Helboskytte1128

Our results suggest that CMS's continued omission of relevant patient and geographic data from the HRRP readmission model misallocates penalties attributable to SDOH and social risk factor effects to hospitals with the largest share of high-risk patients.Risk adjustment of quality measures using clinical risk factors is widely accepted; risk adjustment using social risk factors remains controversial. We argue here that social risk adjustment is appropriate and necessary in defined circumstances and that social risk adjustment should be the default option when there are valid empirical arguments for and against adjustment for a given measure. Social risk adjustment is an important way to avoid exacerbating inequity in the health care system.The different tax treatment of government, nonprofit, and for-profit hospitals implies different charity care obligations, with the greatest obligation for government hospitals and the least for for-profit hospitals. Prior research has not examined charity care provision among all three ownership types at the national level. Using 2018 Medicare Hospital Cost Reports, we compared charity care provision across 1,024 government, 2,709 nonprofit, and 930 for-profit hospitals. In aggregate, nonprofit hospitals spent $2.3 of every $100 in total expenses incurred on charity care, which was less than government ($4.1) or for-profit ($3.8) hospitals. No hospital ownership type outperformed the other two types with respect to charity care provision in a majority of hospital service areas containing all three types. Using different kinds of analyses, we also found wide variation in charity care provision within ownership types and a lack of a consistent pattern across ownership types. These results suggest that many government and nonprofit hospitals' charity care provision was not aligned with their charity care obligations arising from their favorable tax treatment. Policy makers may consider initiatives to enhance hospitals' charity care provision, particularly hospitals with government and nonprofit ownership.There is substantial interest in using urgent care centers to decrease lower-acuity emergency department (ED) visits. Using 2008-19 insurance claims and enrollment data from a national managed care plan, we examined the association within ZIP codes between changes in rates of urgent care center visits and rates of lower-acuity ED visits. We found that although the entry of urgent care deterred lower-acuity ED visits, the impact was small. We estimate that thirty-seven additional urgent care center visits were associated with a reduction of a single lower-acuity ED visit. In addition, each $1,646 lower-acuity ED visit prevented was offset by a $6,327 increase in urgent care center costs. Therefore, despite a tenfold higher price per visit for EDs compared with urgent care centers, use of the centers increased net overall spending on lower-acuity care at EDs and urgent care centers.After a costly hospital stay, an uninsured patient's family rushes to navigate an unclear system of charity care.Cost sharing in traditional Medicare can consume a substantial portion of the income of beneficiaries who do not have supplemental insurance from Medicaid, an employer, or a Medigap plan. selleckchem Near-poor Medicare beneficiaries (with incomes more than 100 percent but less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level) are ineligible for Medicaid but frequently lack alternative supplemental coverage, resulting in a supplemental coverage "cliff" of 25.8 percentage points just above the eligibility threshold for Medicaid (100 percent of poverty). We estimated that beneficiaries affected by this supplemental coverage cliff incurred an additional $2,288 in out-of-pocket spending over the course of two years, used 55 percent fewer outpatient evaluation and management services per year, and filled fewer prescriptions. Lower prescription drug use was partly driven by low take-up of Part D subsidies, which Medicare beneficiaries automatically receive if they have Medicaid. Expanding eligibility for Medicaid supplemental coverage and increasing take-up of Part D subsidies would lessen cost-related barriers to health care among near-poor Medicare beneficiaries.In 2016 fee-for-service Medicare began reimbursing physicians for advance care planning conversations with enrollees during outpatient visits and waived the copayment for advance care planning when it was part of the Medicare annual wellness visit. Advance care planning is intended to help providers treat patients in ways consistent with their wishes and may also reduce unnecessary health care use and spending. Examining fee-for-service Medicare claims, we found a substantial increase in outpatient advance care planning claims between 2016 and 2019, although prevalence remained below 7.5 percent for all patient subgroups analyzed. Roughly half of beneficiaries with advance care planning claims received the service at an annual wellness visit; the remainder received it at a different outpatient visit. Among those with claims, Black, Hispanic, and Medicaid dual-eligible patients and patients with comorbidities were less likely to have a claim at an annual wellness visit, largely because they have fewer such visits overall. Medicare's annual wellness visits offer the potential to expand enrollees' access to advance care planning at no expense to them, in advance of serious illness, and to populations less likely to undertake advance care planning generally.The Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandated that private health plans cover contraceptives without out-of-pocket expenses for patients. Previously, long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) were subject to deductibles, making them a higher-cost service for women with high-deductible health plans (HDHPs); however, the ACA mandate applied to HDHPs as well as traditional health plans. Using a national commercial claims database, we examined LARC use among continuously enrolled reproductive-age women between 2010 and 2017, comparing 9,014 women enrolled in HDHPs with 443,363 women enrolled in non-HDHPs. Using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences analysis, we found that pre-ACA HDHP enrollees had lower LARC initiation rates than women in non-HDHPs and that rates of LARC initiation increased by 35 percent more postmandate for women in HDHPs than for women in traditional plans. These findings suggest that the ACA had a particularly important impact for women in HDHPs, who faced higher pre-ACA out-of-pocket expenses for these contraceptive methods.