Changing home care aides: Differences between family and non-family care in California Medicaid home and community-based services.

In California Medicaid home-and-community-based services (HCBS), recipients' family members receive payment as home care aides (HCAs). We analyzed data on first-time HCBS recipients to examine factors associated with the likelihood of switching HCAs within the first year of services. Those with family HCAs were less than half as likely to change than those with non-family HCAs and racial/ethnic minorities with non-family HCAs had the highest switching rates. Lower wages and local unemployment were associated with switching of non-family HCAs but not family HCAs. Policymakers can foster continuity of home care by paying family members for home care and raising worker wages.

Predictors of Nursing Facility Entry by Medicaid-Only Older Adults and Persons With Disabilities in California.

Nearly one-third of adult Medicaid beneficiaries who receive long-term services and supports (LTSS) consist of older adults and persons with disabilities who are not eligible for Medicare. Beneficiaries, advocates, and policymakers have all sought to shift LTSS to home and community settings as an alternative to institutional care. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicaid-only adults in California with new use of LTSS in 2006-2007 (N = 31 849) to identify unique predictors of entering nursing facilities versus receiving Medicaid home and community-based services (HCBS). Among new users, 18.3% entered into nursing facilities, whereas 81.7% initiated HCBS. In addition to chronic conditions, functional and cognitive limitations, substance abuse disorders (odds ratio [OR] 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23, 1.48), and homelessness (OR: 4.35, 9% CI: 3.72, 5.08) were associated with higher odds of nursing facility entry. For older adults and persons with disabilities covered by Medicaid only, integration with housing and behavioral health services may be key to enabling beneficiaries to receive LTSS in noninstitutional settings.

Documentation of Contraception and Pregnancy Intention In Medicaid Managed Care.

CONTEXT: Clinical guidelines recommend the documentation of pregnancy intention and family planning needs during primary care visits. Prior to the 2014 Medicaid expansion and release of these guidelines, the documentation practices of Medicaid managed care providers are unknown. METHODS: We performed a chart review of 1054 Medicaid managed care visits of women aged 13 to 49 to explore client, provider, and visit characteristics associated with documentation of immediate or future plans for having children and contraceptive method use. Five managed care plans used Current Procedural Terminology and International Classificationof Diseases, Ninth Revision codes to identify providers with at least 15 women who had received family planning or well-woman care in 2013. We conducted multilevel logistic regression analyses with documentation of contraceptive method and pregnancy intention as outcome variables and clinic site as the level 2 random effect. RESULTS: Only 12% of charts had documentation of pregnancy intention and 59% documented contraceptive use. Compared to women with a family planning visit reason, women with an annual, reproductive health, or primary care reason for their visit were significantly less likely to have contraception documented (odds ratio [OR] = 11.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.8-17.7). Age was also a significant predictor with women aged 30 to 49 (OR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.4-0.9), and women aged 13 to 19 (OR = 0.2; 95% CI = 0.1-0.6) being less likely to have a note about pregnancy intention in their chart. Pregnancy intention was more likely to be documented in multispecialty clinics (OR = 15.5; 95% CI = 2.7-89.2). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to improve routine medical record documentation of contraception and pregnancy intention regardless of patient age and visit characteristics are needed to facilitate the provision of family planning in managed care visits and, ultimately, achieving better maternal infant health outcomes and reduced costs.

Health Care Use Before and After Entering Long-Term Services and Supports.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the health care utilization patterns of Medicare and Medicaid enrollees (MMEs) before and after initiating long-term care in the community or after admission to a nursing facility (NF). METHOD: We used administrative data to compare hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and post-acute care use of MMEs receiving long-term care in California in 2006-2007. RESULTS: MMEs admitted to a NF for long-term care had much greater use of hospitalizations, ED visits, and post-acute care before initiating long-term care than those entering long-term care in the community. Post-entry, community service users had less than half the average monthly hospital and ED use compared with the NF cohort. CONCLUSION: Hospital and ED use prior to and following NF and personal care program entry suggest a need for reassessing the monitoring of these high-risk populations and the communication between health and community care providers.

Health Care Expenditures After Initiating Long-term Services and Supports in the Community Versus in a Nursing Facility.

BACKGROUND: Individuals who receive long-term services and supports (LTSS) are among the most costly participants in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. OBJECTIVES: To compare health care expenditures among users of Medicaid home and community-based services (HCBS) versus those using extended nursing facility care. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis of California dually eligible adult Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries who initiated Medicaid LTSS, identified as HCBS or extended nursing facility care, in 2006 or 2007. SUBJECTS: Propensity score matching for demographic, health, and functional characteristics resulted in a subsample of 34,660 users who initiated Medicaid HCBS versus extended nursing facility use. Those with developmental disabilities or in managed care plans were excluded. MEASURES: Average monthly adjusted acute, postacute, long-term, and total Medicare and Medicaid expenditures for the 12 months following initiation of either HCBS or extended nursing facility care. RESULTS: Those initiating extended nursing facility care had, on average, $2919 higher adjusted total health care expenditures per month compared with those who initiated HCBS. The difference was primarily attributable to spending on LTSS $2855. On average, the monthly LTSS expenditures were higher for Medicare $1501 and for Medicaid $1344 when LTSS was provided in a nursing facility rather than in the community. CONCLUSIONS: The higher cost of delivering LTSS in a nursing facility rather than in the community was not offset by lower acute and postacute spending. Medicare and Medicaid contribute similar amounts to the LTSS cost difference and both could benefit financially by redirecting care from institutions to the community.

