Explore the vast range of titles available.

Universal Health Coverage (UHC) has engaged attention of policy makers at both global and country levels. UHC is one of three strategic priorities of World Health Organization's (WHO) general program of work for 2019-2023, and it is then a global health priority. Rwanda Community-Based Health Insurance is considered the vehicle for UHC and Universal Health Insurance in Rwanda. CBHI was officially introduced in 1999/2000 and through 2011/2012 Rwanda was not far from effective UHC. However, since then, CBHI faced chronic financial deficit. This study aims to assess challenges facing Community-Based Health Insurance financial sustainability and to propose indicative solutions. quantitative, qualitative, analytical, longitudinal (2011-2018) and documentary mixed methods were applied. One National Pooling Risk (100%), 15 Community-Based Health Insurance districts (50%) and 60 Community Based Health Insurance sections (13.33%) were randomly selected and included in the study. To assess major challenges, \"analyzing qualitative data G3658-6 approach\" and \"prioritization hanlon method\" were used. the study highlighted five major challenges: (i) disproportionate risk-equalization in the social health insurance contributory system; (ii) unit cost exceeding individual income (premium plus other revenues and subsidies); (iii) imperfection in funding mobilization and recovery; (iv) cost-escalation; (v) diseconomy of scale; and the study proposed indicative solutions including injection of additional funding and shifting from current fee-for-service payment to fully active strategic purchasing mechanisms as accompanying measures. CBHI financial sustainability is achievable, but this is contingent upon persistence of political commitment efforts to achieve UHC, correction of highlighted imperfections and injection of additional funding to allow Rwanda Community-Based Health Insurance to meet and/or exceed its cost in the long-term.

Medicare insurance claims may provide an efficient means to ascertain follow-up of older participants in clinical research. We sought to determine the accuracy and completeness of claims- versus site-based follow-up with clinical event committee (+CEC) adjudication of cardiovascular outcomes. We performed a retrospective study using linked Medicare and Duke Database of Clinical Trials data. Medicare claims were linked to clinical data from 7 randomized cardiovascular clinical trials. Of 52,476 trial participants, linking resulted in 5,839 (of 10,497 linkage-eligible) Medicare-linked trial participants with fee-for-service A and B coverage. Death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and revascularization incidences were compared using Medicare inpatient claims only, site-reported events (+CEC) only, or a combination of the 2. Randomized treatment effects were compared as a function of whether claims-based, site-based (+CEC), or a combined system was used for event detection. Among the 5,839 study participants, the annual event rates were similar between claims- and site-based (+CEC) follow-up: death (overall rate 5.2% vs 5.2%; adjusted κ 0.99), MI (2.2% vs 2.3%; adjusted κ 0.96), stroke (0.7% vs 0.7%; adjusted κ 0.99), and any revascularization (7.4% vs 7.9%; adjusted κ 0.95). Of events detected by claims yet not reported by CEC, a minority were reported by sites but negatively adjudicated by CEC (39% of MIs and 18% of strokes). Differences in individual case concordance led to higher event rates when claims- and site-based (+CEC) systems were combined. Randomized treatment effects were similar among the 3 approaches for each outcome of interest. Claims- versus site-based (+CEC) follow-up identified similar overall cardiovascular event rates despite meaningful differences in the events detected. Randomized treatment effects were similar using the 2 methods, suggesting claims data could be used to support clinical research leveraging routinely collected data. This approach may lead to more effective evidence generation, synthesis, and appraisal of medical products and inform the strategic approaches toward the National Evaluation System for Health Technology.

In this analysis of 2003–2004 Medicare claims data, 20% of hospitalized patients were rehospitalized within 30 days after discharge. Fifty percent of patients who were rehospitalized after a medical discharge did not have an outpatient visit between discharge and readmission, raising the possibility that improved outpatient follow-up may reduce rehospitalizations. In this analysis of Medicare claims data, 20% of hospitalized patients were rehospitalized within 30 days after discharge. Fifty percent of patients who were rehospitalized after a medical discharge did not have an outpatient visit between discharge and readmission. Medicare currently pays for all rehospitalizations, except those in which patients are rehospitalized within 24 hours after discharge for the same condition for which they had initially been hospitalized. Recent policy proposals would alter this approach and create payment incentives to reduce the rates of rehospitalization. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) recommended to Congress in its report in June 2008 that hospitals receive from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) a confidential report of their risk-adjusted rehospitalization rates and that after 2 years, rates should be published. MedPAC also recommended complementary changes in payment rates, so that . . .

