Previous Medicaid expansions by states did not erode perceived access to care

Bottom Line: Previous expansions in Medicaid eligibility by states were not associated with an erosion of perceived access to care or an increase in emergency department (ED) use.

Background: In January 2014, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded Medicaid eligibility so coverage in the public insurance program could be offered to more low-income Americans. However, some have suggested that the demand for medical services created by Medicaid expansion may erode access to care for individuals already enrolled in Medicaid, which can be restrictive.

How the Study Was Conducted: The authors examined previous Medicaid expansions to gauge self-reported perceptions of access to care and the use of ED services by enrollees. The authors examined data from 1,714 adult Medicaid enrollees in 10 states that expanded Medicaid between June 2000 and October 2009, and from 5,097 Medicaid enrollees in 14 bordering states that did not expand Medicaid.

Results: In Medicaid expansion states, the proportion of Medicaid enrollees reporting poor access to care declined from 8.5 percent before the expansion to 7.3 percent after the expansion. In the control states where Medicaid was not expanded, enrollees reporting poor access to care remained constant at 5.3 percent. The proportion of Medicaid enrollees reporting emergency department use decreased from 41.2 percent to 40.1 percent in expansion states and from 37.3 percent to 36.1 percent in states that did not expand Medicaid.

Discussion: "We found no evidence that expanding the number of individuals eligible for Medicaid coverage eroded perceived access to care or increased the use of emergency services among adult Medicaid enrollees."

Authors: Chima D. Ndumele, Ph.D., of the Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Conn., and the Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., and colleagues.

JAMA Intern Med. Published online April 7, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.588.

Editorial: Health Insurance is Not Health Care

In a related editorial, Mitchell H. Katz, M.D., director of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services and a deputy editor of JAMA Internal Medicine, writes: "The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2022 there will be 12 million new enrollees into Medicaid. Although this is an unprecedented leap forward in providing low-income Americans with health insurance, it is important to remember that health insurance is not health care. Health insurance is a financial mechanism for paying for health care. It is not the care itself, or even a guarantee of care."

"The gap between health insurance and health care can be particularly challenging for many Medicaid recipients to bridge. Studies have shown that a substantial proportion of physicians do not accept new Medicaid patients," he continues.

"Therefore, amid the optimism that millions of previously uninsured persons will gain Medicaid coverage, there is a fear that the newly insured will not be able to find physicians who will care for them, or that the influx of new enrollees will make access harder for those persons who already have Medicaid. In this vein, the results of the study by Ndumele et al in this issue of JAMA Internal Medicine are reassuring," he notes.

JAMA Intern Med. Published online April 7, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.598.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/275157.php

Patient-centered medical home philosophy boosts patient, physician satisfaction

UCLA-USC intervention could encourage more new docs to enter primary care

By Enrique Rivero October 08, 2013

The common refrain about health care is that it's a broken system. A new joint program between UCLA and USC demonstrates a way to mend the system with a new patient-centered program that is getting rave reviews from patients and from the residents and nurses who provide their care.

 

The program, Galaxy Health, debuted at Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center in 2012 with the goal of substantially improving an on-site clinic for residents and demonstrating to county officials that intuitive and inexpensive interventions can dramatically improve patient care and physician and staff morale.

 

A new UCLA–USC study published online in the JAMA Internal Medicine, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Medical Association, outlines how the Galaxy model works in a public setting, with a favorable effect on both patients and medical residents.

 

"We all know that fewer and fewer young physicians are choosing careers in primary care because of the difficult work schedules, lack of support and lower salaries," said lead study author Dr. Michael Hochman, who conducted the research as a Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar in the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. "What we did here was to move in the direction of a team-based approach, and it resulted in improved satisfaction for physicians-in-training with their primary care experiences."

 

Dr. David Goldstein, an associate professor of clinical medicine at USC's Keck School of Medicine and chief of the division of geriatric, hospital, palliative and general internal medicine at LAC+USC Medical Center, was the study's senior author. He conceived the Galaxy Health program.

 

"My hope was that Galaxy would reveal that a minimal investment and reorientation in delivery focused on the patient and enhanced access to care could improve the satisfaction of patients, staff and physicians, even in an underfunded public environment," he said. "I think it worked out well. It's not rocket science."

 

The Galaxy model established round-the-clock, seven-day-a-week access to physicians, made urgent clinic appointments available within hours and coordinated care in the ambulatory environment. It was based in part on increasing interest in a concept known as the patient-centered "medical home," which provides a team-based, coordinated approach to care that aims to make the primary care team central to the patient’s health needs. While the concept may not sound that different from the traditional vision of high-quality primary care, Galaxy's innovation is making this vision a reality in a complex, disconnected health care system.

