People get ready! A new generation of Alzheimer's therapies may require new ways to deliver and pay for healthcare.

The development of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) has progressed over the last decade, and the first-ever therapies with potential to slow the progression of disease are approved in the United States. AD DMTs could provide life-changing opportunities for people living with this disease, as well as for their caregivers. They could also ease some of the immense societal and economic burden of dementia. However, AD DMTs also come with major challenges due to the large unmet medical need, high prevalence of AD, new costs related to diagnosis, treatment and monitoring, and uncertainty in the therapies' actual clinical value. This perspective article discusses, from the broad perspective of various health systems and stakeholders, how we can overcome these challenges and improve society's readiness for AD DMTs. We propose that innovative payment models such as performance-based payments, in combination with learning healthcare systems, could be the way forward to enable timely patient access to treatments, improve accuracy of cost-effectiveness evaluations and overcome budgetary barriers. Other important considerations include the need for identification of key drivers of patient value, the relevance of different economic perspectives (i.e. healthcare vs. societal) and ethical questions in terms of treatment eligibility criteria.

Differential Hospital Participation in Bundled Payments in Communities with Higher Shares of Marginalized Populations.

BACKGROUND: Medicare's voluntary bundled payment programs have demonstrated generally favorable results. However, it remains unknown whether uneven hospital participation in these programs in communities with greater shares of minorities and patients of low socioeconomic status results in disparate access to practice redesign innovations. OBJECTIVE: Examine whether communities with higher proportions of marginalized individuals were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-Advanced). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using ordinary least squares regression controlling for patient and community factors. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service patients enrolled from 2015-2017 (pre-BPCI-Advanced) and residing in 2,058 local communities nationwide defined by Hospital Service Areas (HSAs). Each community's share of marginalized patients was calculated separately for each of the share of beneficiaries of Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, or dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid. MAIN MEASURES: Dichotomous variable indicating whether a given community had at least one hospital that ever participated in BPCI-Advanced from 2018-2022. KEY RESULTS: Communities with higher shares of dual-eligible individuals were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced than communities with the lowest quartile of dual-eligible individuals (Q4: -15.1 percentage points [pp] lower than Q1, 95% CI: -21.0 to -9.1, p < 0.001). There was no consistent significant relationship between community proportion of Black beneficiaries and likelihood of having a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced. Communities with higher shares of Hispanic beneficiaries were more likely to have a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced than those in the lowest quartile (Q4: 19.2 pp higher than Q1, 95% CI: 13.4 to 24.9, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Communities with greater shares of dual-eligible beneficiaries, but not racial or ethnic minorities, were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced Policymakers should consider approaches to incentivize more socioeconomically uniform participation in voluntary bundled payments.

Experiences and Interest in Value-Based Payment Arrangements for Medical Products Among Medicaid Agencies: An Exploratory Analysis.

Policy Points State Medicaid experience with value-based payment (VBP) arrangements for medical products is still relatively limited, and states face a number of challenges in designing and implementing such arrangements, particularly because of the resource-intensive nature of arrangements and data needed to support measurement of desired outcomes. A number of success factors and opportunities to support VBP arrangement efforts were identified through this study, including leveraging established venues or processes for collaboration with manufacturers, engaging external and internal partners in VBP efforts to bolster capabilities, acquiring access to new data sources, and utilizing annual renegotiation of contracts to allow for adjustments. CONTEXT: To date, uptake of value-based payment (VBP) arrangements for medical products and knowledge of their design and impact have been mainly concentrated among private payers. Interest and activity are expanding to Medicaid; however, their experiences and approaches to VBP arrangements for medical products are not well characterized. METHODS: This study sought to characterize the use of VBP arrangements for medical products among state Medicaid agencies through the use of a two-staged, mixed-methods approach. A survey and semistructured interviews were conducted to gain an understanding of state experiences with VBP arrangements for medical products. The survey and interviews were directed at senior leaders from nine states through the survey, with respondents from seven of these states additionally participating in the semistructured interviews. FINDINGS: Although experience with VBP arrangements for medical products among states varied, there were similarities across their motivations and general processes or phases employed in their design and implementation. States collectively identified a number of significant challenges to VBP arrangements, such as manufacturer engagement, outcomes measurement, and the time, expertise, and resources required to design and implement them. We outline a range of strategies to help address these gaps and make it easier for states to pursue VBP arrangements, including more direct engagement from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, state-to-state peer learning and collaboration, data infrastructure and sharing, and additional research to inform fit-for-purpose VBP arrangement approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study suggest that it may be easier for states to pursue VBP arrangements for medical products if there is greater clarity on processes employed that support design and implementation as well as effective strategies to address common challenges associated with contract negotiations. As states gain more experience, it will be important to monitor the design and implementation of common VBP arrangements to assess impact on the Medicaid program and the populations it serves.

