Medicaid managed care and preventable emergency department visits in the United States
In the United States the percentage of Medicaid enrollees in some form of Medicaid managed care has increased more than seven-fold since 1990, e.g., up from 11% in 1991 to 82% in 2017. Yet little is known about whether and how this major change in Medicaid insurance affects how recipients use hospit...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2020-10, Vol.15 (10), p.e0240603-e0240603 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e0240603 |
---|---|
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | e0240603 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 15 |
creator | Toseef, Mohammad Usama Jensen, Gail A Tarraf, Wassim |
description | In the United States the percentage of Medicaid enrollees in some form of Medicaid managed care has increased more than seven-fold since 1990, e.g., up from 11% in 1991 to 82% in 2017. Yet little is known about whether and how this major change in Medicaid insurance affects how recipients use hospital emergency rooms. This study compares the performance of Medicaid health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and fee-for-service (FFS) Medicaid regarding the occurrence of potentially preventable emergency department (ED) use.
Using data from the 2003-2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a nationally representative survey of the non-institutionalized US population, we estimated multivariable logistic regression models to examine the relationship between Medicaid HMO status and potentially preventable ED use. To accommodate the composition of the Medicaid population, we conducted separate repeated cross-sectional analyses for recipients insured through both Medicaid and Medicare (dual eligibles) and for those insured through Medicaid only (non-duals). We explicitly addressed the possibility of selection bias into HMOs in our models using propensity score weighting.
We found that the type of Medicaid held by a recipient, i.e., whether an HMO or FFS coverage, was unrelated to the probability that an ED visit was potentially preventable. This finding emerged both among dual eligibles and among non-duals, and it occurred irrespective of the adopted analytical strategy.
Within the U.S. Medicaid program, Medicaid HMO and FFS enrollees are indistinguishable in terms of the occurrence of potentially preventable ED use. Policymakers should consider this finding when evaluating the pros and cons of adopting Medicaid managed care. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0240603 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2455816399</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A639843402</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_830e10c5f40d48f1ae115c12d65d06ab</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A639843402</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-de2f21c19c0501c3718e2f8d4ba3012999a5b51d0cd5dd62b4bc391643857553</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl1rFDEUhgdRbK3-A9EBQfRi13zvzI1Qih8LlYKtvQ2Z5MxslplkTTLF_nuz3W3ZkV7IXGQ4ed43OSdvUbzGaI7pAn9a-zE41c833sEcEYYEok-KY1xTMhME0acH_0fFixjXCHFaCfG8OKIU41owclxc_wBjtbKmHJRTHZhSqwClcqbcBLgBl1TTQwkDhA6cvi0NbFRIQ94ob2y0KZbWlWkF5S9nU5ZfJpUgviyetaqP8Gq_nhRXX79cnX2fnV98W56dns-0qEmaGSAtwRrXGnGEdW6rypXKsEZRhEld14o3HBukDTdGkIY1mtZYMFrxBef0pHi7s930Psr9RKIkjPMKC1rXmVjuCOPVWm6CHVS4lV5ZeVfwoZO5Hat7kBVFgJHmLUOGVS1WgDHXmBjBDRKqyV6f96eNzQBG5xkE1U9MpzvOrmTnb-SC1zxfOxt82BsE_3uEmORgo4a-Vw78eHdvwXAl2CKj7_5BH-9uT3UqN2Bd6_O5emsqTzNQMcoQydT8ESp_Bgarc3xam-sTwceJIDMJ_qROjTHK5eXP_2cvrqfs-wN2BapPq-j7MVnv4hRkO1AHH2OA9mHIGMlt-u-nIbfpl_v0Z9mbwwd6EN3Hnf4F6lL-Og</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2455816399</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Medicaid managed care and preventable emergency department visits in the United States</title><source>Open Access: PubMed Central</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PLoS_OA刊</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Toseef, Mohammad Usama ; Jensen, Gail A ; Tarraf, Wassim</creator><contributor>Fischer, Florian</contributor><creatorcontrib>Toseef, Mohammad Usama ; Jensen, Gail A ; Tarraf, Wassim ; Fischer, Florian</creatorcontrib><description>In the United States the percentage of Medicaid enrollees in some form of Medicaid managed care has increased more than seven-fold since 1990, e.g., up from 11% in 1991 to 82% in 2017. Yet little is known about whether and how this major change in Medicaid insurance affects how recipients use hospital emergency rooms. This study compares the performance of Medicaid health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and fee-for-service (FFS) Medicaid regarding the occurrence of potentially preventable emergency department (ED) use.
