with the increased use, there is room for improvement.

Association Between Patient-Centered Medical Home Capabilities and Outcomes for Medicare Beneficiaries Seeking Care from Federally Qualified Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered medical home (PCMH) models of primary care have the potential to expand access, improve population health, and lower costs. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) were early adopters of PCMH models. OBJECTIVE: We measured PCMH capabilities in a diverse nationwide sample of FQHCs and assessed the relationship between PCMH capabilities and Medicare beneficiary outcomes. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, propensity score-weighted, multivariable regression analysis. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 804 FQHC sites that applied to a nationwide FQHC PCMH initiative and 231,163 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who received a plurality of their primary care services from these sites. MAIN MEASURES: PCMH capabilities were self-reported using the National Committee for Quality Assurance's (NCQA's) 2011 application for PCMH recognition. Measures of utilization, continuity of care, quality, and Medicare expenditures were derived from Medicare claims covering a 1-year period ending October 2011. KEY RESULTS: Nearly 88% of sites were classified as having PCMH capabilities equivalent to NCQA Level 1, 2, or 3 PCMH recognition. These more advanced sites were associated with 228 additional FQHC visits per 1000 Medicare beneficiaries (95% CI: 176, 278), compared with less advanced sites; 0.02 points higher practice-level continuity of care (95% CI: 0.01, 0.03); and a greater likelihood of administering two of four recommended diabetes tests. However, more advanced sites were also associated with 181 additional visits to specialists per 1000 beneficiaries (95% CI: 124, 232) and 64 additional visits to emergency departments (95% CI: 35, 89)-but with no differences in inpatient utilization. More advanced sites had higher Part B expenditures ($111 per beneficiary [95% CI: $61, $158]) and total Medicare expenditures of $353 [95% CI: $65, $614]). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of PCMH models in FQHCs may be associated with improved primary care for Medicare beneficiaries. Expanded access to care, in combination with slower development of key PCMH capabilities, may explain higher Medicare expenditures and other types of utilization.

Reducing Inpatient Hospital and Emergency Room Utilization Among Nursing Home Residents.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association among nursing home residents between strength of relationship with a primary care provider (PCP) and inpatient hospital and emergency room (ER) utilization. METHOD: Medicare administrative data for beneficiaries residing in a nursing home between July 2007 and June 2009 were used in multivariate analyses controlling for beneficiary, nursing home, and market characteristics to assess the association between two measures-percentage of months with a PCP visit and whether the patient maintained the same usual source of care after nursing home admission-and hospital admissions and ER visits for all causes and for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs). RESULTS: Both measures of strength of patient-provider relationships were associated with fewer inpatient admissions and ER visits, except regularity of PCP visits and ACSC ER visits. DISCUSSION: Policy makers should consider increasing the strength of nursing home resident and PCP relationships as one strategy for reducing inpatient and ER utilization.

Total cost of care lower among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries receiving care from patient-centered medical homes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare health care utilization and payments between NCQA-recognized patient-centered medical home (PCMH) practices and practices without such recognition. DATA SOURCES: Medicare Part A and B claims files from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2010, 2009 Census, 2007 Health Resources and Services Administration and CMS Utilization file, Medicare's Enrollment Data Base, and the 2005 American Medical Association Physician Workforce file. STUDY DESIGN: This study used a longitudinal, nonexperimental design. Three annual observations (July 1, 2008-June 30, 2010) were available for each practice. We compared selected outcomes between practices with and those without NCQA PCMH recognition. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Individual Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries and their claims and utilization data were assigned to PCMH or comparison practices based on where they received the plurality of evaluation and management services between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2008. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Relative to the comparison group, total Medicare payments, acute care payments, and the number of emergency room visits declined after practices received NCQA PCMH recognition. The decline was larger for practices with sicker than average patients, primary care practices, and solo practices. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides additional evidence about the potential of the PCMH model for reducing health care utilization and the cost of care.

Primary care and specialty providers: an assessment of continuity of care, utilization, and expenditures.

BACKGROUND: Little is known as to whether medical home principles, such as continuity of care (COC), would have the same effect on health service use for individuals whose primary (or predominant) provider is a specialist instead of a primary care provider (PCP). OBJECTIVE: To test associations between health service use and expenditures and (1) beneficiaries' predominant provider type (PCP or specialist) and (2) COC among beneficiaries who primarily see a PCP and those who primarily see a specialist. RESEARCH DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional analysis of Medicare fee-for-service claims data from July 2007 to June 2009. Negative binomial and generalized linear models were used in multivariate regression modeling. SUBJECTS: The study cohort comprised 613,471 community-residing Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. MEASURES: Beneficiaries' predominant provider type and COC index during a baseline period (July 2007-June 2008) were studied. All-cause and ambulatory care sensitive condition (ACSC) hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits and related expenditures and total expenditures in a 1-year follow-up period (July 2008-June 2009) were also reported. RESULTS: Twenty-five percent of beneficiaries primarily saw a specialist. Having a specialist predominant provider was associated with 9% fewer ED visits, 14% fewer ACSC ED visits, and 8% fewer ACSC hospitalizations (all P<0.001). Regardless of whether the beneficiary's predominant provider was a specialist or a PCP, higher continuity was associated with fewer all-cause hospitalizations and ED visits and lower expenditures for these services. Higher continuity was also associated with lower total expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the predominant provider's specialty, greater continuity was associated with less use of high-cost services and lower expenditures for these services.