Collaborative Care Cost-Sharing and Referral Rates in Colorado.

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Medical Care Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-03 DOI:10.1097/MLR.0000000000002033
Betsy Q Cliff, Tiffany H Xie, Neda Laiteerapong
{"title":"Collaborative Care Cost-Sharing and Referral Rates in Colorado.","authors":"Betsy Q Cliff, Tiffany H Xie, Neda Laiteerapong","doi":"10.1097/MLR.0000000000002033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Collaborative care integrates mental health treatment into primary care and has been shown effective. Yet even in states where its use has been encouraged, take-up remains low and there are potential financial barriers to care.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Describe patient out-of-pocket costs and variations in referral patterns for collaborative care in Colorado.</p><p><strong>Research design: </strong>Retrospective observational study using administrative medical claims data to identify outpatient visits with collaborative care. For individuals with ≥1 visit, we measure spending and visits at the month level. Among physicians with billings for collaborative care, we measure prevalence of eligible patients with collaborative care utilization.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>Patients with Medicare, Medicare Advantage, or commercial health insurance in Colorado, 2018-2019.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Out-of-pocket costs (enrollee payments to clinicians), total spending (insurer+enrollee payments to clinicians), percent of patients billed collaborative care.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Median total spending (insurer+patient cost) was $48.32 (IQR: $41-$53). Median out-of-pocket cost per month in collaborative care was $8.35 per visit (IQR: $0-$10). Patients with commercial insurance paid the most per month (median: $15); patients with Medicare Advantage paid the least (median: $0). Among clinicians billing for collaborative care (n=193), a mean of 12 percent of eligible patients utilized collaborative care; family practice and advanced practice clinicians' patients utilized it most often.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Collaborative care remains underused with fewer than 1 in 6 potentially eligible patients receiving care in this setting. Out-of-pocket costs varied, though were generally low; uncertainty about costs may contribute to low uptake.</p>","PeriodicalId":18364,"journal":{"name":"Medical Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000002033","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Collaborative care integrates mental health treatment into primary care and has been shown effective. Yet even in states where its use has been encouraged, take-up remains low and there are potential financial barriers to care.

Objective: Describe patient out-of-pocket costs and variations in referral patterns for collaborative care in Colorado.

Research design: Retrospective observational study using administrative medical claims data to identify outpatient visits with collaborative care. For individuals with ≥1 visit, we measure spending and visits at the month level. Among physicians with billings for collaborative care, we measure prevalence of eligible patients with collaborative care utilization.

Subjects: Patients with Medicare, Medicare Advantage, or commercial health insurance in Colorado, 2018-2019.

Outcomes: Out-of-pocket costs (enrollee payments to clinicians), total spending (insurer+enrollee payments to clinicians), percent of patients billed collaborative care.

Results: Median total spending (insurer+patient cost) was $48.32 (IQR: $41-$53). Median out-of-pocket cost per month in collaborative care was $8.35 per visit (IQR: $0-$10). Patients with commercial insurance paid the most per month (median: $15); patients with Medicare Advantage paid the least (median: $0). Among clinicians billing for collaborative care (n=193), a mean of 12 percent of eligible patients utilized collaborative care; family practice and advanced practice clinicians' patients utilized it most often.

Conclusions: Collaborative care remains underused with fewer than 1 in 6 potentially eligible patients receiving care in this setting. Out-of-pocket costs varied, though were generally low; uncertainty about costs may contribute to low uptake.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
科罗拉多州的合作医疗费用分摊和转诊率。
背景:协作医疗将心理健康治疗融入到初级保健中,并已被证明行之有效。然而,即使是在鼓励使用协作式医疗的州,使用率仍然很低,并且存在潜在的医疗财务障碍:研究设计:研究设计:使用行政医疗索赔数据进行回顾性观察研究,以确定协同护理的门诊就诊情况。对于就诊次数≥1 次的个人,我们以月为单位衡量支出和就诊次数。在开具合作护理账单的医生中,我们测量了符合条件的患者使用合作护理的普遍程度:2018-2019年科罗拉多州的医疗保险、医疗保险优势或商业医疗保险患者:自付费用(参保人向临床医生支付的费用)、总支出(保险公司+参保人向临床医生支付的费用)、开具合作医疗账单的患者百分比:总支出(保险公司+患者费用)中位数为 48.32 美元(IQR:41-53 美元)。合作医疗每月自付费用中位数为每次就诊 8.35 美元(IQR:0-10 美元)。商业保险患者每月支付的费用最高(中位数:15 美元);医疗保险优势患者支付的费用最低(中位数:0 美元)。在开具合作护理账单的临床医生(人数=193)中,平均有 12% 的合格患者使用了合作护理;家庭医生和高级临床医生的患者最常使用合作护理:结论:协作医疗的使用率仍然偏低,每 6 名符合条件的患者中只有不到 1 人接受了协作医疗。自付费用各不相同,但普遍较低;费用的不确定性可能是导致使用率低的原因之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Care
Medical Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.30%
发文量
228
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Rated as one of the top ten journals in healthcare administration, Medical Care is devoted to all aspects of the administration and delivery of healthcare. This scholarly journal publishes original, peer-reviewed papers documenting the most current developments in the rapidly changing field of healthcare. This timely journal reports on the findings of original investigations into issues related to the research, planning, organization, financing, provision, and evaluation of health services.
期刊最新文献
Associations of Homelessness With Primary Care and Acute Care Utilization Among Medicaid-Enrolled Youth. Clinical Outcomes Among High-Risk Primary Care Patients With Diabetic Kidney Disease: Methodological Challenges and Results From the STOP-DKD Study. Children and Youth Are a Critical Part of the American Story of Homelessness. Trajectories and Transitions in Service Use Among Older Veterans at High Risk of Long-Term Institutional Care. Conduct of Large, Multisite, Comparative Clinical Effectiveness Research Studies: Learnings From the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's Palliative Care Learning Network.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1