Research brief最新文献

A key issue for the new insurance exchanges under national health reform is whether enough younger and healthier people will take advantage of new subsidized coverage on Jan. 1, 2014. Without enough good risks to offset older and sicker people who are likely to jump at the opportunity to gain more-affordable coverage, the exchanges risk significant adverse selection--attracting a sicker-than-average population--that will drive up premiums. Key to persuading younger and healthier uninsured people to opt for cover­age will be convincing them that health insurance is a good deal, according to a new national study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). While most uninsured people believe health insurance is important, far fewer now believe coverage is affordable and worth the cost. However, new federal subsidies for lower-to-middle-income people may change the calculus of whether coverage is affordable. While uninsured people who are younger, have few or no health prob­lems, and are self-described risk-takers are more likely to believe they can go without health insurance, even a majority of these so-called young invincibles believe health insurance is important. The findings indicate that most uninsured people are not inherently resistant to the idea of having health insurance. The main challenge will be to convince them that new coverage options under national health reform are affordable and offer enough protection to offset the medical and financial risks of going without health coverage.

Across 13 selected U.S. metropolitan areas, hospital prices for privately insured patients are much higher than Medicare payment rates and vary widely across and within markets, according to a study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) based on claims data for about 590,000 active and retired nonelderly autoworkers and their dependents. Across the 13 communities, aver­age hospital prices for privately insured patients are about one-and-a-half times Medicare rates for inpatient care and two times what Medicare pays for outpa­tient care. Within individual communities, prices vary widely, with the highest-priced hospital typically paid 60 percent more for inpatient services than the lowest-priced hospital. The price gap within markets is even greater for hospital outpatient care, with the highest-priced hospital typically paid nearly double the lowest-priced hospital. In contrast to the wide variation in hospital prices for pri­vately insured patients across and within markets, prices for primary care physi­cian services generally are close to Medicare rates and vary little within markets. Prices for specialist physician services, however, are higher relative to Medicare and vary more across and within markets. Of the 13 markets, five are in Michigan, which has an unusually concentrated private insurance market, with one insurer commanding a 70-percent market share. Despite the presence of a dominant insurer, almost all Michigan hospi­tals command prices that are higher than Medicare, and some hospitals com­mand prices that are twice what Medicare pays. In the eight markets outside of Michigan, private insurers generally pay even higher hospital prices, with even wider gaps between high- and low-priced hospitals. The variation in hospital and specialist physician prices within communities underscores that some hospitals and physicians have significant market power to command high prices, even in markets with a dominant insurer.

As the U.S. health care system grapples with strained hospital emergency department (ED) capacity in some areas, primary care clinician shortages and rising health care costs, urgent care centers have emerged as an alterna­tive care setting that may help improve access and contain costs. Growing to 9,000 locations in recent years, urgent care centers provide walk-in care for illnesses and injuries that need immediate attention but don't rise to the level of an emergency. Though their impact on overall health care access and costs remains unclear, hospitals and health plans are optimistic about the potential of urgent care centers to improve access and reduce ED visits, according to a new qualitative study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) for the National Institute for Health Care Reform. Across the six communities studied--Detroit; Jacksonville, Fla.; Minneapolis; Phoenix; Raleigh-Durham, N.C.; and San Francisco--respon­dents indicated that growth of urgent care centers is driven heavily by con­sumer demand for convenient access to care. At the same time, hospitals view urgent care centers as a way to gain patients, while health plans see opportu­nities to contain costs by steering patients away from costly emergency depart­ment visits. Although some providers believe urgent care centers disrupt coor­dination and continuity of care, others believe these concerns may be over­stated, given urgent care's focus on episodic and simple conditions rather than chronic and complex cases. Looking ahead, health coverage expansions under national health reform may lead to greater capacity strains on both primary and emergency care, spurring even more growth of urgent care centers.

