将差异中的差异估计用于评估支付和交付模式对卫生公平的影响。

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Services Research Pub Date : 2024-12-19 DOI:10.1111/1475-6773.14419
Katherine Ianni, Alyssa Chen, Daniela Rodrigues, Laura A Hatfield
{"title":"将差异中的差异估计用于评估支付和交付模式对卫生公平的影响。","authors":"Katherine Ianni, Alyssa Chen, Daniela Rodrigues, Laura A Hatfield","doi":"10.1111/1475-6773.14419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To demonstrate the use of transportability methods to extend findings from payment model evaluations to groups of historically underserved beneficiaries.</p><p><strong>Study setting and design: </strong>We used a simulation study to transport the effects of the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) model to a target population of Black fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries living outside the original 18 CPC+ regions. Our main outcome variable was total Medicare spending per beneficiary per year (pbpy).</p><p><strong>Data sources and analytic sample: </strong>We simulated practice-level spending in 18 CPC+ regions and 32 non-CPC+ regions (1200 practices per region). We calibrated the simulation parameters to values from the literature and then varied four key parameters to create 16 realistic simulation scenarios. These scenarios varied the representativeness of practices in CPC+ regions that joined CPC+ (i.e., the sample) relative to the target population by changing the distribution of Black beneficiaries across practices and the distribution of practices across regions. Practices were characterized by their experience with the Medicare Shared Savings Program (SSP) and system/hospital ownership because these are known to modify the effect of CPC+ on spending.</p><p><strong>Principal findings: </strong>Across the 16 simulation scenarios, transporting the treatment effect of CPC+ to Black FFS beneficiaries in non-CPC+ regions yielded median treatment effects that ranged from $15.5 pbpy smaller to $10 pbpy larger than in the sample. These differences are roughly the same magnitude as the estimated overall effect of $13 pbpy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation has pledged to put equity at the center of its demonstration models. However, offering models in limited geographic areas with voluntary provider participation may result in unrepresentative samples. Naively generalizing CPC+ effects from geographically limited, voluntary samples to all Black FFS beneficiaries could be misleading. Under some circumstances, transportability methods can be used to estimate effects in this target population.</p>","PeriodicalId":55065,"journal":{"name":"Health Services Research","volume":" ","pages":"e14419"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transporting difference-in-differences estimates to assess health equity impacts of payment and delivery models.\",\"authors\":\"Katherine Ianni, Alyssa Chen, Daniela Rodrigues, Laura A Hatfield\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1475-6773.14419\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To demonstrate the use of transportability methods to extend findings from payment model evaluations to groups of historically underserved beneficiaries.</p><p><strong>Study setting and design: </strong>We used a simulation study to transport the effects of the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) model to a target population of Black fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries living outside the original 18 CPC+ regions. Our main outcome variable was total Medicare spending per beneficiary per year (pbpy).</p><p><strong>Data sources and analytic sample: </strong>We simulated practice-level spending in 18 CPC+ regions and 32 non-CPC+ regions (1200 practices per region). We calibrated the simulation parameters to values from the literature and then varied four key parameters to create 16 realistic simulation scenarios. These scenarios varied the representativeness of practices in CPC+ regions that joined CPC+ (i.e., the sample) relative to the target population by changing the distribution of Black beneficiaries across practices and the distribution of practices across regions. Practices were characterized by their experience with the Medicare Shared Savings Program (SSP) and system/hospital ownership because these are known to modify the effect of CPC+ on spending.</p><p><strong>Principal findings: </strong>Across the 16 simulation scenarios, transporting the treatment effect of CPC+ to Black FFS beneficiaries in non-CPC+ regions yielded median treatment effects that ranged from $15.5 pbpy smaller to $10 pbpy larger than in the sample. These differences are roughly the same magnitude as the estimated overall effect of $13 pbpy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation has pledged to put equity at the center of its demonstration models. However, offering models in limited geographic areas with voluntary provider participation may result in unrepresentative samples. Naively generalizing CPC+ effects from geographically limited, voluntary samples to all Black FFS beneficiaries could be misleading. Under some circumstances, transportability methods can be used to estimate effects in this target population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55065,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Services Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e14419\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Services Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14419\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14419","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:展示可运输性方法的使用,将支付模式评估的结果扩展到历史上服务不足的受益人群体。研究设置和设计:我们使用模拟研究将综合初级保健+ (CPC+)模型的效果转移到生活在原18个CPC+地区以外的黑人按服务收费(FFS)医疗保险受益人的目标人群中。我们的主要结果变量是每年每个受益人的医疗保险总支出(pbpy)。数据来源和分析样本:我们模拟了18个CPC+地区和32个非CPC+地区(每个地区1200个实践)的实践水平支出。我们将模拟参数校准为文献中的值,然后改变四个关键参数以创建16个真实的模拟场景。这些情景通过改变黑人受益人的跨实践分布和跨区域的实践分布,改变了加入CPC+的CPC+地区(即样本)相对于目标人口的实践代表性。实践的特点是他们在医疗保险共享储蓄计划(SSP)和系统/医院所有权方面的经验,因为这些已知会改变CPC+对支出的影响。主要发现:在16个模拟情景中,将CPC+的治疗效果输送给非CPC+地区的黑人FFS受益人,其治疗效果的中位数从比样本少15.5美元到多10美元不等。这些差异与估计的13美元/年的总体影响大致相同。结论:医疗保险和医疗补助创新中心承诺将公平置于其示范模式的中心。然而,在有限的地理区域提供自愿提供者参与的模型可能导致样本不具代表性。天真地将CPC+效应从地理上有限的自愿样本推广到所有黑人FFS受益人可能会产生误导。在某些情况下,可运输性方法可用于估计对目标人群的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Transporting difference-in-differences estimates to assess health equity impacts of payment and delivery models.

