All-Payer Claims Databases Research Articles

Building Data Infrastructure for Disease-Focused Health Economics Research.

Data infrastructure for cancer research is centered on registries that are often augmented with payer or hospital discharge databases, but these linkages are limited. A recent alternative in some states is to augment registry data with All-Payer Claims Databases (APCDs). These linkages capture patient-centered economic outcomes, including those driven by insurance and influence health equity, and can serve as a prototype for health economics research. To describe and assess the utility of a linkage between the Colorado APCD and Colorado Central Cancer Registry (CCCR) data for 2012-2017. This cohort study of 91,883 insured patients evaluated the Colorado APCD-CCCR linkage on its suitability to assess demographics, area-level data, insurance, and out-of-pocket expenses 3 and 6 months after cancer diagnosis. The linkage had high validity, with over 90% of patients in the CCCR linked to the APCD, but gaps in APCD health plans limited available claims at diagnosis. We highlight the advantages of the CCCR-APCD, such as granular race and ethnicity classification, area-level data, the ability to capture supplemental plans, medical and pharmacy out-of-pocket expenses, and transitions in insurance plans. Linked data between registries and APCDs can be a cornerstone of a robust data infrastructure and spur innovations in health economics research on cost, quality, and outcomes. A larger infrastructure could comprise a network of state APCDs that maintain linkages for research and surveillance.

Abstract 12361: Predictors and Utilization of Ultrasound Enhancing Agents for Echocardiography in the Outpatient Setting

Background: The national utilization of ultrasound enhancing agents (UEAs) for transthoracic (TTE) or stress (SE) echocardiography in the outpatient setting and their association with downstream utilization of care remains uncertain. Methods: In a set of large, all-payer claims databases (ACTICS Open and Closed Claims) encompassing 90% of the US population, we evaluated rates, predictors of use, and association of UEAs with downstream utilization using linear mixed effects models amongst adult outpatients receiving TTE or SE, 2019-2022. Amongst those with recent hospitalization for AMI, we evaluated the association of UEA receipt and downstream healthcare utilization. Results: A total of 11,270,268 individuals receiving TTE and 744,175 adults receiving SE across 2,407 sites were included (mean age 63, 54.8% female), of which 6.8% receiving TTE and 21.0% receiving SE received UEAs. Patients receiving UEAs were more frequently older, male, and had a greater number of comorbidities. Sites performing UEAs were more frequently large, rural, nonprofits, and teaching facilities. Use varied widely by state ( Figure; 19.7% in Minnesota vs. 1.1% in Delaware) and was not explained by patient or site characteristics (median odds ratios = 4.35). Amongst those receiving TTE after AMI, UEA use was associated with a reduction in cardiac non-stress imaging (adjusted RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.92, p = 0.004), but no substantial differences in cost, days alive at home, readmission rates, cardiac catheterization, or stress imaging (p > 0.05 for all). Conclusions: In this large, nationally representative cohort study, UEAs were used in 6.8% of TTEs and 21.0% of SEs performed in the outpatient setting but use varied widely across sites, unexplained by patient or site characteristics. Amongst outpatients, UEA receipt after AMI was associated with a reduction in cardiac stress imaging, but not other outcomes.

Explanations for variations in hospital expenditures among four large California counties

ObjectiveTo investigate competing explanations for why Medicare Fee for Service (FFS) and private sector payments lead to hospital cost variations in Californian counties.Data sourcesRatios of private to Medicare hospital costs were obtained from state-based all-payer claims databases. Demographics were estimated from the U.S. Census Bureau and the California Health Interview Survey. Medicaid and Medicare spending was obtained from Kaiser Family Foundation. Medicare Advantage enrollment was obtained from the California Department of Health Care Services and market consolidation was estimated using the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI).Study designPer capita costs, demographics, Medicaid and Medicare spending, Medicare Advantage enrollment, and HHI scores were compared for San Francisco (SF), Sacramento, Los Angeles (LA), and San Diego (SD).Principal findingsLA hospitals had the lowest per capita private insurer costs, but the highest Medicare FFS costs. The findings might be explained by a lower HHI for LA, indicating a more competitive market, than SD, SF, and Sacramento.ConclusionsMedicare FFS hospital costs do not provide an accurate representation of health care spending in Californian counties. In more competitive markets, private insurance companies can negotiate lower prices, while oversupply may allow facilities to increase volume in Medicare FFS.

