Medicaid Policy Change and Immediate Postpartum Long-Acting Reversible Contraception.

Importance: Improving access to the choice of postpartum contraceptive methods is a national public health priority, and the need is particularly acute within the Medicaid population. One strategy to ensure individuals have access to the full range of contraceptive methods is the provision of a method prior to hospital discharge following a birth episode. Beginning in 2016, some states changed their Medicaid billing policy, allowing separate reimbursement for intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants to increase the provision of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods immediately postpartum (IPP). Objective: To assess the association of a change in Medicaid billing policy with use of IPP LARC. Design, Setting, and Participants: The cohort study of postpartum Medicaid recipients in 9 treatment and 6 comparison states was conducted from January 2016 to October 2019. Data were analyzed from August 2023 to January 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was use of IPP LARC. Results: The final sample included 1 378 885 delivery encounters for 1 197 287 Medicaid enrollees occurring in 15 states. Mean age of beneficiaries at delivery was 27 years. The IPP LARC billing policy was associated with a mean increase of 0.74 percentage points (95% CI, 0.30-1.18 percentage points) in the immediate receipt of IPP LARC, with a prepolicy baseline rate of 0.54%. The IPP LARC billing policy was also associated with an overall increase of 1.48 percentage points (95% CI, 0.43-2.73 percentage points) in LARC use by 60 days post partum. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, changing Medicaid billing policy to allow for separate reimbursement of LARC devices from the global fee was associated with increased use of IPP LARC, suggesting that this may be a strategy to improve access to the full range of postpartum contraceptive methods.

Decomposition analysis of racial and ethnic differences in receipt of immediate postpartum, long-acting, reversible, and permanent contraception.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the factors contributing to racial and ethnic disparities in the use of immediate postpartum, long-acting reversible contraception (IPP LARC) and permanent contraception among Medicaid recipients. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional study using 3 years of national Medicaid claims data to examine the rates of IPP LARC use alone and a composite measure of postpartum permanent contraception and IPP LARC within 7 days of delivery by race and ethnicity. We used a Blinder-Oaxaca model to quantify the extent to which medical complexity, age, rurality, mode of delivery, and year explained differences in outcomes among different minoritized groups in comparison to non-Hispanic White women. RESULTS: Our study sample contained 1,729,663 deliveries occurring from 2016 through 2018 among 1,605,199 people living in 16 states. IPP LARC use rates were highest among Black (2.2%), followed by American Indian and Alaska Native at 2.1% and Hawaiian/Pacific Islander beneficiaries at 1.9%, Hispanic (all races) at 1.2%, and Asian at 1.0%. IPP LARC was lowest among White beneficiaries (0.8%). Medical complexity, age, rurality, year, and mode of delivery explained only 12.3% of the difference in IPP LARC rates between Black and White beneficiaries. Postpartum permanent contraception was highest among White (7.6%), Hispanic (7.2%), and American Indian and Alaska Native (6.8%), followed by Black (6.3%), Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (5.1%) and lowest among Asian women (4.1%). When we examined the use of IPP LARC or postpartum permanent contraception together, these same factors explained 94.4% of the differences between Black and White beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: While differences in the use of IPP LARC by race and ethnicity were identified, our findings suggest that overall use of inpatient highly effective contraception are similar across racial and ethnic groups. IMPLICATIONS: When IPP LARC and postpartum permanent contraception are examined jointly, their use is similar across racial and ethnic groups.

The association of federal Medicaid abortion funding restrictions with adverse obstetric outcomes among United States Medicaid recipients.

OBJECTIVE: We examine the association of the Hyde Amendment with obstetrical outcomes in a national Medicaid population. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a national study of Medicaid-funded abortions to determine the association of restrictions on adolescent, preterm, low-birth weight, and short interpregnancy interval births using administrative data. RESULTS: States that restricted coverage for abortion had a higher median rate of adolescent (10.2%; vs 7.4%; p-value < 0.001), preterm (11.4%; vs 10.1%; p < 0.001), short interpregnancy interval, (13.0% vs 9.6%; p < 0.001), and low birth weight births (10.2% vs 8.7%; p = 0.003) than states where Medicaid provided comprehensive coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Restricting federal funds for abortion is associated with adverse outcomes. IMPLICATIONS: When Medicaid does not provide comprehensive coverage for abortion care, few abortions are provided and higher rates of adverse obstetrical outcomes are noted.

Geographic Variation In Effective Contraceptive Use Among Medicaid Recipients In 2018.

