The Camden Coalition Care Management Program Improved Intermediate Care Coordination: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

When a randomized evaluation finds null results, it is important to understand why. We investigated two very different explanations for the finding from a randomized evaluation that the Camden Coalition's influential care management program-which targeted high-use, high-need patients in Camden, New Jersey-did not reduce hospital readmissions. One explanation is that the program's underlying theory of change was not right, meaning that intensive care coordination may have been insufficient to change patient outcomes. Another explanation is a failure of implementation, suggesting that the program may have failed to achieve its goals but could have succeeded if it had been implemented with greater fidelity. To test these two explanations, we linked study participants to Medicaid data, which covered 561 (70 percent) of the original 800 participants, to examine the program's impact on facilitating postdischarge ambulatory care-a key element of care coordination. We found that the program increased ambulatory visits by 15 percentage points after fourteen days postdischarge, driven by an increase in primary care; these effects persisted through 365 days. These results suggest that care coordination alone may be insufficient to reduce readmissions for patients with high rates of hospital admissions and medically and socially complex conditions.

Home Visits With A Registered Nurse Did Not Affect Prenatal Care In A Low-Income Pregnant Population.

There is an urgent need to improve maternal and neonatal health outcomes and decrease their racial disparities in the US. Prenatal nurse home visiting programs could help achieve this by increasing the use and quality of prenatal care and facilitating healthy behaviors during pregnancy. We conducted a randomized controlled trial of 5,670 Medicaid-eligible pregnant people in South Carolina to evaluate how a nurse home visiting program affected prenatal health care and health outcomes. We compared outcomes between the treatment and control groups and found little evidence of statistically significant differences in the intensity of prenatal care use, receipt of guideline-based prenatal care services, other health care use, or gestational weight gain. Nor did we find treatment effects in subgroup analyses of socially vulnerable participants (46.9 percent of the sample) or non-Hispanic Black participants (52.0 percent of the sample). Compared with the broader Medicaid population, our trial participants had more health and social risk factors, more engagement with prenatal care, and similar pregnancy outcomes. Delivering intensive nurse home visiting programs to the general Medicaid population might not be an efficient method to improve prenatal care for those who need the most support during pregnancy.

Primary care quality and cost for privately insured patients in and out of US Health Systems: Evidence from four states.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize physician health system membership in four states between 2012 and 2016 and to compare primary care quality and cost between in-system providers and non-system providers for the commercially insured population. DATA SOURCES: Physician membership in health systems was obtained from a unique longitudinal database on health systems and matched at the provider level to 2014 all-payer claims data from Colorado, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Utah. STUDY DESIGN: Using an observational study design, we compared physicians in health systems to non-system physicians located in the same state and geography on average cost of care (risk-adjusted using the Johns Hopkins' Adjusted Clinical Grouper), five HEDIS quality measures, one measure of developmental screening, and two Prevention Quality Indicator Measures. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Patients in commercial health plans were attributed to a primary care physician accounting for the plurality of office visits. A cohort for each quality measure was constructed based on appropriate measure specifications. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The share of physicians in health systems increased steadily from 2012 to 2016 and ranged from 48% in Colorado to 63% in Utah in 2016. Compared to physicians not in a system, system physicians performed similarly on most HEDIS quality metrics compared to non-system physicians. Patients attributed to in-system physicians had about 40% higher rates (P < .05) of Ambulatory Care Sensitive Admissions (measured in admissions per 100 000:921.33 in-system vs 674.61 not-in-system for acute composite; 2540.91 in-system vs 1972.17 for chronic composite In-system providers were associated with $29 (P < .05) higher average per member per month costs (453.37 vs 432.93). Overall, differences in performance by system membership were relatively small compared to differences across states and geography. CONCLUSION: A growing share of physicians is part of a health system from 2012 to 2016. Providers in health systems are not delivering primary care more efficiently than non-system providers for the commercially insured.

The Uninsured Do Not Use The Emergency Department More-They Use Other Care Less.

There is a popular perception that insurance coverage will reduce overuse of the emergency department (ED). Both opponents and advocates of expanding insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have made statements to the effect that EDs have been jammed with the uninsured and that paying for the uninsured population's emergency care has burdened the health care system as a result of the expense of that care. It has therefore been surprising to many to encounter evidence that insurance coverage increases ED use instead of decreasing it. Two facts may help explain this unexpected finding. First, there is a common misperception that the uninsured use the ED more than the insured. In fact, insured and uninsured adults use the ED at very similar rates and in very similar circumstances-and the uninsured use the ED substantially less than the Medicaid population. Second, while the uninsured do not use the ED more than the insured, they do use other types of care much less than the insured.