Physician patient sharing relationships within insurance plan networks.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify shared patient relationships between primary care physicians (PCPs) and cardiologists and oncologists and the degree to which those relationships were captured within insurance networks. DATA SOURCES: Secondary analysis of Vericred data on physician networks, CareSet data on physicians' shared Medicare patients, and insurance plan attributes from Health Insurance Compare. Data validation exercises used data from Physician Compare and IQVIA. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of the PCP-to-specialist in-network shared patient percentage (primary outcome). We also categorized networks by insurance market segment (Medicare Advantage [MA], Medicaid managed care, small-group or individually purchased), insurance plan type, and network breadth. DATA EXTRACTION: We analyzed data on 219,982 PCPs, 29,400 cardiologists, and 22,745 oncologists who, in 2021, accepted MA (n = 941 networks), Medicaid managed care (n = 293), and individually-purchased (n = 332) and small-group (n = 501) plans. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Networks captured, on average, 64.6% of PCP-cardiology shared patient ties, and 61.8% of PCP-oncologist ties. Less than half of in-network ties (44.5% and 38.9%, respectively) were among physicians with a common organizational affiliation. After adjustment for network breadth, we found no evidence of differences in the shared patient percentage across insurance market segments or networks of different types (p-value >0.05 for all comparisons). An exception was among national versus local and regional networks, where we found that national plans captured fewer shared patient ties, particularly among the narrowest networks (58.4% for national networksvs. 64.7% for local and regional networks for PCP-cardiology). CONCLUSIONS: Given recent trends toward narrower networks, our findings underscore the importance of incorporating additional and nuanced measures of network composition to aid plan selection (for patients) and to guide regulatory oversight.

White Paper on Early Critical Care Services in Low Resource Settings.

This White Paper has been formally accepted for support by the International Federation for Emergency Medicine (IFEM) and by the World Federation of Intensive and Critical Care (WFICC), put forth by a multi-specialty group of intensivists and emergency medicine providers from low- and low-middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HiCs) with the aim of 1) defining the current state of caring for the critically ill in low-resource settings (LRS) within LMICs and 2) highlighting policy options and recommendations for improving the system-level delivery of early critical care services in LRS. LMICs have a high burden of critical illness and worse patient outcomes than HICs, hence, the focus of this White Paper is on the care of critically ill patients in the early stages of presentation in LMIC settings. In such settings, the provision of early critical care is challenged by a fragmented health system, costs, a health care workforce with limited training, and competing healthcare priorities. Early critical care services are defined as the early interventions that support vital organ function during the initial care provided to the critically ill patient-these interventions can be performed at any point of patient contact and can be delivered across diverse settings in the healthcare system and do not necessitate specialty personnel. Currently, a single "best" care delivery model likely does not exist in LMICs given the heterogeneity in local context; therefore, objective comparisons of quality, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness between varying models are difficult to establish. While limited, there is data to suggest that caring for the critically ill may be cost effective in LMICs, contrary to a widely held belief. Drawing from locally available resources and context, strengthening early critical care services in LRS will require a multi-faceted approach, including three core pillars: education, research, and policy. Education initiatives for physicians, nurses, and allied health staff that focus on protocolized emergency response training can bridge the workforce gap in the short-term; however, each country's current human resources must be evaluated to decide on the duration of training, who should be trained, and using what curriculum. Understanding the burden of critical Illness, best practices for resuscitation, and appropriate quality metrics for different early critical care services implementation models in LMICs are reliant upon strengthening the regional research capacity, therefore, standard documentation systems should be implemented to allow for registry use and quality improvement. Policy efforts at a local, national and international level to strengthen early critical care services should focus on funding the building blocks of early critical care services systems and promoting the right to access early critical care regardless of the patient's geographic or financial barriers. Additionally, national and local policies describing ethical dilemmas involving the withdrawal of life-sustaining care should be developed with broad stakeholder representation based on local cultural beliefs as well as the optimization of limited resources.

Comparison of Utilization, Costs, and Quality of Medicaid vs Subsidized Private Health Insurance for Low-Income Adults.