Concordance of opioid exposure in all-payer claims databases with prescription drug monitoring program database using Arkansas as a case example.

To assess the concordance between and benefit of adding prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) data to all-payer claims database (APCD) data for identifying and classifying opioid exposure among insured individuals. Arkansas APCD and PDMP. Enrollees in APCD were classified as (1) true positives: if they received opioids in both databases, (2) false positives: if they only received opioids in APCD, (3) true negatives: if they had no opioid exposure in both databases, (4) false negatives: if they only received opioids in the PDMP database. Specificity, sensitivity, negative, and positive predictive values were calculated using PDMP as the "gold standard" database source. Subjects were also categorized as those who received any opioid, chronic opioid, high-dose opioid, or high-risk opioid therapies. Arkansas residents continuously enrolled with pharmacy coverage in 2016 were included. APCD and PDMP were linked using an encrypted enrollee identifier, gender, and year of birth. The degree of concordance in opioid exposure between the two databases among 1,411,565 enrollees was high (sensitivity=92.67%, specificity=96.13%, positive predictive value=91.60%, negative predictive value=96.65%). Enrollees classified as having any opioid (APCD: 31.64% vs. PDMP: 31.26% vs. APCD+PDMP: 33.93%), chronic opioid (APCD: 7.81% vs. PDMP: 7.54% vs. APCD+PDMP: 8.24%), high-dose opioid (APCD: 10.60% vs. PDMP: 9.62% vs. APCD+PDMP: 11.33%), or high-risk opioid (APCD: 5.28% vs. PDMP: 5.33% vs. APCD+PDMP: 6.20%) therapies, were similar using only APCD versus PDMP versus the combined APCD and PDMP data sources. Claims data sources, such as APCDs, are fairly accurate in identifying opioid exposure and the level of opioid exposure among persons with continuous pharmacy coverage.

The impact of price transparency and competition on hospital costs: a research on all-payer claims databases

BackgroundPublic reporting has been considered effective in reducing health care costs by mitigating information asymmetry in the market as payers have incorporated publicly available information mandates into pay-for-performance programs and value-based purchasing. Therefore, hospitals have faced increasing pressures to provide price transparency. Despite the widespread promotion of healthcare transparency, the effectiveness of public reporting has not yet been sufficiently understood. This study analyzed the impact of transparency policy and competition on hospital costs by taking the state operations of all-payer claims databases (APCDs) as a case of interest.MethodsWe employed a fixed-effects regression, which allows the generation of hospital-specific effects, in accordance with the suggestion by the Hausman test. The study samples comprise nonprofit and for-profit general acute care hospitals in the United States for 2011–2017. The finalized dataset ranges from 3547 observations in 2011 to 3405 observations in 2015 after removing missing values.ResultsWe found that hospitals in the states with APCDs tend to bear higher average operating expenses than those without APCDs, which may indicate that states maintaining higher healthcare expenditures are more attentive to a price transparency initiative and tend to adopt APCDs. With regard to competition, the results showed that weak market competition is significantly associated with higher operating costs, supporting the traditional competition theory. However, the combined effect of APCDs and competition did not indicate a significant association with operating expenses. Further investigation showed a continued tendency for a weak intensity of competition to be linked to lower hospital operating costs in states without APCDs. For those located in non-APCD adopted states, market consolidation helped hospitals coordinate care more effectively, economize operating costs, and enjoy economies of scale due to their large size. Similar trends did not appear in APCD-adopted states except for in 2015.ConclusionsThis study observed limited evidence of the impact of APCDs and market competition. Our findings suggest that states need to make multifaceted efforts to contain hospital costs, not solely depending on the rollout of cost information or market competition. Market concentration may lead to coordinated care or cost economization in some cases. Still, the existing literature also demonstrates some potentially harmful impacts of increased concentration in the healthcare market, such as inefficient use of resources, unilateral market power, and deterrence of innovation. The introduction of a price transparency tool may require additional policy actions that take market competition into consideration.

