• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

多支付方全风险模式对保障传统医疗保险受益人的初级保健可及性的影响。

Impact of a multi-payer full-risk model on preserving primary care access for traditional medicare beneficiaries.

作者信息

Kornitzer Benjamin S, Yao Aaron, Peikes Deborah N, Rao Karthik

机构信息

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, General Internal Medicine, New York, NY 10029, United States.

FastHSR, Glen Allen, VA 23059, United States.

出版信息

Health Aff Sch. 2025 Apr 30;3(5):qxaf093. doi: 10.1093/haschl/qxaf093. eCollection 2025 May.

DOI:10.1093/haschl/qxaf093
PMID:40351355
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12065130/
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Amid growing primary care shortages and increased use of value-based care (VBC), we evaluated whether adopting a multipayer, full-risk VBC model for Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries-supported by an enablement organization-affected primary care providers' (PCPs) acceptance of new patients with TM insurance.

METHODS

Using a difference-in-differences analysis of 2019-2023 claims, we compared 2 groups of PCPs with at least 50 TM patients in their panels: 208 PCPs who received support to adopt a VBC model for TM and Medicare Advantage patients in 2022, and 3657 similar PCPs who maintained their existing payment models.Between the preadoption period and 2023, access to new patient visits for patients with TM insurance declined more for nonadopters than adopters.

RESULTS

Primary care providers' in the VBC group saw, on average, 8 more new TM patients annually than nonadopters. This change is sizable relative to their 22.6 new TM patients in 2023. Additionally, the VBC group kept their panels open to new patients with TM insurance for 0.7 more months per year, on average, than nonadopters, relative to preadoption.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that a VBC model with support may help sustain access to primary care for TM beneficiaries, even as overall availability declines.

摘要

引言

在初级医疗短缺日益严重且基于价值的医疗(VBC)使用增加的背景下,我们评估了在一个赋能组织的支持下,为传统医疗保险(TM)和医疗保险优势计划受益人采用多支付方、全风险VBC模式是否会影响初级医疗服务提供者(PCP)对TM保险新患者的接纳情况。

方法

利用2019 - 2023年索赔数据的差异分析,我们比较了两组在其患者名单中至少有50名TM患者的PCP:208名在2022年获得支持以采用针对TM和医疗保险优势计划患者的VBC模式的PCP,以及3657名维持其现有支付模式的类似PCP。在采用前时期至2023年期间,未采用者中TM保险患者获得新患者就诊机会的下降幅度比采用者更大。

结果

VBC组的初级医疗服务提供者每年平均比未采用者多接待8名新的TM患者。相对于他们在2023年接待的22.6名新TM患者而言,这一变化相当可观。此外,相对于采用前,VBC组每年平均为TM保险新患者开放患者名单的时间比未采用者多0.7个月。

结论

这些发现表明,即使整体可及性下降,得到支持的VBC模式可能有助于维持TM受益人的初级医疗可及性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/daf8/12065130/435ad0d28ec4/qxaf093f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/daf8/12065130/0980c6784c7b/qxaf093f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/daf8/12065130/435ad0d28ec4/qxaf093f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/daf8/12065130/0980c6784c7b/qxaf093f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/daf8/12065130/435ad0d28ec4/qxaf093f2.jpg

