CMS Payments Necessary to Support HMO Participation in Medicare Managed Care
AbstractIn recent years, many health maintenance organizations (HMOs)have exited the market for Medicare managed care; since 1998, the number of participating plans has fallen from 346 to 174. As a result of this reduced participation by HMOs, hundreds of thousands of Medicare beneficiaries have been involuntarily disenrolled from the program at the end of each year from 1998 to 2001.This paper estimates the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) capitation payments that are necessary to support the participation of various numbers of HMOs in Medicare managed care per county market. This paper does not make a normative statement about how many HMOs should be supported in this program; rather, it makes a positive statement about the levels of payment necessary to support various numbers of HMOs.The identification strategy is to observe how the number of participating HMOs varies over counties and time in response to CMS payment, while controlling for estimated costs. This paper studies the period 1993-2001 and focuses in particular on the variation in payment, independent of costs, that occurred as a result of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which dramatically changed the way that HMOs are paid in this program. In light of the fact that it may not be cost-effective for CMS to support HMO participation in relatively rural or unpopulated counties, the sample used in this paper is limited to the 60 percent of U.S. counties with the largest populations of Medicare beneficiaries.The ordered probit results presented in this paper indicate that, to support one Medicare HMO in 2001 in half of the counties in the sample, CMS would have to pay $682.08 per average enrollee per month in the marginal county. To support one Medicare HMO in 2001 in every county in the sample, CMS would need to pay $1,008.25 per enrollee per month in the maximum-payment county. For comparison, the maximum monthly payment paid by CMS to any county in 2001 was $833.55.This paper finds that 79.3 percent of counties in the sample received a CMS payment in 2001 that was less than what was necessary to support a single HMO in Medicare managed care. Compared to those counties that received a payment exceeding the estimated threshold for HMO participation, these counties are, on average, more rural and less populated, with citizens who are less wealthy and less educated. The relative disadvantage of rural and unpopulated counties persists three years after the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, designed in part to eliminate such disparities, took effect.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by De Gruyter in its journal Forum for Health Economics & Policy.
Volume (Year): 5 (2002)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.degruyter.com
Other versions of this item:
- John Cawley & Michael Chernew & Catherine McLaughlin, 2002. "CMS Payments Necessary to Support HMO Participation in Medicare Managed Care," NBER Chapters, in: Frontiers in Health Policy Research, Volume 5, pages 1-26 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Chernew, Michael & DeCicca, Philip & Town, Robert, 2008.
"Managed care and medical expenditures of Medicare beneficiaries,"
Journal of Health Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 1451-1461, December.
- Michael Chernew & Philip DeCicca & Robert Town, 2008. "Managed Care and Medical Expenditures of Medicare Beneficiaries," NBER Working Papers 13747, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.