家庭保健的开始和接受的差异:传统医疗保险与医疗保险优势。

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Medical Care Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-29 DOI:10.1097/MLR.0000000000002150
Amanda C Chen, Daniel Spertus, Christina X Fu, Madeline R Sterling, David C Grabowski
{"title":"家庭保健的开始和接受的差异:传统医疗保险与医疗保险优势。","authors":"Amanda C Chen, Daniel Spertus, Christina X Fu, Madeline R Sterling, David C Grabowski","doi":"10.1097/MLR.0000000000002150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Because Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) have different reimbursement structures and incentives, it is important to understand differences in home health agency (HHA) use by payer type.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To quantify differences in care patterns and outcomes between TM and MA HHA users.</p><p><strong>Research design and subjects: </strong>Medicare HHA claims were used to identify postacute HHA episodes among US adults aged 65 and older enrolled in MA or TM (2015-2019). Adjusted regression models with and without HHA fixed effects assessed whether TM and MA beneficiaries are treated differently within an HHA.</p><p><strong>Measures: </strong>We examined process (timely initiation of care, receipt of a skilled nursing visit, and length of stay) and quality measures (hospital readmission and healthy days at home).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 4,029,527 beneficiaries (3,034,452 TM and 995,075 MA). We identified large differences in the share of beneficiaries experiencing timely initiation of care (81.4% TM vs. 77.4% MA) and receipt of skilled nursing visits (86.8% TM vs. 81.9% MA). After including HHA fixed effects in the regression model, MA beneficiaries were 2.1 percentage points (pp) less likely to experience timely initiation of care and were 3.1 pp less likely to receive a skilled nursing visit (and 8.9 pp less likely to receive any type of skilled visit) within 2 days of starting HHA care compared with TM beneficiaries ( P <0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest differential treatment between MA and TM beneficiaries within the same HHA. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving these within-agency differences.</p>","PeriodicalId":18364,"journal":{"name":"Medical Care","volume":" ","pages":"487-494"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12191218/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in Initiation and Receipt of Home Health Care: Traditional Medicare Versus Medicare Advantage.\",\"authors\":\"Amanda C Chen, Daniel Spertus, Christina X Fu, Madeline R Sterling, David C Grabowski\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MLR.0000000000002150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Because Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) have different reimbursement structures and incentives, it is important to understand differences in home health agency (HHA) use by payer type.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To quantify differences in care patterns and outcomes between TM and MA HHA users.</p><p><strong>Research design and subjects: </strong>Medicare HHA claims were used to identify postacute HHA episodes among US adults aged 65 and older enrolled in MA or TM (2015-2019). Adjusted regression models with and without HHA fixed effects assessed whether TM and MA beneficiaries are treated differently within an HHA.</p><p><strong>Measures: </strong>We examined process (timely initiation of care, receipt of a skilled nursing visit, and length of stay) and quality measures (hospital readmission and healthy days at home).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 4,029,527 beneficiaries (3,034,452 TM and 995,075 MA). We identified large differences in the share of beneficiaries experiencing timely initiation of care (81.4% TM vs. 77.4% MA) and receipt of skilled nursing visits (86.8% TM vs. 81.9% MA). After including HHA fixed effects in the regression model, MA beneficiaries were 2.1 percentage points (pp) less likely to experience timely initiation of care and were 3.1 pp less likely to receive a skilled nursing visit (and 8.9 pp less likely to receive any type of skilled visit) within 2 days of starting HHA care compared with TM beneficiaries ( P <0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest differential treatment between MA and TM beneficiaries within the same HHA. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving these within-agency differences.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18364,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"487-494\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12191218/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000002150\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000002150","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:由于传统医疗保险(TM)和医疗保险优势(MA)有不同的报销结构和激励机制,了解不同付款人类型家庭健康机构(HHA)使用的差异是很重要的。目的:量化TM和MA HHA使用者之间护理模式和结果的差异。研究设计和受试者:医疗保险HHA索赔用于确定在MA或TM注册的65岁及以上的美国成年人(2015-2019)急性后HHA发作。有和没有HHA固定效应的调整回归模型评估了TM和MA受益人在HHA中是否受到不同的对待。措施:我们检查了流程(及时开始护理、接受熟练护理访问和住院时间)和质量措施(再入院和在家健康天数)。结果:该研究包括4,029,527名受益人(3,034,452名TM和995,075名MA)。我们发现,及时开始护理的受益人比例(81.4% TM vs 77.4% MA)和接受熟练护理访问的比例(86.8% TM vs 81.9% MA)存在很大差异。在回归模型中包括HHA固定效应后,与TM受益人相比,MA受益人在开始HHA护理的2天内接受熟练护理访问的可能性降低了2.1个百分点(pp),接受熟练护理访问的可能性降低了3.1个百分点(8.9个百分点)。(p结论:我们的研究结果表明,在同一HHA中,MA和TM受益人之间的待遇存在差异。需要进一步的研究来了解驱动这些机构内差异的机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Differences in Initiation and Receipt of Home Health Care: Traditional Medicare Versus Medicare Advantage.

Background: Because Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) have different reimbursement structures and incentives, it is important to understand differences in home health agency (HHA) use by payer type.

Objective: To quantify differences in care patterns and outcomes between TM and MA HHA users.

Research design and subjects: Medicare HHA claims were used to identify postacute HHA episodes among US adults aged 65 and older enrolled in MA or TM (2015-2019). Adjusted regression models with and without HHA fixed effects assessed whether TM and MA beneficiaries are treated differently within an HHA.

Measures: We examined process (timely initiation of care, receipt of a skilled nursing visit, and length of stay) and quality measures (hospital readmission and healthy days at home).

Results: The study included 4,029,527 beneficiaries (3,034,452 TM and 995,075 MA). We identified large differences in the share of beneficiaries experiencing timely initiation of care (81.4% TM vs. 77.4% MA) and receipt of skilled nursing visits (86.8% TM vs. 81.9% MA). After including HHA fixed effects in the regression model, MA beneficiaries were 2.1 percentage points (pp) less likely to experience timely initiation of care and were 3.1 pp less likely to receive a skilled nursing visit (and 8.9 pp less likely to receive any type of skilled visit) within 2 days of starting HHA care compared with TM beneficiaries ( P <0.001).

Conclusions: Our findings suggest differential treatment between MA and TM beneficiaries within the same HHA. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving these within-agency differences.

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
Medical Care
Medical Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.30%
发文量
228
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Rated as one of the top ten journals in healthcare administration, Medical Care is devoted to all aspects of the administration and delivery of healthcare. This scholarly journal publishes original, peer-reviewed papers documenting the most current developments in the rapidly changing field of healthcare. This timely journal reports on the findings of original investigations into issues related to the research, planning, organization, financing, provision, and evaluation of health services.
×
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