Suppr超能文献

医疗保险优势与透析机构选择。

Medicare advantage and dialysis facility choice.

机构信息

Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

出版信息

Health Serv Res. 2023 Oct;58(5):1035-1044. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.14153. Epub 2023 Mar 22.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the characteristics of dialysis facilities used by traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare advantage (MA) enrollees with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD).

DATA SOURCES

We used 20% TM claims and 100% MA encounter data from 2018 and publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

STUDY DESIGN

We compared the characteristics of the dialysis facilities treating TM and MA patients in the same ZIP code, adjusting for patient characteristics. The outcome variables were facility ownership, distance to the facility, and several measures of facility quality.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION: We identified point prevalent dialysis patients as of July 15, 2018.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Compared to TM patients in the same ZIP code, MA patients were 1.84 percentage points more likely to be treated at facilities owned by the largest two dialysis organizations and 1.85 percentage points less likely to be treated at an independently owned facility. MA patients went to further and lower quality facilities than TM patients in the same ZIP code. However, these differences in facility quality were modest. For example, while the mean dialysis facility mortality rate was 21.85, the difference in mortality rates at facilities treating MA and TM patients in the same ZIP code was 0.67 deaths per 100 patient-years. Similarly, MA patients went to facilities that were, on average, 0.15 miles further than TM patients in the same ZIP code.

CONCLUSION

MA enrollees with ESKD were more likely than TM enrollees in the same ZIP code to use the dialysis facilities owned by the two largest chains, travel further for care, and receive care at lower quality facilities. While the magnitude of differences in facility distance and quality was modest, the direction of these results underscores the importance of monitoring dialysis network adequacy as ESKD MA enrollment continues to grow.

摘要

目的

比较传统医疗保险(TM)和医疗保险优势(MA)的终末期肾病(ESKD)患者使用的透析设施的特征。

数据来源

我们使用了 2018 年 20%的 TM 索赔和 100%的 MA 就诊数据,以及医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心提供的公开数据。

研究设计

我们比较了在同一邮政编码内治疗 TM 和 MA 患者的透析设施的特征,同时调整了患者特征。结果变量是设施所有权、距离设施的距离,以及设施质量的几个衡量标准。

数据收集/提取:我们确定了截至 2018 年 7 月 15 日的点流行透析患者。

主要发现

与同一邮政编码内的 TM 患者相比,MA 患者在最大的两个透析组织拥有的设施接受治疗的可能性高 1.84 个百分点,而在独立拥有的设施接受治疗的可能性低 1.85 个百分点。MA 患者去的设施比同一邮政编码内的 TM 患者更远,质量更低。然而,这些设施质量的差异是适度的。例如,虽然透析设施的死亡率平均为 21.85,但在同一邮政编码内治疗 MA 和 TM 患者的设施的死亡率差异为每 100 名患者年 0.67 人死亡。同样,MA 患者去的设施比同一邮政编码内的 TM 患者平均远 0.15 英里。

结论

在同一邮政编码内,与 TM 患者相比,患有 ESKD 的 MA 参保者更有可能使用两个最大连锁企业拥有的透析设施,为了治疗而走更远的路,并在质量较低的设施中接受治疗。虽然设施距离和质量的差异幅度不大,但这些结果的方向强调了随着 ESKD MA 参保人数的不断增加,监测透析网络充足性的重要性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验