Importance: There has been little rigorous evidence to date comparing public vs private health insurance. With policy makers considering a range of policies to expand coverage, understanding the trade-offs between these coverage types is critical. Objective: To compare months of coverage, utilization, quality, and costs between low-income adults with Medicaid vs those with subsidized private (Marketplace) insurance. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used a propensity score-matched sample of adults enrolled in either Medicaid or Marketplace plans at any point between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. The sample was restricted to individuals with incomes narrowly above and below 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL), which represented the eligibility cutoff between the programs. Data were obtained from 3 state agencies merging comprehensive insurance claims with income eligibility data for Colorado Medicaid expansion and Marketplace enrollees. Income data were linked with an all-payer claims database, and generalized linear models were used to adjust for clinical and demographic confounders. Participants included 8182 low-income nonpregnant adults aged 19 to 64 years enrolled in Medicaid or Marketplace coverage during the 2014 to 2015 period, with incomes between 134% and 143% of the FPL. Exposures: Health insurance through Colorado Medicaid or Colorado's state-based Marketplace. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary analytical approach was a multivariate regression analysis of the propensity score-matched sample. Primary outcomes were months of coverage in Medicaid or Marketplace insurance, office and emergency department (ED) visits, ambulatory care-sensitive hospitalizations, and total costs. For secondary quality outcomes, the propensity score-matched sample was widened to 129% to 148% of the FPL to ensure adequate sample size. Secondary outcomes included prescription drug utilization, types of ED visits, hospitalizations, out-of-pocket costs, and clinical quality measures. Primary data analysis was between September 2018 to July 2019, with revisions finalized in November 2020. Results: The propensity score-matched narrow-income sample included a total of 8182 participants (4091 Medicaid eligible [50%]: mean [SD] age, 42.8 [13.6] years; 2230 women [54.5%]; 4091 Marketplace eligible [50%]: mean [SD] age, 42.7 [13.9] years; 2229 women [54.5%]). Demographic differences across the 2 groups were well balanced, with all standardized mean differences less than 0.10. Marketplace coverage was associated with fewer ED visits (mean, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.32-0.40] visits vs 0.56 [95% CI, 0.50-0.62] visits; P < .001) and more office (outpatient) visits than Medicaid (mean, 2.22 [95% CI, 2.11-2.32] visits vs 1.73 [95% CI, 1.64-1.81] visits; P < .001). No differences in ambulatory care-sensitive hospitalizations were found (0.004 [95% CI, 0.001-0.006] vs 0.007 [95% CI, 0.002-0.011]; P = .15). Total costs were 83% higher in Marketplace coverage (mean, $4553 [95% CI, $3368-$5738] vs $2484 [95% CI, $1760-$3209]; P < .001) owing almost entirely to higher prices, and out-of-pocket costs were 10 times higher (mean, $569 [95% CI, $337-$801] vs $45 [95% CI, $26-$65]; P < .001). Five of 12 secondary quality measures favored private insurance, and 1 favored Medicaid. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional propensity score-matched study, Medicaid and Marketplace coverage differed in important ways. Public coverage through Medicaid was associated with more ED visits and fewer office visits than private Marketplace coverage, which may reflect barriers to outpatient care or lower cost-sharing barriers to ED care in Medicaid. Results suggest that Medicaid coverage was substantially less costly to beneficiaries and society than private coverage, with mixed results on health care quality.

Comparison of Income Eligibility for Medicaid vs Marketplace Coverage for Insurance Enrollment Among Low-Income US Adults.

Importance: The Affordable Care Act created 2 new coverage options for uninsured adults: Medicaid expansion, which in most states provides comprehensive coverage without premiums and deductibles; and private marketplace coverage, which requires a premium contribution and cost-sharing, though with generous federal subsidies at lower incomes. How enrollment rates compare in the marketplace vs Medicaid is an important policy question as states continue to weigh alternative coverage options such as Medicaid buy-in programs, enrolling Medicaid-eligible populations into marketplace plans, or creating a public option. Objective: To assess the association between income eligibility for Medicaid vs marketplace coverage and insurance enrollment among low-income adults in Colorado. Design Setting and Participants: Using 2014 and 2015 all-payer claims data from Colorado and detailed income eligibility information, we used a regression discontinuity design to assess the difference in Medicaid and marketplace enrollment just below and just above 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL), the eligibility threshold between the 2 programs. The sample included nonpregnant adults aged 19 to 64 years with incomes between 75% to 400% FPL. We stratified our analysis by age, sex, chronic condition status, and urban vs rural residence. Analysis was conducted from January to October 2020. Main Outcome and Measures: The main outcome was total enrollment in either Medicaid or marketplace coverage during marketplace's Open Enrollment period. Income-based health insurance eligibility was assessed as a percentage of FPL at the time of initial application for coverage. Results: The primary analytical sample included 32 091 enrollees in 2014 and 55 451 in 2015, with incomes ranging from 120% to 156% FPL. Most enrollees were women (59.26% in 2014, 59.20% in 2015), resided in urban areas (70.36% in 2014, 73.08% in 2015), and had no chronic conditions (74.66% in 2014, 76.11% in 2015). For age, in 2014 and 2015, respectively, 13.22% and 13.93% were aged 19 to 25 years, 27.85% and 28.54% were aged 26 to 34 years, 23.58% and 24.34% were aged 35 to 44 years, 18.35% and 17.75% were aged 45 to 54 years, and 17.00% and 15.44% were aged 55 to 64 years. Marketplace enrollment was 81.3% (95% CI, -86.0% to -75.0%) lower than Medicaid enrollment in 2014 and 88.6% (95% CI, -90.8% to -86.0%) lower in 2015 among those close to the 138% FPL eligibility threshold. The drop-off in marketplace enrollment was largest among younger adults, aged 26 to 34 and 35 to 44 years: relative drop off -88.7% (95% CI, -93.3% to -80.8%) and -87.8% (95% CI, -90.8% to -83.9%) in 2014, and relative drop off -91.9% (95% CI, -94.5% to -87.9%) and -93.0% (95% CI, -94.5% to -91.1%) in 2015, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study using a regression-discontinuity analysis, meaningful gaps in insurance enrollment may have existed for those with incomes just above the eligibility threshold for Medicaid expansion, especially among younger adults. Policies expanding Medicaid income eligibility or zero-dollar premium marketplace plans are likely to be more effective at inducing enrollment than subsidized private plans with premium requirements.