Being prepared for a natural disaster, infectious disease outbreak or other emergency where many injured or ill people need medical care while maintaining ongoing operations is a significant challenge for local health systems. Emergency preparedness requires coordination of diverse entities at the local, regional and national levels. Given the diversity of stakeholders, fragmentation of local health care systems and limited resources, developing and sustaining broad community coalitions focused on emergency preparedness is difficult. While some stakeholders, such as hospitals and local emergency medical services, consistently work together, other important groups--for example, primary care clinicians and nursing homes--typically do not participate in emergency-preparedness coalitions, according to a new qualitative study of 10 U.S. communities by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). Challenges to developing and sustaining community coalitions may reflect the structure of preparedness activities, which are typically administered by designated staff in hospitals or large medical practices. There are two general approaches policy makers could consider to broaden participation in emergency-preparedness coalitions: providing incentives for more stakeholders to join existing coalitions or building preparedness into activities providers already are pursuing. Moreover, rather than defining and measuring processes associated with collaboration--such as coalition membership or development of certain planning documents--policy makers might consider defining the outcomes expected of a successful collaboration in the event of a disaster, without regard to the specific form that collaboration takes.

Over the last 15 years, public hospitals have pursued multiple strategies to help maintain financial viability without abandoning their mission to care for low-income people, according to findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC) site visits to 12 nationally representative metropolitan communities. Local public hospitals serve as core safety net providers in five of these communities--Boston, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Miami and Phoenix--weathering increased demand for care from growing numbers of uninsured and Medicaid patients and fluctuations in public funding over the past 15 years. Generally, these public hospitals have adopted six key strategies to respond to growing capacity and financial pressures: establishing independent governance structures; securing predictable local funding sources; shoring up Medicaid revenues; increasing attention to revenue collection; attracting privately insured patients; and expanding access to community-based primary care. These strategies demonstrate how public hospitals often benefit from functioning somewhat independently from local government, while at the same time, relying heavily on policy decisions and funding from local, state and federal governments. While public hospitals appear poised for changes under national health reform, they will need to adapt to changing payment sources and reduced federal subsidies and compete for newly insured people. Moreover, public hospitals in states that do not expand Medicaid eligibility to most low-income people as envisioned under health reform will likely face significant demand from uninsured patients with less federal Medicaid funding.

Contrary to conventional wisdom that Medicaid patients often use hospital emergency departments (EDs) for routine care, the majority of ED visits by nonelderly Medicaid patients are for symptoms suggesting urgent or more serious medical problems, according to a new national study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). About 10 percent of nonelderly Medicaid patient ED visits are for nonurgent symptoms, compared with about 7 percent for privately insured nonelderly people. Nonetheless, there are clearly opportunities to develop less-costly care options than emergency departments for both nonelderly Medicaid and privately insured patients. To reduce ED use, policy makers might consider how to encourage development of care settings that can quickly handle a high volume of potentially urgent medical problems. Policy makers may want to focus initially on conditions that account for high ED volume that could likely be treated in less resource-intensive settings. For example, diagnoses of acute respiratory and other common infections in children and injuries together account for about 53 percent of ED visits by children aged 0 to 12 covered by Medicaid and almost 60 percent of ED visits by privately insured children aged 0 to 12. While some infections and injuries will be too serious to treat elsewhere, lower-cost settings that can provide a moderate intensity of care and urgent response time likely could reduce emergency department use.

Spending on specialty drugs--typically high-cost biologic medications to treat complex medical conditions--is growing at a high rate and represents an increasing share of U.S. pharmaceutical spending and overall health spending. Absence of generic substitutes, or even brand-name therapeutic equivalents in many cases, gives drug manufacturers near-monopoly pricing power and makes conventional tools of benefit design and utilization management less effective, according to a new qualitative study from the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). Despite the dearth of substitutes, cost pressures have prompted some employers to increase patient cost sharing for specialty drugs. Some believe this is counter-productive, since it can expose patients to large financial obligations and may reduce patient adherence, which in turn may lead to higher costs. Utilization management has focused on prior authorization and quantity limits, rather than step-therapy approaches--where lower-cost options must first be tried--that are prevalent with conventional drugs. Unlike conventional drugs, a substantial share of specialty drugs--typically clinician-administered drugs--are covered under the medical benefit rather than the pharmacy benefit. The challenges of such coverage--high drug mark-ups by physicians, less utilization data, less control for health plans and employers--have led to attempts to integrate medical and pharmacy benefits, but such efforts are still in early development. Health plans are experimenting with a range of innovations to control spending, but the most meaningful, wide-ranging innovations may not be feasible until substitutes, such as biosimilars, become widely available, which for many specialty drugs will not occur for many years.

