Search

Objective: To evaluate episode-based payments for upper respiratory tract infections (URI) and perinatal care in Arkansas's Medicaid population.Study Setting: Upper respiratory infection and perinatal episodes among Medicaid-covered individuals in Arkansas and comparison states from fiscal year (FY) 2011 to 2014.Study Design: Cross-sectional observational analysis using a difference-in-difference design to examine outcomes associated with URI and perinatal episodes of care (EOC) from 2011 to 2014. Key dependent variables include antibiotic use, emergency department visits, physician visits, hospitalizations, readmission, and preventive screenings.Data Collection: Claims data from the Medicaid Analytic Extract for Arkansas, Mississippi, and Missouri from 2010 to 2014 with supplemental county-level data from the Area Health Resource File (AHRF).Principal Findings: The URI EOC reduced the probability of antibiotic use (marginal effect [ME] = -1.8, 90% CI: -2.2, -1.4), physician visits (ME = 0.6, 90% CI: -0.8, -0.4), improved the probability of strep tests for children diagnosed with pharyngitis (ME = 9.4, 90% CI: 8.5, 10.3), but also increased the probability of an emergency department (ED) visit (ME = 0.1, 90% CI: 0.1, 0.2), relative to the comparison group. For perinatal EOCs, we found a reduced probability of an ED visit during pregnancy (ME = 0.1, 90% CI: -0.2, -0.0), an increased probability of screening for HIV (ME = 6.2, 90% CI: 4.0, 8.5), chlamydia (ME = 9.5, 90% CI: 7.2, 11.8), and group B strep-test (ME = 2.6, 90% CI: 0.5, 4.6), relative to the comparison group. Predelivery and postpartum hospitalizations also increased (ME = 1.2, 90% CI: 0.4, 2.0; ME = 0.4, 90% CI: 0.0, 0.8, respectively), relative to the comparison group.Conclusion: Upper respiratory infection and perinatal EOCs for Arkansas Medicaid beneficiaries produced mixed results. Aligning shared savings with quality metrics and cost-thresholds may help achieve quality targets and disincentivize over utilization within the EOC, but may also have unintended consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The introduction of bundled payment for diabetes care in the Netherlands led to the origination of care groups. This study explored to what extent variation in health care costs per patient can be attributed to the performance of care groups. Furthermore, the commonly applied simple mean aggregation was compared with the more advanced generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) to benchmark health care costs per patient between care groups.Data Source: Dutch 2009 nationwide insurance claims data of diabetes type 2 patients (104,544 patients, 50 care groups).Study Design: Both a simple mean aggregation and a GLMM approach was applied to rank care groups, using two different health care costs variables: total treatment health care costs and diabetes-specific specialist care costs per diabetes patient.Principal Findings: Care groups varied slightly in the first and mainly in the second indicator. Care group variation was not explained by composition. Although the ranking methods were correlated, some care groups' rank positions differed, with consequences on the top-10 and the low-10 positions.Conclusions: Differences between care groups exist when an appropriate indicator and a sophisticated aggregation technique is used. Currently applied benchmarking may have unfair consequences for some care groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although value-based purchasing (VBP) holds promise for encouraging quality improvement and addressing rising costs, currently there is limited evidence about how best to structure and implement VBP programs. In this commentary, we highlight several issues for improving evaluations of VBP programs. Implementation research can be enhanced through early and continuous assessment and greater variation in program designs. Impact research can be improved by creating better outcome measures, increasing the availability of linked patient-level data, and advancing synthesis research. We offer several recommendations for improving the foundation to conduct evaluations of VBP programs to better inform policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]