Ambulatory care for individuals dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.

IF 2.7
Health affairs scholar Pub Date : 2025-07-31 eCollection Date: 2025-08-01 DOI:10.1093/haschl/qxaf148
Joshua M Liao, Paula Chatterjee, Yueming Zhao, Isabelle J Carroll, Danielle S Browne, Austin S Kilaru, Aidan P Crowley, David Pagnotti, Torrey Shirk, Deborah S Cousins, Amol S Navathe
{"title":"Ambulatory care for individuals dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.","authors":"Joshua M Liao, Paula Chatterjee, Yueming Zhao, Isabelle J Carroll, Danielle S Browne, Austin S Kilaru, Aidan P Crowley, David Pagnotti, Torrey Shirk, Deborah S Cousins, Amol S Navathe","doi":"10.1093/haschl/qxaf148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Individuals dually eligible for insurance through both Medicaid and Medicare (\"duals\") have more comorbidities, higher costs, and poorer outcomes compared to other groups. Unfortunately, policy and care redesign initiatives suffer from limited knowledge about ambulatory care patterns among duals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using 2022 Medicare fee-for-service claims and other sources of clinician and geographic data, we described care patterns for ambulatory services among dual vs non-duals. Our sample consisted of 967 820 dual and 4 600 486 non-dual individuals receiving a total of 67 122 906 ambulatory services from 106 545 practices and 815 827 clinicians.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that duals received fewer ambulatory, in particular subspecialty, services than non-duals, while duals received slightly more services through primary care physicians and advanced practice professionals. Among duals, most services were provided in office rather than federally qualified health centers or rural health clinics by a disproportionally small number of geographically dispersed practices and clinicians. High-dual practices and clinicians differed from non-high dual counterparts with respect to multiple characteristics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These differences highlight the opportunity to improve access and outcomes among duals by targeting policy and practice changes toward certain groups and clinicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":94025,"journal":{"name":"Health affairs scholar","volume":"3 8","pages":"qxaf148"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12380179/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health affairs scholar","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxaf148","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Individuals dually eligible for insurance through both Medicaid and Medicare ("duals") have more comorbidities, higher costs, and poorer outcomes compared to other groups. Unfortunately, policy and care redesign initiatives suffer from limited knowledge about ambulatory care patterns among duals.

Methods: Using 2022 Medicare fee-for-service claims and other sources of clinician and geographic data, we described care patterns for ambulatory services among dual vs non-duals. Our sample consisted of 967 820 dual and 4 600 486 non-dual individuals receiving a total of 67 122 906 ambulatory services from 106 545 practices and 815 827 clinicians.

Results: We found that duals received fewer ambulatory, in particular subspecialty, services than non-duals, while duals received slightly more services through primary care physicians and advanced practice professionals. Among duals, most services were provided in office rather than federally qualified health centers or rural health clinics by a disproportionally small number of geographically dispersed practices and clinicians. High-dual practices and clinicians differed from non-high dual counterparts with respect to multiple characteristics.

Conclusion: These differences highlight the opportunity to improve access and outcomes among duals by targeting policy and practice changes toward certain groups and clinicians.

为有资格享受医疗保险和医疗补助的个人提供门诊护理。
简介:与其他群体相比,通过医疗补助和医疗保险双重获得保险资格的个人(“双重”)有更多的合并症,更高的费用和更差的结果。不幸的是,政策和护理重新设计的举措受到有限的知识,门诊护理模式的双重。方法:利用2022年医疗保险按服务收费索赔以及其他临床医生和地理数据来源,我们描述了双重和非双重门诊服务的护理模式。我们的样本包括967820名双性恋者和4600486名非双性恋者,他们从106545家诊所和815827名临床医生那里接受了总共67 1222906次门诊服务。结果:我们发现,与非双重患者相比,双重患者获得的门诊服务较少,特别是亚专科服务,而通过初级保健医生和高级实践专业人员获得的服务略多。在两国中,大多数服务是在办公室提供的,而不是由少数地理上分散的诊所和临床医生提供的,而不是由联邦政府合格的保健中心或农村保健诊所提供的。高双重执业和临床医生不同于非高双重同行的多重特征。结论:这些差异突出了通过针对某些群体和临床医生的政策和实践改变来改善双药治疗的可及性和结果的机会。
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