Medicaid Eligibility Loss Among Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries Before and During COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.

Importance: Medicaid coverage loss can substantially compromise access to and affordability of health care for dual-eligible beneficiaries. The extent to which this population lost Medicaid coverage before and during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) and the characteristics of beneficiaries more at risk for coverage loss are currently not well known. Objective: To assess the loss of Medicaid coverage among dual-eligible beneficiaries before and during the first year of the PHE, and to examine beneficiary-level and plan-level factors associated with heightened likelihood of losing Medicaid. Design, Setting, and Participants: This repeated cross-sectional study used national Medicare data to estimate annual rates of Medicaid loss among dual-eligible beneficiaries before (2015 to 2019) and during the PHE (2020). Individuals who were dual eligible for Medicare and Medicaid at the beginning of a given year and who continuously received low-income subsidies for Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage were included in the sample. Multivariable regression models were used to examine beneficiary-level and plan-level factors associated with Medicaid loss. Data analyses were conducted between March 2023 and October 2023. Exposure: Onset of PHE. Main Outcomes and Measures: Loss of Medicaid for at least 1 month within a year. Results: Sample included 56 172 736 dual-eligible beneficiary-years between 2015 and 2020. In 2020, most dual-eligible beneficiaries were aged over 65 years (5 984 420 [61.1%]), female (5 868 866 [59.9%]), non-Hispanic White (4 928 035 [50.3%]), full-benefit eligible (6 837 815 [69.8%]), and enrolled in traditional Medicare (5 343 537 [54.6%]). The adjusted proportion of dual-eligible beneficiaries losing Medicaid for at least 1 month increased from 6.6% in 2015 to 7.3% in 2019 and then dropped to 2.3% in 2020. Between 2015 and 2019, dual-eligible beneficiaries who were older (ages 55-64 years: -1.4%; 95% CI, -1.8% to -1.0%; ages 65-74 years: -2.0%; 95% CI, -2.5% to -1.5%; ages 75 and older: -4.5%; 95% CI, -5.0% to -4.0%), disabled (-0.8%; 95% CI, -1.1% to -0.6%), and in integrated care programs were less likely to lose Medicaid. In 2020, the disparities within each of these demographic groups narrowed significantly. Notably, while Black (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.2% to 0.9%) and Hispanic (0.7%; 95% CI, 0.3% to 1.2%) dual-eligible beneficiaries were more likely to lose Medicaid than their non-Hispanic White counterparts between 2015 and 2019, such gap was eliminated for Black beneficiaries and narrowed for Hispanic beneficiaries in 2020. Conclusions and Relevance: During the PHE, Medicaid coverage loss declined significantly among dual-eligible beneficiaries, and disparities were mitigated across subgroups. As the PHE unwinds, it is crucial for policymakers to implement strategies to minimize Medicaid coverage disruptions and racial and ethnic disparities, especially given that loss of Medicaid was slightly increasing over time before the PHE.

Closing Gaps in Public Services for US Residents With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

This Viewpoint describes existing public health and social service systems for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities as they transition to adult care, barriers and opportunities faced in service access, and potential actions to narrow these gaps and enhance equity.

No Improvement In Mental Health Treatment Or Patient-Reported Outcomes At Medicare ACOs For Depression And Anxiety Disorders.

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) have become Medicare's dominant care model because policy makers believe that ACOs will improve the quality and efficiency of care for chronic conditions. Depression and anxiety disorders are the most prevalent and undertreated chronic mental health conditions in Medicare. Yet it is unknown whether ACOs influence treatment and outcomes for these conditions. To explore these questions, this longitudinal study used data from the 2016-19 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, linked to validated depression and anxiety symptom instruments, among diagnosed and undiagnosed fee-for-service Medicare patients with these conditions. Among patients not enrolled in ACOs at baseline, those who newly enrolled in ACOs in the following year were 24 percent less likely to have their depression or anxiety treated during the year than patients who remained unenrolled in ACOs, and they saw no relative improvements at twelve months in their depression and anxiety symptoms. Better-designed incentives are needed to motivate Medicare ACOs to improve mental health treatment.

