Health expenditures for privately insured adults enrolled in managed care gatekeeping vs indemnity plans

Effect of Having a Usual Source of Care on Medical Expenses - Using the Korea Health Panel Data

BACKGROUND

There is a controversy about the effect of having a usual source of care on medical expenses. Although many studies have shown lower medical expenses in a group with a usual source of care, some have shown higher medical expenses in such a group. This study aimed to empirically demonstrate the effect of having a usual source of care on medical expenses.

METHODS

The participants included those aged 20 years and older who responded to the questionnaire about "having a usual source of care" from the Korean Health Panel Data of 2012, 2013, and 2016 (6,120; 6,593; and 7,598 respectively). Those who responded with "I do not get sick easily" or "I rarely visit medical institutions" as the reasons for not having a usual source of care were excluded. The panel regression with random effects model was performed to analyze the effect of having a usual source of care on medical expenses.

RESULTS

The group having a usual source of care spent 20% less on inpatient expenses and 25% less on clinic expenses than the group without a usual source of care. Particularly, the group having a clinic-level usual source of care spent 12% less on total medical expenses, 9% less on outpatient expenses, 35% less on inpatient expenses, and 74% less on hospital expenses, but 29% more on clinic expenses than the group without a usual source of care.

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed that medical expenses decreased in the group with a usual source of care, especially a clinic-level usual source of care (USC), than in the group without a usual source of care. Encouraging people to have a clinic-level USC can control excessive medical expenses and induce desirable medical care utilization.

Impact of GP gatekeeping on quality of care, and health outcomes, use, and expenditure: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

GPs often act as gatekeepers, authorising patients' access to specialty care. Gatekeeping is frequently perceived as lowering health service use and health expenditure. However, there is little evidence suggesting that gatekeeping is more beneficial than direct access in terms of patient- and health-related outcomes.

AIM

To establish the impact of GP gatekeeping on quality of care, health use and expenditure, and health outcomes and patient satisfaction.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic review.

METHOD

The databases MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant articles using a search strategy. Two authors independently screened search results and assessed the quality of studies.

RESULTS

Electronic searches identified 4899 studies (after removing duplicates), of which 25 met the inclusion criteria. Gatekeeping was associated with better quality of care and appropriate referral for further hospital visits and investigation. However, one study reported unfavourable outcomes for patients with cancer under gatekeeping, and some concerns were raised about the accuracy of diagnoses made by gatekeepers. Gatekeeping resulted in fewer hospitalisations and use of specialist care, but inevitably was associated with more primary care visits. Patients were less satisfied with gatekeeping than direct-access systems.

CONCLUSION

Gatekeeping was associated with lower healthcare use and expenditure, and better quality of care, but with lower patient satisfaction. Survival rate of patients with cancer in gatekeeping schemes was significantly lower than those in direct access, although primary care gatekeeping was not otherwise associated with delayed patient referral. The long-term outcomes of gatekeeping arrangements should be carefully studied before devising new gatekeeping policies.