Using data from the 2003-2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a nationally representative survey of the non-institutionalized US population, we estimated multivariable logistic regression models to examine the relationship between Medicaid HMO status and potentially preventable ED use. To accommodate the composition of the Medicaid population, we conducted separate repeated cross-sectional analyses for recipients insured through both Medicaid and Medicare (dual eligibles) and for those insured through Medicaid only (non-duals). We explicitly addressed the possibility of selection bias into HMOs in our models using propensity score weighting.
We found that the type of Medicaid held by a recipient, i.e., whether an HMO or FFS coverage, was unrelated to the probability that an ED visit was potentially preventable. This finding emerged both among dual eligibles and among non-duals, and it occurred irrespective of the adopted analytical strategy.
Within the U.S. Medicaid program, Medicaid HMO and FFS enrollees are indistinguishable in terms of the occurrence of potentially preventable ED use. Policymakers should consider this finding when evaluating the pros and cons of adopting Medicaid managed care.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240603</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33119642</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Ambulatory care ; Chronic illnesses ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Emergency medical care ; Emergency medical services ; Emergency medicine ; Emergency preparedness ; Emergency Service, Hospital - economics ; Fee-for-Service Plans ; Female ; Gerontology ; Government finance ; Government programs ; Health care policy ; Health Expenditures ; Health insurance ; Health maintenance organizations ; Health Maintenance Organizations - economics ; Health risks ; Health services ; HMOs ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Insurance coverage ; Insurance, Health - economics ; Male ; Managed Care Programs - economics ; Market penetration ; Medicaid ; Medicaid - economics ; Medicare ; Medicare - economics ; Methods ; Middle Aged ; Polls & surveys ; Prevention ; Preventive medicine ; Primary care ; Primary Health Care - economics ; Regression analysis ; Regression models ; Risk Factors ; Statistical analysis ; United States - epidemiology ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2020-10, Vol.15 (10), p.e0240603-e0240603</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2020 Toseef et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2020 Toseef et al 2020 Toseef et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-de2f21c19c0501c3718e2f8d4ba3012999a5b51d0cd5dd62b4bc391643857553</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-de2f21c19c0501c3718e2f8d4ba3012999a5b51d0cd5dd62b4bc391643857553</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7595391/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7595391/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79343,79344</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33119642$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Fischer, Florian</contributor><creatorcontrib>Toseef, Mohammad Usama</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jensen, Gail A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tarraf, Wassim</creatorcontrib><title>Medicaid managed care and preventable emergency department visits in the United States</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>In the United States the percentage of Medicaid enrollees in some form of Medicaid managed care has increased more than seven-fold since 1990, e.g., up from 11% in 1991 to 82% in 2017. Yet little is known about whether and how this major change in Medicaid insurance affects how recipients use hospital emergency rooms. This study compares the performance of Medicaid health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and fee-for-service (FFS) Medicaid regarding the occurrence of potentially preventable emergency department (ED) use.
Using data from the 2003-2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a nationally representative survey of the non-institutionalized US population, we estimated multivariable logistic regression models to examine the relationship between Medicaid HMO status and potentially preventable ED use. To accommodate the composition of the Medicaid population, we conducted separate repeated cross-sectional analyses for recipients insured through both Medicaid and Medicare (dual eligibles) and for those insured through Medicaid only (non-duals). We explicitly addressed the possibility of selection bias into HMOs in our models using propensity score weighting.