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Special Statement: Clinical quality measures in obstetrics.

This article provides an updated overview and critique of clinical quality measures relevant to obstetrical care. The history of the quality movement in the United States and the proliferation of quality metrics over the past quarter-century are reviewed. Common uses of quality measures are summarized: payment programs, accreditation, public reporting, and quality improvement projects. We present listings of metrics that are reported by physicians or hospitals, either voluntarily or by mandate, to government agencies, payers, "watchdog" ratings organizations, and other entities. The costs and other burdens of extracting data and reporting metrics are summarized. The potential for unintended adverse consequences of the use of quality metrics is discussed along with approaches to mitigating adverse consequences. Finally, some recent attempts to develop simplified core measure sets are presented, with the promise that the complex and burdensome quality-metric enterprise may improve in the near future.

Financing Thresholds for Sustainability of Community Health Worker Programs for Patients Receiving Medicaid Across the United States.

States have turned to novel Medicaid financing to pay for community health worker (CHW) programs, often through fee-for-service or capitated payments. We sought to estimate Medicaid payment rates to ensure CHW program sustainability. A microsimulation model was constructed to estimate CHW salaries, equipment, transportation, space, and benefits costs across the U.S. Fee-for-service rates per 30-min CHW visit (code 98960) and capitated rates were calculated for financial sustainability. The mean CHW hourly wage was $23.51, varying from $15.90 in Puerto Rico to $31.61 in Rhode Island. Overhead per work hour averaged $43.65 nationwide, and was highest for transportation among other overhead categories (65.1% of overhead). The minimum fee-for-service rate for a 30-min visit was $53.24 (95% CI $24.80, $91.11), varying from $40.44 in South Dakota to $70.89 in Washington D.C. The minimum capitated rate was $140.18 per member per month (95% CI $105.94, $260.90), varying from $113.55 in South Dakota to $176.58 in Washington D.C. Rates varied minimally by metro status but more by panel size. Higher Medicaid fee-for-service and capitated rates than currently used may be needed to support financial viability of CHW programs. A revised payment estimation approach may help state officials, health systems and plans discussing CHW program sustainability.

How to facilitate the introduction of value-based payment models?

Value-based payment (VBP) models are designed and implemented to improve outcomes at the same or lower costs. Their adoption requires significant changes in the way healthcare organisations and insurance companies operate. Usually, before VBP models are widely implemented, pilot projects are conducted. Payers need to have a comprehensive set of requirements to enter into agreements with healthcare organisations on these pilots. In this short communication, we outline key elements reported in the literature, inside and outside healthcare organisations, as well as within the contract, that need to be considered in a pilot VBP model. Discussions regarding the introduction of VBP models may be strongly affected by external contextual factors, including regulations, which are outside the control of healthcare organisations. It requires collaboration between organisations, including primary care organisations and hospitals, while within organisations, it frequently requires creating multidisciplinary teams. The focus is on ensuring transparency, collaboration, and shared decision-making, realised by standardising communication processes and regular meetings. Additionally, effective leadership is needed, in which leaders set goals and priorities, as well as manage change. In the contractual agreements between payers and healthcare organisations, outcome measures need to be adequately defined and measured, including individual patient outcomes and composite scores, as well as absolute and relative performance measures. These measures should be tested periodically and catered to the organisations adopting the model. Also, incentives should have adequate size and frequency and be intrinsic and extrinsic. The consideration of these sets of key elements by the payers is essential when implementing VBP model pilot projects.

A Cautionary Tale: Malaligned Incentives in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Payment Model Reforms Threaten Promising Innovation and Access to Care.

