Variation in processes of care for total hip arthroplasty across high-income countries.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is among the most commonly performed elective surgeries in high-income countries, and wait times for THA have frequently been cited by US commentators as evidence that countries with universal insurance programs or national health systems "ration" care. This novel qualitative study explores processes of care for hip replacement in the United States and 6 high-income countries with a focus on eligibility, wait times, decision-making, postoperative care, and payment policies. We found no evidence of rationing or government interference in decision-making across high-income countries. Compared with the 6 other high-income countries in our study, the United States has developed efficient care processes that often allow for a same-day discharge. In contrast, THA patients in Germany stay in the hospital 7-9 days and receive 2-3 weeks of inpatient rehabilitation. However, the payment per THA in the United States remains far above other countries, despite far fewer inpatient days.

Medicaid Physician Fees Remained Substantially Below Fees Paid By Medicare In 2019.

In 2019, as in prior years, Medicaid physician fees remained well below Medicare and private insurance fees despite growth in Medicaid enrollment. Low Medicaid physician fees have important implications in terms of access to care for Medicaid enrollees and the effects of proposals to expand coverage through a Medicaid buy-in program or a Medicaid-like public option.

Home Health Use In Medicare Advantage Compared To Use In Traditional Medicare.

Medicare covers home health benefits for homebound beneficiaries who need intermittent skilled care. While home health care can help prevent costlier institutional care, some studies have suggested that traditional Medicare beneficiaries may overuse home health care. This study compared home health use in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare, as well as within Medicare Advantage by beneficiary cost sharing, prior authorization requirement, and plan type. In 2016 Medicare Advantage enrollees were less likely to use home health care than traditional Medicare enrollees were, had 7.1 fewer days per home health spell, and were less likely to be admitted to the hospital during their spell. Among Medicare Advantage plans, those that imposed beneficiary cost sharing or prior authorization requirements had lower rates of home health use. Qualitative interviews suggested that Medicare Advantage payment and contracting approaches influenced home health care use. Therefore, changes in traditional Medicare home health payment policies implemented in 2020 may reduce these disparities in home health use and spell length.

Home Health And Postacute Care Use In Medicare Advantage And Traditional Medicare.

This article compares patterns of postacute care-including care provided by skilled nursing facilities, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and home health agencies-under Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. Overall, Medicare Advantage enrollees received less postacute care, both institutional and home health, than traditional Medicare enrollees did for three common conditions.

Did Medicare Advantage payment cuts affect beneficiary access and affordability?

OBJECTIVES: To explore whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA)'s Medicare Advantage (MA) payment cuts were associated with changes in enrollees' access to and affordability of healthcare relative to traditional Medicare (TM). STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive analyses of changes in access and affordability in MA relative to TM between 2009 and 2017 and between 2011 and 2017. METHODS: Respondents who reported Medicare coverage on the National Health Interview Survey were divided into MA and TM enrollees. Using multivariate regression to adjust for demographic, economic, and health status changes over time, we compared changes in healthcare access and affordability for the 2 groups between 2009 and 2017, as the ACA payment cuts were implemented. For some measures, the analysis covers 2011 to 2017. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2017, MA respondents did not report statistically significant changes in healthcare access or affordability after adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic, and health status changes in the MA population. There were no statistically significant differences between changes in access and affordability for beneficiaries in MA relative to those in TM over this period. CONCLUSIONS: Although MA payment cuts were expected to reduce the attractiveness of the MA program to both plans and enrollees, the program's enrollment grew steadily from 2009 to 2017. Over this period, plans reduced their costs for providing Part A and Part B benefits to their enrollees, thereby preserving room for rebates. Our findings show that plans made such cost reductions without significantly affecting enrollees' access to or affordability of care compared with TM beneficiaries.

Can Insurance Market Competition Coexist With Provider Price Regulation? Evidence From Medicare Advantage.

Proposals to contain health care costs often draw from 1 of 2 primary policy approaches-price regulation or market competition. These approaches are often viewed as in conflict, even though some health economists have long argued that they may be compatible, and desirable, given the unique characteristics of health care markets. Medicare Advantage (MA) markets provide a real-world example supporting the view that provider price regulation and insurance market competition can be complementary.

Do Medicare Advantage Plans Respond to Payment Changes? A Look at the Data from 2009 to 2014.

