Mcintoshjohansson5297

More than 20 percent of Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchange market (Marketplace) members insured by a large national insurer in 2015 and 2016 enrolled during a special enrollment period (SEP), defined as any enrollment outside the annual open enrollment period. These members were younger and had approximately 34 percent higher average monthly total costs than members who enrolled during open enrollment. SEP members had 69-114 percent higher inpatient costs and 11-19 percent higher emergency department costs than open enrollment members. Higher costs, especially among a slightly younger population, may suggest potential adverse selection among SEP members, which could contribute to increased premiums and insurer exit from ACA Marketplaces. Although SEP members had a shorter average enrollment length per calendar year, they were more likely than open enrollment members to stay insured through the end of the calendar year and to renew in a Marketplace plan offered by the insurer in the following year. However, renewing SEP and open enrollment members were older, sicker, and costlier than nonrenewing members of both enrollee types, which suggests that healthier members are switching carriers or leaving the market over time. selleck Additional research is urgently needed to inform evidence-based policy regarding Marketplace risk adjustment and SEP eligibility rules and to improve outreach to people who are eligible for SEP enrollment.Recent press reports and other evidence suggest that Medicare Part D plans may be encouraging the use of brand-name drugs instead of generics. However, the scope of such practices is unclear. We examined Medicare Part D formulary coverage and tier placement of matched pairs of brand-name drugs and generics to quantify how often preferred formulary placement of brand-name drugs is occurring within and across Part D plans and to assess the cost implications for Medicare and its beneficiaries. We found that in 2019, 84 percent of 4,176,772 Part D plan-product combinations had generic-only coverage (that is, the brand-name counterparts were not covered). Another 15 percent covered both the brand-name and generic versions of a product. For the small number of products whose brand-name versions were covered preferentially to their generic equivalents, beneficiary and Medicare prices were generally low for both products. Overall, we found that most Part D plan formularies are designed to encourage the use of generics rather than their brand-name counterparts. Policy makers should continue to monitor Part D formulary coverage patterns to ensure consistent and generous coverage for generic drugs, given their important role in reducing prescription drug spending.Timely access to outpatient care was a primary driver behind the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA's) increased purchase of community-based care under the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, known as the Choice Act. To compare veterans' experiences in VA-delivered and community-based outpatient care after implementation of the act, we assessed veterans' scores on four dimensions of experience-access, communication, coordination, and provider rating-for outpatient specialty, primary, and mental health care received during 2016-17. Patient experiences were better for VA than for community care in all respects except access. For specialty care, access scores were better in the community; for primary and mental health care, access scores were similar in the two settings. Although all specialty care scores and the primary care coordination score improved over time, the gaps between settings did not shrink. As purchased care further expands under the VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018, which replaced the Choice Act in 2019, monitoring of meaningful differences between settings should continue, with the results used to inform both VA purchasing decisions and patients' care choices.Cost-related nonadherence to prescription medicines is a common problem with important implications for population health. Relative to men, women may be more vulnerable to cost-related nonadherence because of higher health needs and lower financial resources. Using data from the Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey, we compared cost-related nonadherence among younger (ages 18-64) and older (ages 65 and older) women and men in eleven high-income countries. Among younger adults, the unadjusted female-male disparity was larger in the US compared with other countries One in four younger women reported cost-related nonadherence compared with one in seven younger men. This large disparity persisted after adjustment for age, income, and chronic conditions. We also found smaller but significant female-male differences among younger women in Australia and Canada. We did not find significant female-male differences among older adults in adjusted analyses in any country. Higher rates of cost-related nonadherence among younger women, and US women in particular, may produce important sex-related disparities in health outcomes that should be further explored.Provider consolidation into vertically integrated health systems increased from 2016 to 2018. More than half of US physicians and 72 percent of hospitals were affiliated with one of 637 health systems in 2018. For-profit and church-operated systems had the largest increases in system size, driven in part by a large number of system mergers and acquisitions.During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, staffing ratios reached untenable levels.Clinical care in the United States has been transformed during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. To support these changes, regulators and payers have temporarily modified long-standing policies, recognizing the need for a trade-off between the costs and benefits of oversight during times of crisis. Specifically, there has been a heightened receptivity to the importance of preserving physicians' and other health