Background Specialty societies in the United States identified low-value tests and procedures that contribute to waste and poor health care quality via implementation of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation’s Choosing Wisely initiative. Objective To develop claims-based algorithms, to use them to estimate the prevalence of select Choosing Wisely services and to examine the demographic, health and health care system correlates of low-value care at a regional level. Design Using Medicare data from 2006 to 2011, we created claims-based algorithms to measure the prevalence of 11 Choosing Wisely-identified low-value services and examined geographic variation across hospital referral regions (HRRs). We created a composite low-value care score for each HRR and used linear regression to identify regional characteristics associated with more intense use of low-value services. Patients Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries over age 65. Main Measures Prevalence of selected Choosing Wisely low-value services. Key Results The national average annual prevalence of the selected Choosing Wisely low-value services ranged from 1.2% (upper urinary tract imaging in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia) to 46.5% (preoperative cardiac testing for low-risk, non-cardiac procedures). Prevalence across HRRs varied significantly. Regional characteristics associated with higher use of low-value services included greater overall per capita spending, a higher specialist to primary care ratio and higher proportion of minority beneficiaries. Conclusions Identifying and measuring low-value health services is a prerequisite for improving quality and eliminating waste. Our findings suggest that the delivery of wasteful and potentially harmful services may be a fruitful area for further research and policy intervention for HRRs with higher per-capita spending. These findings should inform action by physicians, health systems, policymakers, payers and consumer educators to improve the value of health care by targeting services and areas with greater use of potentially inappropriate care.

China has substantially increased financial investment and introduced favourable policies for strengthening its primary health care system with core responsibilities in preventing and managing chronic diseases such as hypertension and emerging infectious diseases such as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, widespread gaps in the quality of primary health care still exist. In this Review, we aim to identify the causes for this poor quality, and provide policy recommendations. System challenges include: the suboptimal education and training of primary health-care practitioners, a fee-for-service payment system that incentivises testing and treatments over prevention, fragmentation of clinical care and public health service, and insufficient continuity of care throughout the entire health-care system. The following recommendations merit consideration: (1) enhancement of the quality of training for primary health-care physicians, (2) establishment of performance accountability to incentivise high-quality and high-value care; (3) integration of clinical care with the basic public health services, and (4) strengthening of the coordination between primary health-care institutions and hospitals. Additionally, China should consider modernising its primary health-care system through the establishment of a learning health system built on digital data and innovative technologies.

Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment has grown significantly over the last 2 decades while Medicare program spending per capita has moderated over that same period. An open question is how the growth in MA enrollment has impacted Medicare program spending. The objective of this study is to estimate the association between MA penetration (ie, the percentage of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in MA) and total Medicare spending per capita. We estimated linear regression models that examine the relationship between county-level MA penetration and total Medicare spending per capita. The study used county-level Medicare spending and enrollment data—including MA, Medicare Fee-for-Service, and Part D—from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from 2012 to 2021. The study included counties from all 50 states and Washington, D.C. 3045 counties were included in the analysis, which represents 97% of U.S. counties. We found that counties with higher MA penetration showed lower standardized Medicare spending per capita. Specifically, 10 percentage point higher annual MA penetration was associated with$194 lower ( P < .001) total Medicare spending per capita, representing 1.5% lower spending. After adjusting risk scores to reflect the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission’s estimates of higher coding intensity in MA, 10 percentage point higher annual MA penetration was associated with $ 146 lower ( P < .001) total Medicare spending per capita, representing 1.1% lower spending. If these associations are causal in nature, then higher MA enrollment over the last 2 decades may have moderated total Medicare program spending over the same period.

Medicare Advantage (MA) and Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) plans have different financial incentives. Medicare pays predetermined rates per beneficiary to MA plans for providing care throughout the year, while providers serving FFS patients are reimbursed per utilization event. It is unknown how these incentives affect post-acute care in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). The objective of this study was to examine differences in rehabilitation service use, length of stay, and outcomes for patients following hip fracture between FFS and MA enrollees. This was a retrospective cohort study to examine differences in health service utilization and outcomes between FFS and MA patients in SNFs following hip fracture hospitalization during the period January 1, 2011, to June 30, 2015, and followed up until December 31, 2015. We linked the Master Beneficiary Summary File, Medicare Provider and Analysis Review data, Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set data, the Minimum Data Set, and the American Community Survey. The 6 primary outcomes of interest in this study included 2 process measures and 4 patient-centered outcomes. Process measures included length of stay in the SNF and average rehabilitation therapy minutes (physical and occupational therapy) received per day. Patient-centered outcomes included 30-day hospital readmission, changes in functional status as measured by the 28-point late loss MDS-ADL scale, likelihood of becoming a long-term resident, and successful discharge to the community. Successful discharge from a SNF was defined as being discharged to the community within 100 days of SNF admission and remaining alive in the community without being institutionalized in any acute or post-acute setting for at least 30 days. We analyzed 211,296 FFS and 75,554 MA patients with hip fracture admitted directly to a SNF following an index hospitalization who had not been in a nursing facility or hospital in the preceding year. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and nursing facility fixed effects regression models to compare treatments and outcomes between MA and FFS patients. MA patients were younger and less cognitively impaired upon SNF admission than FFS patients. After applying IPTW, demographic and clinical characteristics of MA patients were comparable with those of FFS patients. After adjusting for risk factors using IPTW-weighted fixed effects regression models, MA patients spent 5.1 (95% CI -5.4 to -4.8) fewer days in the SNF and received 463 (95% CI to -483.2 to -442.4) fewer minutes of total rehabilitation therapy during the first 40 days following SNF admission, i.e., 12.1 (95% CI -12.7 to -11.4) fewer minutes of rehabilitation therapy per day compared to FFS patients. In addition, MA patients had a 1.2 percentage point (95% CI -1.5 to -1.1) lower 30-day readmission rate, 0.6 percentage point (95% CI -0.8 to -0.3) lower rate of becoming a long-stay resident, and a 3.2 percentage point (95% CI 2.7 to 3.7) higher rate of successful discharge to the community compared to FFS patients. The major limitation of this study was that we only adjusted for observed differences to address selection bias between FFS and MA patients with hip fracture. Therefore, results may not be generalizable to other conditions requiring extensive rehabilitation. Compared to FFS patients, MA patients had a shorter course of rehabilitation but were more likely to be discharged to the community successfully and were less likely to experience a 30-day hospital readmission. Longer lengths of stay may not translate into better outcomes in the case of hip fracture patients in SNFs.

Traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare's prospective payment systems for postacute care provide little incentive to coordinate care or control costs. In contrast, Medicare Advantage plans pay for postacute care out of monthly capitated payments and thus have stronger incentives to use it efficiently. We compared the use of postacute care in skilled nursing and inpatient rehabilitation facilities by enrollees in Medicare Advantage and FFS Medicare after hospital discharge for three high-volume conditions: lower extremity joint replacement, stroke, and heart failure. After accounting for differences in patient characteristics at discharge, we found lower intensity of postacute care for Medicare Advantage patients compared to FFS Medicare patients discharged from the same hospital, across all three conditions. Medicare Advantage patients also exhibited better outcomes than their FFS Medicare counterparts, including lower rates of hospital readmission and higher rates of return to the community. These findings suggest that payment reforms such as bundling in FFS Medicare may reduce the intensity of postacute care without adversely affecting patient health.

AbstractObjectiveTo investigate whether the US News & World Report (USNWR) ranking of the medical school a physician attended is associated with patient outcomes and healthcare spending.DesignObservational study.SettingMedicare, 2011-15.Participants20% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older (n=996 212), who were admitted as an emergency to hospital with a medical condition and treated by general internists.Main outcome measuresAssociation between the USNWR ranking of the medical school a physician attended and the physician’s patient outcomes (30 day mortality and 30 day readmission rates) and Medicare Part B spending, adjusted for patient and physician characteristics and hospital fixed effects (which effectively compared physicians practicing within the same hospital). A sensitivity analysis employed a natural experiment by focusing on patients treated by hospitalists, because patients are plausibly randomly assigned to hospitalists based on their specific work schedules. Alternative rankings of medical schools based on social mission score or National Institute of Health (NIH) funding were also investigated.Results996 212 admissions treated by 30 322 physicians were examined for the analysis of mortality. When using USNWR primary care rankings, physicians who graduated from higher ranked schools had slightly lower 30 day readmission rates (adjusted rate 15.7% for top 10 schools v 16.1% for schools ranked ≥50; adjusted risk difference 0.4%, 95% confidence interval 0.1% to 0.8%; P for trend=0.005) and lower spending (adjusted Part B spending $1029 (£790; €881) v $1066; adjusted difference $36, 95% confidence interval $20 to $52; P for trend <0.001) compared with graduates of lower ranked schools, but no difference in 30 day mortality. When using USNWR research rankings, physicians graduating from higher ranked schools had slightly lower healthcare spending than graduates from lower ranked schools, but no differences in patient mortality or readmissions. A sensitivity analysis restricted to patients treated by hospitalists yielded similar findings. Little or no relation was found between alternative rankings (based on social mission score or NIH funding) and patient outcomes or costs of care.ConclusionsOverall, little or no relation was found between the USNWR ranking of the medical school from which a physician graduated and subsequent patient mortality or readmission rates. Physicians who graduated from highly ranked medical schools had slightly lower spending than graduates of lower ranked schools.

New targets have been set for value-based payment: 85% of Medicare fee-for-service payments should be tied to quality or value by 2016, and 30% of Medicare payments should be tied to quality or value through alternative payment models by 2016 (50% by 2018). Now that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has expanded health care coverage and made it affordable to many more Americans, we have the opportunity to shape the way care is delivered and improve the quality of care systemwide, while helping to reduce the growth of health care costs. Many efforts have already been initiated on these fronts, leveraging the ACA's new tools. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) now intends to focus its energies on augmenting reform in three important and interdependent ways: using incentives to motivate higher-value care, by increasingly tying payment to value through alternative payment . . .