The effect of Medicaid waivers on ameliorating racial/ethnic disparities among children with autism.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of Medicaid Home and Community-based Services (HCBS) waivers on reducing racial/ethnic disparities in unmet need for services among families of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). DATA SOURCES: Data from the 2003, 2007, and 2011 waves of the National Survey of Children's Health and the 2005 and 2010 waves of the National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs were used. Data on waiver characteristics were collected from source materials that were submitted in support of each state's waiver application. Waiver characteristics were combined to create a single waiver generosity variable. STUDY DESIGN: Quasi-difference-in-difference-in-difference models were used to determine the effect of waiver generosity on racial/ethnic disparities in unmet need among children with ASD. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Increased waiver generosity was associated with significantly reduced odds of having unmet need for black children with ASD compared with white children with ASD. Unmet needs among black children with ASD were roughly cut in half, a 13 percentage point decrease, with the implementation of an average generosity waiver. No significant differences were seen for Hispanic ethnicity. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that Medicaid HCBS waivers have the potential to ameliorate disparities in unmet need among children with ASD. Future policy development should focus on replicating the most effective characteristics of these waivers.

Finding Order in Chaos: A Review of Hospital Ratings.

Publicly reported hospital performance data have become widely available to health care consumers in recent years. In response to a growing demand for more readily available health care information, various organizations have begun assessing hospital performance. These performance reporting systems have tremendous potential to aid patients, families, and primary care providers in their clinical decision making. This study takes a systematic approach to review the main features of 9 existing hospital rating systems, each of which is described using 9 areas of evaluation. The hospital rating systems included in this study vary widely in scope, methodology, transparency, and presentation of their results. Their results often present conflicting conclusions regarding the performance of the same hospital. This review of hospital rating systems demonstrates how public reporting may add confusion to patients' health care decision making.

Persistent high utilization in a privately insured population.

OBJECTIVES: To describe individuals characterized as persistent high users--that is, individuals who are in the top 10% of users every year over the 3-year study period. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of 4 groups in a privately insured population. Groups were defined by the number of years an enrollee was in the top 10% of the spending group (top decile) for the period from 2009 to 2011: persistent high-user group (3 out of 3 years in the top decile spending group); frequent high-user group (2 out of 3 years in top decile); incidental high-user group (1 out of 3 years in top decile); and never high user group (0 out of 3 years in top decile). METHODS: This study used insurance claims data to examine enrollees with persistently high health service utilization. Data for the year 2008 were utilized to assess baseline individual characteristics. Annual data for 2009 to 2011 were used to examine healthcare expenditures, utilization patterns, and specific clinical conditions among the 4 groups of the study sample. RESULTS: Among 42,038 enrollees, 1216 (2.9%) met the criteria as persistent high users. Over a 3-year period, this group accounted for 21% of total healthcare expenditure. Compared with the other groups, persistent high users had higher overall disease burden due to multiple chronic conditions and incurred significantly higher expenses in medication and professional services (including primary and specialty care). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the need to proactively engage employees and their dependents for primary and secondary prevention of common chronic diseases before an individual's health status, healthcare utilization, and medical cost become difficult to manage.

Hospital patient safety grades may misrepresent hospital performance.

Nationally, there is strong interest in measuring hospital performance in patient safety. The Leapfrog Group uses a survey, along with other data sources, to calculate patient safety scores for 2600 hospitals across the United States. Under this methodology, every hospital is assigned 1 of 5 letter grades (A, B, C, D, F) depending on how the hospital stands in safety performance relative to all other hospitals. The results have been widely marketed and disseminated to employers, payors, and the public. Leapfrog strongly encourages employers and payors to negotiate hospital reimbursement rates based on the safety grade the hospital receives. Leapfrog's effort to develop a standardized method to provide patient safety information should be commended. However, less than one-half of the 2600 hospitals participated in the Leapfrog survey. For those nonparticipating hospitals, certain safety measures were absent and alternative measures were used to calculate the safety score. A sample of the nation's most prestigious hospitals (n = 35) was drawn from the U.S. News & World Report's "Best Hospitals." Overall, the group of participating hospitals (n = 18) received an average grade of A (mean safety score = 3.165), whereas the group of nonparticipating hospitals received an average grade of B (mean safety score = 3.012). These nonparticipating hospitals were rescored using the methodology for participating hospitals. The results show that the majority of nonparticipating hospitals would have received a better safety grade. This demonstrates a potential shortcoming of Leapfrog's method and its tendency to discriminate against nonparticipating hospitals.

Effects of integrated delivery system on cost and quality.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review of the current literature to assess the association between integrated healthcare delivery systems and changes in cost and quality. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Reviews, Academic Search Premier, and reference lists were used to retrieve peer-reviewed articles reporting outcomes (cost and quality) related to integrated delivery systems. A general Internet search and reference lists were used to retrieve non-peer reviewed publications meeting the same criteria. Included peer and non-peer reviewed publications were based in the United States and were published between the years 2000 and 2011. RESULTS: A total of 21 peer-reviewed articles and 4 non-peer reviewed manuscripts met the inclusion criteria. Twenty studies showed an association between increased integration in healthcare delivery and an increase in the quality of care. One study reported no changes in quality indicators associated with increased integration. None of these studies measured cost reduction directly, but used reduction in utilization of services instead. Four studies associated decreases in the utilization of services with increases in integration. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of studies we reviewed have shown that integrated delivery systems have positive effects on quality of care. Few studies linked use of an integrated delivery system to lower health service utilization. Only 1 study reported some small cost savings.