Medicaid is the largest payer for publicly funded contraception, serving millions of women across the United States. However, relatively little is known about the extent to which effective contraceptive services vary geographically for Medicaid recipients. This study used national Medicaid claims to assess county-level variation in rates of provision of the most or moderately effective methods of contraception and provision of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) across forty states and Washington, D.C., in 2018. County-level rates of most or moderately effective contraceptive use varied almost fourfold across states, from a low of 10.8 percent to a high of 44.4 percent. Rates of LARC provision varied almost tenfold, from a low of 1.0 percent to a high of 9.6 percent. Despite the fact that contraception is a core benefit within Medicaid, access and use vary substantially across and within states. Medicaid agencies have a variety of options to ensure that people have access to a choice of the full range of contraceptive methods, including removing or loosening utilization controls, incorporating quality metrics or value-based payments into contraceptive services, and adjusting reimbursement to remove barriers to the clinical provision of LARC.

Catholic sole community hospitals are associated with decreased receipt of postpartum permanent contraception among Medicaid recipients.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association of Catholic hospitals with receipt of postpartum tubal ligation and long acting, reversible contraception among Medicaid recipients. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of live births from January 1, 2016 to October 31, 2016 to female Medicaid beneficiaries in the United States between ages 21 and 44. Our main exposure was the presence of a Catholic-affiliated sole community hospital, and our primary outcome was highly effective postpartum contraception. We examined rates of postpartum permanent contraception, along with the use of a long acting, reversible form of contraception (LARC) at 3 and 60 days are postpartum. We compared counties that had only a Catholic-affiliated hospital with counties with only a non-Catholic hospital. RESULTS: Our study population included 14,545 postpartum Medicaid beneficiaries. Study participants came from 88 counties across 10 United States states. Only 7.7% of women in counties with Catholic sole community hospitals received permanent contraception by 3 days postpartum, compared to 11.3% in counties with non-Catholic sole community hospitals (RD: -3.92%; 95% CI: -6.01%, -1.83%). This difference was not mitigated by receipt of outpatient procedures or long-acting, reversible contraception. Importantly, women residing in counties with Catholic sole community hospitals were much less likely to return postpartum for an outpatient visit between 8 and 60 days postpartum than women in counties with non-Catholic sole community hospitals (35.4% vs 45.4%, RD: -9.29%; 95% CI: -16.71%, -1.86%). CONCLUSIONS: In counties where the only hospital was Catholic, Medicaid recipients giving birth were significantly less likely to receive permanent contraception and to return for postpartum care. IMPLICATIONS: Catholic hospitals are increasing in the United States, which may restrict access to postpartum contraception, particularly in rural areas. We found that Medicaid recipients giving birth at a Catholic sole community hospital were less likely to receive permanent contraception and to return for care.

Hospital Characteristics Associated With Heterogeneity in Institutional Postacute Care Spending Reductions Under the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model.

Importance: Prior research concluded that institutional postacute care spending decreased under the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model. Less is known about how changes in institutional postacute care spending varied across different types of hospitals. Objective: To measure hospital-level heterogeneity in the association of the CJR model with changes in institutional postacute care spending and to identify hospital characteristics associated with this variation. Design Setting and Participants: Using 100% Medicare claims data, this cross-sectional study assessed institutional postacute care spending from 2016 to 2017 among US hospitals randomly selected to participate in the CJR model and control group hospitals that were eligible but not selected for the participation in the CJR model. A causal forest was used to estimate the treatment effect of the CJR model conditional on hospital characteristics. Analysis was conducted between October 2019 and October 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The unit of analysis was each hospital; the outcome was the average per-episode Medicare spending for institutional postacute care within 90 days after hospital discharge for hip or knee joint replacement. Results: This study included 531 CJR participating hospitals and 658 control group hospitals from 2016 to 2017. The CJR model was associated with a $761 reduction in institutional postacute care spending (95% CI, -$1172 to -$351). The reduction in spending under the CJR model did not vary across conditional on hospital characteristics. Limited evidence was found for greater savings among hospitals with higher pre-CJR spending. However, this finding did not hold for hospitals in the highest quintile of pre-CJR spending. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of 1189 hospitals, findings did not show strong evidence for significant heterogeneity in how the CJR model was associated with reductions in institutional postacute care spending across a range of hospital characteristics. Savings were not concentrated in hospitals with specific characteristics, such as hospitals with high-volume joint replacement or hospitals serving less medically or socially complex patients. Findings suggest that the CJR model created opportunities for savings across a spectrum of different hospitals.