The Future of State All-Payer Claims Databases.

State policy makers are under increasing pressure to address the prohibitive cost of health care given the lack of action at the federal level. In 2020, the United States spent more on health care than any other country in the world-$4.1 trillion, representing 19.7% of the nation's gross domestic product. States are trying to better understand their role in health care spending and to think creatively about strategies for addressing health care cost growth. One way they are doing this is through the development and use of state-based all-payer claims databases (APCDs). APCDs are health data organizations that hold transactional information from public (Medicare and Medicaid) and private health insurers (commercial plans and some self-insured employers). APCDs transform this data into useful information on health care costs and trends. This article describes states' use of APCDs and recent efforts that have provided benefits and challenges for states interested in this unique opportunity to inform health policy. Although challenges exist, there is new funding for state APCD improvements in the No Surprises Act, and potential new federal interest will help states enhance their APCD capacity so they can better understand their markets, educate consumers, and create actionable market information.

Weekend Versus Weekday Asthma-Related Emergency Department Utilization.

To assess variation in asthma-related emergency department (ED) use between weekends and weekdays. Cross-sectional administrative claims-based analysis using California 2016 Medicaid data and Vermont 2016 and Massachusetts 2015 all-payer claims databases. We defined ED use as the rate of asthma-related ED visits per 100 child-years. A weekend visit was a visit on Saturday or Sunday, based on date of ED visit claim. We used negative binomial regression and robust standard errors to assess variation between weekend and weekday rates, overall and by age group. We evaluated data from 398,537 patients with asthma. The asthma-related ED visit rate was slightly lower on weekends (weekend: 18.7 [95% confidence interval (CI): 18.3-19.0], weekday: 19.6 [95% CI, 19.3-19.8], P < .001). When stratifying by age group, 3- to 5-year-olds had higher rates of asthma-related ED visits on weekends than weekdays (weekend: 33.7 [95% CI, 32.6-34.7], weekday: 29.8 [95% CI, 29.1-30.5], P < .001) and 12- to 17-year-olds had lower rates of ED visits on weekends than weekdays (weekend: 13.0 [95% CI: 12.5-13.4], weekday: 16.3 [95% CI: 15.9-16.7], P < .001). In the other age groups (6-11, 18-21 years) there were not statistically significant differences between weekend and weekday rates (P > .05). In this multistate analysis of children with asthma, we found limited overall variation in pediatric asthma-related ED utilization on weekends versus weekdays. These findings suggest that increasing access options during the weekend may not necessarily decrease asthma-related ED use.

Follow-Up After Asthma Emergency Department Visits and Its Relationship With Subsequent Asthma-Related Utilization.