Community health centers have evolved from fringe providers to mainstays of many local health care systems. Those designated as federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), in particular, have largely established themselves as key providers of comprehensive, efficient, high-quality primary care services to low-income people, especially Medicaid and uninsured patients. The Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC's) site visits to 12 nationally representative metropolitan communities since 1996 document substantial growth in FQHC capacity, based on growing numbers of Medicaid enrollees and uninsured people, increased federal support, and improved managerial acumen. At the same time, FQHC development has varied considerably across communities because of several important factors, including local health system characteristics and financial and political support at federal, state and local levels. Some communities--Boston; Syracuse, N.Y.; Miami; and Seattle--have relatively extensive FQHC capacity for their Medicaid and uninsured populations, while other communities--Lansing, Mich.; northern New Jersey; Indianapolis; and Greenville, S.C.--fall in the middle. FQHC growth in Phoenix; Little Rock, Ark.; Cleveland; and Orange County, Calif.; has lagged in comparison. Today, FQHCs seem poised to play a key role in federal health care reform, including coverage expansions and the emphasis on primary care and medical homes.

Hoping to reduce medication errors and contain health care costs, policy makers are promoting electronic prescribing through Medicare and Medicaid financial incentives. Many e-prescribing systems provide electronic access to important information--for example, medications prescribed by physicians in other practices, patient formularies and generic alternatives--when physicians are deciding what medications to prescribe. However, physician practices with e-prescribing face challenges using these features effectively, according to a new qualitative study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). While most of the 24 practices studied reported that physicians had access to patient formulary information, only slightly more than half reported physician access to patient medication histories, and many physicians did not routinely review these sources of information when making prescribing decisions. Study respondents highlighted two barriers to use: (1) tools to view and import the data into patient records were cumbersome to use in some systems; and (2) the data were not always perceived as useful enough to warrant the additional time to access and review them, particularly during time-pressed patient visits. To support generic prescribing, practices typically set their system defaults to permit pharmacist substitution of generics; many practices also used other tools to more proactively identify and select generic alternatives at the point of prescribing. Overall, physicians who more strongly perceived the need for third-party data, those in practices with greater access to complete and accurate data, and those with easier-to-use e-prescribing systems were more likely to use these features consistently.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), Medicaid enrollment is expected to grow by 16 million people by 2019, an increase of more than 25 percent. Given the unwillingness of many primary care physicians (PCPs) to treat new Medicaid patients, policy makers and others are concerned about adequate primary care capacity to meet the increased demand. States with the smallest number of PCPs per capita overall--gen­erally in the South and Mountain West--potentially will see the largest per­centage increases in Medicaid enrollment, according to a new national study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). In contrast, states with the largest number of PCPs per capita--primarily in the Northeast--will see more modest increases in Medicaid enrollment. Moreover, geograph­ic differences in PCP acceptance of new Medicaid patients reflect differences in overall PCP supply, not geographic differences in PCPs' willingness to treat Medicaid patients. The law also increases Medicaid reimbursement rates for certain services provided by primary care physicians to 100 percent of Medicare rates in 2013 and 2014. However, the reimbursement increases are likely to have the greatest impact in states that already have a large number of PCPs accepting Medicaid patients. In fact, the percent increase of PCPs accepting Medicaid patients in these states is likely to exceed the percent increase of new Medicaid enrollees. The reimbursement increases will have much less impact in states with a relatively small number of PCPs accepting Medicaid patients now because many of these states already reimburse primary care at rates close to or exceeding 100 percent of Medicare. As a result, growth in Medicaid enrollment in these states will greatly outpace growth in the num­ber of primary care physicians willing to treat new Medicaid patients.