Over the past several years, there have been notable changes and controversies involving Medicare reimbursement for total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We have seen the development and implementation of experimental bundled payment model pilot programs goals of improving quality and decreasing overall costs of care during the last decade. Many orthopaedic surgeons have embraced these programs and have demonstrated the ability to succeed in these new models by implementing strategies, such as preservice optimization, to shift care away from inpatient or postdischarge settings and reduce postoperative complications. However, these achievements have been met with continual reductions in surgeon reimbursement rates, lower bundle payment target pricings, modest increases in hospital reimbursement rates, and inappropriate valuations of THA and TKA Common Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. These challenges have led to an organized advocacy movement and spurred research involving the methods by which improvements have been made throughout the entire episode of arthroplasty care. Collectively, these efforts have recently led to a novel application of CPT codes recognized by payers to potentially capture presurgical optimization work. In this paper, we present an overview of contemporary payment models, summarize notable events involved in the review of THA and TKA CPT codes, review recent changes to THA and TKA reimbursement, and discuss future challenges faced by arthroplasty surgeons that threaten access to high-quality THA and TKA care.

The Next Generation of Payment Reforms for Population Health - An Actionable Agenda for 2035 Informed by Past Gains and Ongoing Lessons.

Policy Points The predominantly fee-for-service reimbursement architecture of the US health care system contributes to waste and excess spending. While the past decade of payment reforms has galvanized the adoption of alternative payment models and generated moderate savings, uptake of truly population-based payment systems continues to lag, and interventions to date have had limited impact on care quality, outcomes, and health equity. To realize the promise of payment reforms as instruments for delivery system transformation, future policies for health care financing must focus on accelerating the diffusion of value-based payment, leveraging payments to redress inequities, and incentivizing partnerships with cross-sector entities to invest in the upstream drivers of health.

Strengthening the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation's Approach to Constructing Alternative Payment Models.

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) seeks to develop evidence-based alternative payment models (APM) to improve health care quality and reduce costs, but its performance in achieving these goals has been mixed. In October 2021, CMMI released its Innovation Strategy Refresh to highlight challenges faced by payment models and suggest new strategic approaches for the upcoming decade. While a welcome recast of organizational goals, the Refresh leaves space for how CMMI will address persistent issues. These include how CMMI can best engage physicians and patients in APMs, minimize conflicting incentives among APMs, reduce selection bias in model participation, and, ultimately, transition away from the fee-for-service framework that underlies much of Medicare reimbursement. This article provides guidance to CMMI's vision by examining challenges within CMMI's strategy for model building and offering solutions to mitigate these issues. These strategies include engaging beneficiaries in APM incentives, expanding operational flexibility to improve clinical behaviors (e.g., waivers), rectifying issues with conflicting model incentives, building voluntary short-term and mandatory long-term incentives to mitigate selection bias, and transitioning to an overriding population-based model to constrain net costs. Policy Points The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) seeks to develop evidence-based alternative payment models (APM) to improve care quality and reduce health care cost, but its performance in achieving these goals has been mixed. In October 2021, CMMI released a "strategic refresh" of its goals but left space for how persistent issues to model development would be addressed. We propose strategies to engage physicians and patients in APMs, minimize conflicting incentives among APMs, reduce selection bias in model participation, and, ultimately, transition away from the fee-for-service framework that underlies much of Medicare reimbursement.

Health-Care Patterns for Three Common Elective Surgeries: Implications for Bundled Payment Models.

INTRODUCTION: The study objectives were to assess the timing, duration, and nature of health-care service utilization before and after three common elective surgical procedures not currently included in federal episode-based bundled payment programs. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing one of three low-risk surgical procedures (breast reduction, upper extremity nerve decompression, and panniculectomy) between 2010 and 2017 using a private insurer's national claims database. All professional and facility billing claims for health-care services were identified during the 12-mo preoperative and 12-mo postoperative periods for each patient. We compared trends in monthly utilization of health-care services to estimate surgery-related utilization patterns with interrupted time series analyses. RESULTS: The cohort included 7885 patients receiving breast reduction, 99,404 patients receiving upper extremity nerve decompression, and 955 patients receiving panniculectomy. The mean monthly encounters gradually increased before each procedure, with a gradual decline in services postoperatively. Claims in the preoperative period for all procedures were primarily diagnostic testing and outpatient evaluation and management. There was limited use of postacute care services across the surgical procedures. There were notable differences in service utilization between the three surgeries, including differing inflection points for preoperative services (approximately 7 mo for breast reduction and panniculectomy, compared with at least 9 mo for nerve decompression) and postoperative services (up to 3 mo for panniculectomy and 4 mo for nerve decompression, compared with 6 mo for breast reduction). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights important differences in utilization of health-care services by type of surgery. These findings suggest that prior to expanding episode-based bundled payment models to surgical conditions with limited utilization of postacute care services and fewer complications, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and private payers should consider tailoring the timing and duration of clinical episodes to individual surgical procedures.