To assess the association between follow-up after an asthma-related emergency department (ED) visit and the likelihood of subsequent asthma-related ED utilization. Using data from California Medicaid (2014-2016), and Vermont (2014-2016) and Massachusetts (2013-2015) all-payer claims databases, we identified asthma-related ED visits for patients ages 3 to 21. Follow-up was defined as a visit within 14 days with a primary care provider or an asthma specialist. asthma-related ED revisit after the initial ED visit. Models included logistic regression to assess the relationship between 14-day follow-up and the outcome at 60 and 365 days, and mixed-effects negative binomial regression to assess the relationship between 14-day follow-up and repeated outcome events (# ED revisits/100 child-years). All models accounted for zip-code level clustering. There were 90,267 ED visits, of which 22.6% had 14-day follow-up. Patients with follow-up were younger and more likely to have commercial insurance, complex chronic conditions, and evidence of prior asthma. 14-day follow-up was associated with decreased subsequent asthma-related ED revisits at 60 days (5.7% versus 6.4%, P < .001) and at 365 days (25.0% versus 28.3%, P < 0.001). Similarly, 14-day follow-up was associated with a decrease in the rate of repeated subsequent ED revisits (66.7 versus 77.3 revisits/100 child-years; P < 0.001). We found a protective association between outpatient 14-day follow-up and asthma-related ED revisits. This may reflect improved asthma control as providers follow the NHLBI guideline stepwise approach. Our findings highlight an opportunity for improvement, with only 22.6% of those with asthma-related ED visits having 14-day follow-up.

ACA and Medicaid Expansion Increased Breast Pump Claims and Breastfeeding for Women with Public and Private Insurance.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) required new private insurance plans to provide breast pumps with no cost sharing beginning August 2012, and in January 2014 expanded this requirement to Marketplace plans and expanded Medicaid coverage. We first examined the associations between the ACA reforms in 2012 and 2014 with rates of breast pump claims between Medicaid enrollees and those with private insurance. We next examined the associations between the monthly rate of breast pump claims with breastfeeding initiation and duration by insurance type. Using 2011-2015 public and private health insurance claims in All-Payer Claims Databases from Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire, we conducted a linear regression model to evaluate the associations between the 2012 and 2014 ACA health insurance reforms with rates of breast pump claims by health insurance status. We then linked the monthly rates of breast pump claims per 1,000 live births to the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System with self-reported breastfeeding initiation and duration. We estimated probit regression models to examine the associations between monthly rates of breast pump claims per state, insurance type, age group, and breastfeeding outcomes. For the 2012 ACA reform, breast pump claims increased by 183.4 (143.7-223.1) per 1,000 live births for women with private insurance, but decreased for Medicaid enrollees (-99.3 [-139.0 to -59.6]). For the 2014 ACA reforms, the opening of health insurance Marketplaces had no effect on breast pump claims for women with private insurance (8.3 [-43.6 to 60.2]), whereas Medicaid expansion increased claims by 119.4 (67.5-171.3) per 1,000 live births for Medicaid enrollees. Every additional 10 breast pump claims per 1,000 live births was associated with a 1.08 percentage point increase in breastfeeding initiation among women with private insurance (0.108 [0.018-0.198]), but not Medicaid enrollees (0.076 [-0.078 to 0.230]). In contrast, every additional 10 breast pump claims per 1,000 live births was associated with a 1.79 percentage point increase in breastfeeding for 4 or more weeks for women with private insurance (0.179 [0.063-0.294]) and a 2.05 percentage point increase among women with public insurance (0.205 [0.033-0.376]). Interaction analysis revealed no significant differences in associations by insurance type across breastfeeding outcomes. The ACA breastfeeding coverage requirements fill a gap for women wanting to obtain a breast pump to support breastfeeding. The monthly rate of breast pump claims, as an indicator of access, translated into higher levels of breastfeeding for women with private and public insurance with the potential to reduce socioeconomic disparities.

The Determinants of Targeted Transparency in the U.S. States: The Roles of Targeted Organizations and State Fiscal Environments

Despite recent interest in transparency, not much scholarly attention has been paid to the determinants of government operation of targeted transparency policies, mandating targeted organizations including corporations or private entities, to disclose data to address market failures. This study explores how targeted organizations and state financial environments affect state operation of All-Payer Claims Databases (APCDs), a targeted transparency policy at the U.S. state level. The establishment and operation of APCDs is a recent state initiative to collect and utilize comparable health data on prices and quality measures from non-governmental actors as well as governmental actors, which can contribute to reducing information asymmetry between state health policymakers and providers and to constrain health care expenditures. We found that the operation of APCD was affected by insurance market competition and enrollment, and state financial environments, as well as by state political context and service demands. Especially, this study encourages future researchers to study how insurers as targeted organizations shape the state operation of the price transparency strategy.