State Public Assistance Spending and Survival Among Adults With Cancer.

Importance: Social determinants of health contribute to disparities in cancer outcomes. State public assistance spending, including Medicaid and cash assistance programs for socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals, may improve access to care; address barriers, such as food and housing insecurity; and lead to improved cancer outcomes for marginalized populations. Objective: To determine whether state-level public assistance spending is associated with overall survival (OS) among individuals with cancer, overall and by race and ethnicity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included US adults aged at least 18 years with a new cancer diagnosis from 2007 to 2013, with follow-up through 2019. Data were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Data were analyzed from November 18, 2021, to July 6, 2023. Exposure: Differential state-level public assistance spending. Main Outcome and Measure: The main outcome was 6-year OS. Analyses were adjusted for age, race, ethnicity, sex, metropolitan residence, county-level income, state fixed effects, state-level percentages of residents living in poverty and aged 65 years or older, cancer type, and cancer stage. Results: A total 2 035 977 individuals with cancer were identified and included in analysis, with 1 005 702 individuals (49.4%) aged 65 years or older and 1 026 309 (50.4%) male. By tertile of public assistance spending, 6-year OS was 55.9% for the lowest tertile, 55.9% for the middle tertile, and 56.6% for the highest tertile. In adjusted analyses, public assistance spending at the state-level was significantly associated with higher 6-year OS (0.09% [95% CI, 0.04%-0.13%] per $100 per capita; P < .001), particularly for non-Hispanic Black individuals (0.29% [95% CI, 0.07%-0.52%] per $100 per capita; P = .01) and non-Hispanic White individuals (0.12% [95% CI, 0.08%-0.16%] per $100 per capita; P < .001). In sensitivity analyses examining the roles of Medicaid spending and Medicaid expansion including additional years of data, non-Medicaid spending was associated with higher 3-year OS among non-Hispanic Black individuals (0.49% [95% CI, 0.26%-0.72%] per $100 per capita when accounting for Medicaid spending; 0.17% [95% CI, 0.02%-0.31%] per $100 per capita Medicaid expansion effects). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that state public assistance expenditures, including cash assistance programs and Medicaid, were associated with improved survival for individuals with cancer. State investment in public assistance programs may represent an important avenue to improve cancer outcomes through addressing social determinants of health and should be a topic of further investigation.

Integrating Medicare and Medicaid Coverage for Dual Eligibles-Recommendations for Reform.

This Viewpoint highlights costly inefficiencies in delivery of care to patients who qualify to receive both Medicare and Medicaid and proposes more effective care models.

Rapid Enrollment Growth In 'Look-Alike' Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans: A Threat To Integrated Care.

Policy makers are increasingly investing in efforts to better integrate Medicare and Medicaid services for people who are eligible for both programs, including expanding Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs). In recent years, however, a potential threat to integration has emerged in the form of D-SNP "look-alike" plans, which are conventional Medicare Advantage plans that are marketed toward and primarily enroll dual eligibles but are not subject to federal regulations requiring integrated Medicaid services. To date, limited evidence exists documenting national enrollment trends in look-alike plans or the characteristics of dual eligibles in these plans. We found that look-alike plans experienced rapid enrollment growth among dual eligibles during the period 2013-20, increasing from 20,900 dual eligibles across four states to 220,860 dual eligibles across seventeen states, for an elevenfold increase. Nearly one-third of dual eligibles in look-alike plans were previously in integrated care programs. Compared with D-SNPs, look-alike plans were more likely to enroll dual eligibles who were older, Hispanic, and from disadvantaged communities. Our findings suggest that look-alike plans have the potential to compromise national efforts to integrate care delivery for dual eligibles, including vulnerable subgroups who may benefit the most from integrated coverage.

Proportion of Physicians Who Treat Patients With Greater Social and Clinical Risk and Physician Inclusion in Medicare Advantage Networks.

