1 / 17

Motivation

Hospital Utilization by Fee-for-Service and Medicare Advantage Enrollees Lauren Hersch Nicholas University of Michigan September 15, 2009. Ongoing policy interest in expanding Medicare benefits while reducing spending

mercury
Download Presentation

Motivation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Hospital Utilization by Fee-for-Service and Medicare Advantage EnrolleesLauren Hersch NicholasUniversity of MichiganSeptember 15, 2009

  2. Ongoing policy interest in expanding Medicare benefits while reducing spending Medicare Advantage plans provide a voluntary, managed care alternative to Fee-for-Service Payments to plans now exceed average FFS spending Little is known about quality or cost implications of increasing enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans Motivation

  3. Does managed care affect hospital utilization for Medicare beneficiaries? Quality of outpatient care: Ambulatory Care Sensitive Admissions Access to elective procedures: Referral-Sensitive Admissions Does managed care enrollment affect total Medicare spending? Research Questions

  4. Existing quality and utilization literature indicates quality problems in early Medicare managed care plans Yet managed care consistently better at preventive service use Cost spillovers from managed care believed to hold down FFS spending, but higher payments to plans raise total spending Managed care plans historically attract healthier enrollees Findings mostly from 1990s, don’t identify casual effects Background

  5. Discharge abstracts from hospitalizations in AZ, FL, NJ, and NY 20% of Medicare beneficiaries and 25% of Medicare Advantage enrollees live in one of these 4 states All in-state hospitalizations from 1990-2005 Include Medicare Advantage and Fee-for-Service beneficiaries ICD-9 diagnostics and procedure codes used to identify ambulatory care sensitive (AHRQ Prevention Quality Indicators) and referral-sensitive admissions Marker hospitalizations, which are not affected by medical care, provide comparison group Medicare enrollment date → demographic information for all beneficiaries State Inpatient Database

  6. Potentially avoided with effective primary care Ambulatory Care Sensitive Admissions

  7. Technology-intensive procedures, require referral Low rates of procedures may suggest barriers to service use Referral-Sensitive Admissions

  8. Hospitalizations which are unrelated to recent medical care, reflect underlying health status, private information influencing insurance choice and utilization Marker Admissions

  9. Unadjusted Rates of Hospitalization for Medicare Advantage and Fee-for-Service Enrollees

  10. Medicare Advantage and Fee-for-Service Enrollees are Demographically Similar

  11. Medicare Advantage plans attract healthier enrollees, otherwise provide the same care as Fee-for-Service Medicare Advantage plans manage care to limit utilization, → reduce elective procedure use Medicare Advantage plans manage care to preserve beneficiary health, → reduce potentially preventable admissions What explains differences in hospital utilization?

  12. Insurance Type-Country-Year level regressions of rate of hospitalization on Medicare coverage type and demographics County and Year fixed effects Two-stage estimation procedure using ratio of observed to expected marker hospitalizations to control for unobserved health status differences Pairs-Cluster Bootstrap used to calculate standard errors Empirical Approach

  13. Effect of Managed Care on Rates of Hospitalization (1)

  14. Managed care significantly reduces potentially preventable hospitalizations Acute reductions primarily from Pneumonia and Urinary Tract Infection → earlier access to antibiotics? No overall managed care effect for referral-sensitive hospitalizations, but significant reduction in elective joint replacement (3.5 per 1,000 enrollees) and pacemaker insertion (0.9 per 1,000) Positive selection into Medicare Advantage plans accounts for between 25 and 35 percent of risk-adjusted differences Effect of Managed Care on Rates of Hospitalization (2)

  15. Trends in Ambulatory Care Sensitive Admissions in Medicare Advantage and Fee-for-Service

  16. Nationally, 1% increase in Medicare Advantage enrollment increases average Medicare spending between 0.3 and 1.1% Is extra spending on managed care cost-effective way to reduce ACS admissions? Increasing plan payment rates by $600 per enrollee per year would reduce ACS admissions rate by 1 per 1,000 Medicare Advantage and Medicare Spending

  17. Medicare Advantage plans have lower rates of ambulatory care sensitive admissions No overall difference in referral-sensitive admissions Both positive selection and true “managed care effect” explain observed differences in utilization Higher payments to plans concentrate enrollment on healthier enrollees, hospitalizations primarily reduced by low-cost interventions Potential to reduce total spending by improving access to acute care in FFS? Conclusions and Policy Implications

More Related