APCDs can Provide Important Insights for Surveilling the Opioid Epidemic, With Caveats.

State-level all-payer claims databases (APCDs) are a possible new public health surveillance tool, but their reliability is unclear. We compared Colorado's APCD with other state-level databases for use in monitoring the opioid epidemic (Colorado Hospital Association and Colorado's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program database for 2010-2017), using descriptive analyses comparing quarterly counts/rates of opioid-involved inpatient and emergency department visits and counts/rates of 30-day opioid fills between databases. Utilization is lower in the Colorado APCD than the other databases for all outcomes but trends are parallel and consistent between databases. State APCDs hold promise for researchers, but they may be better suited to individual-level analyses or comparisons of providers than for surveillance of public health trends related to addiction.

The role of all-payer claims databases to expand central cancer registries: Experience from Colorado.

To evaluate the quality of a multiyear linkage between the Colorado all-payer claims database (APCD) and the Colorado Central Cancer Registry. Secondary 2012-2017 data from the APCD and the Colorado Cancer Registry. Descriptive analysis of the proportion of cases captured by the linkage in relation to the cases reported by the registry. We used probabilistic linkage to combine records from both data sources for all patients diagnosed with cancer. We successfully linked 93% of the 146,884 patients in the registry. Approximately 63% of linked patients were perfect matches on five identifiers. Of partial matches, 81.6% were matched on four identifiers with missing or partial Social Security Numbers. The linkage rate was lower for uninsured patients at diagnosis (74.7%) or patients with private plans (89.4%) but close to 100% for Medicare and Medicaid enrollees. Most of the 29% of patients who did not have claims at the time of diagnosis were covered by private plans that may not submit claims. APCD-registry linkages are a promising source of data to conduct population-based research from multiple payers. However, not all payers submit claims, and the quality of the data may vary by state.

Value-based Healthcare: The Politics of Value-based Care and its Impact on Orthopaedic Surgery.

Value-based Healthcare: The Politics of Value-based Care and its Impact on Orthopaedic Surgery.

State strategies to address medicaid prescription spending: negotiated pricing vs price transparency.

This research longitudinally examines the association between levels of state Medicaid prescription spending and the state strategies intended to constrain cost increases: the negotiated pricing strategy, as indicated by state rebate programs, and the price transparency strategy, as indicated by state operation of All-Payer Claims Databases. The findings demonstrate evidence that state Medicaid prescription spending is influenced by the negotiated pricing strategy, especially Managed Care Organization (MCO) rebates under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but not influenced by the price transparency strategy. State decisions for MCO rebates, such as carving prescription benefits into managed care benefits, were effective in containing levels of Medicaid prescription spending over time, while other single- and multi-state rebate programs were not. Based on these findings, state policymakers may consider utilizing the MCO rebate program to address increases in Medicaid prescription spending.

Evaluating statewide HIV preexposure prophylaxis implementation using All-Payer Claims Data

PurposePreexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in the form of daily emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC/TDF) is effective for preventing HIV infection. Implementation has been limited by an inability to systematically evaluate uptake and use. All-Payer Claims Databases (APCDs) provide an opportunity to evaluate population-level PrEP implementation. MethodsWe used 2012–2017 data from Rhode Island's APCD and developed an algorithm to identify individuals prescribed FTC/TDF for PrEP. We describe PrEP implementation by patient demographics and provider type and mapped PrEP implementation across ZIP codes. We compared APCD data to electronic medical record data and comprehensive pharmaceutical claims data (AIDSVu.org). ResultsThe Rhode Island APCD represented approximately 87% of the state's population. PrEP use increased 31-fold from 2012 to 2017. Users were predominantly privately insured, male, and concentrated in Providence County (76.6%). Infectious diseases providers had 3.2 times the odds of being a PrEP prescriber compared to primary care providers. Compared to other pharmaceutical and electronic medical record data, the APCD underestimated the number of PrEP users in Rhode Island but improved in capturing users over time. ConclusionsAPCDs are a useful data source for characterizing PrEP use across a state. There is a need to increase PrEP prescribing among primary care providers, especially in areas with underserved populations.

1278. Assessing Statewide HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Implementation Using an All Payer Claims Database

BackgroundPre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in the form of daily tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF/FTC) is a potentially transformative tool to prevent HIV infection. However, PrEP scale-up in the United States has been slow and difficult to evaluate comprehensively. All payer claims databases (APCDs) are large datasets that contain information on medical and pharmaceutical claims from most public and private payers in each state, and provide an unusual opportunity to evaluate statewide PrEP implementation efforts.MethodsWe used 2012–2017 data from Rhode Island’s APCD and developed an algorithm to identify individuals prescribed TDF/FTC for PrEP. We compared APCD PrEP data to electronic medical record (EMR) data at the largest dedicated PrEP program in the state, and to other comprehensive pharmaceutical claims data (AIDSVu.org). We calculated the PrEP-to-Need ratio (PnR) based on annual HIV incidence, and used multivariable logistic regression to predict ZIP code-level PrEP use, and specialty of prescribing provider (primary care vs. infectious disease).ResultsThe Rhode Island APCD included insurance claims for 917,633 individuals (87% of the Rhode Island population). PrEP use increased substantially in Rhode Island over the 5-year period, from 13 to 331 prescriptions between 2012 and 2017, with 546 total users during this time period. Users were predominantly male (89%) and privately insured (69.1%), and concentrated in Providence County (71.5%). The PnR ratio increased from 0.2 to 4.0 from 2012–2017. Compared with AIDSVu and EMR Data, the APCD underestimated the number of PrEP users in Rhode Island, but improved over time in documenting users. Infectious diseases specialists had 8.4 times the odds (95% CI: 5.4 to 12.9) of being a PrEP prescriber compared with primary care providers. A total of 2.6% of infectious disease specialists were PrEP prescribers compared with 0.33% of PCPs. The proportion of Black or Hispanic individuals in a ZIP-code was not a significant predictor of PrEP use.ConclusionAPCDs offer an innovative approach to evaluate statewide PrEP implementation comprehensively. Engaging PCPs in PrEP implementation is critical to improve overall uptake among populations most at-risk. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Collaborative Evaluation for the Utah All Payer Claims Database Capacity Enhancement

We present a process to evaluate the continuing development of All Payer Claims Databases (APCDs) using a collaborative evaluation process. Project teams enhanced the Utah APCD with improved analytic capacity to provide online pricing and cost-transparency reports to support health care reform in Utah. Our program evaluation efforts added key methods and tools, building on recommendations in the APCD Development Manual to provide evaluation data facilitating improvements [1]. These additions included a Collaborative Evaluation Model, logic models, and development and use of best practices as measures. Stakeholders found that the added use of best practices, logic models, and frequent feedback to practitioners facilitated the project’s success. Since the Collaborative Evaluation Model served a structural purpose, it was transparent to the project teams.

All-Payer Claims Databases: The Balance between Big Healthcare Data Utility and Individual Health Privacy