Importance: Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are expanding rapidly, now serving 50% of all Medicare enrollees. Little is known about how inclusion rates of physicians in MA plan networks vary by the social and clinical risks of their patients. Objective: To examine the association of physicians caring for patients with higher levels of social and clinical risk in traditional Medicare (TM) with the likelihood of inclusion in MA plan networks. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study evaluated the number of patients of physicians participating in TM Part B in 2019. The data analysis was conducted between June 2022 and March 2023. Exposures: Quintiles of the proportion of patients who were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and average beneficiary hierarchical condition category (HCC) score (a measure of a patient's chronic disease burden that is used in risk adjustment and MA plan payment, where higher scores indicate higher risk) in the Part B TM program. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the proportion of MA plans and enrollees for which physicians were in network. Results: The analysis sample included 259 932 physicians billing Medicare Part B in 2019. After adjusting for physician, patient, and county characteristics, physicians with the highest quintile of patients with dual eligibility were associated with a lower likelihood of being included in MA plans and being in network with MA enrollees than the lowest quintile physicians (MA inclusion rate, -3.0% [95% CI, -3.2% to -2.8%]; P < .001; in-network enrollee proportion, -6.5% [95% CI, -7.0% to -6.0%]; P < .001). Similarly, physicians with the highest quintile HCC score were associated with a lower likelihood of being included in MA plans and being in network with MA enrollees than the lowest quintile physicians (MA inclusion rate, -7.5% [95% CI, -7.9% to -7.2%]; P < .001; in-network enrollee proportion, -18.7% [95% CI, -19.5% to -18.1%]; P < .001). Physicians in medical specialties in the highest clinical risk group (highest quintile HCC score) were associated with a significantly lower likelihood of being in network with MA enrollees than those in the lowest clinical risk group (in-network enrollee proportion, -20.4% [95% CI, -21.1% to -19.8%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study of physicians participating in TM Part B in 2019 found that physicians with higher numbers of patients with social and medical risks in TM were significantly less likely to be associated with MA plans.

Risk Selection and Care Fragmentation at Medicare Accountable Care Organizations for Patients With Dementia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with dementia are a growing and vulnerable population within Medicare. Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are becoming Medicare's dominant care model, but ACO enrollment and care patterns for patients with dementia are unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare differences in ACO enrollment for patients with versus without dementia, and in risk profiles and ambulatory care among patients with dementia by ACO enrollment status. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cohort study assessing the relationships between patient dementia, following-year ACO enrollment, and ambulatory care patterns. SUBJECTS: A total of 13,362 (weighted: 45, 499,049) person-years for patients [2761 (weighted: 6,312,304) for dementia patients] ages 65 years and above in the 2015-2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. MEASURES: We assessed differences in ACO enrollment rates for patients with versus without dementia, and in dementia-relevant ambulatory care visit rates and validated care fragmentation indices among patients with dementia by ACO enrollment status. RESULTS: Patients with versus without dementia were less likely to be enrolled in (38.3% vs. 44.6%, P<0.001), and more likely to exit (21.1% vs. 13.7%, P<0.01) ACOs. Among patients with dementia, those enrolled versus not enrolled in ACOs had a more favorable social and health risk profile on 6 of 16 measures (P<0.05). There were no differences in rates of dementia-relevant, primary, or specialty care visits. ACO enrollment was associated with 45.7% higher wellness visit rates (P<0.001), and 13.4% more fragmented primary care (P<0.01) spread across 8.7% more distinct physicians (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Medicare ACOs are less likely to enroll and retain patients with dementia than other patients and provide more fragmented primary care without providing additional dementia-relevant ambulatory care visits.

Health Equity for Individuals With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

This Viewpoint discusses 3 types of systemic health inequity experienced by individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities­stigma, exclusion, and devaluation of worth; underrepresentation in population epidemiology and research; and inadequate access to care and social services­and suggests potential approaches to ameliorating inequities in each of these areas.

State Mandatory Paid Sick Leave Associated With A Decline In Emergency Department Use In The US, 2011-19.