Issue: Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment has grown significantly since 2009, despite legislation that reduced what Medicare pays these plans to provide care to enrollees. MA payments, on average, now approach parity with costs in traditional Medicare. Goal: Examine changes in per enrollee costs between 2009 and 2014 to better understand how MA plans have continued to thrive even as payments decreased. Methods: Analysis of Medicare data on MA plan bids, net of rebates. Findings: While spending per beneficiary in traditional Medicare rose 5.0 percent between 2009 and 2014, MA payment benchmarks rose 1.5 percent and payment to plans decreased by 0.7 percent. Plans' expected per enrollee costs grew 2.6 percent. Plans where payment rates decreased generally had slower growth in their expected costs. HMOs, which saw their payments decline the most, had the slowest expected cost growth. Conclusions: In general, MA plans responded to lower payment by containing costs. By preserving most of the margin between Medicare payments and their bids in the form of rebates, they could continue to offer additional benefits to attract enrollees. The magnitude of this response varied by geographic area and plan type. Despite this slower growth in expected per enrollee costs, greater efficiencies by MA plans may still be achievable.

Do Medicare Advantage Plans Minimize Costs? Investigating the Relationship Between Benchmarks, Costs, and Rebates.

Issue: Medicare Advantage (MA), the program that allows people to receive their Medicare benefits through private health plans, uses a benchmark-and-bidding system to induce plans to provide benefits at lower costs. However, prior research suggests medical costs, profits, and other plan costs are not as low under this system as they might otherwise be. Goal: To examine how well the current system encourages MA plans to bid their lowest cost by examining the relationship between costs and bonuses (rebates) and the benchmarks Medicare uses in determining plan payments. Methods: Regression analysis using 2015 data for HMO and local PPO plans. Findings: Costs and rebates are higher for MA plans in areas with higher benchmarks, and plan costs vary less than benchmarks do. A one-dollar increase in benchmarks is associated with 32-cent-higher plan costs and a 52-cent-higher rebate, even when controlling for market and plan factors that can affect costs. This suggests the current benchmark-and-bidding system allows plans to bid higher than local input prices and other market conditions would seem to warrant. Conclusion: To incentivize MA plans to maximize efficiency and minimize costs, Medicare could change the way benchmarks are set or used.

Massachusetts Health Reform At Ten Years: Great Progress, But Coverage Gaps Remain.

Massachusetts's 2006 health reform legislation was intended to move the state to near-universal health insurance coverage and to improve access to affordable health care. Ten years on, a large body of research demonstrates sustained gains in coverage. But many vulnerable populations and communities in the state have high uninsurance rates, and among those with coverage, gaps in access and affordability persist.

A potential new data source for assessing the impacts of health reform: Evaluating the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index.

BACKGROUND: Existing national health-related surveys take several months or years to become available. The Affordable Care Act will bring rapid changes to the health care system in 2014. We analyzed the Gallup-Healthways׳ Well-Being Index (WBI) in order to assess its ability to provide real-time estimates of the impact of the ACA on key health-related outcomes. METHODS: We compared the Gallup-Healthways WBI to established surveys on demographics, health insurance, access to care, and health. Data sources were the Gallup-Healthways WBI, the Current Population Survey, the American Community Survey, the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, the National Health Interview Survey, and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Demographic measures included age, race/ethnicity, education, and income. Insurance outcomes were coverage rates by type, state, and year. Access measures included having a usual source of care and experiencing cost-related delays in care. Health measures were self-reported health and history of specific diagnoses. RESULTS: Most differences across surveys were statistically significant (p<0.05) due to large sample sizes, so our analysis focused on the absolute magnitude of differences. The Gallup-Healthways WBI post-weighted sample was similar in age, race/ethnicity, and education to other surveys, though the Gallup-Healthways WBI sample is slightly older, has fewer minorities, and is more highly educated than in other national surveys. In addition, income was more frequently missing. The Gallup-Healthways WBI produced similar national, state, and time-trend estimates on uninsured rates, but far lower rates of public coverage. Access to care and health status were similar in the Gallup-Healthways WBI and other surveys. CONCLUSIONS: The Gallup-Healthways WBI is a valuable complement to existing data sources for health services research. The Gallup-Healthways WBI estimates for uninsured rates and access to care were similar to established national surveys and may allow for rapid estimates of the ACA׳s impact on the uninsured in 2014. Estimates of insurance type are less comparable, particularly for public coverage, which likely limits the utility of the Gallup-Healthways WBI for analyzing changes in particular types of coverage.