Process incentives increased session attendance, but when combined at half strength with outcome incentives did not achieve that effect. There were no significant effects of either process or outcomes incentives on weight loss.
Previous reports suggest that periodontal treatment is associated with improved health care outcomes and reduced costs. Using data from the New York State Medicaid program, rates of emergency department (ED) use and inpatient admissions (IPs), as well as costs for ED, IPs, pharmacy, and total health care, were studied to determine the association of preventive dental care to health care outcomes. Utilization of dental services in the first 2 y (July 2012–June 2014) was compared to health care outcomes in the final year (July 2014–June 2015). Costs and utilization for members who did not receive dental services (No Dental) were compared to those who received any dental care (Any Dental), any preventive dental care (PDC), PDC without an extraction and/or endodontic treatment (PDC without Ext/Endo), PDC with an Ext/Endo (PDC with Ext/Endo), or Ext/Endo without PDC (Ext/Endo without PDC). Propensity scores were used to adjust for potential confounders. After adjustment, ED rate ratios were significantly lower for PDC and PDC without Ext/Endo but higher for the Any Dental and Ext/Endo without PDC. IP ratios were lower for all treatment groups except Ext/Endo without PDC. ED costs differed little compared to the No Dental group except for Ext/Endo without PDC. For IPs, costs per member were significantly lower for all groups (−$262.91 [95% confidence interval (CI), −325.40 to −200.42] to −$379.82 [95% CI, −451.27 to −308.37]) except for Ext/Endo without PDC. For total health care costs, Ext/Endo without PDC had a significantly greater total health care cost ($530.50 [95% CI, 156.99–904.01]). Each additional PDC visit was associated with a 3% reduction in the relative risk for ED and 9% reduction for IPs. Costs also decreased for total health care (−$235.64 [95% CI, −299.95 to −171.33]) and IP (−$181.39 [95% CI, −208.73 to −154.05]). In conclusion, an association between PDC and improved health care outcomes was observed, with the opposite association for Ext/Endo without PDC.
Financial incentives-regardless of whether they were delivered based on disease-relevant outcomes, process activities, or a combination of the two-have a negligible impact on health outcomes for Medicaid recipients diagnosed with either hypertension or diabetes in 2 studies in which, among other design and operational limitations, the majority of recipients had relatively well-controlled diseases at the time of enrollment.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate an ongoing initiative to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake in the New York State (NYS) Medicaid managed care population. METHODS: Patients aged 50 to 75 years who were not up to date with CRC screening and resided in 2 NYS regions were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 cohorts: no mailed reminder, mailed reminder, and mailed reminder + incentive (in the form of a $25 cash card). Screening prevalence and the costs of the intervention were summarized. RESULTS: In total, 7123 individuals in the Adirondack Region and 10,943 in the Central Region (including the Syracuse metropolitan area) were included. Screening prevalence in the Adirondack Region was 7.2% in the mailed reminder + incentive cohort, 7.0% in the mailed reminder cohort, and 5.8% in the no mailed reminder cohort. In the Central Region, screening prevalence was 7.2% in the mailed reminder cohort, 6.9% in the mailed reminder + incentive cohort, and 6.5% in the no mailed reminder cohort. The cost of implementing interventions in the Central Region was approximately 53% lower than in the Adirondack Region. CONCLUSIONS: Screening uptake was low and did not differ significantly across the 2 regions or within the 3 cohorts. The incentive payment and mailed reminder did not appear to be effective in increasing CRC screening. The total cost of implementation was lower in the Central Region because of efficiencies generated from lessons learned during the first round of implementation in the Adirondack Region. More varied multicomponent interventions may be required to facilitate the completion of CRC screening among Medicaid beneficiaries.
IntroductionPreventive dental services have been associated with improved health outcomes. This study expands on previous observations by examining the relationship between oral health care and health care outcomes and costs in a publicly insured population with diabetes.MethodsUtilization of dental services, health care outcomes and costs were evaluated for New York State Medicaid members with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (DM), ages 42 to 64, who were continuously enrolled between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2015. Utilization of dental services focused on preventive dental care (PDC), and extractions and endodontic treatment (both indicative of advanced dental infection). Data were analyzed using regression models with propensity score weighting to control for potential confounding.ResultsReceipt of PDC was associated with lower utilization rates and costs compared to members who did not access dental services. The most pronounced average cost difference was observed for inpatient admissions at $823 per year for members who had at least one PDC without extraction or endodontic treatment. Each additional PDC visit received was associated with an 11% lower rate of inpatient admissions and lower average inpatient costs by $407 per member. The need for a dental extraction or endodontic therapy was associated with relatively higher rates and costs.ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate an association between PDC and improved health care outcome rates and lower average costs among members with DM and suggest a general health benefit associated with provision of preventive dental care for persons with DM.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.