 

"Galaxy Health has proven its value and effectiveness, as measured by patient satisfaction, access to care and provider satisfaction, in an incredibly challenging clinical environment," said Christina Ghaly, interim CEO of LAC+USC Medical Center. "Its remarkable success is to the benefit of our patients at LAC+USC Medical Center and can be a model for other safety-net, resident-run clinics struggling with implementing patient-centered medical homes."

 

The project was funded primarily by a three-year, $750,000 grant from UniHealth Foundation.

 

The study findings also support further investment in primary care, particularly in teaching settings, where the next generation of primary care leaders will be developed, said Hochman, now medical director for innovation at AltaMed Health Services, a large federally qualified health center in Southern California. There is currently a shortage of primary care physicians, and the situation is expected to become more acute as baby boomers continue to reach retirement age.

 

The researchers conducted their study at three primary-care internal medicine clinics at LAC+USC, an urban academic medical center serving a safety-net population. They focused on expanded access to care, enhanced care coordination and team-based care. Galaxy Health included the creation of a call center staffed by two care coordinators, telephone renewal of prescriptions and the availability of up to five urgent care appointments each day.

 

Input from patients and staff during prior focus groups was incorporated into the study. The researchers surveyed patients and residents before the intervention and again one year later. They also analyzed emergency room and hospital visit rates.

 

Though the clinics did not satisfy all the elements needed to qualify as a patient-centered medical home, overall their score jumped from a previous 35 to 53 out of 100 possible points. The satisfaction rating from patients increased from 48 percent to 65 percent in the intervention clinic, compared with a jump from 50 percent to 59 percent in the controls. Patients were particularly pleased with access. Satisfaction with urgent appointment scheduling increased from 12 percent to 53 percent in the intervention clinic, compared with an increase from 14 percent to 18 percent in the control clinic. 

 

The composite satisfaction score for residents went up from 39 percent to 51 percent in the intervention clinic but fell in the control clinic from 46 percent to 42 percent.

 

The study noted that emergency room and hospital visits were not reduced.

 

"This was an anticipated finding, because we expanded access to care to an underserved patient population, and frequently when this happens, there's a spike in emergency and hospital room utilization," said study co-author Dr. Arek Jibilian, assistant professor of clinical medicine in the Keck School's division of geriatric, hospital, palliative and general internal medicine. "However, we believe that a sustained commitment to primary care will ultimately reduce emergency and hospital utilization, and this is something we hope to see as the program continues."

 

Study co-authors are Steven Asch, Arek Jibilian, Bharat Chaudry, Ron Ben-Ari, Eric Hsieh, Margaret Berumen, Shahrod Mokhtari, Mohamad Raad, Elisabeth Hicks, Crystal Sanford, Norma Aguirre, Chi-hong Tseng, Sitaram Vangala and Carol M. Mangione. Additional contributors include Becky O'Neal and Roman Corral.

 

The demonstration was primarily funded by the UniHealth Foundation in Los Angeles. In addition, the study was funded by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program; the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (grant 67799 to UCLA); the UCLA Resource Centers for Minority Aging Research Center for Health Improvement of Minority Elderly (RCMAR/CHIME) under NIH/NIA Grant P30-AG021684; and the NIH/NCATS UCLA CTSI (grant UL1TR000124).

 

The Keck School of Medicine of USC , founded in 1885, is among the nation's leaders in innovative patient care, scientific discovery, education and community service. It is part of Keck Medicine of USC, the university's medical enterprise, one of two USC-owned academic medical centers in the Los Angeles area. This includes the Keck Medical Center of USC, composed of the Keck Hospital of USC and the USC Norris Cancer Hospital. The two world-class, USC-owned hospitals are staffed by more than 500 physicians who are faculty at the Keck School. The school today has more than 1,500 full-time faculty members and voluntary faculty of more than 2,400 physicians. These faculty direct the education of approximately 700 medical students and 1,000 students pursuing graduate and postgraduate degrees. The school trains more than 900 resident physicians in more than 50 specialty or sub-specialty programs and is the largest educator of physicians practicing in Southern California. Together, the school's faculty and residents serve more than 1.5 million patients each year at Keck Hospital of USC and USC Norris Cancer Hospital, as well as the USC-affiliated Children's Hospital Los Angeles and Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center. Keck School faculty also conduct research and teach at several research centers and institutes, including the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, the Zilkha Neurogenetic Institute, the Eli and Edythe Broad Center for Stem Cell Research and Regenerative Medicine at USC, the USC Cardiovascular Thoracic Institute, the USC Eye Institute and the USC Institute of Urology.