As policymakers pursue the Triple Aim of reducing costs, improving quality, and expanding access, the development of an All-Payer Claims Database (APCD) can provide invaluable information about the drivers of cost, the value of health care interventions, and the efficacy of policy initiatives. All-Payer Claims Databases form the foundation for the development of price and quality transparency tools, and offer a means of providing critical information in a timely manner for patients, policymakers, and health services researchers. The data collected by APCDs, however, also contains information that individuals, providers, and insurers would like to remain confidential. Given the sensitivity of individual health information contained in claims data, any database collecting, storing, and disseminating such information must ensure adequate privacy and security for all patient information. Furthermore, a web of federal and state privacy laws that govern the use, storage, and disclosure of information from an APCD must be untangled to determine the privacy requirements that each APCD must attain. This report examines the balance policymakers in California must strike between providing the necessary access to healthcare price and utilization data to improve healthcare decision-making and protecting confidential health information. We recommend that California establish an All Payer Claims Database designed to collect all health care claims data within the state to promote transparency, informed decision making, and improve health and healthcare for all Californians. We recommend that the legislature do so in a manner that provides robust protection for personal health information while enabling policymaker, researchers, and public health authorities reasonable access to the data collected by the APCD to promote improvements in health and health care throughout the state. We recommend an independent oversight body with a broad membership appointed by a range of individuals and organizations to ensure diversity and expertise within its membership. At a minimum, the legislature should subject the APCD to the requirements of HIPAA and CMIA, as though it were a covered entity. These requirements provide a solid baseline for privacy protections, while granting the oversight body or the Department of Health and Human Services the option to increase the stringency of the requirements as needed.

Risk-adjustment methods for all-payer comparative performance reporting in Vermont

BackgroundAs the emphasis in health reform shifts to value-based payments, especially through multi-payer initiatives supported by the U.S. Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation, and with the increasing availability of statewide all-payer claims databases, the need for an all-payer, “whole-population” approach to facilitate the reporting of utilization, cost, and quality measures has grown. However, given the disparities between the different populations served by Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial payers, risk-adjustment methods for addressing these differences in a single measure have been a challenge.MethodsThis study evaluated different levels of risk adjustment for primary care practice populations – from basic adjustments for age and gender to a more comprehensive “full model” risk-adjustment method that included additional demographic, payer, and health status factors. It applied risk adjustment to populations attributed to patient-centered medical homes (283,153 adult patients and 78,162 pediatric patients) in the state of Vermont that are part of the Blueprint for Health program. Risk-adjusted expenditure and utilization outcomes for calendar year 2014 were reported in 102 adult and 56 pediatric primary-care comparative practice profiles.ResultsUsing total expenditures as the dependent variable for the adult population, the r2 for the model adjusted for age and gender was 0.028. It increased to 0.265 with the additional adjustment for 3M Clinical Risk Groups and to 0.293 with the full model. For the adult population at the practice level, the no-adjustment model had the highest variation as measured by the coefficient of variation (18.5) compared to the age and gender model (14.8); the age, gender, and CRG model (13.0); and the full model (11.7). Similar results were found for the pediatric population practices.ConclusionsResults indicate that more comprehensive risk-adjustment models are effective for comparing cost, utilization, and quality measures across multi-payer populations. Such evaluations will become more important for practices, many of which do not distinguish their patients by payer type, and for the implementation of incentive-based or alternative payment systems that depend on “whole-population” outcomes. In Vermont, providers, accountable care organizations, policymakers, and consumers have used Blueprint profiles to identify priorities and opportunities for improving care in their communities.

The New Politics of US Health Care Prices: Institutional Reconfiguration and the Emergence of All-Payer Claims Databases.

Prices are a significant driver of health care cost in the United States. Existing research on the politics of health system reform has emphasized the limited nature of policy entrepreneurs' efforts at solving the problem of rising prices through direct regulation at the state level. Yet this literature fails to account for how change agents in the states gradually reconfigured the politics of prices, forging new, transparency-based policy instruments called all-payer claims databases (APCDs), which are designed to empower consumers, purchasers, and states to make informed market and policy choices. Drawing on pragmatist institutional theory, this article shows how APCDs emerged as the dominant model for reforming health care prices. While APCD advocates faced significant institutional barriers to policy change, we show how they reconfigured existing ideas, tactical repertoires, and legal-technical infrastructures to develop a politically and technologically robust reform. Our analysis has important implications for theories of how change agents overcome structural barriers to health reform.