Objective: To demonstrate the use of transportability methods to extend findings from payment model evaluations to groups of historically underserved beneficiaries.

Study setting and design: We used a simulation study to transport the effects of the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) model to a target population of Black fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries living outside the original 18 CPC+ regions. Our main outcome variable was total Medicare spending per beneficiary per year (pbpy).

Data sources and analytic sample: We simulated practice-level spending in 18 CPC+ regions and 32 non-CPC+ regions (1200 practices per region). We calibrated the simulation parameters to values from the literature and then varied four key parameters to create 16 realistic simulation scenarios. These scenarios varied the representativeness of practices in CPC+ regions that joined CPC+ (i.e., the sample) relative to the target population by changing the distribution of Black beneficiaries across practices and the distribution of practices across regions. Practices were characterized by their experience with the Medicare Shared Savings Program (SSP) and system/hospital ownership because these are known to modify the effect of CPC+ on spending.

Principal findings: Across the 16 simulation scenarios, transporting the treatment effect of CPC+ to Black FFS beneficiaries in non-CPC+ regions yielded median treatment effects that ranged from $15.5 pbpy smaller to $10 pbpy larger than in the sample. These differences are roughly the same magnitude as the estimated overall effect of $13 pbpy.

Conclusions: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation has pledged to put equity at the center of its demonstration models. However, offering models in limited geographic areas with voluntary provider participation may result in unrepresentative samples. Naively generalizing CPC+ effects from geographically limited, voluntary samples to all Black FFS beneficiaries could be misleading. Under some circumstances, transportability methods can be used to estimate effects in this target population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Services Research
Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
5.90%
发文量
193
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Services Research (HSR) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal that provides researchers and public and private policymakers with the latest research findings, methods, and concepts related to the financing, organization, delivery, evaluation, and outcomes of health services. Rated as one of the top journals in the fields of health policy and services and health care administration, HSR publishes outstanding articles reporting the findings of original investigations that expand knowledge and understanding of the wide-ranging field of health care and that will help to improve the health of individuals and communities.
期刊最新文献
Patient-Provider Race Concordance and Primary Care Suicide Risk Screening in the Veterans Health Administration. Recruitment and Retention of Rural Health Professionals in Minnesota. Identifying Barriers to Being Offered and Accepting a Telehealth Visit for Cancer Care: Unpacking the Multi-Levels of Documented Racial Disparities in Telehealth Use. Integrated health systems and medical care quality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Addressing Staffing Shortages in Nursing Homes: Does Relaxing Training and Licensing Requirements Increase Nurse Aide Staffing?
×
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