care professionals' time, cognitive bandwidth, and emotional reserve for the direct care of patients, instead of squandering these resources on low-value tasks and frustrating technology. Instead of reflexively reverting to past practices and policies, there is now an opportunity to take advantage of the lessons of COVID-19 for the further transformation of health care to achieve Quadruple Aim outcomes (better care for individuals, better health for the population, better experience for clinicians, and lower costs). We outline some of the policy and practice changes that we believe should endure after the crisis has passed, and we recommend using similar logic during noncrisis times to make additional changes to further reduce administrative burden, and thus improve patient care.Hospitals and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) face increasing pressure to improve care coordination and reduce unnecessary readmissions. One strategy to accomplish this is to share physicians and advanced practice clinicians, so that the same providers see patients in both settings. Using 2008-16 Medicare claims, we found that as SNFs moved increasingly toward using SNF specialists, there was a steady decline in the number of facilities sharing medical providers and in the proportion of SNF primary care delivered by provider practices with both hospital and SNF clinicians (hospital-SNF practices). In SNF fixed effects analyses, we found that SNFs that increased primary care visits by hospital-SNF practices had slightly fewer readmissions, shorter lengths-of-stay, and increased successful community discharges. link2 These findings suggest that SNFs that share medical providers with hospitals may see some benefit from that linkage, although the magnitude of the benefit may be small.Rates of informal home care use among older adults with disabilities increased from 2004 to 2016, such that in 2016 almost three-quarters of these adults received informal home care. Informal care remains the most common source of home care, even though formal home care use grew at almost twice the rate, with a 6-percentage-point increase to 36.9 percent in 2016.Fifteen years after a precursor to the ACO formed in the Black Forest region, a value-based approach to health care gains traction.The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest US food and nutrition assistance program, tasked with improving food security among low-income households. Another federal effort to improve food access is the Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI), which invested tens of millions of dollars to incentivize healthy food retail outlets in areas lacking access to nutritious, fresh food. We explore the intersection of these programs, testing the impact of a new, HFFI-financed full-service supermarket on SNAP participants in an urban food desert. After the supermarket's opening, SNAP participants' food security improved and intake of added sugars declined in the intervention neighborhood, but both were unchanged in a comparison neighborhood without a new supermarket. Intervention neighborhood participants also experienced relative declines in the percentage of daily calories from solid fats, alcoholic beverages, and added sugars. Our findings suggest that HFFI amplifies the effects of SNAP participation on improving food security and dietary quality in food deserts.Several states attempted to deem abortions nonessential during the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving some women with difficult choices.Estimating the value of global investment in immunization programs is critical to helping decision makers plan and mobilize immunization programs and allocate resources required to realize their full benefits. We estimated economic benefits using cost-of-illness and value-of-a-statistical-life approaches and combined this estimation with immunization program costs to derive the return on investment from immunization programs against ten pathogens for ninety-four low- and middle-income countries for the period 2011-30. Using the cost-of-illness approach, return on investment for one dollar invested in immunization against our ten pathogens was 26.1 for the ninety-four countries from 2011 to 2020 and 19.8 from 2021 to 2030. Using the value-of-a-statistical-life approach, return on investment was 51.0 from 2011 to 2020 and 52.2 from 2021 to 2030. The results demonstrate continued high return on investment from immunization programs. The return-on-investment estimates from this study will inform country policy makers and decision makers in funding agencies and will contribute to efforts to mobilize resources for immunization. Realization of the full benefits of immunization will depend on sustained investment in and commitment to immunization programs.Virtual strategies for health care visits during a pandemic must not exclude marginalized patients.Rickettsia species cause rickettsioses, which are zoonotic diseases found worldwide, and are transmitted by arthropods such as lice, fleas, ticks, and mites. In Thailand, flea infestations are common among cats and dogs. This study aimed at determining the exposure to spotted fever group rickettsiae (SFGR) of cats in surrounding areas of Rajabhat Maha Sarakham University, Muang district, Maha Sarakham province and rickettsial infection among cat fleas, Ctenocephalides felis, collected from dogs of the surrounding area of Waeng Noi district, Khon Kaen province. Forty-two cat sera were assessed for IgG antibody titers against SFGR by a group-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. link3 The prevalence of seroreactive cats was 4.76% (2/42). DNA preparations from 23 individual cat fleas from three dogs were assessed by Rickettsia genus-specific, group-specific, and species-specific quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) assays. Positive results were confirmed by ompB gene fragment sequencing. Twenty-one of 23 cat fleas were positive for Rickettsia asembonensis, and the other two DNA preparations were negative for rickettsial DNA.