Dual Medicare and Veteran Health Administration use and ambulatory care sensitive hospitalizations.

Department of Pharmaceutical Systems and Policy, School of Pharmacy, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA.
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 11/2011; 26 Suppl 2(S2):669-75. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-011-1788-4
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The objective of the study is to examine the association between ambulatory care sensitive hospitalizations (ACSH) and dual Medicare/Veteran Health Administration use.
A nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries, who participated in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS).
Cross-sectional analyses (N = 44,988) of linked fee-for-service Medicare claims and survey data from multiple years of the MCBS (2001-2005). Any ACSH and specific types of ACSH were measured using the list of prevention quality indicators developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Among veterans, dual Medicare/VHA use was defined as having inpatient or outpatient visits paid by VHA and consisted of three categories: 1) predominant-VHA use; 2) some VHA use and no VHA use. Unadjusted group differences in any ACSH were tested using chi-square tests. Logistic regressions were used to analyze the association between dual Medicare/VHA use and ACSH after controlling for demographic, socio-economic status, health status, functional status, smoking status and obesity. All analyses accounted for the complex design of the MCBS.
Among inpatient users, 10.1% had ACSH events for acute conditions and 15.8% for chronic conditions. Among all survey respondents, 5% had any ACSH event. Among predominant-VHA users the rate was 4.9% and among veterans with some VHA use it was 3.7%. In bivariate and multivariate analyses, dual Medicare/VHA use was not significantly associated with any ACSH.
In a representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries, despite low income and health status, veterans with dual Medicare/VHA use were as likely as veterans without dual use to have any ACSH, perhaps due to expanded healthcare access and emphasis on primary care in the VHA system.

Download full-text


Available from: Usha Sambamoorthi, Feb 03, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Many veterans have dual Veterans Administration (VA) and Medicare healthcare coverage. We compared 3-year overall and cancer event-free survival (OS; EFS) among patients with non-metastatic colon cancer who obtained substantial portions of their care in both systems and those whose care was obtained predominantly in the VA or in the Medicare fee-for-service system. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of patients older than 65 years with stages I-III colon cancer diagnosed 1999-2001 in VA and non-VA facilities. Dual use of VA and non-VA colon cancer care was categorized as predominantly VA use, dual use, or predominantly non-VA use. Extended Cox regression models evaluated associations between survival and dual use. RESULTS: VA and non-VA users (all stages) had reduced hazard of dying compared to dual users (for example, for stage I, VA HR 0.40, CI95 0.28-0.56; non-VA HR 0.54, CI95 0.38-0.78). For EFS, stage I findings were similar (VA HR 0.47, CI95 0.35-0.62; non-VA HR 0.64, CI95 0.47-0.86). Stage II and III VA users, but not non-VA users, had improved EFS (Stage II: VA HR 0.74, CI95 0.56-0.97; non-VA HR 0.92 CI95 0.69-1.22. Stage III: VA HR 0.73, CI95 0.56-0.94; non-VA HR 0.81 CI95 0.62-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: Improved survival among VA and non-VA compared to dual users raises questions about coordination of care and unmet needs. IMPACT Additional study is needed to understand why these differences exist, why patients use both systems and how systems may be improved to yield better outcomes in this population.
    Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 10/2012; 21(12). DOI:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0548 · 4.32 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Outside the USA, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) prevention quality indicators (PQIs) have been used to compare the quality of primary care services only at a national or regional level. However, in several national health systems, primary care is not directly managed by the regions but is in charge of smaller territorial entities. We evaluated whether PQIs might be used to compare the performance of local providers such as Italian local health authorities (LHAs) and health districts. Methods: We analysed the hospital discharge abstracts of 44 LHAs (and 11 health districts) of five Italian regions (including ≈18 million residents) in 2008-10. Age-standardized PQI rates were computed following AHRQ specifications. Potential predictors were investigated using multilevel modelling. Results: We analysed 11 470 722 hospitalizations. The overall rates of preventable hospitalizations (composite PQI 90) were 1012, 889 and 988 (×100 000 inhabitants) in 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively. Composite PQIs were able to differentiate LHAs and health districts and showed small variation in the performance ranking over years. Conclusion: Although further research is required, our findings support the use of composite PQIs to evaluate the performance of relatively small primary health care providers (50 000-60 000 enrollees) in countries with universal health care coverage. Achieving high precision may be crucial for a structured quality assessment system to align hospitalization rate indicators with measures of other contexts of care (cost, clinical management, satisfaction/experience) that are typically computed at a local level.
    The European Journal of Public Health 12/2013; 24(5). DOI:10.1093/eurpub/ckt203 · 2.46 Impact Factor