Connecticut's Value-Based Insurance Plan Increased The Use Of Targeted Services And Medication Adherence.

In 2011 Connecticut implemented the Health Enhancement Program for state employees. This voluntary program followed the principles of value-based insurance design (VBID) by lowering patient costs for certain high-value primary and chronic disease preventive services, coupled with requirements that enrollees receive these services. Nonparticipants in the program, including those removed for noncompliance with its requirements, were assessed a premium surcharge. The program was intended to curb cost growth and improve health through adherence to evidence-based preventive care. To evaluate its efficacy in doing so, we compared changes in service use and spending after implementation of the program to trends among employees of six other states. Compared to employees of other states, Connecticut employees were similar in age and sex but had a slightly higher percentage of enrollees with chronic conditions and substantially higher spending at baseline. During the program's first two years, the use of targeted services and adherence to medications for chronic conditions increased, while emergency department use decreased, relative to the situation in the comparison states. The program's impact on costs was inconclusive and requires a longer follow-up period. This novel combination of VBID principles and participation requirements may be a tool that can help plan sponsors increase the use of evidence-based preventive services.

Physician compensation strategies and quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between the compensation strategies of primary care physicians (PCPs) and the quality and outcomes of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of physician survey data linked to Medicare claims. We used a previously constructed typology that was developed based on the survey to categorize physician compensation strategies. METHODS: We combined data from the 2004-2005 Community Tracking Study Physician Survey on PCP compensation methods with administrative claims from the Medicare program. We analyzed the proportion of eligible beneficiaries receiving each of 7 preventive services and rates of preventable admissions for acute and chronic conditions. We measured the latter using Prevention Quality Indicators (PQIs), available from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. RESULTS: The 2211 PCP respondents included 937 internists and 1274 family or general physicians who were linked to more than 250,000 Medicare enrollees. Employed physicians with productivity and other incentives were more likely to deliver care of high quality when compared with salaried physicians. For instance, the odds of appropriate monitoring for diabetics ranged from 1.26 to 1.47 (all P < .01). Physicians in highly capitated environments had similar or better quality compared with physicians in other environments across most measures. The association between compensation strategies and outcomes of care as measured by PQIs was inconsistent, although owners with no other incentives had consistent higher rates of acute and chronic PQI admission (eg, for the chronic PQI composite: odds ratio = 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: Physician compensation strategies are associated with the quality of preventive services delivered to Medicare patients, but inconsistently associated with outcomes of care. Increasing use of global payment strategies is not likely to lead to lower quality.

Higher practice intensity is associated with higher quality of care but more avoidable admissions for medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between practice intensity and the quality and outcomes of care has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between primary care physicians' costliness both for defined episodes of care and for defined patients and the quality and outcomes of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries. STUDY DESIGN: Cross sectional analysis of physician survey data linked to Medicare claims. Physician costliness measures were calculated by comparing the episode specific and overall costs of care for their patients with the care delivered by other physicians. PARTICIPANTS: We studied physicians participating in the 2004-2005 Community Tracking Study Physician Survey linked with administrative claims from the Medicare program for the years 2004-2006. MAIN MEASURES: Proportion of eligible beneficiaries receiving each of seven preventive services and rates of preventable admissions for acute and chronic conditions. KEY RESULTS: The 2,211 primary care physician respondents included 937 internists and 1,274 family or general physicians who were linked to more than 250,000 Medicare enrollees. Patients treated by more costly physicians (whether measured by the overall costliness index or the episode-level index) were more likely to receive recommended preventive services, but were also more likely to experience preventable admissions. For instance, physicians in the lowest quartile of costliness performed appropriate monitoring for hemoglobin A1C for diabetics 72.8% of the time, as compared with 81.9% for physicians in the highest quartile of costliness (p < 0.01). In contrast, patients treated by the physicians in the lowest quartile of episode costliness were admitted at a rate of 1.8/100 for both acute and chronic Prevention Quality Indicators (PQIs), as compared with 2.9/100 for both acute and chronic PQIs for those treated by physicians in the highest quartile of costliness (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physician practice patterns are associated with the quality of preventive services delivered to Medicare patients. Ongoing efforts to influence physician practice patterns may have differential effects on different aspects of quality.

The slowdown in health care spending in 2009-11 reflected factors other than the weak economy and thus may persist.

During and immediately after the recent recession, national health expenditures grew exceptionally slowly. During 2009-11 per capita national health spending grew about 3 percent annually, compared to an average of 5.9 percent annually during the previous ten years. Policy experts disagree about whether the slower health spending growth was temporary or represented a long-term shift. This study examined two factors that might account for the slowdown: job loss and benefit changes that shifted more costs to insured people. Based on an examination of data covering more than ten million enrollees with health care coverage from large firms in 2007-11, we found that these enrollees' out-of-pocket costs increased as the benefit design of their employer-provided coverage became less generous in this period. We conclude that such benefit design changes accounted for about one-fifth of the observed decrease in the rate of growth. However, we also observed a slowdown in spending growth even when we held benefit generosity constant, which suggests that other factors, such as a reduction in the rate of introduction of new technology, were also at work. Our findings suggest cautious optimism that the slowdown in the growth of health spending may persist--a change that, if borne out, could have a major impact on US health spending projections and fiscal challenges facing the country.