Comparing Medicare Advantage And Traditional Medicare: A Systematic Review.

Medicare Advantage enrollment has almost doubled since 2010 and now accounts for more than a third of all Medicare beneficiaries. We performed a systematic review to compare Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare on key metrics. Evidence from forty-eight studies showed that in most or all comparisons, Medicare Advantage was associated with more preventive care visits, fewer hospital admissions and emergency department visits, shorter hospital and skilled nursing facility lengths-of-stay, and lower health care spending. Medicare Advantage outperformed traditional Medicare in most studies comparing quality-of-care metrics. However, the evidence on patient experience, readmission rates, mortality, and racial/ethnic disparities did not show a trend of better performance in Medicare Advantage. Evidence to date might not fully account for selection bias, unobserved differences in social determinants of health, or risk adjustment challenges, in part because of differences in data quality that limit the comparability of outcomes between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. With Medicare Advantage plans expected to grow in popularity, policy makers should support policies to improve data completeness and comparability, and health plans should focus on improving patient experience.

The Impact Of Bundled Payment On Health Care Spending, Utilization, And Quality: A Systematic Review.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has promoted bundled payment programs nationwide as one of its flagship value-based payment reforms. Under bundled payment, providers assume accountability for the quality and costs of care delivered during an episode of care. We performed a systematic review of the impact of three CMS bundled payment programs on spending, utilization, and quality outcomes. The three programs were the Acute Care Episode Demonstration, the voluntary Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative, and the mandatory Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement model. Twenty studies that we identified through search and screening processes showed that bundled payment maintains or improves quality while lowering costs for lower extremity joint replacement, but not for other conditions or procedures. Our review also suggests that policy makers should account for patient-level heterogeneity and include risk stratification for specific conditions in emerging bundled payment programs.

The impact of tort reform on defensive medicine, quality of care, and physician supply: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of tort reform on defensive medicine, quality of care, and physician supply. DATA SOURCES: Empirical, peer-reviewed English-language studies in the MEDLINE and HeinOnline databases that evaluated the association between tort reform and our study outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Title and abstract screening was followed by full-text screening of relevant citations. We created evidence tables, grouped studies by outcome, and qualitatively compared the findings of included studies. We assigned a higher rating to study designs that controlled for unobservable sources of confounding. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Thirty-seven studies met screening criteria. Caps on damages, collateral-source rule reform, and joint-and-several liability reform were the most common types of tort reform evaluated in the included studies. We found that caps on noneconomic damages were associated with a decrease in defensive medicine, increase in physician supply, and decrease in health care spending, but had no effect on quality of care. Other reform approaches did not have a clear or consistent impact on study outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that traditional tort reform methods may not be sufficient for health reform and policy makers should evaluate and incorporate newer approaches.

Value-Based Insurance Design Improves Medication Adherence Without An Increase In Total Health Care Spending.

Value-based insurance design (VBID) is a strategy that reduces cost sharing for high-value services and increases consumers' out-of-pocket spending for low-value care. VBID has increasingly been implemented by private and public payers and has inspired demonstration programs in Medicare Advantage and TRICARE. Given the recent publication of several studies, we performed an updated systematic review that evaluated the effects of reducing consumer cost sharing on medication adherence and other relevant outcomes. Searches were conducted in key online databases, and the screening of citations yielded twenty-one unique studies, of which eight had not been included in previous reviews. Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system, we found moderate-quality evidence showing improvement (range: 0.1-14.3 percent) in medication adherence with VBID. This increase in adherence was associated with no effect on total health care spending, which suggests that the incremental drug spending was offset by decreases in spending for other health care services.

The Effects Of Medicaid Expansion Under The ACA: A Systematic Review.

Expanding eligibility for Medicaid was a central goal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which continues to be debated and discussed at the state and federal levels as further reforms are considered. In an effort to provide a synthesis of the available research, we systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the effects of Medicaid expansion on the original goals of the ACA. After analyzing seventy-seven published studies, we found that expansion was associated with increases in coverage, service use, quality of care, and Medicaid spending. Furthermore, very few studies reported that Medicaid expansion was associated with negative consequences, such as increased wait times for appointments-and those studies tended to use study designs not suited for determining cause and effect. Thus, there is evidence to document improvements in several areas of health care delivery following the ACA Medicaid expansion. We outline areas for future research that can further reduce current knowledge gaps.

