Expanding eligibility for Medicaid was a central goal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which continues to be debated and discussed at the state and federal levels as further reforms are considered. In an effort to provide a synthesis of the available research, we systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the effects of Medicaid expansion on the original goals of the ACA. After analyzing seventy-seven published studies, we found that expansion was associated with increases in coverage, service use, quality of care, and Medicaid spending. Furthermore, very few studies reported that Medicaid expansion was associated with negative consequences, such as increased wait times for appointments-and those studies tended to use study designs not suited for determining cause and effect. Thus, there is evidence to document improvements in several areas of health care delivery following the ACA Medicaid expansion. We outline areas for future research that can further reduce current knowledge gaps.

Enrollment in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) has greatly increased in recent years. Policy makers and other stakeholders need the best available evidence about how these plans may affect health care cost and utilization, but the literature has not been comprehensively synthesized. We performed a systematic review of methodologically rigorous studies that examined the impact of HDHPs on health care utilization and costs. The plans were associated with a significant reduction in preventive care in seven of twelve studies and a significant reduction in office visits in six of eleven studies-which in turn led to a reduction in both appropriate and inappropriate care. Furthermore, bivariate analyses of data extracted from the included studies suggested that the plans may be associated with a reduction in appropriate preventive care and medication adherence. Current evidence suggests that HDHPs are associated with lower health care costs as a result of a reduction in the use of health services, including appropriate services.

Because Medicare reimbursements are now, in part, based on patient satisfaction scores, hospitals are increasingly concerned about improving patient satisfaction. However, little is known about the different characteristics that are associated with higher patient satisfaction. This study was conducted to systematically review the patient satisfaction literature and to identify predictors of patient satisfaction based on measures from the HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) survey. We searched the PubMed and Scopus databases from January 2007 to February 2015 for relevant peer-reviewed studies. A total of 41 studies met our inclusion criteria and were categorized into three groups (levels) based on the types of predictors used in the study: patient (12 articles, 29.9%), hospital (29 articles, 70.1%), or market (4 articles, 9.7%) predictors. We present a narrative review of the included studies in which certain patient- and hospital-level predictors were consistently associated with higher patient satisfaction (e.g., patient perception of well-managed pain and not-for-profit status) or lower patient satisfaction (e.g., racial/ethnic minority, hospital's safety net status, metropolitan area). Moreover, several predictors had mixed relationships with patient satisfaction across studies (e.g., teaching status, number of beds). Finally, we found that only a small number of studies have examined the association between market-level predictors and patient satisfaction.

Objective: To examine and compare factors associated with making the decision to vacate a job (organizational turnover) versus leaving the profession (professional turnover) among registered nurses (RN) in the United States (U.S.).

Understanding how market factors relate to practice-based physicians' EMR adoption can assist policymakers to better target limited resources as they work to realize the national goal of universal EMR adoption and meaningful use.

Objective: To examine the association between patient race/ethnicity, insurance status, and their interaction with patient safety indicators among hospitalized patients.Methods: Cross-sectional study was conducted. Data were extracted from the 2009 National Inpatient Sample. A total of 3,052,268 patient safety indicator-related discharges were identified. Dependent variables were 11 patient safety indicators (PSI) whereas independent variables included race/ethnicity and insurance status. Results:As compared with White patients, African American patients were more likely to experience pressure ulcer, postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma, and post-operative pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVE); Asian/Pacific Islander patients were more likely to experience pressure ulcer, post-operative PE or DVT, and two obstetric care PSIs; whereas Hispanic/Latino patients were more likely to experience post-operative physiometabolic derangement and accidental puncture/ laceration. As compared with patients with private insurance, Medicaid patients were more likely to experience pressure ulcer, post-operative physiological metabolic derangement, post-operative PE or DVT, post-operative respiratory failure, post-operative wound dehiscence, and death among surgeries. However, both obstetric care PSIs showed that African Americans, Hispanics, and uninsured patients were less likely to incur them in comparison with their respective counterparts. Furthermore, strong interactive effects between African American and Medicaid on PSIs were detected. Conclusions:Although mixed findings in disparities in PSIs were observed in our study, Asian/Pacific Islander patients and Medicaid patients seem to be the most vulnerable. Further, interactive effects between African American and Medicaid indicate that poverty may be a key factor related to disparities in health care. Future research is merited to identify underlying factors that are related to PSIs among Asian/Pacific Islander patients. Strategies are needed to improve PSIs among Medicaid patients, especially during the current Medicaid program expansion due to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

Organizations should measure and examine patient safety climate from multiple perspectives and be aware that individuals may have varying opinions about safety climate. Hospitals should encourage multidisciplinary collaboration given that staff perceptions about patient safety climate may be associated with patient satisfaction.

Background Policymakers, legislators, and clinicians have raised concerns that hospital-based clinicians may be incentivized to inappropriately prescribe and administer opioids when addressing pain care needs of their patients, thus potentially contributing to the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States. Given the need to involve all healthcare settings, including hospitals, in joint efforts to curb the opioid epidemic, it is essential to understand if clinicians perceive hospitals as contributors to the problem. Therefore, we examined clinical perspectives on the role of hospitals in the opioid epidemic. Methods We conducted individual semi-structured interviews with 23 clinicians from 6 different acute care hospitals that are part of a single healthcare system in the Midwestern United States. Our participants were hospitalists (N = 12), inpatient registered nurses (N = 9), and inpatient adult nurse practitioners (N = 2). In the interviews, we asked clinicians whether hospitals play a role in the opioid epidemic, and if so, how hospitals may contribute to the epidemic. We used a qualitative thematic analysis approach to analyze coded text for patterns and themes and examined potential differences in themes by respondent type using Dedoose software. Results The majority of clinicians believed hospitals contribute to the opioid epidemic. Multiple clinicians cited Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) reimbursement policy and the Joint Commission’s report as drivers of inappropriate opioid prescribing in hospitals. Furthermore, numerous clinicians stated that opioids are inappropriately administered in the emergency department (ED), potentially as a mechanism to facilitate discharge and prevent re-admission. Many clinicians also described how overreliance on pre-populated pain care orders for surgical (orthopedic) patients, may be contributing to inappropriate opioid use in the hospital. Finally, clinicians suggested the following initiatives for hospitals to help address the crisis: 1) educating patients about negative consequences of using opioids long-term and setting realistic pain expectations; 2) educating medical staff about appropriate opioid prescribing practices, particularly for patients with complex chronic conditions (chronic pain; opioid use disorder (OUD)); and 3) strengthening the hospital leadership efforts to decrease inappropriate opioid use. Conclusions Our findings can inform efforts at decreasing inappropriate opioid use in hospitals.