Primary care patterns among dual eligibles with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias

BACKGROUND

Primary care is essential for persons with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). Prior research suggests that the propensity to provide high-quality, continuous primary care varies by provider setting, but the settings used by Medicare-Medicaid dual-eligibles with ADRD have not been described at the population level.

METHODS

Using 2012-2018 Medicare data, we identified dual-eligibles with ADRD. For each person-year, we identified primary care visits occurring in six settings. We calculated descriptive statistics for beneficiaries with a majority of visits in each setting, and conducted a k-means cluster analysis to determine utilization patterns, using the standardized count of primary care visits in each setting.

RESULTS

Each year from 2012 to 2018, at least 45.6% of dual-eligibles with ADRD received a majority of their primary care in nursing facilities, while at least 25.2% did so in physician offices. Over time, the share relying on nursing facilities for primary care decreased by 5.2 percentage points, offset by growth in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and miscellaneous settings (2.3 percentage points each). Dual-eligibles relying on nursing facilities had more annual primary care visits (16.1) than those relying on other settings (range: 6.8-10.7 visits). Interpersonal care continuity was also higher in nursing facilities (97.0%) and physician offices (87.9%) than in FQHCs (54.2%), rural health clinics (RHCs, 46.6%), or hospital-based clinics (56.8%). Among dual-eligibles without care continuity, 82.7% were assigned to a cluster with few primary care visits.

CONCLUSIONS

A trend toward care in different settings likely reflects improved access to patient-centered primary care. Low rates of interpersonal care continuity in FQHCs, RHCs, and physician offices may warrant concern, unless providers in these settings function as a care team. Nonetheless, every healthcare system encounter presents an opportunity to designate a primary care provider for dual-eligibles with ADRD who use little or no primary care.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Hospital-Based Care Among Dual Eligibles Who Use Health Centers

Introduction

Health center use may reduce hospital-based care among Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibles, but racial and ethnic disparities in this population have not been widely studied. We examined the extent of racial and ethnic disparities in hospital-based care among duals using health centers and the degree to which disparities occur within or between health centers.

Methods

We used 2012-2018 Medicare claims and health center data to model emergency department (ED) visits, observation stays, hospitalizations, and 30-day unplanned returns as a function of race and ethnicity among dual eligibles using health centers.

Results

In rural and urban counties, age-eligible Black individuals had more ED visits (7.9 [4.0, 11.7] and 13.7 [10.0, 17.4] per 100 person-years) and were more likely to experience an unplanned return (1.4 [0.4, 2.4] and 1 [0.4, 1.6] percentage points [pp]) than White individuals, but were less likely to be hospitalized (-3.3 [-3.9, -2.8] and -1.2 [-1.6, -0.9] pp). In urban counties, age-eligible Black individuals were 1.2 [0.9, 1.5] pp more likely than White individuals to have observation stays. Other racial and ethnic groups used the same or less hospital-based care than White individuals. Including state and health center fixed effects eliminated Black versus White disparities in all outcomes, except hospitalization. Results were similar among disability-eligible duals.

Conclusion

Racial and ethnic disparities in hospital-based care among dual eligibles are less common within than between health centers. If health centers are to play a more central role in eliminating racial and ethnic health disparities, these differences across health centers must be understood and addressed.

Characterizing the Uptake of Newly Opened Health Centers by Individuals Dually Enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid

Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) increasingly provide high-quality, cost-effective primary care to individuals dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. However, not everyone can access an FQHC. We used 2012 to 2018 Medicare claims and federally collected FQHC data to examine communities where an FQHC first opened and determine which dual eligibles used it. Overall uptake was 10%, ranging from 6.6% among age-eligible urban residents to 14.8% among disability-eligible rural residents. Community-level uptake ranged from 0% to 76.4% (median = 5.5%; interquartile range = 2.8%-11.3%). Certain subpopulations of dual eligibles are significantly more likely to use FQHCs. Our findings should inform the targeting of future FQHC expansions.

Health center use and hospital-based care among individuals dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, 2012-2018

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship between federally qualified health center (FQHC) use and hospital-based care among individuals dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid.

DATA SOURCES

Data were obtained from 2012 to 2018 Medicare claims.

STUDY DESIGN

We modeled hospital-based care as a function of FQHC use, person-level factors, a Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) indicator, and ZIP code fixed effects. Outcomes included emergency department (ED) visits (overall and nonemergent), observation stays, hospitalizations (overall and for ambulatory care sensitive conditions), and 30-day unplanned returns. We stratified all models on the basis of eligibility and rurality.

DATA EXTRACTION METHODS

Our sample included individuals dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid for at least two full consecutive years, residing in a primary care service area with an FQHC. We excluded individuals without primary care visits, who died, or had end-stage renal disease.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

After the Medicare PPS was introduced, FQHC use in rural counties was associated with fewer ED and nonemergent ED visits per 100 person-years among both age-eligible (-14.8 [-17.5, -12.1]; -6.6 [-7.5, -5.6]) and disability-eligible duals (-11.3 [-14.4, -8.3]; -6 [-7.4, -4.6]) as well as a lower probability of observation stays (-0.8 pp age-eligible; -0.4 pp disability-eligible) and unplanned returns (-2.1 pp age-eligible; -1.9 pp disability-eligible). In urban counties, FQHC use was associated with more ED and nonemergent ED visits per 100 person-years (10.6 [8.4, 12.8]; 4.0 [2.6, 5.4]) among disability-eligible duals (a decrease of more than 60% compared with the pre-PPS period) and increases in the probability of hospitalization (1.1 pp age-eligible; 0.8 pp disability-eligible) and ACS hospitalization (0.5 pp age-eligible; 0.3 pp disability-eligible) (a decrease of roughly 50% compared with the pre-PPS period).

CONCLUSIONS

FQHC use is associated with reductions in hospital-based care among dual enrollees after introduction of the Medicare PPS. Further research is needed to understand how FQHCs can tailor care to best serve this complex population.