Association of Medicare bundled payment model with joint replacement care for people with dementia.

BACKGROUND: We examined whether the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model was associated with changes in the receipt of joint replacement among people with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) as well as spending, health service use, and postsurgical outcomes among people with ADRD who underwent a joint replacement surgery. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using 2013-2017 Medicare claims and Minimum Data Set. We used a difference-in-differences analysis to compare people with ADRD residing in CJR-participating treatment areas versus nonparticipating control areas on the receipt of joint replacement, episode spending during the index hospitalization and subsequent 90-day post-discharge period, discharges to an institutional post-acute care setting, and readmissions within 90 days of hospital discharge. RESULTS: Our sample included 3,361,950 Medicare enrollees with ADRD (2,156,995 women [64%]; mean [SD] age, 83 [8.0] years; 2,646,405 white [78%], 344,478 black [10%], 224,010 Hispanic [7%]). The receipt of replacement among people with ADRD changed similarly between CJR-participating treatment and control areas after CJR model was implemented, suggesting no association of CJR model with the receipt of replacement. Among people with ADRD who received joint replacement, the CJR model was associated with a $1029 decrease in spending per episode (95% confidence interval [CI] -$1577, -$481, p < 0.001), a 1.62 percentage point decrease in discharges to an institutional post-acute care setting (95% CI -3.17, -0.07, p = 0.04), but no changes in 90-day readmission (95% CI -2.68, 0.00, p = 0.051). CONCLUSIONS: Despite concerns that the CJR model could hinder people with ADRD from receiving joint replacement, the receipt of joint replacement did not change among people with ADRD under CJR. The CJR model was associated with decreased spending for people with ADRD who received joint replacements, driven by reduced discharges to an institutional post-acute care setting, without any changes in 90-day readmission.

The Spillover Effect of the Medicare Mandatory Bundled Payment Program on Joint Replacement Outcomes: Analysis of Patients with Commercial Insurance and Medicare Advantage.

BACKGROUND: To improve the value and efficiency of care among traditional Medicare enrollees, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has implemented alternative payment models designed to control health-care spending and improve quality. These models may affect care beyond traditional Medicare enrollees, "spilling over" into other populations. Established in April 2016, the Medicare mandatory bundled payment program, called the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, holds hospitals accountable for spending and quality of care for traditional Medicare joint-replacement patients during care episodes that span from the index hospitalization to 90 days post-discharge. We assessed the extent to which the CJR model was associated with outcomes for patients enrolled in commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage plans. METHODS: With use of Health Care Cost Institute claims data from 2012 through 2017, we assessed the association of the CJR model with total expenditures, discharges to institutional post-acute care, and readmissions among commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage joint-replacement patients. The exposure variable was the implementation of the CJR model in 67 randomly selected metropolitan statistical areas compared with 103 similar areas without CJR implementation. We utilized difference-in-differences models to estimate the spillover effects of the CJR model by comparing outcomes between these areas before and after CJR implementation. RESULTS: The study included 174,893 joint-replacement episodes of care in commercial insurance enrollees and 202,070 episodes in Medicare Advantage enrollees. Among both commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage enrollees, CJR implementation was associated with no meaningful changes in total episode expenditures, discharges to institutional post-acute care, or readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence for spillover effects of the CJR model on commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage patients, suggesting that alternative payment models targeting traditional Medicare patients may have limited effects on the cost and quality of care for patients outside of the traditional Medicare system.

Association of rural location and long acting reversible contraceptive use among Oregon Medicaid recipients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the use of long-acting, reversible contraception (LARC) is equitably accessible to Medicaid recipients in rural and urban areas. We also determined whether women's health specialists' availability was associated with the type of LARC used. STUDY DESIGN: We used claims data for 242,057 adult women who were continuously enrolled in Oregon Medicaid for at least one year and at risk of pregnancy from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2017 to assess the association between LARC utilization and (1) rurality and (2) provider supply. Our primary analysis included 430,918 person-years. Regression models adjusted for patient age, whether the patient was newly eligible for Medicaid due to Medicaid expansion, and health status. We also examined differences in the caseload of implants and IUD by provider type (women's health specialist vs other). RESULTS: Among all women, 11.6% had at least one claim indicating LARC use. There was no significant difference in overall LARC use by location (urban residence +0.66%, 95% CI [-0.12%, 1.43%]), although urban residents were slightly more likely to have an IUD (+0.72%, 95% CI [0.11%, 1.33%]). An increase of one women's health specialty provider per 10,000 women was associated with a 0.14 percentage point increase in the rate of IUD utilization (95% CI: 0.02, 0.26). Compared to other providers, women's health specialty providers supplied 62% of all IUDs and 43% of all implants. CONCLUSION: Among Oregon's Medicaid enrollees, LARC is equitably used in rural areas; however, IUD use is slightly more frequent in urban areas.

