Impact of a multi-payer full-risk model on preserving primary care access for traditional medicare beneficiaries.

IF 2.7
Health affairs scholar Pub Date : 2025-04-30 eCollection Date: 2025-05-01 DOI:10.1093/haschl/qxaf093
Benjamin S Kornitzer, Aaron Yao, Deborah N Peikes, Karthik Rao
{"title":"Impact of a multi-payer full-risk model on preserving primary care access for traditional medicare beneficiaries.","authors":"Benjamin S Kornitzer, Aaron Yao, Deborah N Peikes, Karthik Rao","doi":"10.1093/haschl/qxaf093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Amid growing primary care shortages and increased use of value-based care (VBC), we evaluated whether adopting a multipayer, full-risk VBC model for Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries-supported by an enablement organization-affected primary care providers' (PCPs) acceptance of new patients with TM insurance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a difference-in-differences analysis of 2019-2023 claims, we compared 2 groups of PCPs with at least 50 TM patients in their panels: 208 PCPs who received support to adopt a VBC model for TM and Medicare Advantage patients in 2022, and 3657 similar PCPs who maintained their existing payment models.Between the preadoption period and 2023, access to new patient visits for patients with TM insurance declined more for nonadopters than adopters.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Primary care providers' in the VBC group saw, on average, 8 more new TM patients annually than nonadopters. This change is sizable relative to their 22.6 new TM patients in 2023. Additionally, the VBC group kept their panels open to new patients with TM insurance for 0.7 more months per year, on average, than nonadopters, relative to preadoption.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings suggest that a VBC model with support may help sustain access to primary care for TM beneficiaries, even as overall availability declines.</p>","PeriodicalId":94025,"journal":{"name":"Health affairs scholar","volume":"3 5","pages":"qxaf093"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12065130/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health affairs scholar","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxaf093","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Amid growing primary care shortages and increased use of value-based care (VBC), we evaluated whether adopting a multipayer, full-risk VBC model for Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries-supported by an enablement organization-affected primary care providers' (PCPs) acceptance of new patients with TM insurance.

Methods: Using a difference-in-differences analysis of 2019-2023 claims, we compared 2 groups of PCPs with at least 50 TM patients in their panels: 208 PCPs who received support to adopt a VBC model for TM and Medicare Advantage patients in 2022, and 3657 similar PCPs who maintained their existing payment models.Between the preadoption period and 2023, access to new patient visits for patients with TM insurance declined more for nonadopters than adopters.

Results: Primary care providers' in the VBC group saw, on average, 8 more new TM patients annually than nonadopters. This change is sizable relative to their 22.6 new TM patients in 2023. Additionally, the VBC group kept their panels open to new patients with TM insurance for 0.7 more months per year, on average, than nonadopters, relative to preadoption.

Conclusion: These findings suggest that a VBC model with support may help sustain access to primary care for TM beneficiaries, even as overall availability declines.

多支付方全风险模式对保留传统医疗保险受益人获得初级保健的影响。
导论:在初级保健日益短缺和基于价值的护理(VBC)使用增加的情况下,我们评估了传统医疗保险(TM)和医疗保险优势受益人采用多支付方、全风险VBC模型(由支持组织支持)是否会影响初级保健提供者(pcp)接受新的TM保险患者。方法:通过对2019-2023年索赔的差异分析,我们比较了两组pcp,他们的小组中至少有50名TM患者:208名pcp在2022年获得支持,为TM和Medicare Advantage患者采用VBC模型,3657名类似的pcp保持现有的支付模式。从收养前到2023年,非收养者比收养者获得新患者就诊的机会减少得更多。结果:VBC组的初级保健提供者平均每年比未采用TM的人多8例新患者。相对于他们在2023年新增的22.6例TM患者,这一变化是相当大的。此外,相对于收养前,VBC组每年对有TM保险的新患者开放的时间平均比没有收养的患者多0.7个月。结论:这些发现表明,有支持的VBC模型可能有助于TM受益人维持获得初级保健的机会,即使总体可获得性下降。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信