Safety and feasibility of destination care for bariatric surgery: a single institution retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing emphasis on value-based healthcare has prompted both employers and healthcare organizations to develop innovative strategies to supply high quality care to patients. One such strategy is through the bundled care payment model (BCPM). Through this model, our institution partnered with employers from across the country to provide quality care for their members. Patients traveling greater than 2 h driving time from the bariatric center were considered "destination" patients. To properly care for our destination patients, our institution created a "destination bariatric program." We sought to investigate comparative outcomes for the first 100 patients who completed the program. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in patient outcomes or complications between destination and local patient groups undergoing sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing bariatric surgery at a MBSAQIP-accredited bariatric surgery center between May 2019 and October 2021 was conducted. Patients were divided into destination or local patient groups based on participation in the established destination surgery program. Patient demographics, perioperative clinical outcomes, and complications were compared and statistically analyzed using two-sample t-tests, Chi-square tests, Fisher's exact tests, and univariate logistic regressions. RESULTS: This study identified 296 patients, which consisted of destination (n = 110) and local (n = 186) patient cohorts. Patients in the destination group had higher rates of diabetes mellitus (29.1% vs 24.2%, p = 0.029), but otherwise cohorts had similar basic demographics and comorbidities. Outcomes revealed no statistically significant associations between patient cohort (destination versus local) and ED admission (p = 0.305), hospital readmission (p = 0.893), surgical reintervention (p = 0.974), endoscopic-reintervention (p = 0.714), and patient complications in the postoperative period (30 days). CONCLUSION: Participation in destination care programs for bariatric surgery was found to be both safe and feasible. These destination programs represent an opportunity to provide a broader patient population access to complex surgical care.

Explanations for variations in hospital expenditures among four large California counties.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate competing explanations for why Medicare Fee for Service (FFS) and private sector payments lead to hospital cost variations in Californian counties. DATA SOURCES: Ratios of private to Medicare hospital costs were obtained from state-based all-payer claims databases. Demographics were estimated from the U.S. Census Bureau and the California Health Interview Survey. Medicaid and Medicare spending was obtained from Kaiser Family Foundation. Medicare Advantage enrollment was obtained from the California Department of Health Care Services and market consolidation was estimated using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). STUDY DESIGN: Per capita costs, demographics, Medicaid and Medicare spending, Medicare Advantage enrollment, and HHI scores were compared for San Francisco (SF), Sacramento, Los Angeles (LA), and San Diego (SD). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: LA hospitals had the lowest per capita private insurer costs, but the highest Medicare FFS costs. The findings might be explained by a lower HHI for LA, indicating a more competitive market, than SD, SF, and Sacramento. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare FFS hospital costs do not provide an accurate representation of health care spending in Californian counties. In more competitive markets, private insurance companies can negotiate lower prices, while oversupply may allow facilities to increase volume in Medicare FFS.

Concentrated Economic Disadvantage Predicts Resource Utilization After Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The Index of Concentration at the Extremes (ICE), a measure of geographic socioeconomic polarization, predicts several health outcomes but has not been evaluated concerning total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study evaluates ICE as a predictor of post-TKA resource utilization. METHODS: Using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's New York State database from 2016 to 2017, we retrospectively evaluated 57,426 patients ≥50 years undergoing primary TKA. The ICE values for extreme concentrations of income and race were calculated using United States Census Bureau data with the formula ICEi = (Pi-Di)/Ti where Pi, Di, and Ti are the number of households in the most privileged extreme, disadvantaged extreme, and total population in zip code i, respectively. Extremes of privilege and disadvantage were defined as ≥$150,000 versus <$25,000 for income and non-Hispanic White versus non-Hispanic Black for race. Association of ICE values, demographics, and comorbidities with 90-day readmission and 90-day emergency department (ED) visits was examined using multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Overall 90-day readmission and ED visit rates were 12.8% and 9.4%, respectively. On multivariable analysis, the lowest ICEIncome quintile (concentrated poverty) predicted 90-day readmission (odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.30, P = .005) and 90-day ED visit (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.38, P = .001). The ICERace was not predictive of either outcome. CONCLUSION: Patients in communities with the lowest ICEIncome values use more inpatient and ED resources after primary TKA. Incorporating ICEIncome into risk-adjusted payment models may help align incentives for equitable care.

Risk selection reduces efficiency of value-based healthcare.

Value-based healthcare aims to improve efficiency and value for patients. Value-based payment models are a form of provider reimbursement to achieve this. Studies on these models have found positive results, but may be biased by unintended consequences, such as risk selection. Risk selection is a multi-dimensional phenomenon that occurs at the patient, hospital, and system level, and is a source of inefficiency and inequality in healthcare. Risk selection may occur because of selection bias in the outcomes that are evaluated and rewarded, or due to the selection of lower cost patients. Risk selection may also stem from professional reputation. The motivation to engage in risk selection may also arise from differences in the meaning of value. To mitigate these unintended consequences, several strategies can be adopted. These include making value-based payment models attractive, but not mandatory, as well as incentivising transparent reporting of best practices, using adequate risk adjustment, expanding performance metrics, and including patient-reported experience measures. Other mitigation strategies could include adopting a mixture of performance measures, using mixed methods of paying physicians, and implementing monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. However, such approaches are not flawless, and the problem may never be fully solved. This perspective serves as a warning for the constant presence of risk selection, as well as informing policy makers, politicians, and organisations implementing VBP models on ways to minimise the possibility of risk selection.

The Emerging Role of Alternative Payment Models in Promoting Mental Healthcare Equity.

Healthcare programs based on alternative payment models (APMs) have gained in prominence for their increasingly well-established impact on quality and cost outcomes. While APMs also appear to have potential utility in addressing healthcare disparities, it remains unclear how they should best be leveraged for this purpose. Because the landscape of mental healthcare presents unique challenges, it is crucial that lessons from past programs are integrated into the design of APMs in mental healthcare so the promise of their impact on the goal of equity might be fulfilled.

Dental providers' familiarity with and attitudes about alternative payment models in value-based care.

The objective of this study was to examine dental providers' familiarity with and attitudes toward alternative payment models (APMs) in a value-based care (VBC) delivery model. The authors analyzed responses to questions pertaining to VBC and APMs from a survey conducted between March and April 2021. Responses were stratified by age, race, practice location, practice type, and provider specialty using descriptive and inferential analysis, including Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact test. Analyses were performed using statistical software, with P < 0.05 indicating statistical significance. The sample consisted of 378 dental providers (women, n = 211). The majority (n = 321) worked in private practice; 170 were general dentists and 41 were pediatric dentists. Public health practitioners were more likely than private practitioners to report being familiar with VBC strategies and APMs (P < 0.003). Older providers were less interested than younger providers in participating in risk-sharing agreements (P < 0.049), while those practicing in urban locations were more likely to consider participating in partial (P < 0.001) and full capitation models (P < 0.014). Hispanic dentists and public health practitioners were more likely (P < 0.025 and P < 0.015, respectively) than other respondents to report that VBC arrangements would lead to more equitable outcomes. While some dental providers understood APMs and reported using them, survey respondents in general were unfamiliar with both VBC and APMs.

Policy and Payment Challenges in the Postpandemic Treatment of Heart Failure: Value-Based Care and Telehealth.

Increasing patient and therapeutic complexity have created both challenges and opportunities for heart failure care. Within this background, the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic has disrupted care as usual, accelerating the need for transition from volume-based to value-based care, and demanding a rapid expansion of telehealth and remote care for heart failure. Patients, clinicians, health systems, and payors have by necessity become more invested in these issues. Herein we review recent changes in health care policy related to the movement from volume to value-based payment and from in-person to remote care delivery.

Bundled Payment Episodes Initiated by Physician Group Practices: Medicare Beneficiary Perceptions of Care Quality.

BACKGROUND: The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative incentivizes participating providers to reduce total Medicare payments for an episode of care. However, there are concerns that reducing payments could reduce quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of BPCI with patient-reported functional status and care experiences. DESIGN: We surveyed a stratified random sample of Medicare beneficiaries with BPCI episodes attributed to participating physician group practices, and matched comparison beneficiaries, after hospitalization for one of the 18 highest volume clinical episodes. The sample included beneficiaries discharged from the hospital from February 2017 through September 2017. Beneficiaries were surveyed approximately 90 days after their hospital discharge. We estimated risk-adjusted differences between the BPCI and comparison groups, pooled across all 18 clinical episodes and separately for the five largest clinical episodes. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries with BPCI episodes (n=16,898, response rate=44.5%) and comparison beneficiaries hospitalized for similar conditions selected using coarsened exact matching (n=14,652, response rate=46.2%). MAIN MEASURES: Patient-reported functional status, care experiences, and overall satisfaction with recovery. KEY RESULTS: Overall, we did not find differences between the BPCI and comparison respondents across seven measures of change in functional status or overall satisfaction with recovery. Both BPCI and comparison respondents reported generally positive care experiences, but BPCI respondents were less likely to report positive care experience for 3 of 8 measures (discharged at the right time, -1.2 percentage points (pp); appropriate level of care, -1.8 pp; preferences for post-discharge care taken into account, -0.9 pp; p<0.05 for all three measures). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of respondents with favorable care experiences was smaller for BPCI than comparison respondents. However, we did not detect differences in self-reported change in functional status approximately 90 days after hospital discharge, indicating that differences in care experiences did not affect functional recovery.