Association of Medicare Mandatory Bundled Payment Program With the Receipt of Elective Hip and Knee Replacement in White, Black, and Hispanic Beneficiaries.

Importance: The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model was designed to reduce the cost and improve the quality of hip or knee replacement among Medicare beneficiaries. Yet whether this model may exacerbate existing racial/ethnic disparities in access to the surgery is unclear. Objective: To examine the association of the CJR model with the receipt of elective hip or knee replacement across White, Black, and Hispanic Medicare beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare claims from 2013 through 2017 among White, Black, and Hispanic Medicare beneficiaries undergoing elective joint replacement in 65 treatment (selected for CJR participation) and 101 control metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). Exposures: Starting in April 2016, hospitals in the treatment MSAs were required to participate in the CJR model and were accountable for expenditures occurring during patients' hospitalization for hip or knee replacement and 90 days after the hospital discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: Beneficiary-level elective hip or knee replacement receipt in a given year. Results: Among 17 243 304 patients, 9 839 996 (57%) were women; 2 107 425 (12%) were age 85 years or older. Of the final sample, 14 632 434 (85%) were White beneficiaries, 1 518 629 (9%) were Black beneficiaries, and 1 092 241 (6%) were Hispanic beneficiaries. The CJR model was associated with an increase of 1.6 elective hip or knee replacements per 1000 beneficiary-years for Hispanic beneficiaries (95% CI, 0.06-2.05) and a decrease of 0.64 replacements for Black beneficiaries (95% CI, -1.25 to -0.02). No evidence was found for any changes for White beneficiaries per 1000 beneficiary-years (0.04 replacements, 95% CI, -0.35 to 0.42 replacements). The Black-White difference in the rate of elective hip or knee replacement per 1000 beneficiary-years further widened by 0.68 replacements (-0.68, 95% CI, -1.20 to -0.15). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the CJR model was associated with increased receipt of elective hip or knee replacement among Hispanic beneficiaries, decreased receipt among Black beneficiaries, and no change in receipt among White beneficiaries. The decreased receipt of elective hip or knee replacement among Black beneficiaries may suggest that value-based payment models, including the CJR model, could be monitored for unintended consequences. However, the lack of similar findings among Hispanic beneficiaries suggests that payment models may have differential impacts across racial/ethnic groups.

Association of Medicare Mandatory Bundled Payment System for Hip and Knee Joint Replacement With Racial/Ethnic Difference in Joint Replacement Care.

Importance: There are marked racial/ethnic differences in hip and knee joint replacement care as well as concerns that value-based payments may exacerbate existing racial/ethnic disparities in care. Objective: To examine changes in joint replacement care associated with Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model among White, Black, and Hispanic patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare claims from 2013 through 2017 among White, Black, and Hispanic patients undergoing joint replacement in 67 treatment (selected for CJR participation) and 103 control metropolitan statistical areas. Exposures: The CJR model holds hospitals accountable for spending and quality of joint replacement care during care episodes (index hospitalization through 90 days after discharge). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were spending, discharge to institutional postacute care, and readmission during care episodes. Results: Among 688 346 patients, 442 163 (64.2%) were women, and 87 286 (12.7%) were 85 years or older. Under CJR, spending decreased by $439 for White patients (95% CI, -$718 to -$161; from pre-CJR spending in treatment metropolitan statistical areas of $25 264) but did not change for Black patients and Hispanic patients. Discharges to institutional postacute care decreased for all groups (-2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to -0.4, from pre-CJR risk of 46.2% for White patients; -6.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -2.2, from pre-CJR risk of 59.5% for Black patients; and -4.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.6 to -1.0, from pre-CJR risk of 54.3% for Hispanic patients). Readmission risk decreased for Black patients by 3.1 percentage points (95% CI, -5.9 to -0.4, from pre-CJR risk of 21.8%) and did not change for White patients and Hispanic patients. Under CJR, Black-White differences in discharges to institutional postacute care decreased by 3.4 percentage points (95% CI, -6.4 to -0.5, from the pre-CJR Black-White difference of 13.3 percentage points). No evidence was found demonstrating that Black-White differences changed for other outcomes or that Hispanic-White differences changed for any outcomes under CJR. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients receiving joint replacements, CJR was associated with decreased readmissions for Black patients. Furthermore, Black patients experienced a greater decrease in discharges to institutional postacute care relative to White patients, representing relative improvements despite concerns that value-based payment models may exacerbate existing disparities. Nonetheless, differences between White and Black patients in joint replacement care still persisted even after these changes.