 

General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research is a division within the department of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. It provides a unique interactive environment for collaborative efforts between health services researchers and clinical experts with experience in evidence-based work. The division's 100-plus clinicians and researchers are engaged in a wide variety of projects that examine issues related to access to care, quality of care, health measurement, physician education, clinical ethics and doctor–patient communication. The division's researchers have close working relationships with economists, statisticians, social scientists and other specialists throughout UCLA and frequently collaborate with their counterparts at the RAND Corp. and Charles Drew University.

 

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars program has fostered the development of physicians who are leading the transformation of health care in the United States through positions in academic medicine, public health and other leadership roles. Through the program, future leaders learn to conduct innovative research and work with communities, organizations, practitioners and policymakers on issues important to the health and well-being of all Americans. This program is supported in part through a collaboration with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/patient-centered-medical-home-248773.aspx

JAMA: Researchers observed a 19.2% drop in AMI hospitalizations, but 16.5% increase in expenses

"The researchers observed a 19.2% decrease in the rate of AMI hospitalizations, but overall per-patient expenditures increased by 16.5%. About one-quarter (25.6%) of the total risk-adjusted increase in expenditures occurred within 30 days, and 74.4% occurred 31–365 days after the index admission. There were increases in spending per beneficiary within 30 days (7.5% increase; $1,560) and between 31 and 365 days (28% increase; $4,535). From 31–365 days after admission, the expenditures for skilled nursing facilities, hospice, home health agencies, durable medical equipment, and outpatient care almost doubled."

Importance 

 Medicare expenditures continue to grow rapidly, but the reasons are uncertain.

Objective 

 To compare expenditures from 1998 through 1999 and 2008 for Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Design, Setting, and Participants  Cross-sectional analysis of a random 20% sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries admitted with AMI from 1998 through 1999 (n = 105 074) and a 100% sample for 2008 (n = 212 329).

Main Outcomes and Measures  

Per-beneficiary expenditures, standardized for price and adjusted for risk and inflation. Expenditures were measured across 4 periods: overall (index admission to 1 year), index (within the index admission), early (postindex admission to 30 days), and late (31-365 days).

Results  

Compared with the subjects from 1998 through 1999, those in 2008 were older and had more comorbidities but slightly less ischemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease. Although there was a 19.2% decline in the rate of hospitalizations for AMI, overall expenditures per patient increased by 16.5% (absolute difference, $6094). Of the total risk-adjusted increase in expenditures, 25.6% occurred within 30 days (22.0% attributed to the index admission), and 74.4% happened 31 to 365 days after the index admission. Spending per beneficiary within 30 days increased by $1560 (7.5%), and spending between 31 and 365 days increased by $4535 (28.0%). Expenditures for skilled nursing facilities, hospice, home health agency, durable medical equipment, and outpatient care nearly doubled 31 to 365 days after admission. Mortality within 1 year declined from 36.0% in 1998 through 1999 to 31.7% in 2008; of the decline, 3.3% was in the 30 days following admission, and 1.0% was in days 31 to 365.

Conclusions and Relevance  Between 1998 and 2008, Medicare expenditures per patient with an AMI substantially increased, with about three-fourths of the increase in expenditures occurring 31 to 365 days after the date of hospital admission. Although current bundled payment models may contain expenditures within 30 days of an AMI, they do not contain spending beyond 30 days.

Between 2000 and 2010, the growth in Medicare expenditures per enrollee, without adjusting for inflation, was about 5.9% annually, considerably greater than the 2.8% annual growth in gross domestic product.1- 2 Given the large budget deficits in the United States and the high cost of caring for Medicare beneficiaries, unanswered questions remain: why have Medicare costs been rising so rapidly? Do reimbursement rates, or the mix of services per disease, account for increased expenditures? Alternatively, has the threshold for treatment decreased so that patients are treated more aggressively?

We addressed these questions with detailed Medicare claims data and focused on a well-defined index event: hospital admission for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Patients with AMI are almost universally hospitalized (making this a reliable index event). The considerable technological progress in the treatment of AMI has improved survival rates.3 For the index admission, our hypothesis was that changes in both the technology of treatment and reimbursement rates led to increased costs. For the acute (within 30 days of the AMI) and longer-term (31-365 days) postadmission periods, our hypothesis was that treatment intensity increased for patients after their initial hospitalization.

