Toseef Mohammad Usama, Jensen Gail A, Tarraf Wassim
Department of Economics, Wayne State University, Faculty/Administration Bldg, 656 W. Kirby St 2074, FAB, Detroit, MI 48202, USA.
Institute of Gerontology, Wayne State University, 87 East Ferry Street, Detroit, MI 48202, USA.
Prev Med Rep. 2019 Jul 26;16:100964. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2019.100964. eCollection 2019 Dec.
The objective of this study is to compare the performance of Medicaid health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and fee-for-service (FFS) Medicaid regarding the prevalence of potentially preventable hospitalizations, a recognized measure of outpatient care quality.
This study used nationally representative data on non-institutionalized Medicaid recipients, ages 18-64, from the 2003-2012 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Separate analyses are conducted for recipients insured through both Medicaid and Medicare ("dual eligibles") and recipients whose only health insurance is Medicaid ("non-duals"). In each group the occurrence of potentially preventable hospitalizations is measured, and then survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression models are fit to quantify the relationship between Medicaid HMO status and the occurrence of such stays. The possibility of selection bias into HMOs is considered and explicitly addressed in model estimation using propensity score methods.
Adjusting for covariates and confounders dual eligible enrolled in Medicaid managed care are more likely to have a potentially preventable hospitalization relative to those covered under FFS Medicaid (survey weighted logit model OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 0.98-3.03; propensity score weighted logit model OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.06-3.28). In contrast, the odds ratios did not differ among non-duals in Medicaid HMOs versus FFS Medicaid.
These findings suggest that, at least for dual eligibles, the quality of outpatient care in Medicaid HMOs may be worse than under FFS Medicaid. Better and more streamlined clinical preventive approaches for this high risk and vulnerable population might be required in Medicaid HMOs.
本研究的目的是比较医疗补助健康维护组织(HMO)和按服务付费(FFS)的医疗补助计划在潜在可预防住院率方面的表现,这是衡量门诊护理质量的一项公认指标。
本研究使用了2003 - 2012年医疗支出小组调查中具有全国代表性的18 - 64岁非机构化医疗补助受益人的数据。对同时参加医疗补助和医疗保险的受益人(“双重资格者”)以及仅拥有医疗补助作为健康保险的受益人(“非双重资格者”)进行了单独分析。在每组中测量潜在可预防住院的发生率,然后拟合调查加权多变量逻辑回归模型,以量化医疗补助HMO状态与此类住院发生之间的关系。在模型估计中使用倾向得分方法考虑并明确解决了进入HMO的选择偏差可能性。
在调整协变量和混杂因素后,相对于FFS医疗补助计划覆盖的人群,参加医疗补助管理式医疗的双重资格者更有可能发生潜在可预防的住院(调查加权逻辑模型OR = 1.72,95% CI = 0.98 - 3.03;倾向得分加权逻辑模型OR = 1.87,95% CI = 1.06 - 3.28)。相比之下,医疗补助HMO中的非双重资格者与FFS医疗补助计划中的非双重资格者的优势比没有差异。
这些发现表明,至少对于双重资格者来说,医疗补助HMO的门诊护理质量可能比FFS医疗补助计划更差。医疗补助HMO可能需要针对这一高风险和弱势群体采取更好、更简化的临床预防方法。