Durable Medical Equipment And Home Health Among The Largest Contributors To Area Variations In Use Of Medicare Services

Center for Studying Health System Change, Washington, D.C., USA.
Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.64). 05/2012; 31(5):956-64. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0243
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Most analyses of geographic variation in Medicare spending have focused on total spending. However, focusing on the volume and intensity of specific categories of services delivered to patients could help identify ways to lower costs without having a negative impact on care. We investigated how utilization in thirteen medical service categories in Medicare Parts A and B (for hospital and physician insurance, respectively) varied across sixty communities nationwide. We found considerable geographic variation in the use of some service categories, although not all. We also found that local communities used very different combinations of types of services to produce medical care, that some service categories were substituted for others, and that the mix of service categories differed even among sites with high or low total medical utilization levels. Home health and durable medical equipment were major drivers of total geographic service use variation because of their variation across sites. They may therefore be appropriate targets for policy interventions directed at increasing efficiency.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Determine the association between access to primary care by the underserved and Medicare spending and clinical quality across hospital referral regions (HRRs).
    01/2014; 4(3). DOI:10.5600/mmrr.004.03.a05
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The root causes of regional variation in medical spending are poorly understood and vary by clinical condition. To identify drivers of regional spending variation for Medicare patients with advanced cancer, we used linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program (SEER)-Medicare data from the period 2004-10. We broke down Medicare spending into thirteen cancer-relevant service categories. We then calculated the contribution of each category to spending and regional spending variation. Acute hospital care was the largest component of spending and the chief driver of regional spending variation, accounting for 48 percent of spending and 67 percent of variation. In contrast, chemotherapy accounted for 16 percent of spending and 10 percent of variation. Hospice care constituted 5 percent of spending. However, variation in hospice spending was fully offset by opposing variation in other categories. Our analysis suggests that the strategy with the greatest potential to improve the value of care for patients with advanced cancer is to reduce reliance on acute hospital care for this patient population.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For-profit, or proprietary, home health agencies were banned from Medicare until 1980 but now account for a majority of the agencies that provide such services. Medicare home health costs have grown rapidly since the implementation of a risk-based prospective payment system in 2000. We analyzed recent national cost and case-mix-adjusted quality outcomes to assess the performance of for-profit and nonprofit home health agencies. For-profit agencies scored slightly but significantly worse on overall quality indicators compared to nonprofits (77.18 percent and 78.71 percent, respectively). Notably, for-profit agencies scored lower than nonprofits on the clinically important outcome "avoidance of hospitalization" (71.64 percent versus 73.53 percent). Scores on quality measures were lowest in the South, where for-profits predominate. Compared to nonprofits, proprietary agencies also had higher costs per patient ($4,827 versus $4,075), were more profitable, and had higher administrative costs. Our findings raise concerns about whether for-profit agencies should continue to be eligible for Medicare payments and about the efficiency of Medicare's market-oriented, risk-based home care payment system.
    Health Affairs 08/2014; 33(8):1460-5. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0307 · 4.32 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jul 28, 2014