Data

We used a random 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 1998 through 1999 and a 100% sample for 2008. Eligible patients were fee-for-service Medicare enrollees with the diagnosis of AMI based on the presence of appropriate diagnosis codes from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (410.xx [except 410.x2]), from 1998 through 1999 or 2008. Eligibility in the sample was limited to those (1) enrolled in Medicare (Part A and B, as identified through the Medicare denominator file) for the entire year beyond their index admission (or until the month of their death), (2) at least 65 years or older at the time of their index admission, and (3) enrolled in a non–health maintenance organization plan for more than 1 month during each of the 12-month periods (eFigure in the Supplement). Data from the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files were linked to other Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services files (Carrier file, Home Health Agency, Durable Medical Equipment, Outpatient, and Hospice) containing claims that represented services associated with the patient’s index admission and subsequent services (and expenditures) for a 1-year period following admission. Outpatient claims differ from physician claims; they include bills from rehabilitation facilities, hospital outpatient departments, and other institutional outpatient providers.

We excluded patients admitted to a non–acute care hospital with a primary diagnosis of AMI, those transferred to an acute care hospital with a primary diagnosis other than AMI, and those discharged alive with a total length of stay less than 1 day and who were not transferred. These exclusions left a total of 317 403 patients in our final sample (eFigure in the Supplement).

We defined a transfer as occurring if the date of discharge was the same as the date of admission between 2 mutually exclusive hospitals. The total length of stay for the index admission was defined from the date of admission to discharge, including any transfers.

Calculation of Expenditures

We report price-standardized Medicare payments for the index admission and postindex use up to 1 year following a patient’s hospitalization for AMI.4 Standardized Medicare payments adjust for differences across regions in reimbursement rates for Medicare services owing to costs of living, graduate medical education, and payments provided for serving a disproportionate number of low-income patients.

Hospital Payments

Hospital payments included the acute index hospitalization (diagnostic-related group [DRG] payment plus outlier payments when present) and other hospitalizations occurring within 1 year of the initial admission date. Expenditures included actual payments to providers but not amounts billed to patients or their supplemental insurance policies.

We disaggregated expenditures after the index admission into the specific categories of hospital use and accounted for changes in definitions of DRGs over time, including the (new) Medicare Severity–Diagnosis-Related Group (MS-DRG) categories (eTables 1 and 2 in the Supplement). Because of the difficulty of risk-adjusting each specific DRG/MS-DRG category in every period, we present unadjusted expenditures.

Physician Payments and Use

We provide use of and payments for physician services based on current procedural terminology and the Berenson-Eggers type of service codes.5 The Berenson-Eggers codes create clinically relevant service categories for analyzing Medicare expenditures.

Other Expenditures After the Index Hospitalization

We included expenditures for skilled nursing facilities, outpatient facilities, home health agency, hospice, and durable medical equipment.

Statistical Analysis

We calculated the population-based rates of AMI hospitalizations and total expenditures (index and postindex admission) for all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries. The 1998 through 1999 expenditures are expressed in terms of 2008 US dollars after adjustment for general inflation using the chain-weighted gross domestic product price deflator. We adjusted for age, sex, race, ST-segment AMI, and Charlson comorbidities (including 13 comorbid conditions previously predictive of long-term mortality).6 We used 2-sample t tests (for unequal sample sizes and unequal variances across periods). Although our study was not designed to test the causal effect of greater spending levels on health outcomes, we used a similar risk adjustment approach to compare 30-day rates from 1998 through 1999 with corresponding 31- to 365-day case fatality rates in 2008.

We identified 317 403 Medicare beneficiaries who were hospitalized for an AMI (105 074 from the 20% sample of enrollees in 1998-1999 and 212 329 from the 100% sample in 2008). These comprised 0.64% of all fee-for-service Medicare enrollees from 1998 through 1999 and 0.47% in 2008 (P < .001). Thus, there was a 19.2% decline in the incidence of AMI during the decade.

As shown in Table 1, patients in 2008 were older and sicker on average than patients in 1998 through 1999 and had more comorbid conditions, exclusive of less ischemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease (all P < .001). There was a shift from coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery during the index admission to percutaneous coronary intervention. Median length of stay was 1 day shorter in 2008 (5 vs 6 days in 1998-1999, P < .001). Reductions in length of stay were associated with concomitant increases in other expenditures, including a 75.4% increase in the use of skilled nursing facilities in the first 30 days (Table 2).