Paid sick leave provides workers with job-protected paid time off to address short-term illnesses or seek preventive care for themselves and their family members. We studied the impact of mandatory paid sick leave at the state level on emergency department (ED) visit rates, using all-payer, longitudinal ED data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project for the period 2011-19. We found that state implementation of paid sick leave mandates was associated with a 5.6 percent reduction in the total ED visit rate relative to the baseline, equivalent to 23 fewer visits per 1,000 population per year. The reduction was concentrated in Medicaid patients. Some of the largest reductions were ED visits related to adult dental conditions, adult mental health or substance use disorders, and pediatric asthma. Mandatory paid sick leave may be an effective policy lever to reduce excess ED use and costs.

Comparison of Ambulatory Care Access and Quality for Beneficiaries With Disabilities Covered by Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare Insurance.

Importance: Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities aged 18 to 64 years face barriers accessing ambulatory care. Past studies comparing Medicare Advantage (MA) with traditional Medicare (TM) have not assessed how well these programs meet the needs of beneficiaries with disabilities. Objective: To compare differences in enrollment rates, ambulatory care access, and ambulatory care quality for beneficiaries with disabilities in MA vs TM. Design Setting and Participants: This cohort study included a nationally representative, weighted sample of 7201 person-years for beneficiaries aged 18 to 64 years with disability entitlement in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey from 2015 through 2018. Differences in program enrollment and in measures of access and quality by program enrollment were compared after adjusting for demographic, insurance, social, health, and area characteristics and after reweighting the sample by propensity to enroll in MA as estimated by observed confounders. Data analyses were conducted between November 1, 2020, and November 11, 2021. Exposures: Medicare Advantage vs TM program enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Six patient-reported measures of ambulatory care access (usual source of care, primary care usual source of care, specialist visit) and quality (cholesterol screening, influenza vaccination, colon cancer screening). Results: The mean (SD) age of the overall study population was 52.1 (11.0) years; 49.5% were female and 50.5% were male; 1.6% were Asian/Pacific Islander; 17.4%, Black; 10.2% Hispanic; 1.4%, Native American; 65.1%, White, and 4.2%, multiracial. Among all beneficiaries living in the community, individuals with disability entitlement were less likely to enroll in MA than other beneficiaries (34.8% vs 41.2%). The final sample of beneficiaries with disabilities included 2444 person-years in MA and 4757 person-years in TM. Beneficiaries with disabilities in MA vs TM were more likely to be of a minority race or ethnicity (35.7% vs 27.6%) and less likely to be enrolled in private insurance (11.9% vs 25.0%). Comparing MA with TM among beneficiaries with disabilities, those in MA had significantly better rates of access to a usual source of care (90.2% vs 84.9%; adjusted propensity-weighted marginal difference [APWMD], 2.9%; 95% CI, 0.2%-5.7%), access to specialist visits (53.2% vs 44.8%; APWMD, 5.5%; 95% CI, 0.6%-10.5%), cholesterol screenings (91.1% vs 86.4%; APWMD, 3.8%; 95% CI, 0.9%-6.7%), influenza vaccinations (61.4% vs 51.5%; APWMD, 10.4%; 95% CI, 5.3%-15.5%), and colon cancer screenings (68.4% vs 54.6%; APWMD, 10.3%; 95% CI, 4.8%-15.8%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities were enrolled in MA at significantly lower rates than those without disabilities. However, MA was associated with significantly better ambulatory care access and quality for these beneficiaries on 5 of 6 measures compared with TM.

Comparison of Performance of Psychiatrists vs Other Outpatient Physicians in the 2020 US Medicare Merit-Based Incentive Payment System.