We found that the type of Medicaid held by a recipient, i.e., whether an HMO or FFS coverage, was unrelated to the probability that an ED visit was potentially preventable. This finding emerged both among dual eligibles and among non-duals, and it occurred irrespective of the adopted analytical strategy.
Within the U.S. Medicaid program, Medicaid HMO and FFS enrollees are indistinguishable in terms of the occurrence of potentially preventable ED use. Policymakers should consider this finding when evaluating the pros and cons of adopting Medicaid managed care.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Ambulatory care</subject><subject>Chronic illnesses</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Emergency medical care</subject><subject>Emergency medical services</subject><subject>Emergency medicine</subject><subject>Emergency preparedness</subject><subject>Emergency Service, Hospital - economics</subject><subject>Fee-for-Service Plans</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gerontology</subject><subject>Government finance</subject><subject>Government programs</subject><subject>Health care policy</subject><subject>Health Expenditures</subject><subject>Health insurance</subject><subject>Health maintenance organizations</subject><subject>Health Maintenance Organizations - economics</subject><subject>Health risks</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>HMOs</subject><subject>Hospitalization</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Insurance coverage</subject><subject>Insurance, Health - economics</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Managed Care Programs - economics</subject><subject>Market penetration</subject><subject>Medicaid</subject><subject>Medicaid - economics</subject><subject>Medicare</subject><subject>Medicare - economics</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Prevention</subject><subject>Preventive medicine</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Primary Health Care - economics</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Regression models</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>United States - epidemiology</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl1rFDEUhgdRbK3-A9EBQfRi13zvzI1Qih8LlYKtvQ2Z5MxslplkTTLF_nuz3W3ZkV7IXGQ4ed43OSdvUbzGaI7pAn9a-zE41c833sEcEYYEok-KY1xTMhME0acH_0fFixjXCHFaCfG8OKIU41owclxc_wBjtbKmHJRTHZhSqwClcqbcBLgBl1TTQwkDhA6cvi0NbFRIQ94ob2y0KZbWlWkF5S9nU5ZfJpUgviyetaqP8Gq_nhRXX79cnX2fnV98W56dns-0qEmaGSAtwRrXGnGEdW6rypXKsEZRhEld14o3HBukDTdGkIY1mtZYMFrxBef0pHi7s930Psr9RKIkjPMKC1rXmVjuCOPVWm6CHVS4lV5ZeVfwoZO5Hat7kBVFgJHmLUOGVS1WgDHXmBjBDRKqyV6f96eNzQBG5xkE1U9MpzvOrmTnb-SC1zxfOxt82BsE_3uEmORgo4a-Vw78eHdvwXAl2CKj7_5BH-9uT3UqN2Bd6_O5emsqTzNQMcoQydT8ESp_Bgarc3xam-sTwceJIDMJ_qROjTHK5eXP_2cvrqfs-wN2BapPq-j7MVnv4hRkO1AHH2OA9mHIGMlt-u-nIbfpl_v0Z9mbwwd6EN3Hnf4F6lL-Og</recordid><startdate>20201029</startdate><enddate>20201029</enddate><creator>Toseef, Mohammad Usama</creator><creator>Jensen, Gail A</creator><creator>Tarraf, Wassim</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20201029</creationdate><title>Medicaid managed care and preventable emergency department visits in the United States</title><author>Toseef, Mohammad Usama ; Jensen, Gail A ; Tarraf, Wassim</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-de2f21c19c0501c3718e2f8d4ba3012999a5b51d0cd5dd62b4bc391643857553</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Ambulatory care</topic><topic>Chronic illnesses</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Emergency medical care</topic><topic>Emergency medical services</topic><topic>Emergency medicine</topic><topic>Emergency preparedness</topic><topic>Emergency Service, Hospital - economics</topic><topic>Fee-for-Service Plans</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gerontology</topic><topic>Government finance</topic><topic>Government programs</topic><topic>Health care policy</topic><topic>Health Expenditures</topic><topic>Health insurance</topic><topic>Health maintenance organizations</topic><topic>Health Maintenance Organizations - economics</topic><topic>Health risks</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>HMOs</topic><topic>Hospitalization</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Insurance coverage</topic><topic>Insurance, Health - economics</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Managed Care Programs - economics</topic><topic>Market penetration</topic><topic>Medicaid</topic><topic>Medicaid - economics</topic><topic>Medicare</topic><topic>Medicare - economics</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Prevention</topic><topic>Preventive medicine</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Primary Health Care - economics</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Regression models</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>United States - epidemiology</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Toseef, Mohammad Usama</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jensen, Gail