Health Care Access and Receipt of Clinical Diabetes Preventive Care for Working-Age Adults With Diabetes in States With and Without Medicaid Expansion: Results from the 2013 and 2015 BRFSS

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess whether the recent Medicaid expansion, as a natural experiment, was associated with better access to care and, as a consequence, better receipt of clinical diabetes care services.

METHODS

Data were from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). The analytical sample included 20 708 working-age adults with diabetes aged 18 to 64 years from 22 states. The outcome variables included 4 measures of access to care and 4 measures of receipt of clinical diabetes care services. A difference-in-difference logistic regression model was used to compare changes in outcomes between respondents in Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states. Data from the 2013 survey provided pre-Medicaid expansion information, and data from the 2015 survey provided postexpansion information. Analyses were conducted using Stata 13 using survey commands to account for the complex survey design of BRFSS.

RESULTS

A significant increase was observed in health insurance coverage for people with diabetes from 2013 to 2015 (P < .05) in both Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states, with a larger increase in the Medicaid expansion states. The Time by Medicaid expansion interaction term was significant for 2 measures of access to care: health insurance coverage (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.43, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.96) and having an annual checkup (AOR = 1.30, 95% confidence interval: 1.00-1.71). Respondents in expansion states were more likely to have a personal doctor and more likely to be able to afford a physician visit than those in nonexpansion states. The Time by Medicaid expansion was close to significance for one of the measures of clinical diabetes care: getting flu shots (AOR = 1.20, P = .08).

CONCLUSIONS

Medicaid expansion did improve health care access but no significant improvement was found for receipt of clinical diabetes care for people with diabetes. Resources provided through Medicaid are vital for diabetes control and management.

Association of the New Peer Group-Stratified Method With the Reclassification of Penalty Status in the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program

IMPORTANCE

Since the introduction of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), readmission penalties have been applied disproportionately to institutions that serve low-income populations. To address this concern, the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid introduced a new, stratified payment adjustment method in fiscal year (FY; October 1 to September 30) 2019.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the introduction of a new, stratified payment adjustment method was associated with an alteration in the distribution of penalties among hospitals included in the HRRP.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this retrospective cross-sectional study, US hospitals included in the HRRP for FY 2018 and FY 2019 were identified. Penalty status of participating hospitals for FY 2019 was determined based on nonstratified HRRP methods and the new, stratified payment adjustment method. Hospitals caring for the highest proportion of patients enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid based on quintile were assigned to the low-socioeconomic status (SES) group.

EXPOSURES

Nonstratified and stratified Centers for Medicare & Medicaid payment adjustment methods.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Net reclassification of penalties among all hospitals and hospitals in the low-SES group, in states participating in Medicaid expansion, and for 4 targeted medical conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and pneumonia).

RESULTS

Penalty status by both payment adjustment methods (nonstratified and stratified) was available for 3173 hospitals. For FY 2019, the new, stratified payment method was associated with penalties for 75.04% of hospitals (2381 of 3173), while the old, nonstratified method was associated with penalties for 79.07% (2509 hospitals), resulting in a net down-classification in penalty status for all hospitals by 4.03 percentage points (95% CI, 2.95-5.11; P < .001). For the 634 low-SES hospitals in the sample, the new method was associated with penalties for 77.60% of hospitals (492 of 634), while the old method was associated with penalties for 91.64% (581 hospitals), resulting in a net down-classification in penalty status of 14.04 percentage points (95% CI, 11.18-16.90; P < .001). Among hospitals that were not low SES (quintiles 1-4), the new payment method was associated with a small decrease in penalty status (1928 vs 1889; net down-classification, 1.54 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.38-2.69; P = .01). Among target medical conditions, the greatest reduction in penalties was observed among cardiovascular conditions (net down-classification, 6.18 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.96-7.39; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The new, stratified payment adjustment method for the HRRP was associated with a reduction in penalties across hospitals included in the program; the greatest reductions were observed among hospitals in the low-SES group, lessening but not eliminating the previously unbalanced penalty burden carried by these hospitals. Additional public policy research efforts are needed to achieve equitable payment adjustment models for all hospitals.

Effect of CAHPS performance information on health plan choices by Iowa Medicaid beneficiaries

This evaluation tested if Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) information on plan performance affected health plan choices by new beneficiaries in Iowa Medicaid. New cases entering Medicaid in selected counties during February through May 2000 were assigned randomly to experimental or control groups. The control group received standard Medicaid enrollment materials, and the experimental group received these materials plus a CAHPS report. We found that CAHPS information did not affect health plan choices by Iowa Medicaid beneficiaries, similar to previously reported findings for New Jersey Medicaid. However, it did affect plan choice in an earlier laboratory experiment. The value of this information may be limited to a subset of receptive consumers who actively study information received, even then only when (1) ratings of available plans differ greatly, (2) ratings differ from prior beliefs about plan quality, and (3) reports are easy to understand.

Organizational context and taxonomy of health care databases

An understanding of the organizational context and taxonomy of health care databases is essential to appropriately use these data sources for research purposes. Characteristics of the organizational structure of the specific health care setting, including the model type, financial arrangement, and provider access, have implications for accessing and using this data effectively. Additionally, the benefit coverage environment may affect the utility of health care databases to address specific research questions. Coverage considerations that affect pharmacoepidemiologic research include eligibility, the nature of the pharmacy benefit, and regulatory aspects of the treatment under consideration.

Diagnosis-based risk adjustment for Medicare capitation payments

Using 1991-92 data for a 5-percent Medicare sample, we develop, estimate, and evaluate risk-adjustment models that utilize diagnostic information from both inpatient and ambulatory claims to adjust payments for aged and disabled Medicare enrollees. Hierarchical coexisting conditions (HCC) models achieve greater explanatory power than diagnostic cost group (DCG) models by taking account of multiple coexisting medical conditions. Prospective models predict average costs of individuals with chronic conditions nearly as well as concurrent models. All models predict medical costs far more accurately than the current health maintenance organization (HMO) payment formula.