Importance: Medicare's Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is a new, mandatory, outpatient value-based payment program that ties reimbursement to performance on cost and quality measures for many US clinicians. However, it is currently unknown how the program measures the performance of psychiatrists, who often treat a different patient case mix with different clinical considerations than do other outpatient clinicians. Objective: To compare performance scores and value-based reimbursement for psychiatrists vs other outpatient physicians in the 2020 MIPS. Design Setting and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider Data Catalog was used to identify outpatient Medicare physicians listed in the National Downloadable File between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020, who participated in the 2020 MIPS and received a publicly reported final performance score. Data from the 593 863 clinicians participating in the 2020 MIPS were used to compare differences in the 2020 MIPS performance scores and value-based reimbursement (based on performance in 2018) for psychiatrists vs other physicians, adjusting for physician, patient, and practice area characteristics. Exposures: Participation in MIPS. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were final MIPS performance score and negative (penalty), positive, and exceptional performance bonus payment adjustments. Secondary outcomes were scores in the MIPS performance domains: quality, promoting interoperability, improvement activities, and cost. Results: This study included 9356 psychiatrists (3407 [36.4%] female and 5 949 [63.6%] male) and 196 306 other outpatient physicians (69 221 [35.3%] female and 127 085 [64.7%] male) (data on age and race are not available). Compared with other physicians, psychiatrists were less likely to be affiliated with a safety-net hospital (2119 [22.6%] vs 64 997 [33.1%]) or a major teaching hospital (2148 [23.0%] vs 53 321 [27.2%]) and had lower annual Medicare patient volume (181 vs 437 patients) and mean patient risk scores (1.65 vs 1.78) (P < .001 for all). The mean final MIPS performance score for psychiatrists was 84.0 vs 89.7 for other physicians (absolute difference, -5.7; 95% CI, -6.2 to -5.2). A total of 573 psychiatrists (6.1%) received a penalty vs 5739 (2.9%) of other physicians (absolute difference, 3.2%; 95% CI, 2.8%-3.6%); 8664 psychiatrists (92.6%) vs 189 037 other physicians (96.3%) received a positive payment adjustment (absolute difference, -3.7%; 95% CI, -3.3% to -4.1%), and 7672 psychiatrists (82.0%) vs 174 040 other physicians (88.7%) received a bonus payment adjustment (absolute difference, -6.7%; 95% CI, -6.0% to -7.3%). These differences remained significant after adjustment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study that compared US psychiatrists with other outpatient physicians, psychiatrists had significantly lower 2020 MIPS performance scores, were penalized more frequently, and received fewer bonuses. Policy makers should evaluate whether current MIPS performance measures appropriately assess the performance of psychiatrists.

Association of Race and Ethnicity and Medicare Program Type With Ambulatory Care Access and Quality Measures.

Importance: There are racial inequities in health care access and quality in the United States. It is unknown whether such differences for racial and ethnic minority beneficiaries differ between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare or whether access and quality are better for minority beneficiaries in 1 of the 2 programs. Objective: To compare differences in rates of enrollment, ambulatory care access, and ambulatory care quality by race and ethnicity in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory observational cohort study of a nationally representative sample of 45 833 person-years (26 887 persons) in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey from 2015 to 2018, comparing differences in program enrollment and measures of access and quality by race and ethnicity. Exposures: Minority race and ethnicity (Black, Hispanic, Native American, or Asian/Pacific Islander) vs White or multiracial; Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Six patient-reported measures of ambulatory care access (whether a beneficiary had a usual source of care in the past year, had a primary care clinician usual source of care, or had a specialist visit) and quality (influenza vaccination, pneumonia vaccination, and colon cancer screening). Results: The final sample included 6023 persons (mean age, 68.9 [SD, 12.6] years; 57.3% women) from minority groups and 20 864 persons (mean age, 71.9 [SD, 10.8] years; 54.9% women) from White or multiracial groups, who accounted for 9816 and 36 017 person-years, respectively. Comparing Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare among minority beneficiaries, those in Medicare Advantage had significantly better rates of access to a primary care clinician usual source of care (79.1% vs 72.5%; adjusted marginal difference, 4.0%; 95% CI, 1.0%-6.9%), influenza vaccinations (67.3% vs 63.0%; adjusted marginal difference, 5.2%; 95% CI, 1.9%-8.5%), pneumonia vaccinations (70.7% vs 64.6%; adjusted marginal difference, 6.1%; 95% CI, 2.7%-9.4%), and colon cancer screenings (69.4% vs 61.1%; adjusted marginal difference, 7.1%; 95% CI, 3.8%-10.3%). Comparing minority vs White or multiracial beneficiaries across both programs, minority beneficiaries had significantly lower rates of access to a primary care clinician usual source of care (adjusted marginal difference, 4.7%; 95% CI, 2.5%-6.8%), specialist visits (adjusted marginal difference, 10.8%; 95% CI, 8.3%-13.3%), influenza vaccinations (adjusted marginal difference, 4.3%; 95% CI, 1.2%-7.4%), and pneumonia vaccinations (adjusted marginal difference, 6.4%; 95% CI, 3.9%-9.0%). The interaction of race and ethnicity with insurance type was not statistically significant for any of the 6 outcome measures. Conclusions and Relevance: In this exploratory study of Medicare beneficiaries in 2015-2018, enrollment in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare was significantly associated with better outcomes for access and quality among minority beneficiaries; however, minority beneficiaries were significantly more likely to experience worse outcomes for most access and quality measures than White or multiracial beneficiaries in both programs.