相似文献

1
Impact of a multi-payer full-risk model on preserving primary care access for traditional medicare beneficiaries.多支付方全风险模式对保障传统医疗保险受益人的初级保健可及性的影响。
Health Aff Sch. 2025 Apr 30;3(5):qxaf093. doi: 10.1093/haschl/qxaf093. eCollection 2025 May.
2
Comparison of Low-Value Services Among Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries.比较医疗保险优势计划和传统医疗保险受益人之间的低价值服务。
JAMA Health Forum. 2022 Sep 2;3(9):e222935. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.2935.
3
Comparison of Ambulatory Care Access and Quality for Beneficiaries With Disabilities Covered by Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare Insurance.比较 Medicare Advantage 覆盖的残疾受益人与传统 Medicare 保险的门诊护理可及性和质量。
JAMA Health Forum. 2022 Jan 14;3(1):e214562. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.4562. eCollection 2022 Jan.
4
Assessment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Increase in Fees for Primary Care and Access to Care for Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries.评估《患者保护与平价医疗法案》对双重保险受益人的初级保健费用和获得医疗服务的影响。
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Jan 4;4(1):e2033424. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.33424.
5
Telehealth availability and use among beneficiaries in Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.传统医疗保险和医疗保险优势计划受益人群中远程医疗的可及性与使用情况。
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2025 Feb;73(2):545-551. doi: 10.1111/jgs.19183. Epub 2024 Sep 6.
6
Comparison of Health Care Utilization by Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries With Complex Care Needs.比较有复杂医疗需求的医疗保险优势计划和传统医疗保险受益人对医疗保健的利用。
JAMA Health Forum. 2022 Oct 7;3(10):e223451. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.3451.
7
Health Care Utilization, Care Satisfaction, and Health Status for Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries With and Without Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias.医疗保险优势计划和传统医疗保险的阿尔茨海默病和相关痴呆症患者和非患者的医疗保健利用、护理满意度和健康状况。
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar 2;3(3):e201809. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.1809.
8
Health Care Utilization and Spending in Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare: A Difference-in-Differences Analysis.医疗保险优势计划与传统医疗保险的医疗保健利用和支出比较:差异中的差异分析。
JAMA Health Forum. 2021 Dec 10;2(12):e214001. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.4001. eCollection 2021 Dec.
9
Role of Patient Sorting in Avoidable Hospital Stays in Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare.医疗保险优势计划与传统医疗保险中患者分类在避免住院方面的作用。
JAMA Health Forum. 2023 Nov 3;4(11):e233931. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.3931.
10
Assessment of Differences in Inpatient Rehabilitation Services for Length of Stay and Health Outcomes Between US Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries.评估美国医疗保险优势计划和传统医疗保险受益人在住院康复服务方面的住院时间和健康结果差异。
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar 2;3(3):e201204. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.1204.

本文引用的文献

1
US Primary Care Workforce Growth: A Decade of Limited Progress, and Projected Needs Through 2040.美国基层医疗劳动力增长:十年进展有限,及到2040年的预计需求
J Gen Intern Med. 2025 Feb;40(2):339-346. doi: 10.1007/s11606-024-09121-x. Epub 2024 Oct 23.
2
Primary care visit cadence and hospital admissions in high-risk patients.高危患者的基础保健就诊频次与住院情况。
Am J Manag Care. 2024 Jun;30(6):263-269. doi: 10.37765/ajmc.2024.89509.
3
Higher Rates Of Emergency Surgery, Serious Complications, And Readmissions In Primary Care Shortage Areas, 2015-19.
2015-19 年,初级保健短缺地区的急诊手术、严重并发症和再次入院率较高。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2024 Mar;43(3):363-371. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2023.00843.
4
A Pragmatic Approach to Identifying and Profiling Primary Care Clinicians and Primary Care Practices in the USA.美国初级保健临床医生和初级保健实践的实用方法识别和分析。
J Gen Intern Med. 2024 Aug;39(11):1962-1968. doi: 10.1007/s11606-024-08627-8. Epub 2024 Jan 25.
5
The Camden Coalition Care Management Program Improved Intermediate Care Coordination: A Randomized Controlled Trial.卡姆登联盟关怀管理计划改善了中级医疗协调:一项随机对照试验。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2024 Jan;43(1):131-139. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2023.01151. Epub 2023 Dec 20.
6
Effects of Primary Care-Led, Integrated Palliative Care for Medicare Patients in a Value-Based Model.初级保健主导的、基于价值的模式下对医疗保险患者实施的综合姑息治疗的效果。
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2024 Mar;67(3):195-203. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2023.11.006. Epub 2023 Nov 14.
7
After 50 Years, Health Professional Shortage Areas Had No Significant Impact On Mortality Or Physician Density.50 年后,卫生专业人员短缺地区对死亡率或医生密度没有显著影响。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2023 Nov;42(11):1507-1516. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2023.00478.
8
Primary Care Continuity, Frequency, and Regularity Associated With Medicare Savings.初级保健的连续性、频率和规律性与医疗保险储蓄有关。
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Aug 1;6(8):e2329991. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.29991.
9
Comparison of Care Quality Metrics in 2-Sided Risk Medicare Advantage vs Fee-for-Service Medicare Programs.双侧风险医疗保险优势计划与按服务收费医疗保险计划的护理质量指标比较。
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Dec 1;5(12):e2246064. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.46064.
10
In Traditional Medicare, Modest Growth In The Home Care Workforce Largely Driven By Nurse Practitioners.在传统医疗保险中,家庭护理劳动力的适度增长主要由执业护士推动。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2021 Mar;40(3):478-486. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00671.