Literature DB >> 32378005

Association of Provider Performance with Changes in Insurance Networks.

Katherine Piwnica-Worms1, Jacob Wallace2, Anthony Lollo2, Chima D Ndumele2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Medicaid managed care plans change provider networks frequently, yet there is no evidence about the performance of exiting providers relative to those that remain.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association between provider cost and quality and network exit.
DESIGN: Observational study with provider network directory data linked to administrative claims from managed care plans in Tennessee's Medicaid program during the period 2010-2016. PARTICIPANTS: 1,966,022 recipients assigned to 9593 unique providers. MAIN MEASURES: Exposures were risk-adjusted total costs of care and nine measures from the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) were used to construct a composite annual indicators of provider performance on quality. Outcome was provider exit from a Medicaid managed care plan. Differences in quality and cost between providers that exited and remained in managed care networks were estimated using a propensity score model to match exiting to nonexiting providers. KEY
RESULTS: Over our study period, we found that 21% of participating providers exited at least one of the Medicaid managed care plans in Tennessee. As compared with providers that remained in networks, those that exited performed 3.8 percentage points [95% CI, 2.3, 5.3] worse on quality as measured by a composite of the nine HEDIS quality metrics. However, 22% of exiting providers performed above average in quality and cost and only 29% of exiting providers had lower than average quality scores and higher than average costs. Overall, exiting providers had lower aggregate costs in terms of the annual unadjusted cost of care per-member-month - $21.57 [95% CI, - $41.02, - $2.13], though difference in annual risk-adjusted cost per-member-month was nonsignificant.
CONCLUSIONS: Providers exiting Medicaid managed care plans appear to have lower quality scores in the year prior to their exit than the providers who remain in network. Our study did not show that managed care plans disproportionately drop high-cost providers.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Medicaid managed care; provider networks; provider performance

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32378005      PMCID: PMC7351892          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-020-05784-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  9 in total

1.  The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States.

Authors:  Elizabeth A McGlynn; Steven M Asch; John Adams; Joan Keesey; Jennifer Hicks; Alison DeCristofaro; Eve A Kerr
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-06-26       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Primary care appointment availability and nonphysician providers one year after Medicaid expansion.

Authors:  Renuka Tipirneni; Karin V Rhodes; Rodney A Hayward; Richard L Lichtenstein; HwaJung Choi; Elyse N Reamer; Matthew M Davis
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 2.229

3.  Network Optimization And The Continuity Of Physicians In Medicaid Managed Care.

Authors:  Chima D Ndumele; Becky Staiger; Joseph S Ross; Mark J Schlesinger
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 6.301

4.  Adverse effects of prohibiting narrow provider networks.

Authors:  David H Howard
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Medicaid and marketplace eligibility changes will occur often in all states; policy options can ease impact.

Authors:  Benjamin D Sommers; John A Graves; Katherine Swartz; Sara Rosenbaum
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 6.301

6.  Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Programs; Medicaid Managed Care, CHIP Delivered in Managed Care, and Revisions Related to Third Party Liability. Final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2016-05-06

7.  How narrow a network is too narrow?

Authors:  Katherine Baicker; Helen Levy
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 21.873

8.  Selection and exclusion of primary care physicians by managed care organizations.

Authors:  A B Bindman; K Grumbach; K Vranizan; D Jaffe; D Osmond
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-03-04       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Methods for constructing and assessing propensity scores.

Authors:  Melissa M Garrido; Amy S Kelley; Julia Paris; Katherine Roza; Diane E Meier; R Sean Morrison; Melissa D Aldridge
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-04-30       Impact factor: 3.402

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.