Association of Implementing an Incentive Metric in the Oregon Medicaid Program With Effective Contraceptive Use.

Importance: Reducing unintended pregnancy is a national public health priority. Incentive metrics are increasingly used by health systems to improve health outcomes and reduce costs, but limited data exist on the association of incentive metrics with contraceptive use. Objective: To evaluate whether an association exists between implementing an incentive metric and effective contraceptive use within the Oregon Medicaid program. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this state-level, claims-based cohort study, a comparative interrupted time series design was used to evaluate whether the implementation of an effective contraceptive use incentive metric on January 1, 2015, was associated with changes in contraceptive use among Oregon Medicaid adult enrollees when compared with commercially insured women. The participants were adult women at risk of pregnancy (18-50 years of age) living in Oregon from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2017, and enrolled in Medicaid (532 337 person-years) or in commercial health insurance (1 131 738 person-years). Exposure: Implementation of an effective contraceptive use incentive metric as defined using the 2019 Oregon Health Authority specifications. Main Outcomes and Measures: International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes; International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision codes; and Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify contraceptive use. Annual rates of effective contraceptive use were measured through health insurance claims. Results: The final analyses included 532 337 Medicaid person-years and 1 131 738 privately insured person-years. Women enrolled in Medicaid were younger than those with private insurance (47.5% vs 33.2% of women in 2013 younger than 30 years), and approximately 40% of Medicaid enrollees (vs fewer than 10% of women with private insurance) resided in rural locations. Demographic characteristics within each group remained similar before and after the incentive metric was implemented. In the comparative interrupted time series model, relative to the commercially insured comparison group, effective contraceptive use among Medicaid enrollees for all ages combined increased 3.6% (95% CI, 3.1%-4.1%) 1 year after the start of the incentive metric, 7.5% (95% CI, 6.8%-8.2%) at the end of 2 years, and 11.5% (95% CI, 10.5%-12.4%) at the end of 3 years. Prior to the introduction of the incentive, contraceptive use rates among the youngest cohort of Medicaid enrollees (18-24 years of age) were decreasing; following the introduction of the incentive, contraceptive use increased steadily among all enrollees. Among women aged 18 to 24 years, the effective contraceptive use rate increased 16.5 percentage points (95% CI, 14.4-18.6 percentage points) after 3 years. The largest initial increase in contraceptive use was among women enrolled in Medicaid who were 30 to 34 years of age (4.9%; 95% CI, 3.4%-6.3%). Conclusions and Relevance: Implementation of the effective contraceptive use incentive metric was associated with a significant increase in contraceptive use among Medicaid enrollees relative to a commercially insured comparison group. This finding is relevant given national efforts aimed at adopting a similar metric for widespread use.

Accuracy of Hospital Discharge Codes in Medicare Claims for Knee and Hip Replacement Patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of the hospital discharge destination field ("discharge code" hereafter) for research and payment reform, its accuracy is not well established. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the accuracy of discharge codes in Medicare claims. DATA SOURCES: 2012-2015 Medicare claims of knee and hip replacement patients. RESEARCH DESIGN: We identified patients' discharge location in claims and compared it with the discharge code. We also used a mixed-effects logistic regression to examine the association of patient and hospital characteristics with discharge code accuracy. RESULTS: Approximately 9% of discharge codes were inaccurate. Long-term care hospital discharge codes had the lowest accuracy rate (41%), followed by acute care transfers (72%), inpatient rehabilitation facility (80%), and home discharges (83%). Most misclassifications occurred within 2 broad groups of postacute care settings: home-based and institutional care. The odds of inaccurate discharge codes were higher for Medicaid-enrolled patients and safety-net and low-volume hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Inaccurate hospital discharge coding may have introduced bias in studies relying on these codes (eg, evaluations of Medicare bundled payment models). Inaccuracy was more common among Medicaid-enrolled patients and safety-net and low-volume hospitals, suggesting more potential bias in existing study findings pertaining to these patients and hospitals.

