associations betw een practice reported medical homeness
play

Associations Betw een Practice- Reported Medical Homeness and - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Associations Betw een Practice- Reported Medical Homeness and Health Care Utilization Among Publicly Insured Children Presentation at the AcademyHealth Annual Research Meeting Minneapolis, MN June 16, 2015 Anna L. Christensen, PhD Joseph


  1. Associations Betw een Practice- Reported Medical Homeness and Health Care Utilization Among Publicly Insured Children Presentation at the AcademyHealth Annual Research Meeting Minneapolis, MN June 16, 2015 Anna L. Christensen, PhD • Joseph S. Zickafoose, MD, MS • Brenda Natzke, MPP • Stacey McMorrow, PhD • Henry T. Ireys, PhD

  2. Citation • Publis hed in May 2015 volume of Academic Pediatrics : – Chris tens en AL, Zickafoos e J S , Natzke B , McMorrow S , Ireys HT. As s ociations between practice-reported medical homenes s and health care utilization among publicly ins ured children. Academic Pediatrics . 2015; 15: 267–274. 2

  3. Background • C hildren’s Health Ins urance Program R eauthorization Act (C HIPR A) Quality Demons tration Grant Program – $100 million to improve health care for children – 10 awardees (18 s tates ), 5-year grants s tarting in 2010 – 52 total projects – National evaluation overs een by the Agency for Healthcare R es earch and Quality (AHR Q) • 12 s tates with patient-centered medical home (PC MH) projects 3

  4. Background & Research Question • R elations hip between “medical homenes s ” and children’s health care utilization – R es ults vary by s tudy, outcome (preventive care, E D vis its , hos pitalizations ), and population (general population vs children with chronic conditions ) – Mos t s tudies as s es s parent-reported medical homenes s – Two s tudies of practice-reported medical homenes s s how mixed res ults (Cooley 2009, Paus tian 2013) • Is the “medical homenes s ” of primary care practices as s ociated with health care utilization by publicly ins ured children? 4

  5. Methods • C ros s -s ectional bas eline analys is – 3 s tates : IL, NC, S C – 64 practices (IL = 32, NC = 18, S C = 14) • C hildren (birth – 18 y) in Medicaid – Fee-for-s ervice or primary care cas e-management – E xclus ions : >1-month gap in coverage, partial benefits , waiver program, other ins urance, ins titutionalization • Attribution of children to practices – Majority of well-child vis its – If no majority of well-child vis its , majority of other vis its 5

  6. Methods: Measures • Practice-reported “medical homenes s ” – National Committee for Quality As s urance (NCQA) 2011 medical home s elf-as s es s ment: IL – Medical Home Index (MHI): NC – Medical Home Index- R evis ed S hort Form (MHI-R S F): S C – Tertiles : low, medium, high • Utilization (prior 12 mo.) – WCV: ≥75% of recommended # of well-child vis its – E DV: any non-urgent, potentially avoidable emergency department vis it (NYU algorithm; B en-Is aac 2010) 6

  7. Methods: Analysis • Multi-level logis tic regres s ion – S eparate models for IL and NC/S C • C ovariates – Child-level: age, race/ethnicity, chronic condition/dis ability • Pediatric Medical Complexity Algorithm (Simon, et.al. 2014) • Medicaid eligibility based on disability – Practice-level (NC/S C only): urban/rural, # of providers • S ens itivity tes ts – R e-es timated models with medical homenes s as : • Continuous variable Categorical variable with cut points at 25 th and 75 th percentile • – Inferences did not change 7

  8. Child Characteristics IL (n = 33,895) NC/SC (n = 57,553) Age group, % 0 to 5 years 53 57 6 to 12 years 31 30 13 to 18 years 16 14 Race/ethnicity, % black 45 33 white 31 45 other 24 22 Chronic condition or disability, % 31 34 8