Community-Level Factors Associated With Racial And Ethnic Disparities In COVID-19 Rates In Massachusetts.

Massachusetts has one of the highest cumulative incidence rates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases in the US. Understanding which specific demographic, economic, and occupational factors have contributed to disparities in COVID-19 incidence rates across the state is critical to informing public health strategies. We performed a cross-sectional study of 351 Massachusetts cities and towns from January 1 to May 6, 2020, and found that a 10-percentage-point increase in the Black non-Latino population was associated with an increase of 312.3 COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population, whereas a 10-percentage-point increase in the Latino population was associated with an increase of 258.2 cases per 100,000. Independent predictors of higher COVID-19 rates included the proportion of foreign-born noncitizens living in a community, mean household size, and share of food service workers. After adjustment for these variables, the association between the Latino population and COVID-19 rates was attenuated. In contrast, the association between the Black population and COVID-19 rates persisted but may be explained by other systemic inequities. Public health and policy efforts that improve care for foreign-born noncitizens, address crowded housing, and protect food service workers may help mitigate the spread of COVID-19 among minority communities.

Factors associated with positive user experience with primary healthcare providers in Mexico: a multilevel modelling approach using national cross-sectional data.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate factors associated with patient experience with primary care in a large public health system in Mexico and determine the amount of variability in experience attributable to facility-level and state-level factors. METHODS: We analysed cross-sectional 2016 national satisfaction survey data from the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS). Patient-level data were merged with facility-level data and information on poverty by state. We assessed general contextual effects and examined the relationship of patient, facility and state factors with four patient experience measures using random effects logistic regression. RESULTS: 25 745 patients' responses from 319 facilities were analysed. The majority experienced good communication (78%), the opportunity to share health concerns (91%) and resolution of doubts (85%). 29% of visits were rated as excellent. Differences between facilities and states accounted for up to 12% and 6% of the variation in patient experience, respectively. Inclusion of facility-level contextual effects improved model predictions by 8%-12%; models with facility random effects and individual covariates correctly predicted 64%-71% of individual outcomes. In adjusted models, larger patient population was correlated with worse reported communication, less opportunity to share concerns and less resolution of doubts. Men reported more positive communication; older individuals reported more positive communication and experiences overall, but less opportunity to share concerns; and more educated individuals were less likely to report positive communication but more likely to report resolution of doubts and overall positive experiences. Preventive care visits were rated higher than curative visits for resolution of doubts, but lower for opportunity to share concerns, and specific conditions were associated with better or worse reported experiences in some cases. CONCLUSION: Quality improvement efforts at IMSS facilities might bolster individual experiences with primary care, given that up to 12% of the variation in experience was attributable to facility-level differences. The relationship between individual characteristics and experience ratings reinforces the importance of patients' expectations of care and the potential for differential treatment by providers to impact experience.

In Rural Areas, Buprenorphine Waiver Adoption Since 2017 Driven By Nurse Practitioners And Physician Assistants.

Few patients with opioid use disorder receive medication for addiction treatment. In 2017 the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act enabled nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) to obtain federal waivers allowing them to prescribe buprenorphine, a key medication for opioid use disorder. The waiver expansion was intended to increase patients' access to opioid use treatment, which was particularly important for rural areas with few physicians. However, little is known about the adoption of these waivers by NPs or PAs in rural areas. Using federal data, we examined waiver adoption in rural areas and its association with scope-of-practice regulations, which set the extent to which NPs or PAs can prescribe medication. From 2016 to 2019 the number of waivered clinicians per 100,000 population in rural areas increased by 111 percent. NPs and PAs accounted for more than half of this increase and were the first waivered clinicians in 285 rural counties with 5.7 million residents. In rural areas, broad scope-of-practice regulations were associated with twice as many waivered NPs per 100,000 population as restricted scopes of practice were. The rapid growth in the numbers of NPs and PAs with buprenorphine waivers is a promising development in improving access to addiction treatment in rural areas.

Survey mode effects and insurance coverage estimates in the redesigned Gallup well-being index.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether a change from a telephone to mail and Internet survey in January 2018 affected the sample composition and uninsured estimates in the Gallup-Sharecare Well-Being Index. DATA SOURCES: Gallup-Sharecare Well-Being Index (2013-2018). STUDY DESIGN: Regression discontinuity analysis identified changes after the survey redesign in the estimated U.S. uninsured rate (adults 18-64) and in the sample's demographic composition. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: After the survey redesign, the estimated uninsured rate fell 5.3 percentage points (P < 0.001), respondents were older and disproportionately white, more likely to have a college degree, and had higher average incomes. These changes were modestly reduced by survey weights. CONCLUSIONS: The shift to a mail survey (with a web option) led to an older, more educated sample with fewer minorities, and a significant break in trend in the estimated uninsured rate.

Equity in antenatal care quality: an analysis of 91 national household surveys.

BACKGROUND: Emerging data show that many low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) health systems struggle to consistently provide good-quality care. Although monitoring of inequalities in access to health services has been the focus of major international efforts, inequalities in health-care quality have not been systematically examined. METHODS: Using the most recent (2007-16) Demographic and Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys in 91 LMICs, we described antenatal care quality based on receipt of three essential services (blood pressure monitoring and urine and blood testing) among women who had at least one visit with a skilled antenatal-care provider. We compared quality across country income groups and quantified within-country wealth-related inequalities using the slope and relative indices of inequality. We summarised inequalities using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the extent to which other geographical and sociodemographic factors could explain these inequalities. FINDINGS: Globally, 72·9% (95% CI 69·1-76·8) of women who used antenatal care reported blood pressure monitoring and urine and blood testing; this number ranged from 6·3% in Burundi to 100·0% in Belarus. Antenatal care quality lagged behind antenatal care coverage the most in low-income countries, where 86·6% (83·4-89·7) of women accessed care but only 53·8% (44·3-63·3) reported receiving the three services. Receipt of the three services was correlated with gross domestic product per capita and was 40 percentage points higher in upper-middle-income countries compared with low-income countries. Within countries, the wealthiest women were on average four times more likely to report good quality care than the poorest (relative index of inequality 4·01, 95% CI 3·90-4·13). Substantial inequality remained after adjustment for subnational region, urban residence, maternal age, education, and number of antenatal care visits (3·20, 3·11-3·30). INTERPRETATION: Many LMICs that have reached high levels of antenatal care coverage had much lower and inequitable levels of quality. Achieving ambitious maternal, newborn, and child health goals will require greater focus on the quality of health services and their equitable distribution. Equity in effective coverage should be used as the new metric to monitor progress towards universal health coverage. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Global systems of health care and trauma.

Health care policy continues to occupy the center of national debate in the United States. Exploration of international health care and trauma systems allows for better comprehension of our own policies. Four basic models of health care exist across the globe: Bismarck, Beveridge, National Health Insurance, and Out-of-Pocket. Expectantly, disparities in trauma care necessarily follow inequities in overall health care and infrastructure. In this article, we aim to review several countries' health care models and their respective trauma systems. Critical analysis of international solutions to deficiencies in overall health and trauma care may serve as a guide for issues in the United States.

Cigarette prices, smoking, and the poor: implications of recent trends.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the relationship between smoking participation and cigarette pack price by income group and time period to determine role of cigarette prices in income-related disparities in smoking in the United States. METHODS: We used data from the 1984-2004 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys linked to information on cigarette prices to examine the adjusted prevalence of smoking participation and smoking participation-cigarette pack price elasticity (change in percentage of persons smoking relative to a 1% change in cigarette price) by income group (lowest income quartile [lower] vs all other quartiles [higher]) and time period (before vs after the Master Settlement Agreement [MSA]). RESULTS: Increased real cigarette-pack price over time was associated with a marked decline in smoking among higher-income but not among lower-income persons. Although the pre-MSA association between cigarette pack price and smoking revealed a larger elasticity in the lower- versus higher-income persons (-0.45 vs -0.22), the post-MSA association was not statistically significant (P>.2) for either income group. CONCLUSIONS: Despite cigarette price increases after the MSA, income-related smoking disparities have increased. Increasing cigarette prices may no longer be an effective policy tool and may impose a disproportionate burden on poor smokers.