Health Care Fragmentation in Medicaid Managed Care vs. Fee for Service.

Managed care plans often attempt to control health care costs through strategies designed to decrease health care utilization. However, the extent to which the resulting patterns of utilization represent high-quality care (compared to fee-for-service products) remains controversial. The authors sought to compare patterns of ambulatory care (including how diffuse or fragmented the care patterns were) for Medicaid fee-for-service beneficiaries vs. Medicaid managed care beneficiaries. A serial cross-sectional study of adults (≥18 years old) was conducted using statewide Medicaid claims from New York State for calendar years 2010-2013. Beneficiaries were required to be continuously enrolled and have ≥4 ambulatory visits for each year they contributed data, yielding a sample of more than 1 million beneficiaries per year. Beneficiaries were characterized by age, sex, and case mix. For each year, ambulatory care patterns were compared across subgroups of beneficiaries using Poisson models (for numbers of visits and providers) and bounded Tobit models (for fragmentation scores). In 2010, among those who were not dual eligible, managed care beneficiaries had on average fewer visits (10.9 visits vs. 11.4 visits [P < 0.0001]) but more providers (3.8 providers vs. 3.3 providers [P < 0.0001]) and therefore more fragmentation (0.58 vs. 0.51 [P < 0.0001]) than fee-for-service beneficiaries, adjusting for age, sex, and case mix. These patterns persisted throughout the follow-up period and in sensitivity analyses. Less utilization is not necessarily more efficient care; a smaller number of visits spread across a larger number of providers creates more challenges for care coordination.

Changes in ambulatory utilization after switching from Medicaid fee-for-service to managed care.

OBJECTIVES: To observe any change in ambulatory care utilization after switching from Medicaid fee-for-service (FFS) to Medicaid managed care (MC). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a statewide longitudinal study of 21,048 adult Medicaid beneficiaries in New York State who switched from FFS to MC in 2011 or 2012, with 2 sets of controls (n = 21,048 with continuous FFS; n = 21,048 with continuous MC) who were matched on age, gender, dual-eligible status, and number of chronic conditions. METHODS: We measured ambulatory care utilization in the 12 months before and 12 months after the switch date, using regression to adjust for case mix and account for matching. RESULTS: Overall, switching from Medicaid FFS to Medicaid MC was associated with greater absolute decreases over time in ambulatory visits and providers compared with controls (-1.49 visits vs continuous FFS and -1.60 visits vs continuous MC; each P <.0001; -0.10 providers vs continuous FFS and -0.12 providers vs continuous MC; each P <.0001). The subset of switchers with 5 or more chronic conditions had the greatest absolute decreases in visits (-5.88 visits vs continuous FFS and -5.98 visits vs continuous MC; each P <.0001) and providers (-1.37 providers vs continuous FFS and -1.39 providers vs continuous MC; each P <.0001). Significant decreases in visits and providers were also observed for switchers with 3 to 4 chronic conditions but not for those with 0 to 2 chronic conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Switching from Medicaid FFS to Medicaid MC was associated with a decrease in ambulatory utilization, especially for the sickest patients.

Fragmented ambulatory care and subsequent emergency department visits and hospital admissions among Medicaid beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVES: Results of previous studies of Medicare beneficiaries have shown that more fragmented ambulatory care is associated with more emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions. Whether this observation is generalizable to Medicaid beneficiaries is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a 3-year retrospective cohort study in the 7-county Hudson Valley region of New York. We included 19,330 adult Medicaid beneficiaries who were continuously enrolled, were attributed to a primary care provider, and had 4 or more ambulatory visits in the baseline year. METHODS: We measured fragmentation using a modified Bice-Boxerman Index. Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine associations between fragmentation score and ED visits or, separately, hospital admissions, adjusting for age, gender, and chronic conditions. RESULTS: The average beneficiary had 15 ambulatory visits in the baseline year, spread across 5 providers, with the most frequently seen provider accounting for 48% of the visits. One-fourth of the sample had more than 20 ambulatory visits and more than 7 providers, with the most frequently seen provider accounting for fewer than 33% of visits. For every 0.1-point increase in fragmentation score, the adjusted hazard of an ED visit over 2 years of follow-up increased by 1.7% (95% CI, 0.5%-2.9%). Having more fragmented care was not associated with a change in the hazard of a hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicaid beneficiaries, having more fragmented care was associated with a modest increase in the hazard of an ED visit, independent of chronic conditions. Fragmented ambulatory care may be modifiable and may represent a novel target for improvement.

Extent of Health Care Fragmentation in Different Payer Populations: Evidence from the Hudson Valley of New York.

Health care fragmentation occurs when patients see multiple ambulatory providers, but no single provider accounts for a substantial proportion of visits. Most previous studies have measured fragmentation in Medicare, which may not be generalizable. The study objective was to compare the extent of fragmented ambulatory care across commercially insured, Medicare, and Medicaid populations. The authors conducted a cross-sectional study of adults (N = 256,047) in the Hudson Valley region of New York, who were continuously insured (through 5 commercial payers, Medicare, or Medicaid), were attributed to a primary care physician, and had ≥4 ambulatory visits in the study year. Fragmentation was calculated using a reversed Bice-Boxerman Index, which captures both dispersion of care across providers and the relative share of visits by each provider. Chi-square tests, t tests, and correlation were used to compare patient characteristics and patterns of care across payers. Patients with Medicare had more chronic conditions (45% had ≥5 chronic conditions) than patients with commercial insurance (20%) or Medicaid (23%) (P < 0.01). However, mean fragmentation scores were comparable across all 3 payer populations: 0.73 (commercial insurance), 0.74 (Medicare), 0.72 (Medicaid). The correlation between number of chronic conditions and fragmentation was weak across payers, ranging from r = 0.004 to r = 0.12. If the extent of fragmentation does not vary with payer type or with the number of chronic conditions, it suggests that the causes of fragmentation may be more numerous and more complex than medical need alone.

Fragmented ambulatory care and subsequent healthcare utilization among Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the associations between fragmented ambulatory care and subsequent emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions, while considering possible interactions between fragmentation and number of chronic conditions. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a cohort study over 3 years among 117,977 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries who were attributed to primary care physicians in a 7-county region of New York and had 4 or more ambulatory visits in the baseline year. METHODS: We calculated fragmentation scores using a modified Bice-Boxerman Index and, because scores were skewed, divided them into quintiles. We used Cox regression models to determine associations between fragmentation and ED visits and, separately, hospital admissions, stratifying by number of chronic conditions and adjusting for age, gender, number of ambulatory visits, and case mix. RESULTS: Among those with 1 to 2 or 3 to 4 chronic conditions, having the most (vs the least) fragmented care significantly increased the hazard of an ED visit and, separately, increased the hazard of an admission (adjusted P <.05 for each comparison). Among those with 5 or more chronic conditions, having the most fragmented care significantly increased the hazard of an ED visit but decreased the hazard of an admission (adjusted P <.05 for each comparison). Among those with 0 chronic conditions, having fragmented care was not associated with either outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between fragmented ambulatory care and subsequent utilization varies with the number of chronic conditions. Beneficiaries with a moderate burden of chronic conditions (1-2 or 3-4) appear to be at highest risk of excess ED visits and admissions due to fragmented care.