f803c35db6
- 23 sources archived across 3 tracks - Track 1: Medicare Advantage history & structure - Track 2: Senior care infrastructure - Track 3: International health system comparisons Pentagon-Agent: Vida <HEADLESS>
60 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
60 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
type: source
|
|
title: "Effect of PACE on Costs, Nursing Home Admissions, and Mortality: 2006-2011 (ASPE/HHS)"
|
|
author: "ASPE (Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation), HHS"
|
|
url: https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/effect-pace-costs-nursing-home-admissions-mortality-2006-2011-0
|
|
date: 2014-01-01
|
|
domain: health
|
|
secondary_domains: []
|
|
format: report
|
|
status: unprocessed
|
|
priority: medium
|
|
tags: [pace, capitated-care, nursing-home, cost-effectiveness, mortality, outcomes-evidence]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Content
|
|
|
|
### Cost Findings
|
|
|
|
- PACE Medicare capitation rates essentially equivalent to FFS costs EXCEPT:
|
|
- First 6 months after enrollment: **significantly lower Medicare costs** under PACE
|
|
- Medicaid costs under PACE: **significantly higher** than FFS Medicaid
|
|
- Net effect: roughly cost-neutral for Medicare, cost-additive for Medicaid
|
|
- This challenges the "PACE saves money" narrative — it redistributes costs, doesn't eliminate them
|
|
|
|
### Nursing Home Utilization
|
|
|
|
- PACE enrollees had **significantly lower nursing home utilization** vs. matched comparison group
|
|
- Large negative differences on ALL nursing home utilization outcomes
|
|
- PACE may use nursing homes in lieu of hospital admissions (shorter stays)
|
|
- Key achievement: avoids long-term institutionalization
|
|
|
|
### Mortality
|
|
|
|
- Some evidence of **lower mortality rate** among PACE enrollees
|
|
- Quality of care improvements in certain dimensions
|
|
- The mortality finding is suggestive but not definitive given study design limitations
|
|
|
|
### Study Design
|
|
|
|
- 8 states with 250+ new PACE enrollees during 2006-2008
|
|
- Matched comparison group: nursing home entrants AND HCBS waiver enrollees
|
|
- Limitations: selection bias (PACE enrollees may differ from comparison group in unmeasured ways)
|
|
|
|
### What PACE Actually Does
|
|
|
|
- Keeps nursing-home-eligible seniors in the community
|
|
- Provides fully integrated medical + social + psychiatric care
|
|
- Single capitated payment replaces fragmented FFS billing
|
|
- The value is in averted institutionalization, not cost savings
|
|
|
|
## Agent Notes
|
|
**Why this matters:** PACE's evidence base is more nuanced than advocates claim. It doesn't clearly save money — it shifts the locus of care from institutions to community at roughly similar total cost. The value proposition is quality/preference (people prefer home), not economics (it's not cheaper in total). This complicates the attractor state thesis if you define the attractor by cost efficiency rather than outcome quality.
|
|
**What surprised me:** PACE costs MORE for Medicaid even as it costs less for Medicare in the first 6 months. This suggests PACE provides MORE comprehensive care (higher Medicaid cost) while avoiding expensive acute episodes (lower Medicare cost). The cost isn't eliminated — it's restructured from acute to chronic care spending.
|
|
**KB connections:** [[the healthcare attractor state is a prevention-first system where aligned payment continuous monitoring and AI-augmented care delivery create a flywheel that profits from health rather than sickness]]
|
|
**Extraction hints:** Claim about PACE demonstrating that full integration changes WHERE costs fall (acute vs. chronic, institutional vs. community) rather than reducing total costs — challenging the assumption that prevention-first care is inherently cheaper.
|
|
|
|
## Curator Notes
|
|
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[the healthcare attractor state is a prevention-first system where aligned payment continuous monitoring and AI-augmented care delivery create a flywheel that profits from health rather than sickness]]
|
|
WHY ARCHIVED: Honest evidence that complicates the "prevention saves money" narrative. PACE works, but not primarily through cost reduction.
|
|
EXTRACTION HINT: The cost-restructuring (not cost-reduction) finding is the most honest and extractable insight.
|