Does Universal Health Insurance in Korea provide a Lesson for U.S. Health Care Financing?

This note provides a commentary on Lee, C. "Is Universal Health Insurance Superior in Terms of Healthcare Payment? Estimating the Financial Burden of Healthcare in Korea: 2009 to 2019." INQUIRY, 2022, 59:1-8. Lee, using a unique data set, shows that the Korean single payer system is regressive, despite previous attempts to increase public expenditures. The policy recommendation, to improve access by making public payments even more progressive to household income, is examined. This note concludes that making health expenditures progressive to household income does not solve the root cause of the demand for health care, a key factor in health care access, nor can the policy implications generalize to the multi-payer U.S. system.

Impact of a Statewide Multi-Payer Patient-Centered Medical Home Program on Antihypertensive Medication Adherence.

Evidence suggests that the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model of primary care improves management of chronic disease, but there is limited research contrasting this model's effect when financed by a single payer versus multiple payers, and among patients with different types of health insurance. This study evaluates the impact of a statewide medical home demonstration, the Maryland Multi-Payer PCMH Program (MMPP), on adherence to antihypertensive medication therapy relative to non-PCMH primary care and to the PCMH model when financed by a single payer. The authors used a difference-in-differences analytic design to analyze changes in medication possession ratio for antihypertensive medications among Medicaid-insured and privately insured non-elderly adult patients attributed to primary care practices in the MMPP ("multi-payer PCMHs"), medical homes in Maryland that participated in a regional PCMH program funded by a single private payer ("single-payer PCMHs"), and non-PCMH practices in Maryland. Comparison sites were matched to multi-payer PCMHs using propensity scores based on practice characteristics, location, and aggregated provider characteristics. Multi-payer PCMHs performed better on antihypertensive medication adherence for both Medicaid-insured and privately insured patients relative to single-payer PCMHs. Statistically significant effects were not observed consistently until the second year of the demonstration. There were negligible differences in outcome trends between multi-payer medical homes and matched non-PCMH practices. Findings indicate that health care delivery innovations may yield superior population health outcomes under multi-payer financing compared to when such initiatives are financed by a single payer.

Patient Experience with the Patient-Centered Medical Home in Michigan's Statewide Multi-Payer Demonstration: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The literature on patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) and patient experience is somewhat mixed. Government and private payers are promoting multi-payer PCMH initiatives to align requirements and resources and to enhance practice transformation outcomes. To this end, the multipayer Michigan Primary Care Transformation (MiPCT) demonstration project was carried out. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the PCMH is associated with a better patient experience, and whether a mature, multi-payer PCMH demonstration is associated with even further improvement in the patient experience. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional comparison of adults attributed to MiPCT PCMH, non-participating PCMH, and non-PCMH practices, statistically controlling for potential confounders, and conducted among both general and high-risk patient samples. PARTICIPANTS: Responses came from 3893 patients in the general population and 4605 in the high-risk population (response rates of 31.8% and 34.1%, respectively). MAIN MEASURES: The Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey, with PCMH supplemental questions, was administered in January and February 2015. KEY RESULTS: MiPCT general and high-risk patients reported a significantly better experience than non-PCMH patients in most domains. Adjusted mean differences were as follows: access (0.35**, 0.36***), communication (0.19*, 0.18*), and coordination (0.33**, 0.35***), respectively (on a 10-point scale, with significance indicated by: *= p<0.05, **= p<0.01, and ***= p<0.001). Adjusted mean differences in overall provider ratings were not significant. Global odds ratios were significant for the domains of self-management support (1.38**, 1.41***) and comprehensiveness (1.67***, 1.61***). Non-participating PCMH ratings fell between MiPCT and non-PCMH across all domains and populations, sometimes attaining statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: PCMH practices have more positive patient experiences across domains characteristic of advanced primary care. A mature multi-payer model has the strongest, most consistent association with a better patient experience, pointing to the need to provide consistent expectations, resources, and time for practice transformation. Our results held for a general population and a high-risk population which has much more contact with the healthcare system.