Overall, 1-year case fatality rates per patient with AMI declined from 36.0% from 1998 through 1999 to 31.7% in 2008; of the 4.3% decline, 3.3% was in the 30 days following admission (from 18.6% to 15.3%) and 1.0% was in days 31 to 365. The case fatality rate for days 31 to 365 (among patients surviving for 30 days after an AMI) declined from 22.3% to 20.2%. The available data did not allow us to measure changes in quality of life.

Adjusted 1-year expenditures increased 16.5% (absolute difference, $6094) for 1998 through 1999 compared with 2008 (Table 2). Spending per beneficiary within 30 days increased by $1560 (7.5%), and spending between 31 and 365 days increased by $4535 (28.0%). Medicare expenditures in the first 30 days accounted for 25.6% of the increase in spending (22.0% attributed to the index admission); expenditures between 31 and 365 days after admission accounted for the remaining 74.4%. The components of the 74.4% increase between 31 and 365 days were home health agency, hospice, or durable medical equipment (22.9%); skilled nursing facilities (17.3%); inpatient (12.8%) and outpatient (11.1%) services; and physician payment (10.4%).

Table 2.  Total, Index, and Postindex Admission Spending for Patients Admitted for Acute Myocardial Infarctiona

View Large  |  Save Table  |  Download Slide (.ppt)

Together, inpatient and skilled nursing facility spending accounted for the greatest absolute change in cost (total of $3033) during 1 year (Table 2) and the greatest proportion of the overall cost increase (48.8%). Growth in home health agency and hospice expenditures was not associated with declines in inpatient facility expenditures.

From 1998 through 1999, 33.9% of the cohort was rehospitalized within 3 months of the index admission (20.0% within 1 month) compared with 33.4% within 3 months in 2008 (19.8% within 1 month). Although overall rates of readmission did not change appreciably, the mean cost per readmission increased by 9.8% ($8991 in 1998-1999 to $9874 in 2008).

The greatest absolute increases (from 1998-1999 to 2008) in hospital facility expenditures during 1 year per patient with AMI were for percutaneous coronary intervention ($571) and cardiac defibrillator implantation ($541), the latter a technology not reimbursed by Medicare for coronary artery disease from 1998 through 1999 (Figure 1). Unadjusted expenditures for cardiac defibrillator implantation, rehabilitation, or septicemia accounted for 47.1% of the increase in hospitalization costs after the index admission.

Physician expenditures per beneficiary decreased by 1.0% during the index admission and were unchanged within the first 30 days (Table 2). Between 31 and 365 days, physician expenditures increased by $632 (21.8%), primarily because of a 43.5% increase in outpatient physician spending (Table 2). The greatest per-beneficiary increase in expenditures after the index admission, $498, was for durable medical equipment or “other services or exceptions,” such as ambulance transport and chiropractic care (Table 3). Expenditures in this category increased from $602 in 1998 through 1999 to $1100 in 2008.

Table 3.  Rates and Expenditures for Physician and Other Servicesa in 1998 Through 1999 and 2008 After the Index Admission for Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI)b

View Large  |  Save Table  |  Download Slide (.ppt)

Physician expenditures for cardiac procedures after the index hospitalization declined from $1120 per patient from 1998 through 1999 to $803 in 2008, or by 28.3% (Table 3). The rate of rehospitalizations for percutaneous coronary interventions increased from 1.7 per 100 patients with AMI from 1998 through 1999 to 5.4 in 2008 (Figure 2). However, the rehospitalization rate for CABG surgery declined from 3.1 per 100 patients with AMI from 1998 through 1999 to 1.4 in 2008, or by 54.8%. Medicare’s cost per patient during 1 year for those undergoing inpatient percutaneous coronary interventions, with adjustment for inflation but not risk, was $12 327 from 1998 through 1999 and $14 385 in 2008, a 16.7% increase. Medicare’s cost per patient during 1 year for rehospitalizations in which a CABG was performed, with adjustment for inflation but not risk, was $31 727 from 1998 through 1999 and $30 686 in 2008. For both percutaneous coronary interventions and the rehospitalizations for CABG, the figures for cost per patient include the instances when a patient had more than 1 percutaneous coronary intervention or more than 1 rehospitalization for CABG within the year; the figures are not per percutaneous coronary intervention or per rehospitalization for CABG.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1740698#ioi130100t2