Ambulatory Care Access And Emergency Department Use For Medicare Beneficiaries With And Without Disabilities.

Establishing care with primary care and specialist clinicians is critical for Medicare beneficiaries with complex care needs. However, beneficiaries with disabilities may struggle to access ambulatory care. This study uses the 2015-17 national Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey linked to claims and administrative data to explore these questions. Medicare beneficiaries (ages 21-64) with disabilities were 119 percent more likely to report difficulty accessing care and were 33 percent and 49 percent more likely to lack annual clinician evaluation and management visits for primary and specialty care, respectively, than those without disabilities. Beneficiaries (ages 21-64) with disabilities also had 42 percent, 67 percent, and 77 percent higher likelihood of having all-cause, nonemergent, and preventable emergency department (ED) visits. Furthermore, people with both a disability and a lack of specialist evaluation and management visits also had 21 percent, 48 percent, and 64 percent increased likelihood of all-cause, nonemergent, and preventable ED visits. Barriers to accessing ambulatory care may be a key contributor to the reliance of Americans with disabilities on ED services.

Comparing Preventable Acute Care Use of Rural Versus Urban Americans: an Observational Study of National Rates During 2008-2017.

BACKGROUND: Rural Americans have less access to care than urban Americans. Preventable acute care use is a marker of unmet ambulatory healthcare needs, but little is known about how such utilization has differed between rural and urban areas over time. OBJECTIVE: Compare preventable emergency department (ED) visit and hospitalization rates among rural versus urban residents over the past decade. DESIGN: Observational study using a validated algorithm to compute age-sex-adjusted rates per 100,000 individuals of preventable ED visits and hospitalizations. Differences in overall, annual, and condition-specific rates for rural versus urban residents were assessed and linear regression was used to assess 10-year trends. SETTING: Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, National Inpatient Sample, and US Census, 2008-2017. PARTICIPANTS: US adults, an annual average of 241.3 million individuals. MEASUREMENTS: Preventable ED visits and hospitalizations. RESULTS: Compared to urban residents, rural residents had 45% higher rates of preventable ED visits in 2008 (3003 vs. 2070 per 100,000, adjusted difference [AD]: 933; 95% CI: 928-938) and 44% higher rates of preventable ED visits in 2017 (3911 vs. 2708 per 100,000, AD: 1202; 95% CI: 1196-1208). Rural residents had 26% higher rates of preventable hospitalizations in 2008 (2104 vs. 1666 per 100,000, AD: 439; 95% CI: 434-443) and 13% higher rates in 2017 (1634 vs. 1440 per 100,000, AD: 194; 95% CI: 190-199). Preventable ED visits increased more in absolute terms in rural versus urban residents, but the percentage increase was similar (30% vs. 31%) because rural residents started at a higher baseline. Preventable hospitalizations decreased at a faster rate (22% vs. 14%) among rural versus urban residents. LIMITATIONS: Observational study; unable to infer causality. CONCLUSIONS: Rural disparities in acute care use are narrowing for preventable hospitalizations but have persisted for all preventable acute care use, suggesting unmet demand for high-quality ambulatory care in rural areas.