Effects of forced disruption in Medicaid managed care on children with asthma
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a forced disruption to Medicaid managed care plans and provider networks on health utilization and outcomes for children with persistent asthma. DATA SOURCES: Medicaid managed care administrative claims data from 2013 to 2016, obtained from a southeastern state. STUDY DESIGN: A difference-in-difference analysis compared patients' outpatient, inpatient, and emergency department (ED) utilization and receipt of recommended services before and after implementation of a statewide redistribution of patients among nine managed care plans. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Enrollment data for children with asthma were linked to the administrative claims. Children were included if they had a diagnosis of persistent asthma in 2013 and if they were enrolled continuously throughout 2014-2016. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Among the 28 537 children with asthma, 26% were forced to switch their managed care plan after the redistribution. Of these, 67% also switched their primary care provider (PCP). Relative to those who remained in their plan, disruption was associated with an additional 2.1 percentage-point decrease in the number of children who had an outpatient visit per quarter [95%CI -2.8, -1.3], from 71% to 66% (compared to plan stayers: 74% to 71%). Among children experiencing a change to their plan, there was overall a decrease in the proportion of children receiving an asthma-specific visit per quarter, but there was less of a decrease in children that also changed their PCP [1.6 percentage points, 95%CI 0.7, 2.5], from 9.7% to 8.3% (compared to those who did not switch their PCP: 12% to 8.6%). Indicators of asthma care quality and emergent care utilization were not significantly different between the two periods. CONCLUSIONS: While there was a decrease in the number of outpatient visits associated with forced disruption of Medicaid managed care plans for children with persistent asthma, there were no consistent associations with worse asthma quality performance or higher emergent health care utilization.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».