A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tarraf, Wassim</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale_Opposing Viewpoints In Context</collection><collection>Science (Gale in Context)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medicine (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database (1962 - current)</collection><collection>ProQuest Agricultural & Environmental Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies & aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Toseef, Mohammad Usama</au><au>Jensen, Gail A</au><au>Tarraf, Wassim</au><au>Fischer, Florian</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Medicaid managed care and preventable emergency department visits in the United States</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2020-10-29</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>e0240603</spage><epage>e0240603</epage><pages>e0240603-e0240603</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>In the United States the percentage of Medicaid enrollees in some form of Medicaid managed care has increased more than seven-fold since 1990, e.g., up from 11% in 1991 to 82% in 2017. Yet little is known about whether and how this major change in Medicaid insurance affects how recipients use hospital emergency rooms. This study compares the performance of Medicaid health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and fee-for-service (FFS) Medicaid regarding the occurrence of potentially preventable emergency department (ED) use.
Using data from the 2003-2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a nationally representative survey of the non-institutionalized US population, we estimated multivariable logistic regression models to examine the relationship between Medicaid HMO status and potentially preventable ED use. To accommodate the composition of the Medicaid population, we conducted separate repeated cross-sectional analyses for recipients insured through both Medicaid and Medicare (dual eligibles) and for those insured through Medicaid only (non-duals). We explicitly addressed the possibility of selection bias into HMOs in our models using propensity score weighting.
We found that the type of Medicaid held by a recipient, i.e., whether an HMO or FFS coverage, was unrelated to the probability that an ED visit was potentially preventable. This finding emerged both among dual eligibles and among non-duals, and it occurred irrespective of the adopted analytical strategy.
Within the U.S. Medicaid program, Medicaid HMO and FFS enrollees are indistinguishable in terms of the occurrence of potentially preventable ED use. Policymakers should consider this finding when evaluating the pros and cons of adopting Medicaid managed care.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>33119642</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0240603</doi><tpages>e0240603</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2020-10, Vol.15 (10), p.e0240603-e0240603 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2455816399 |
source | Open Access: PubMed Central; MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PLoS_OA刊; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; EZB Electronic Journals Library |
subjects | Adolescent Adult Ambulatory care Chronic illnesses Cross-Sectional Studies Emergency medical care Emergency medical services Emergency medicine Emergency preparedness Emergency Service, Hospital - economics Fee-for-Service Plans Female Gerontology Government finance Government programs Health care policy Health Expenditures Health insurance Health maintenance organizations Health Maintenance Organizations - economics Health risks Health services HMOs Hospitalization Humans Insurance coverage Insurance, Health - economics Male Managed Care Programs - economics Market penetration Medicaid Medicaid - economics Medicare Medicare - economics Methods Middle Aged Polls & surveys Prevention Preventive medicine Primary care Primary Health Care - economics Regression analysis Regression models Risk Factors Statistical analysis United States - epidemiology Young Adult |
title | Medicaid managed care and preventable emergency department visits in the United States |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T09%3A49%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Medicaid%20managed%20care%20and%20preventable%20emergency%20department%20visits%20in%20the%20United%20States&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Toseef,%20Mohammad%20Usama&rft.date=2020-10-29&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=e0240603&rft.epage=e0240603&rft.pages=e0240603-e0240603&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0240603&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA639843402%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2455816399&rft_id=info:pmid/33119642&rft_galeid=A639843402&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_830e10c5f40d48f1ae115c12d65d06ab&rfr_iscdi=true |