Payment methods for outpatient care facilities

BACKGROUND

Outpatient care facilities provide a variety of basic healthcare services to individuals who do not require hospitalisation or institutionalisation, and are usually the patient's first contact. The provision of outpatient care contributes to immediate and large gains in health status, and a large portion of total health expenditure goes to outpatient healthcare services. Payment method is one of the most important incentive methods applied by purchasers to guide the performance of outpatient care providers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of different payment methods on the performance of outpatient care facilities and to analyse the differences in impact of payment methods in different settings.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2016, Issue 3, part of the Cochrane Library (searched 8 March 2016); MEDLINE, OvidSP (searched 8 March 2016); Embase, OvidSP (searched 24 April 2014); PubMed (NCBI) (searched 8 March 2016); Dissertations and Theses Database, ProQuest (searched 8 March 2016); Conference Proceedings Citation Index (ISI Web of Science) (searched 8 March 2016); IDEAS (searched 8 March 2016); EconLit, ProQuest (searched 8 March 2016); POPLINE, K4Health (searched 8 March 2016); China National Knowledge Infrastructure (searched 8 March 2016); Chinese Medicine Premier (searched 8 March 2016); OpenGrey (searched 8 March 2016); ClinicalTrials.gov, US National Institutes of Health (NIH) (searched 8 March 2016); World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (searched 8 March 2016); and the website of the World Bank (searched 8 March 2016).In addition, we searched the reference lists of included studies and carried out a citation search for the included studies via ISI Web of Science to find other potentially relevant studies. We also contacted authors of the main included studies regarding any further published or unpublished work.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies that compared different payment methods for outpatient health facilities. We defined outpatient care facilities in this review as facilities that provide health services to individuals who do not require hospitalisation or institutionalisation. We only included methods used to transfer funds from the purchaser of healthcare services to health facilities (including groups of individual professionals). These include global budgets, line-item budgets, capitation, fee-for-service (fixed and unconstrained), pay for performance, and mixed payment. The primary outcomes were service provision outcomes, patient outcomes, healthcare provider outcomes, costs for providers, and any adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We conducted a structured synthesis. We first categorised the comparisons and outcomes and then described the effects of different types of payment methods on different categories of outcomes. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis within a study if a study included more than one indicator in the same category of outcomes. We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis across studies. If the data for meta-analysis were not available in some studies, we calculated the median and interquartile range. We reported the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the relative change for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies from Afghanistan, Burundi, China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Tanzania, the United Kingdom, and the United States of health facilities providing primary health care and mental health care. There were three kinds of payment comparisons. 1) Pay for performance (P4P) combined with some existing payment method (capitation or different kinds of input-based payment) compared to the existing payment methodWe included 18 studies in this comparison, however we did not include five studies in the effects analysis due to high risk of bias. From the 13 studies, we found that the extra P4P incentives probably slightly improved the health professionals' use of some tests and treatments (adjusted RR median = 1.095, range 1.01 to 1.17; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably led to little or no difference in adherence to quality assurance criteria (adjusted percentage change median = -1.345%, range -8.49% to 5.8%; moderate-certainty evidence). We also found that P4P incentives may have led to little or no difference in patients' utilisation of health services (adjusted RR median = 1.01, range 0.96 to 1.15; low-certainty evidence) and may have led to little or no difference in the control of blood pressure or cholesterol (adjusted RR = 1.01, range 0.98 to 1.04; low-certainty evidence). 2) Capitation combined with P4P compared to fee-for-service (FFS)One study found that compared with FFS, a capitated budget combined with payment based on providers' performance on antibiotic prescriptions and patient satisfaction probably slightly reduced antibiotic prescriptions in primary health facilities (adjusted RR 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-certainty evidence). 3) Capitation compared to FFSTwo studies compared capitation to FFS in mental health centres in the United States. Based on these studies, the effects of capitation compared to FFS on the utilisation and costs of services were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review found that if policymakers intend to apply P4P incentives to pay health facilities providing outpatient services, this intervention will probably lead to a slight improvement in health professionals' use of tests or treatments, particularly for chronic diseases. However, it may lead to little or no improvement in patients' utilisation of health services or health outcomes. When considering using P4P to improve the performance of health facilities, policymakers should carefully consider each component of their P4P design, including the choice of performance measures, the performance target, payment frequency, if there will be additional funding, whether the payment level is sufficient to change the behaviours of health providers, and whether the payment to facilities will be allocated to individual professionals. Unfortunately, the studies included in this review did not help to inform those considerations.Well-designed comparisons of different payment methods for outpatient health facilities in low- and middle-income countries and studies directly comparing different designs (e.g. different payment levels) of the same payment method (e.g. P4P or FFS) are needed.

Why U.S. health care expenditure and ranking on health care indicators are so different from Canada's

Compared to other industrialized countries, the U.S. spends most of all on health care. Nonetheless, the U.S. ranks relatively low on health care indicators. This paradox has been already known for decades. For example, the turning point comparing the U.S. and Canada was in 1972. Health expenditure as a percentage of GDP was higher in Canada than in the USA from 1960 until 1972. Since 1972 expenditure on health care has been higher in the U.S. than in Canada (OECD 2005a, Health data 2005, fourteenth OECD electronic database on health systems, date of release June 2005, last update 04/26/2005). The present study integrates the dispersed literature on spending and health care rankings and adds some statistical analysis to these studies. The evaluation of different factors influencing health care expenditure in the U.S. relative to other countries is restricted to a comparison with Canada. The U.S. and Canada are two countries that are sufficiently similar to make comparisons useful. The comparison of factors influencing health care expenditure in the U.S. and Canada in 2002 reveals that health care expenditure in the U.S. is higher than in Canada mainly due to administration costs, Baumol's cost disease and pharmaceutical prices. It is not primarily inefficiency in health care production but the dominant prevalence for free choice and own responsibility that explains the paradox of high expenditure on health care and low ranking on health care indicators.

Health care expenditures of immigrants in the United States: a nationally representative analysis

OBJECTIVES

We compared the health care expenditures of immigrants residing in the United States with health care expenditures of US-born persons.

METHODS

We used the 1998 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey linked to the 1996-1997 National Health Interview Survey to analyze data on 18398 US-born persons and 2843 immigrants. Using a 2-part regression model, we estimated total health care expenditures, as well as expenditures for emergency department (ED) visits, office-based visits, hospital-based outpatient visits, inpatient visits, and prescription drugs.

RESULTS

Immigrants accounted for $39.5 billion (SE=$4 billion) in health care expenditures. After multivariate adjustment, per capita total health care expenditures of immigrants were 55% lower than those of US-born persons ($1139 vs $2546). Similarly, expenditures for uninsured and publicly insured immigrants were approximately half those of their US-born counterparts. Immigrant children had 74% lower per capita health care expenditures than US-born children. However, ED expenditures were more than 3 times higher for immigrant children than for US-born children.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care expenditures are substantially lower for immigrants than for US-born persons. Our study refutes the assumption that immigrants represent a disproportionate financial burden on the US health care system.

Is It Resources, Habit or Both

The 1983 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) transformed acute care from a benevolent to malevolent environment. A dual-paradigm of resource dependency and institutional theories that balances isomorphic with economic variables has emerged to better explain hospital strategic response to the resultant constraint on resources than a traditional single paradigm approach. Using the population of non-rural, non-federal acute-care hospitals, strategic response from 1982 to 2001 is studied; distinct cost and service changes occur. Cost strategy is linked primarily to Medicare utilization, a resource dependence response. Service strategy favors high technology regardless of prospective payment diffusion, an institutional theory perspective. Strategic implications are discussed.