Access to Primary, Mental Health, and Specialty Care: a Comparison of Medicaid and Commercially Insured Populations in Oregon.

OBJECTIVE: To describe how access to primary and specialty care differs for Medicaid patients relative to commercially insured patients, and how these differences vary across rural and urban counties, using comprehensive claims data from Oregon. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of risk-adjusted access rates for two types of primary care providers (physicians; nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs)); four types of mental health providers (psychiatrists, psychologists, advanced practice NPs or PAs specializing in mental health care, behavioral specialists); and four physician specialties (obstetrics and gynecology, general surgery, gastroenterology, dermatology). PARTICIPANTS: 420,947 Medicaid and 638,980 commercially insured adults in Oregon, October 2014-September 2015. OUTCOME: Presence of any visit with each provider type, risk-adjusted for sex, age, and health conditions. RESULTS: Relative to commercially insured individuals, Medicaid enrollees had lower rates of access to primary care physicians (- 11.82%; CI - 12.01 to - 11.63%) and to some specialists (e.g., obstetrics and gynecology, dermatology), but had equivalent or higher rates of access to NPs and PAs providing primary care (4.33%; CI 4.15 to 4.52%) and a variety of mental health providers (including psychiatrists, NPs and PAs, and other behavioral specialists). Across all providers, the largest gaps in Medicaid-commercial access rates were observed in rural counties. The Medicaid-commercial patient mix was evenly distributed across primary care physicians, suggesting that access for Medicaid patients was not limited to a small subset of primary care providers. CONCLUSIONS: This cross-sectional study found lower rates of access to primary care physicians for Medicaid enrollees, but Medicaid-commercial differences in access rates were not present across all provider types and displayed substantial variability across counties. Policies that address rural-urban differences as well as Medicaid-commercial differences-such as expansions of telemedicine or changes in the workforce mix-may have the largest impact on improving access to care across a wide range of populations.

Association of the Mandatory Medicare Bundled Payment With Joint Replacement Outcomes in Hospitals With Disadvantaged Patients.

Importance: Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model rewards or penalizes hospitals on the basis of meeting spending benchmarks that do not account for patients' preexisting social and medical complexity or high expenses associated with serving disadvantaged populations such as dual-eligible patients (ie, those enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid). The CJR model may have different implications for hospitals serving a high percentage of dual-eligible patients (termed high-dual) and hospitals serving a low percentage of dual-eligible patients (termed low-dual). Objective: To examine changes associated with the CJR model among high-dual or low-dual hospitals in 2016 to 2017. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study comprised 3 analyses of high-dual or low-dual hospitals (n = 1165) serving patients with hip or knee joint replacements (n = 768 224) in 67 treatment metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) selected for CJR participation and 103 control MSAs. The study used Medicare claims data and public reports from 2012 to 2017. Data analysis was conducted from February 1, 2019, to August 31, 2019. Exposures: The CJR model holds participating hospitals accountable for the spending and quality of care during care episodes for patients with hip or knee joint replacement, including hospitalization and 90 days after discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were total episode spending, discharge to institutional postacute care facility, and readmission within the 90-day postdischarge period; bonus and penalty payments for each hospital; and reductions in per-episode spending required to receive a bonus for each hospital. Results: In total, 1165 hospitals (291 high-dual and 874 low-dual) and 768 224 patients with joint replacement (494 013 women [64.3%]; mean [SD] age, 76 [7] years) were included. An episode-level triple-difference analysis indicated that total spending under the CJR model decreased at high-dual hospitals (by $851; 95% CI, -$1556 to -$146; P = .02) and low-dual hospitals (by $567; 95% CI, -$933 to -$202; P = .003). The size of decreases did not differ between the 2 groups (difference, -$284; 95% CI, -$981 to $413; P = .42). Discharge to institutional postacute care settings and readmission did not change among both hospital groups. High-dual hospitals were less likely to receive a bonus compared with low-dual hospitals (40.3% vs 59.1% in 2016; 56.9% vs 76.0% in 2017). To receive a bonus, high-dual hospitals would be required to reduce spending by $887 to $2231 per episode, compared with only $89 to $215 for low-dual hospitals. Conclusions and Relevance: The study found that high- and low-dual hospitals made changes in care after CJR implementation, and the magnitude of these changes did not differ between the 2 groups. However, high-dual hospitals were less likely to receive a bonus for spending cuts. Spending benchmarks for CJR would require high-dual hospitals to reduce spending more substantially to receive a financial incentive.