Sorting Out the Health Risk in California's State-Based Marketplace.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the health risk of enrollees in California's state-based insurance marketplace (Covered California) by metal tier, region, month of enrollment, and plan. DATA SOURCE/STUDY SETTING: 2014 Open-enrollment data from Covered California linked with 2012 hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visit records from statewide all-payer administrative databases. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Chronic Illness and Disability Payment System (CDPS) health risk scores derived from an individual's age and sex from the enrollment file and the diagnoses captured in the hospitalization and ED records. CDPS scores were standardized by setting the average to 1.00. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Among the 1,286,089 enrollees, 120,573 (9.4 percent) had at least one ED visit and/or a hospitalization in 2012. Higher risk enrollees chose plans with greater actuarial value. The standardized CDPS health risk score was 11 percent higher in the first month of enrollment (1.08; 99 percent CI: 1.07-1.09) than the last month (0.97; 99 percent CI: 0.97-0.97). Four of the 12 plans enrolled 91 percent of individuals; their average health risk scores were each within 3 percent of the marketplace's statewide average. CONCLUSIONS: Providing health plans with a means to assess the health risk of their year 1 enrollees allowed them to anticipate whether they would receive or contribute payments to a risk-adjustment pool. After receiving these findings as a part of their negotiations with Covered California, health plans covering the majority of enrollees decreased their initially proposed 2015 rates, saving consumers tens of millions of dollars in potential premiums.

Payment rates for personal care assistants and the use of long-term services and supports among those dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between payment rates for personal care assistants and use of long-term services and supports (LTSS) following hospital discharge among dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. DATA SOURCES: State hospital discharge, Medicaid and Medicare claims, and assessment data on California Medicaid LTSS users from 2006 to 2008. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. We used multinomial logistic regression to analyze county personal care assistant payment rates and postdischarge LTSS use, and estimate marginal probabilities of each outcome across the range of rates paid in California. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid adult beneficiaries discharged from an acute care hospital with no hospitalizations or LTSS use in the preceding 12 months. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Personal care assistant payment rates were modestly associated with home and community-based services (HCBS) use versus nursing facility entry following hospital discharge (RRR 1.2, 95 percent CI: 1.0-1.4). For a rate of $6.75 per hour, the probability of HCBS use was 5.6 percent (95 percent CI: 4.2-7.1); at $11.75 per hour, 18.0 percent (95 percent CI: 12.5-23.4). Payment rate was not associated with the probability of nursing facility entry. CONCLUSIONS: Higher payment rates for personal care assistants may increase utilization of HCBS, but with limited substitution for nursing facility care.

Enhancing service delivery through title x funding: findings from California.

CONTEXT: The federal Title X grant program provides funding for family planning services for low-income women and men. In California, all clinics receiving Title X funds participate in the state's family planning program, Family PACT, along with other public and private providers. The relative extent to which Title X-funded clinics and other Family PACT providers have incorporated enhancements beyond their core medical services has never been studied. METHODS: In 2010, a survey was sent to public- and private-sector Family PACT clinicians to assess whether funding streams were associated with the availability of special services: extended clinic hours, outreach to vulnerable populations, services for clients not proficient in English and use of advanced clinic-based technologies. Bivariate and logistic regression analyses controlling for potentially confounding factors were conducted. RESULTS: Greater proportions of Title X-funded clinics than of other public and private providers had Spanish-speaking unlicensed clinical staff (89% vs. 71% and 58%, respectively) and Spanish-language signs (95% vs. 85% and 82%). Title X-funded providers were more likely than other public providers to offer extended clinic hours, provide outreach to at least three vulnerable or hard-to-reach populations, and use three or more advanced technologies (odds ratios, 2.0-2.9). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other Family PACT providers, clinics that receive Title X funding have implemented greater infrastructure enhancements to promote access and improve the quality of service for underserved populations. This may be because Title X-funded providers have more financial opportunities to provide the array of services that best respond to their clients' needs.

Comparison of adherence to chlamydia screening guidelines among Title X providers and non-Title X providers in the California Family Planning, Access, Care, and Treatment Program.