High-Deductible Health Plans Reduce Health Care Cost And Utilization, Including Use Of Needed Preventive Services.

Enrollment in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) has greatly increased in recent years. Policy makers and other stakeholders need the best available evidence about how these plans may affect health care cost and utilization, but the literature has not been comprehensively synthesized. We performed a systematic review of methodologically rigorous studies that examined the impact of HDHPs on health care utilization and costs. The plans were associated with a significant reduction in preventive care in seven of twelve studies and a significant reduction in office visits in six of eleven studies-which in turn led to a reduction in both appropriate and inappropriate care. Furthermore, bivariate analyses of data extracted from the included studies suggested that the plans may be associated with a reduction in appropriate preventive care and medication adherence. Current evidence suggests that HDHPs are associated with lower health care costs as a result of a reduction in the use of health services, including appropriate services.

Estimating the proportion of healthcare-associated infections that are reasonably preventable and the related mortality and costs.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in US hospitals that are "reasonably preventable," along with their related mortality and costs. METHODS: To estimate preventability of catheter-associated bloodstream infections (CABSIs), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs), surgical site infections (SSIs), and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), we used a federally sponsored systematic review of interventions to reduce HAIs. Ranges of preventability included the lowest and highest risk reductions reported by US studies of "moderate" to "good" quality published in the last 10 years. We used the most recently published national data to determine the annual incidence of HAIs and associated mortality. To estimate incremental cost of HAIs, we performed a systematic review, which included costs from studies in general US patient populations. To calculate ranges for the annual number of preventable infections and deaths and annual costs, we multiplied our infection, mortality, and cost figures with our ranges of preventability for each HAI. RESULTS: As many as 65%-70% of cases of CABSI and CAUTI and 55% of cases of VAP and SSI may be preventable with current evidence-based strategies. CAUTI may be the most preventable HAI. CABSI has the highest number of preventable deaths, followed by VAP. CABSI also has the highest cost impact; costs due to preventable cases of VAP, CAUTI, and SSI are likely less. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that 100% prevention of HAIs may not be attainable with current evidence-based prevention strategies; however, comprehensive implementation of such strategies could prevent hundreds of thousands of HAIs and save tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

Systematic review and cost analysis comparing use of chlorhexidine with use of iodine for preoperative skin antisepsis to prevent surgical site infection.

OBJECTIVE: To compare use of chlorhexidine with use of iodine for preoperative skin antisepsis with respect to effectiveness in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) and cost. METHODS: We searched the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality website, the Cochrane Library, Medline, and EMBASE up to January 2010 for eligible studies. Included studies were systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing preoperative skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine and with iodine and assessing for the outcomes of SSI or positive skin culture result after application. One reviewer extracted data and assessed individual study quality, quality of evidence for each outcome, and publication bias. Meta-analyses were performed using a fixed-effects model. Using results from the meta-analysis and cost data from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, we developed a decision analytic cost-benefit model to compare the economic value, from the hospital perspective, of antisepsis with iodine versus antisepsis with 2 preparations of chlorhexidine (ie, 4% chlorhexidine bottle and single-use applicators of a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate [CHG] and 70% isopropyl alcohol [IPA] solution), and also performed sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Nine RCTs with a total of 3,614 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that chlorhexidine antisepsis was associated with significantly fewer SSIs (adjusted risk ratio, 0.64 [95% confidence interval, [0.51-0.80]) and positive skin culture results (adjusted risk ratio, 0.44 [95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.56]) than was iodine antisepsis. In the cost-benefit model baseline scenario, switching from iodine to chlorhexidine resulted in a net cost savings of $16-$26 per surgical case and $349,904-$568,594 per year for the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Sensitivity analyses showed that net cost savings persisted under most circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine is more effective than preoperative skin antisepsis with iodine for preventing SSI and results in cost savings.