What can Medicaid data add to research on VA patients?

Health Care Financing and Economics, Department of Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, 150 South Huntington Avenue (152H), Boston, MA 02130, USA.
The Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development (Impact Factor: 1.43). 01/2010; 47(8):773-80. DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2009.07.0107
Source: DOAJ


This article is the first to describe Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients' use of Medicaid at a national level. We obtained 1999 national VA enrollment and utilization data, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services enrollment and claims, and Medicare information from the VA Information Resource Center. The research team created files for program characteristics and described the VA-Medicaid dually enrolled population, healthcare utilization, and costs. In 1999, VA-Medicaid dual enrollees comprised 10.2% of VA's annual patient load (350,000/3,450,000); 304,000 were veterans. These veterans differed marginally from VA's veteran patients, being on average half a year younger and having 1% fewer males. Dual enrollees with mental health diagnoses and care were almost three times as numerous as long-term care patients; these two groups accounted for ~60% of dual enrollees. Dual enrollees disproportionately included housebound veterans and veterans needing aid and assistance. Half the dual enrollees had 12 months of Medicaid eligibility, and total Federal expenditures per patient not in managed care programs averaged >$18,000 (median >$6,000). Dually enrolled women veterans cost ~55% less than men. Medicaid benefits complement VA and are more accessible in many states. VA researchers need to consider including Medicaid utilization and costs in their studies if they target populations or programs related to long-term care or mental disorders.

Download full-text


Available from: Lynn Wolfsfeld,
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides nationwide access, lifetime coverage, and an integrated care structure to its enrollees. Those key aspects of VA healthcare-together with data contained in VA's electronic information systems supporting over eight million veterans-provide unique opportunities to study processes, outcomes, and costs of care. Recently, for example, VA data have been used to study outcomes associated with acute postoperative inpatient rehabilitation and care in specialized rehabilitation bed units after lower-limb amputation [1-2], medication adherence and relapse among patients discharged from a VA posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment program [3], the provision and costs of assistive technology devices to veterans after stroke [4], and use of mental health services by veterans disabled by auditory disorders [5].
    The Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 01/2010; 47(8):vii-xi. DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2010.08.0148 · 1.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a subset of breast cancer. Health care cost and utilization data for TNBC are lacking. Objective We examined differences between metastatic TNBC and metastatic non-TNBC in survival and health care costs and utilization. Methods This retrospective analysis of metastatic TNBC (n = 134) and metastatic non-TNBC (n = 445) used a proprietary oncology registry, the Impact Intelligence Oncology Management registry database, linked with health insurance claims and social security mortality data. Results We found metastatic patients whose breast cancer is triple negative to be younger (56.49 vs 59.24 years), to be more likely to have recurrent disease (64.93 vs 45.39%), and to have greater mortality vs metastatic non-TNBC patients (67.16 vs 50.79%) (all P < .05). Recurrent patients with metastatic TNBC have the highest risk of death (HR = 1.9; P < .001), whereas survival was greatest for de novo metastatic non-TNBC. Patients with metastatic TNBC had more all-cause annual hospitalizations, more hospitalized days, and higher total costs vs metastatic non-TNBC. Annual payer's total costs, annual payer's inpatient costs, cancer-related hospitalizations, and cancer-related inpatient costs also were greater among patients with metastatic TNBC. Limitations While the study spans slightly more than 2 years, 5-10 years would have been preferable to achieve a full clinical profile of indexed patients. The database also omitted factors that potentially confound the results, such as race and socioeconomic status. Conclusions Metastatic TNBC is associated with significant burden of disease and higher health care utilization vs metastatic non-TNBC, which may be due in part to the aggressive clinical course of the disease.
    Community Oncology 01/2012; 9(1):8–14. DOI:10.1016/j.cmonc.2011.10.002
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) makes up 10-17% of all breast cancers and, due to lack of receptor expression, is unresponsive to therapies that target hormonal receptors or HER2. Unique in its tumor aggression and high rates of recurrence, TNBC is less likely to be detected by mammogram and has a poorer prognosis than other breast cancer subtypes (non-TNBC). To examine the survival, healthcare utilization, and healthcare cost for women with TNBC compared with non-TNBC breast cancer. The study population was derived from a US managed care cancer registry linked to health insurance claims and social security mortality data. Based on initial type and stage at diagnosis, patients were divided into two cohorts: patients with TNBC and those with non-TNBC. Records were analyzed from initial diagnosis until death, disenrollment, or end of observation period. Survival and annual healthcare utilization and costs were estimated and compared between cohorts after adjusting for baseline demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and prior resource use. Subgroup analyses were performed in patients diagnosed with stage I-III and IV breast cancer. The study included women diagnosed with TNBC (n = 450) and non-TNBC (n = 1807). Median follow-up time for all patients was 716 days (688.5 and 733 days for TNBC and non-TNBC patients, respectively). After initial diagnosis, overall mortality risk for the TNBC cohort was twice as high as the non-TNBC cohort (HR = 2.02, p < 0.0001). Patients with TNBC had more annual hospitalizations, hospitalized days, and number of emergency room visits relative to non-TNBC. Despite similar annual total healthcare costs, adjusted inpatient costs for patients with non-TNBC averaged 77% higher ($8395 vs. $4745, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, payer reimbursements were higher for TNBC than non-TNBC patients ($8213 vs. $4486, p < 0.0001). While it does not control for race or socioeconomic status, this study found that in a US managed care setting, patients with TNBC compared with non-TNBC have significantly shorter survival, accompanied by higher inpatient utilization and healthcare costs.
    Current Medical Research and Opinion 02/2012; 28(3):419-28. DOI:10.1185/03007995.2011.628649 · 2.65 Impact Factor
Show more