Urban Institute

About: Urban Institute is a nonprofit organization based out in Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Medicaid & Population. The organization has 927 authors who have published 2330 publications receiving 86426 citations.

Fundamental Reform of Payment for Adult Primary Care: Comprehensive Payment for Comprehensive Care

Abstract: Primary care is essential to the effective and efficient functioning of health care delivery systems, yet there is an impending crisis in the field due in part to a dysfunctional payment system. We present a fundamentally new model of payment for primary care, replacing encounter-based imbursement with comprehensive payment for comprehensive care. Unlike former iterations of primary care capitation (which simply bundled inadequate fee-for-service payments), our comprehensive payment model represents new investment in adult primary care, with substantial increases in payment over current levels. The comprehensive payment is directed to practices to include support for the modern systems and teams essential to the delivery of comprehensive, coordinated care. Income to primary physicians is increased commensurate with the high level of responsibility expected. To ensure optimal allocation of resources and the rewarding of desired outcomes, the comprehensive payment is needs/risk-adjusted and performance-based. Our model establishes a new social contract with the primary care community, substantially increasing payment in return for achieving important societal health system goals, including improved accessibility, quality, safety, and efficiency. Attainment of these goals should help offset and justify the costs of the investment. Field tests of this and other new models of payment for primary care are urgently needed.

Insurance Coverage, Medical Care Use, and Short-term Health Changes Following an Unintentional Injury or the Onset of a Chronic Condition

Abstract: ContextGiven the large and increasing number of uninsured US individuals, identifying the health consequences of being uninsured has assumed increased importance.ObjectiveTo compare medical care use and short-term health changes among US uninsured individuals and insured nonelderly individuals following a health shock caused by either an unintentional injury or the onset of a chronic condition.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsMultivariate logistic regression analysis of longitudinal data from Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys (1997-2004) limited to nonelderly individuals whose insurance status was established for 2 months prior to 1 or more unintentional injuries (20 783 cases among 15 866 individuals) and onset of 1 or more chronic conditions (10 485 cases among 7954 individuals).Main Outcome MeasuresSelf-reported medical care use and change in short-term general health status following the health shock.ResultsAfter experiencing a health shock, uninsured individuals were less likely to obtain any medical care (unintentional injury [UI] group: 78.8% uninsured vs 88.7% insured [adjusted odds ratio {AOR}, 0.47; 95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.43-0.51]; new chronic condition [NCC] group: 81.7% uninsured vs 91.5% insured [AOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.40-0.50]) and more likely not to have received any recommended follow-up care (UI group: 19.3% uninsured vs 9.2% insured [AOR, 2.59; 95% CI, 2.15-3.11]; NCC group: 9.4% uninsured vs 4.4% insured [AOR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.32-2.06]). Based on the AORs, uninsured individuals with UIs had fewer outpatient visits (6.1% uninsured vs 9.0% insured; AOR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63-0.80]), office-based visits (41.8% uninsured vs 57.3% insured; AOR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.56-0.62]), and prescription medicines (35.5% uninsured vs 35.6% insured; AOR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.67-0.75]). Uninsured individuals with an NCC had fewer office-based visits (58.9% uninsured vs 68.3% insured; AOR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.72-0.82]) and prescription medicines (52.7% uninsured vs 61.7% insured; AOR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.57-0.76]). Higher proportions of uninsured individuals reported a decrease in health status (classified as much worse) approximately 3.5 months after the health shock (UI group: 9.8% uninsured vs 6.7% insured; AOR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.75-0.98]; NCC group: 12.3% uninsured vs 10.1% insured; AOR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.68-0.80]). Uninsured individuals with UIs were more likely to report not being fully recovered and no longer receiving treatment. At approximately 7 months after the health shock, uninsured individuals with NCCs still reported worse health status.ConclusionsAmong individuals who experienced a health shock caused by an unintentional injury or a new chronic condition, uninsured individuals reported receiving less medical care and poorer short-term changes in health than those with insurance.

The Disproportionate Impact Of Dementia On Family And Unpaid Caregiving To Older Adults

Abstract: The number of US adults ages sixty-five and older who are living with dementia is substantial and expected to grow, raising concerns about the demands that will be placed on family members and other unpaid caregivers. We used data from the 2011 National Health and Aging Trends Study and its companion study, the National Study of Caregiving, to investigate the role of dementia in caregiving. We found that among family and unpaid caregivers to older noninstitutionalized adults, one-third of caregivers, and 41 percent of the hours of help they provide, help people with dementia, who account for about 10 percent of older noninstitutionalized adults. Among older adults who receive help, the vast majority in both community and residential care settings other than nursing homes rely on family or unpaid caregivers (more than 90 percent and more than 80 percent, respectively), regardless of their dementia status. Caregiving is most intense, however, to older adults with dementia in community settings and from care...