scholarly journals Pediatric outpatient utilization by differing Medicaid payment models in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Therese L. Canares ◽  
Ari Friedman ◽  
Jonathan Rodean ◽  
Rebecca R. Burns ◽  
Deena Berkowitz ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Therese Canares ◽  
Ari Friedman ◽  
Jonathan Rodean ◽  
Rebecca R. Burns ◽  
Deena Berkowitz ◽  
...  

Abstract Background In the United States (US), medicaid capitated managed care costs are controlled by optimizing patients’ healthcare utilization. Adults in capitated plans utilize primary care providers (PCP) more than emergency departments (ED), compared to fee-for-service (FFS). Pediatric data are lacking. We aim to determine the association between US capitated and FFS Medicaid payment models and children’s outpatient utilization. Methods This retrospective cohort compared outpatient utilization between two payment models of Medicaid enrollees aged 1-18 years using Truven’s 2014 Marketscan Medicaid database. Children enrolled >11 months were included, and were excluded for eligibility due to disability/complex chronic condition, lack of outpatient utilization, or provider capitation penetration rate <5% or >95%. Negative binomial and logistic regression assessed relationships between payment model and number of visits or odds of utilization, respectively. Results Of 711,008 children, 66,980(9.4%) had FFS and 644,028(90.6%) had capitated plans. Children in capitated plans had greater odds of visits to urgent care, PCP-acute, and PCP-well-child care (aOR 1.21[95%CI 1.15-1.26]; aOR 2.07[95%CI 2.03-2.13]; aOR 1.86 [95%CI 1.82-1.91], respectively), and had lower odds of visits to EDs and specialty care (aOR 0.82 [95%CI 0.8-0.83]; aOR 0.61 [95%CI 0.59-0.62], respectively), compared to FFS. Conclusions The majority of children in this US Medicaid population had capitated plans associated with higher utilization of acute care, but increased proportion of lower-cost sites, such as PCP-acute visits and UC. Policies that improve healthcare coverage of children and programs that encourage capitated payment models with care coordination may improve access to timely acute care in lower-cost settings for non-chronically ill children.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Therese Canares ◽  
Ari Friedman ◽  
Jonathan Rodean ◽  
Rebecca R. Burns ◽  
Deena Berkowitz ◽  
...  

Abstract Background In the United States (US), medicaid capitated managed care costs are controlled by optimizing patients’ healthcare utilization. Adults in capitated plans utilize primary care providers (PCP) more than emergency departments (ED), compared to fee-for-service (FFS). Pediatric data are lacking. We aim to determine the association between US capitated and FFS Medicaid payment models and children’s outpatient utilization. Methods This retrospective cohort compared outpatient utilization between two payment models of Medicaid enrollees aged 1-18 years using Truven’s 2014 Marketscan Medicaid database. Children enrolled >11 months were included, and were excluded for eligibility due to disability/complex chronic condition, lack of outpatient utilization, or provider capitation penetration rate <5% or >95%. Negative binomial and logistic regression assessed relationships between payment model and number of visits or odds of utilization, respectively. Results Of 711,008 children, 66,980(9.4%) had FFS and 644,028(90.6%) had capitated plans. Children in capitated plans had greater odds of visits to urgent care, PCP-acute, and PCP-well-child care (aOR 1.21[95%CI 1.15-1.26]; aOR 2.07[95%CI 2.03-2.13]; aOR 1.86 [95%CI 1.82-1.91], respectively), and had lower odds of visits to EDs and specialty care (aOR 0.82 [95%CI 0.8-0.83]; aOR 0.61 [95%CI 0.59-0.62], respectively), compared to FFS. Conclusions The majority of children in this US Medicaid population had capitated plans associated with higher utilization of acute care, but increased proportion of lower-cost sites, such as PCP-acute visits and UC. Policies that improve healthcare coverage of children and programs that encourage capitated payment models with care coordination may improve access to timely acute care in lower-cost settings for non-chronically ill children.


2007 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. S49-S51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy J. McMichael ◽  
Daniel J. Pearce ◽  
Dan Wasserman ◽  
Fabian T. Camacho ◽  
Alan B. Fleischer ◽  
...  

10.7249/rr869 ◽  
2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Friedberg ◽  
Peggy Chen ◽  
Chapin White ◽  
Olivia Jung ◽  
Laura Raaen ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 322-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Bazemore ◽  
Robert L. Phillips ◽  
Richard Glazier ◽  
Joshua Tepper

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-192
Author(s):  
Aaron George ◽  
Neha Sachdev ◽  
John Hoff ◽  
Stanley Borg ◽  
Thomas Weida ◽  
...  

Background and Objectives: Fee for service (FFS), the dominant payment model for primary care in the United States, compensates physicians based on volume. There are many initiatives exploring alternative payment models that prioritize value over volume. The Family Medicine for America’s Health (FMAHealth) Payment Team has developed a comprehensive primary care payment (CPCP) model to support the move from activity- and volume-based payment to performance-based payment for value. Methods: In 2016-2017, the FMAHealth Payment Team performed a comprehensive study of the current state of primary care payment models in the United States. This study explored the features, motivations, successes, and failures of a wide variety of payment arrangements. Results: The results of this work have informed a definition of comprehensive primary care payment (CPCP) as well as a CPCP calculator. This quantitative methodology calculates a base rate and includes modifiers that recognize the importance of infrastructure and resources that have been found to be successful in innovative models. The modifiers also incorporate adjustments for chronic disease burden, social determinants of health, quality, and utilization. Conclusions: The calculator and CPCP methodology offer a potential roadmap for transitioning from volume to value and details how to calculate such an adjustable comprehensive payment. This has impact and interest for all levels of the health care system and is intended for use by practices of all types as well as health systems, employers, and payers.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Friedberg ◽  
Peggy Chen ◽  
Molly Simmons ◽  
Tisamarie Sherry ◽  
Peter Mendel ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document