Article

Unhealthy competition: consequences of health plan choice in California Medicaid.

Division of General Internal Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, CA, USA.
American Journal of Public Health (Impact Factor: 4.23). 11/2010; 100(11):2235-40. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.182451
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We compared the quality of care received by managed care Medicaid beneficiaries in counties with a choice of health plans and counties with no choice.
This cross-sectional study among California Medicaid beneficiaries was conducted during 2002. We used a multivariate Poisson model to calculate adjusted rates of hospital admissions for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions by duration of plan enrollment.
Among beneficiaries with continuous Medicaid coverage, the percentage with 12 months of continuous enrollment in a health plan was significantly lower in counties with a choice of plans than in counties with no choice (79.2% vs 95.2%; P < .001). Annual ambulatory care-sensitive admission rates adjusted for age, gender, and race/ethnicity were significantly higher among beneficiaries living in counties with a choice of plans (6.58 admissions per 1000 beneficiaries; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.57, 6.58) than among those in counties with no choice (6.27 per 1000; 95% CI = 6.27, 6.28).
Potential benefits of health plan choice may be undermined by transaction costs of delayed enrollment, which may increase the probability of hospitalization for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions.

0 Followers
 · 
100 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: U.S. politicians and policymakers have been preoccupied with how to pay for health care. Hardly any thought has been given to what should be paid for--as though health care is a commodity that needs no examination--or what health outcomes should receive priority in a just society, i.e., rationing. I present a rationing proposal, consistent with U.S. culture and traditions, that deals not with "health care," the terminology used in the current debate, but with the more modest and limited topic of medical care. Integral to this rationing proposal--which allows scope to individual choice and at the same time recognizes the interdependence of the individual and society--is a definition of a "decent minimum," the basic package of medical treatments everyone should have access to in a just society. I apply it to a specific example, diabetes mellitus, and track it through a person's life span.
    The American Journal of Bioethics 07/2011; 11(7):7-14. DOI:10.1080/15265161.2011.577511
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Affordable Care Act will expand health insurance coverage for an estimated thirty-two million uninsured Americans. Increased access to care is intended to reduce the unnecessary use of services such as emergency department visits and to achieve substantial cost savings. However, there is little evidence for such claims. To determine how the uninsured might respond once coverage becomes available, we studied uninsured low-income adults enrolled in a community-based primary care program at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center. For people continuously enrolled in the program, emergency department visits and inpatient admissions declined, while primary care visits increased during the study period. Inpatient costs fell each year for this group. Over three years of enrollment, average total costs per year per enrollee fell from $8,899 to $4,569--a savings of almost 50 percent. We conclude that previously uninsured people may have fewer emergency department visits and lower costs after receiving coverage but that it may take several years of coverage for substantive health care savings to occur.
    Health Affairs 02/2012; 31(2):350-9. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0857
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Amid international concerns about health care safety and quality, there has been an escalation of investigations by health care regulators into adverse events. England has a powerful central health care regulator, the Care Quality Commission, which conducts occasional high-profile investigations into major lapses in quality at individual hospitals. The results have sometimes garnered considerable attention from the news media, but it is not known what effect the investigations have had on patients' behavior. We analyzed trends in admission for discretionary (nonemergency) care at three hospitals that were subject to high-profile investigations by the Healthcare Commission (the predecessor to the Care Quality Commission) between 2006 and 2009. We found that investigations had no impact on utilization for two of the hospitals; in the third hospital, there were significant declines in inpatient admissions, outpatient surgeries, and in numbers of patients coming for their first appointment, but the effects disappeared six months after publication of the investigation report. Thus, the publication and dissemination of highly critical reports by a health care regulator does not appear to have resulted in patients' sustained avoidance of the hospitals that were investigated. Our findings reinforce other evaluations: Reporting designed to affect providers' reputations is likely to spur more improvement in quality and safety than relying on patients to choose their providers based on quality and safety reports, and simplistic assumptions regarding the power of information to drive patient choices are unrealistic.
    Health Affairs 03/2012; 31(3):593-601. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0810

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from