Effects of a community-based care management model for super-utilizers.

OBJECTIVES: Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial plans have all explored ways to improve outcomes for patients with high costs and complex medical and social needs. The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of a high-intensity care management program that the Rutgers University Center for State Health Policy (CSHP) implemented as an adaptation of a promising model developed by the Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated the impact of the program on 6 utilization and spending outcomes for a subgroup of beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service (n = 149) and a matched comparison group (n = 1130). METHODS: We used Medicare claims for all analyses. We used propensity score matching to construct a comparison group of beneficiaries with baseline characteristics similar to those of program participants. We employed regression models to test the relationship between program enrollment and outcomes over a 12-month period while controlling for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A test of joint significance across all outcomes showed that the CSHP program reduced service use and spending in aggregate (P = .012), although estimates for most of the individual measures were not statistically significant. Participants had 37% fewer unplanned readmissions (P = .086) than did comparison beneficiaries. Although we did not find statistically significant results for the other 5 outcomes, the CIs for these outcomes spanned substantively large effects. CONCLUSIONS: Although these findings are mixed, they suggest that adaptations of the Camden model hold promise for reducing short-term service use and spending for Medicare super-utilizers.

Care coordination for children with special needs in Medicaid: lessons from Medicare.

OBJECTIVES: To provide actionable recommendations for improving care coordination programs for children with special healthcare needs (CSHCN) in Medicaid managed care. STUDY DESIGN: Literature review and interviews with stakeholders and policy experts to adapt lessons learned from Medicare care coordination programs for CSHCN in Medicaid managed care. METHODS: We reviewed syntheses of research on Medicare care coordination programs to identify lessons learned from successful programs. We adapted findings from Medicare to CSHCN in Medicaid based on an environmental scan and discussions with experts. The scan focused on Medicaid financing and eligibility for care coordination and how these intersect with Medicaid managed care. The expert discussions included pediatricians, Medicaid policy experts, Medicaid medical directors, and a former managed care executive, all experienced in care coordination for CSHCN. RESULTS: We found 6 elements that are consistently associated with improved outcomes from Medicare care coordination programs and relevant to CSHCN in Medicaid: 1) identifying and targeting high-risk patients, 2) clearly articulating what outcomes programs are likely to improve, 3) encouraging active engagement between care coordinators and primary care providers, 4) requiring some in-person contact between care coordinators and patients, 5) facilitating information sharing among providers, and 6) supplementing care coordinators' expertise with that of other clinical experts. CONCLUSIONS: States and Medicaid managed care organizations have many options for designing effective care coordination programs for CSHCN. Their choices should account for the diversity of conditions among CSHCN, families' capacity to coordinate care, and social determinants of health.

Pascal's Wager: health insurance exchanges, Obamacare, and the Republican dilemma.

Enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) created a dilemma for Republican policy makers at the state level. States could maximize control over decision making and avoid federal intervention by establishing their own health insurance exchanges. Yet GOP leaders feared that creating exchanges would entrench a law they intensely opposed and undermine legal challenges to the ACA. Republicans' calculations were further complicated by uncertainty over the Supreme Court's ruling on the ACA's constitutionality and the outcome of the November 2012 elections. In the first year of operation, only seventeen states and the District of Columbia chose to design and implement their own exchanges; another six partnered with the federal government, and twenty-seven states ceded control to Washington. Out of thirty states with Republican governors in 2013, only four launched their own exchange. Why did many Republican-led states that initially appeared open to establishing exchanges ultimately reverse course? Drawing on interviews with state policy makers and secondary data, we trace the evolution of Republican responses to the exchange dilemma during 2010-13. We explore how exchanges became controversial and explain why so few Republican-led states opted for their own exchange, focusing on the intensifying resistance to Obamacare amid a rightward shift in state politics, partisan polarization, and uncertainty over the ACA's fate.

Participation without representation? Senior opinion, legislative behavior, and federal health reform.

Why do legislators sometimes engage in behavior that deviates from the expressed policy preferences of constituents who participate in politics at high rates? We examine this puzzle in the context of Democratic legislators' representation of their senior citizen constituents on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA). We find that legislators' roll-call votes on the ACA did not reflect the stated preferences of their respective senior constituents; by contrast, these roll-call votes did reflect the preferences of nonsenior adults. We draw upon a theoretical framework developed by Mansbridge to explain this apparent nonresponsiveness to seniors on the ACA. This framework distinguishes between promissory representation, whereby legislators merely respond to constituents' preferences, and anticipatory representation, whereby legislators respond to constituents' underlying policy interests, even when such interests conflict with expressed preferences. By considering the Medicare provisions in the ACA and analyzing Democratic legislators' floor speeches on health reform, we provide preliminary evidence that members of Congress engaged in anticipatory representation of their senior constituents by attempting to educate seniors about how the ACA serves their policy interests.