What Explains Changes in Availability of Specialty Mental Health Services in Organized Settings?

Policy Points Community mental health facilities often do not offer the full range of evidence-based clinical and support services for individuals with serious mental illness. Facilities were no more likely to offer six of seven services studied in 2019 compared with 2010 in both Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states. For-profit facilities generally experienced the largest declines in service availability, while public facilities experienced the smallest declines with small increases in availability of select services. New payment models that incentivize the offer of specialty support services may be needed to encourage adoption of clinical and support services by specialty mental health organizations. CONTEXT: Community mental health facilities often do not offer the full range of evidence-based clinical and support services for individuals with serious mental illness. This creates equity issues, particularly when low-income and minority communities have access to fewer facilities. Medicaid expansion might encourage facilities to offer these services. However, this decision may also be affected by facility ownership type or mediated by service cost structure, particularly in the absence of innovative payment mechanisms. In this study, we determine whether and how Medicaid expansion and facility ownership are associated with changes in specialty mental health service availability in organized settings over time. METHODS: We estimated two-way fixed effects models using six cross-sections of the National Mental Health Services Survey and compared changes in facility-reported offering of seven services from 2010 to 2019 (54,885 facility years): psychotropic medication, case management, family psychoeducation, psychiatric emergency walk-in services, supported employment, assertive community treatment, illness management, and recovery services. We tested whether Medicaid expansion and facility ownership (private for-profit, private not-for-profit, public) were associated with differential changes in service availability from 2010 to 2019. FINDINGS: Overall, facilities were no more likely to offer nearly all services in 2019 than 2010. We found smaller declines for psychotropic medication and psychiatric emergency walk-in services among facilities in Medicaid expansion states compared to declines in non-Medicaid expansion states (6.3 (95% CI 95% CI = 1.8-10.7) and 5.5 (95% CI = 0.2-10.8) percentage points respectively). For-profit facilities experienced the largest declines in availability from 2010 to 2019, while public facilities experienced the smallest declines and some increases in availability of select services. CONCLUSIONS: Specialty mental health services are still not widely offered in community outpatient settings despite significant investments in Medicaid, although Medicaid expansion was associated with slower declines in availability. New payment models that incentivize outpatient facilities to offer clinical and support services may be needed.

Impact of Team-Based Care on Emergency Department Use.

PURPOSE: We sought to assess the impact of team-based care on emergency department (ED) use in the context of physicians transitioning from fee-for-service payment to capitation payment in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis to assess annual ED visit rates before and after transition from an enhanced fee-for-service model to either a team capitation model or a nonteam capitation model. We included Ontario residents aged 19 years and older who had at least 3 years of outcome data both pretransition and post-transition (N = 2,524,124). We adjusted for age, sex, income quintile, immigration status, comorbidity, and morbidity, and we stratified by rurality. A sensitivity analysis compared outcomes for team vs nonteam patients matched on year of transition, age, sex, rurality, and health region. RESULTS: We compared 387,607 team and 1,399,103 nonteam patients in big cities, 213,394 team and 380,009 nonteam patients in small towns, and 65,289 team and 78,722 nonteam patients in rural areas. In big cities, after adjustment, the ED visit rate increased by 2.4% (95% CI, 2.2% to 2.6%) per year for team patients and 5.2% (95% CI, 5.1% to 5.3%) per year for nonteam patients in the years after transition (P <.001). Similarly, there was a slower increase in ED visits for team relative to nonteam patients in small towns (0.9% [95% CI, 0.7% to 1.1%] vs 2.9% [95% CI, 2.8% to 3.1%], P <.001) and rural areas (‒0.5% [95% CI, -0.8% to 0.2%] vs 1.3% [95% CI, 1.0% to 1.6%], P <.001). Results were much the same in the matched analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of team-based primary care may reduce ED use. Further research is needed to understand optimal team composition and roles.