  9. Results: Medical Homeness & Well-Child Visits 100 Regression Adjusted Percent 90 80 70 60 Low MH Medium MH 50 High MH 40 30 20 10 0 IL (NCQA) NC/SC (MHI-RSF) 9

  10. Results: Medical Homeness & Well-Child Visits 100 Regression Adjusted Percent 90 77 76 80 74 70 60 Low MH Medium MH 50 High MH 40 30 20 10 0 IL (NCQA) NC/SC (MHI-RSF) 10

  11. Results: Medical Homeness & Well-Child Visits 100 Regression Adjusted Percent 90 77 76 80 74 69 69 70 63 60 Low MH Medium MH 50 High MH 40 30 20 10 0 IL (NCQA) NC/SC (MHI-RSF) 11

  12. Medical Homeness & Non-Urgent ED Visits 100 Regression Adjusted Percent 90 80 70 * OR = 0.65 (95% CI 0.47-0.92) 60 Low MH Medium MH 50 High MH 40 29 26 30 23 * 20 10 0 IL (NCQA) NC/SC (MHI-RSF) 12

  13. Medical Homeness & Non-Urgent ED Visits 100 Regression Adjusted Percent 90 80 70 60 Low MH Medium MH 50 High MH 40 29 29 29 27 26 30 23 * 20 10 0 IL (NCQA) NC/SC (MHI-RSF) 13

  14. Conclusions • Medical homenes s was not as s ociated with well-child vis its • Higher medical homenes s was as s ociated with fewer non-urgent E D vis its , but only in IL where NC QA medical home s elf-as s es s ment meas ure was us ed • Limitations – Cros s -s ectional – May not be repres entative of Medicaid managed care – Could only attribute children with s ome s ervice us e – Different meas ures vs . different s tates 14

  15. Implications • Meas uring medical homenes s – No s ingle bes t meas ure – Different meas ures capture different proces s es – Differences in definitions and meas ures of medical homenes s may contribute to mixed findings in current literature – Cons ider us ing more than one meas ure 15

  16. For More Information • National E valuation of the C HIPR A Quality Demons tration Grant Program http://www.ahrq.gov/policymakers /chipra/demoeval/index.html • Anna C hris tens en achris tens en@ mathematica-mpr.com • Henry Ireys , Project Director hireys @ mathematica-mpr.com • Acknowledgements : C indy B rach & Linda B ergofs ky (AHR Q), C arl C ooley (C rotched Mountain), J eanne McAllister (Indiana), S arah S cholle (NC QA), Genevieve K enney (Urban Ins titute), C atherine McLaughlin (Mathematica) 16

  17. Extra Slides 17

  18. CHIPRA Quality Demonstration Program Focus: Five Broad Strate gies to Improve Quality • Use CMS ’ core pediatric quality measures (Category A) • Promote Health Information Technology/E lectronic Health R ecords (Category B) • Implement provider-based models (Category C) • Apply model pediatric E HR format (Category D) • Other innovative approaches (Category E ) 18

  19. Demonstration Grantees* and Partnering States, by Grant Category States A B C D E Oregon* x x x Alaska x x x West Virginia x x x Maryland* x x Georgia x x Wyoming x x x Utah* x x x Idaho x x x Florida* x x x x Illinois x x x x Maine* x x x Vermont x x x Colorado* x x New Mexico x x Massachusetts* x x x South Carolina* x x x Pennsylvania* x x x North Carolina* x x x 19

  20. Results: Medical Homeness & Well-Child Visits 100 90 78 80 75 74 Unadjusted Percent 66 70 64 64 60 Low MH Medium MH 50 High MH 40 30 20 10 0 IL (NCQA) NC/SC (MHI-RSF) 20

  21. Medical Homeness & Non-Urgent ED Visits 100 90 80 Unadjusted Percent 70 60 Low MH Medium MH 50 High MH 40 31 31 30 29 27 30 25 20 10 0 IL (NCQA) NC/SC (MHI-RSF) 21

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend