Early evidence from South Carolina's Medicare-Medicaid dual-eligible financial alignment initiative: an observational study to understand who enrolled, and whether the program improved health?

Brain tumor craniotomy outcomes for dual-eligible medicare and medicaid patients: a 10-year nationwide analysis

INTRODUCTION

Dual-eligible (DE) patients, simultaneous Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, have been shown to have poorer clinical outcomes while incurring higher resource utilization. However, neurosurgical oncology outcomes for DE patients are poorly characterized. Accordingly, we examined the impact of DE status on perioperative outcomes following glioma, meningioma, or metastasis resection.

METHODS

We identified all admissions undergoing a craniotomy for glioma, meningioma, or metastasis resection in the National Inpatient Sample from 2002 to 2011. Assessed outcomes included inpatient mortality, complications, discharge disposition, length of stay (LOS), and hospital costs. Multivariable regression adjusting for 13 patient, severity, and hospital characteristics assessed the association between DE status and outcomes, relative to four reference insurance groups (Medicare-only, Medicaid-only, private insurance, self-pay).

RESULTS

Of 195,725 total admissions analyzed, 3.0% were dual-eligible beneficiaries (n = 5933). DEs were younger than Medicare admissions (P < 0.001) but older than Medicaid, private, and self-pay admissions (P < 0.001). Relative to other insurance groups, DEs also exhibited higher severity of illness, risk of mortality, and Charlson Comorbidity Index scores as well as treatment at low-volume hospitals (all P < 0.001). DEs had lower mortality than self-pay admissions (odds ratio [OR] 0.47, P = 0.017). Compared to Medicare, Medicaid, private, and self-pay admissions, DEs had lower rates of discharge disposition (OR 0.53, 0.50, 0.34, and 0.27, respectively, all P < 0.001). DEs also had higher complications (OR 1.23 and 1.20, respectively, both P < 0.05) and LOS (β = 1.06 and 1.13, respectively, both P < 0.01) than Medicare and private insurance beneficiaries. Differences in discharge disposition remained significant for all three tumor subtypes, but only glioma DE admissions continued to exhibit higher complications and LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

DEs undergoing definitive craniotomy for brain tumor had higher rates of unfavorable discharge disposition compared to all other insurance groups and, especially for glioma surgery, had higher inpatient complication rates and LOS. Practice and policy reforms to improve outcomes for this vulnerable clinical population are warranted.

Systems thinking in health technology assessment: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to assess how, and to what extent, a systems-level perspective is considered in decision-making processes for health interventions by illustrating how studies define the boundaries of the system in their analyses and by defining the decision-making context in which a systems-level perspective is undertaken.

METHOD

We conducted a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and EconLit were searched and key search concepts included decision making, system, and integration. Studies were classified according to an interpretation of the "system" of analysis used in each study based on a four-level model of the health system (patient, care team, organization, and/or policy environment) and using categories (based on intervention type and system impacts considered) to describe the decision-making context.

RESULTS

A total of 2,664 articles were identified and 29 were included for analysis. Most studies (16/29; 55%) considered multiple levels of the health system (i.e., patient, care team, organization, environment) in their analysis and assessed multiple classes of interventions versus a single class of intervention (e.g., pharmaceuticals, screening programs). Approximately half (15/29; 52%) of the studies assessed the influence of policy options on the system as a whole, and the other half assessed the impact of interventions on other phases of the disease pathway or life trajectory (14/29; 48%).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that systems thinking is not common in areas where health technology assessments (HTAs) are typically conducted. Against this background, our study demonstrates the need for future conceptualizations and interpretations of systems thinking in HTA.

The impact of Dual Eligible Special Need Plan regulations on healthcare utilization

BACKGROUND

To determine if requiring Dual Eligible Special Need Plans (D-SNPs) to receive approval from the National Committee of Quality Assurance and contract with state Medicaid agencies impacts healthcare utilization.

METHODS

We use a Multiple Interrupted Time Series to examine the association of D-SNP regulations with dichotomized measures of emergency room (ER) and hospital utilization. Our treatment group is elderly D-SNP enrollees. Our comparison group is near-elderly (ages 60-64) beneficiaries enrolled in Medicaid Managed Care plans (N = 360,405). We use segmented regression models to estimate changes in the time-trend and slope of the outcomes associated with D-SNP regulations, during the post-implementation (2012-2015) period, relative to the pre-implementation (2010-2011) period. Models include a treatment-status indicator, a monthly time-trend, indicators and splines for the post-period and the interactions between these variables. We conduct the following sensitivity analyses: (1) Re-estimating models stratified by state (2) Estimating models including interactions of D-SNP implementation variables with comorbidity count to assess for differential D-SNP regulation effects across comorbidity level. (3) Re-estimating the models stratifying by race/ethnicity and (4) Including a transition period (2012-2013) in the model.

RESULTS

We do not find any statistically significant changes in ER or hospital utilization associated with D-SNP regulation implementation in the broad D-SNP population or among specific racial/ethnic groups; however, we do find a reduction in hospitalizations associated with D-SNP regulations in New Jersey (DD level = - 3.37%; p = 0.02)/(DD slope = - 0.23%; p = 0.01) and among individuals with higher, relative to lower levels of co-morbidity (DDD slope = - 0.06%; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the impact of D-SNP regulations varies by state. Additionally, D-SNP regulations may be particularly effective in reducing hospital utilization among beneficiaries with high levels of co-morbidity.