BACKGROUND: Annual chlamydia screening is recommended for adolescent and young adult females and targeted screening is recommended for women ≥26 years based on risk. Although screening levels have increased over time, adherence to these guidelines varies, with high levels of adherence among Title X family planning providers. However, previous studies of provider variation in screening rates have not adjusted for differences in clinic and client population characteristics. METHODS: Administrative claims from the California Family Planning, Access, Care, and Treatment (Family PACT) program were used to (1) examine clinic and client sociodemographic characteristics by provider group-Title X-funded public sector, non-Title X public sector, and private sector providers, and (2) estimate age-specific screening and differences in rates by provider group during 2009. RESULTS: Among 833 providers, Title X providers were more likely than non-Title X public sector providers and private sector providers to serve a higher client volume, a higher proportion of clients aged ≤25 years, and a higher proportion of African American clients. Non-Title X public providers were more likely to be located in rural areas, compared with Title X grantees and private sector providers. Title X providers had the largest absolute difference in screening rates for young females vs. older females (10.9%). Unadjusted screening rates for young clients were lower among non-Title X public sector providers (54%) compared with private sector and Title X providers (64% each). After controlling for provider group, urban location, client volume, and percent African American, private sector providers had higher screening rates than Title X and non-Title X public providers. CONCLUSIONS: Screening rates for females were higher among private providers compared with Title X and non-Title X public providers. However, only Title X providers were more likely to adhere to screening guidelines through high screening rates for young females and low screening rates for older females.

Long-acting reversible contraception method use among Title X providers and non-Title X providers in California.

BACKGROUND: Publicly funded family planning services play an important role in reducing unintended pregnancy by providing access to effective contraception. We assessed whether California family planning providers receiving federal Title X funds are more likely to offer on-site long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) methods than those who do not receive these funds. STUDY DESIGN: Using 2009 administrative data, we examined on-site utilization of LARC by clinic type (Title X public, non-Title X public, or private) and constructed beta-binomial logistic regression models. RESULTS: The odds of on-site LARC services in non-Title X public and private providers were decreased by 35% [Odds Ratio (OR)=0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.79] and 61% [OR=0.39, 95% CI 0.32-0.47], respectively, compared to those of Title X providers after controlling for clinic size, urban/rural location, and proportion of teen, African-American, and Latina clients. CONCLUSIONS: On-site utilization of LARC is a potential quality indicator for family planning programs. Title X resources are associated with increased use of LARC.

In a California program, quality and utilization reports on reproductive health services spurred providers to change.

The use of performance indicators has the potential to improve service quality and avert costs, yet such indicators have typically not been used to assess family planning and reproductive health services. An exception is California's Family PACT (Planning, Access, Care, and Treatment) Program, a statewide family planning and reproductive health services program. Our study assessed whether the behavior of providers participating in this program was influenced by performance reports that used both quality improvement and utilization management indicators. We examined three indicators in each category from 2005 to 2009 and found that change occurred in five of six indicators among private providers and in three of six indicators among public providers. Chlamydia screening rates in women age twenty-five and younger, for example, increased significantly among both private and public providers. Despite the challenges enumerated in this article, we conclude that the methodology used in the program could serve as a starting point for the development of a uniform set of provider-focused reproductive health quality and utilization reports that could be instituted by state family planning programs, state Medicaid programs and health plans, and other health care delivery systems.

Number of oral contraceptive pill packages dispensed and subsequent unintended pregnancies.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate how number of oral contraceptive pill packages dispensed relates to subsequent pregnancies and abortions. METHODS: We linked 84,401 women who received oral contraceptives through the California family planning program in January 2006 to Medi-Cal pregnancy events and births conceived in 2006. We compared pregnancy rates for women who received a 1-year supply of oral contraceptive pills, three packs, and one pack. RESULTS: Women who received a 1-year supply were less likely to have a pregnancy (1.2% compared with 3.3% of women getting three cycles of pills and 2.9% of women getting one cycle of pills). Dispensing a 1-year supply is associated with a 30% reduction in the odds of conceiving an unplanned pregnancy compared with dispensing just one or three packs (confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.87) and a 46% reduction in the odds of an abortion (95% CI 0.32-0.93), controlling for age, race or ethnicity, and previous pill use. CONCLUSION: Making oral contraceptives more accessible may reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and abortion. Health insurance programs and public health programs may avert costly unintended pregnancies by increasing dispensing limits on oral contraceptives to a 1-year supply.

Cost savings from the provision of specific methods of contraception in a publicly funded program.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the cost-effectiveness of contraceptive methods dispensed in 2003 to 955,000 women in Family PACT (Planning, Access, Care and Treatment), California's publicly funded family planning program. METHODS: We estimated the number of pregnancies averted by each contraceptive method and compared the cost of providing each method with the savings from averted pregnancies. RESULTS: More than half of the 178,000 averted pregnancies were attributable to oral contraceptives, one fifth to injectable methods, and one tenth each to the patch and barrier methods. The implant and intrauterine contraceptives were the most cost-effective, with cost savings of more than $7.00 for every $1.00 spent in services and supplies. Per $1.00 spent, injectable contraceptives yielded savings of $5.60; oral contraceptives, $4.07; the patch, $2.99; the vaginal ring, $2.55; barrier methods, $1.34; and emergency contraceptives, $1.43. CONCLUSIONS: All contraceptive methods were cost-effective-they saved more in public expenditures for unintended pregnancies than they cost to provide. Because no single method is clinically recommended to every woman, it is medically and fiscally advisable for public health programs to offer all contraceptive methods.