Evaluation of the CHAMPUS Reform Initiative

Volume 6, Implementation and Operations

Mary E. Anderson, Susan D. Hosek, Ellyn S. Bloomfield

ResearchPublished 1994

Health care utilization and costs under managed care are evaluated in this report. As part of the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) Reform Initiative (CRI) demonstration, conducted from 1988 to 1993 in California and Hawaii, this report includes estimates of the effects of CRI on utilization levels and costs for CHAMPUS beneficiaries. It also explores differences within CRI between beneficiaries who elected to enroll in CHAMPUS Prime, an HMO option offered by CRI, and those who did not enroll. The authors conducted two mail surveys of CHAMPUS beneficiaries, (beneficiaries include dependents of active-duty military personnel, and retired military personnel and their dependents) one shortly before CRI began and another two years later. They then compared data from both surveys in the eleven military hospital catchment areas with eleven matched control areas in different states. The authors found that for the average adult beneficiary, costs to the government were 9 percent higher with CRI. Compared to the non-CRI program, costs were 57 percent higher for Prime enrollees, whereas they were the same for non-enrollees. Prime enrollees' use of outpatient care accounted for almost all of the utilization increase in CRI. Active-duty spouses who enrolled did not change their military treatment facility (MTF) use, but they were more likely to augment their MTF care with civilian care. Retired enrollees were more likely to use both MTF care and civilian care. CHAMPUS inpatient utilization was lower in CRI, as is often the case in managed-care programs, whereas use of MTF inpatient services did not change significantly. These findings suggest that CRI was able to increase access, especially to civilian care, with an accompanying increase in costs. The evidence points to high utilization among Prime enrollees, especially for retired beneficiaries. First-dollar coverage in Prime increased the costs of care that would have been used even without CRI, thereby adding to the amount of care demanded. The cost containment features in CRI, such as utilization review, were not able to counteract the added costs in Prime and the higher administrative overhead for the program.

Order a Print Copy

Format
Paperback
Page count
91 pages
List Price
$30.00
Buy link
Add to Cart

Document Details

  • Availability: Available
  • Year: 1994
  • Print Format: Paperback
  • Paperback Pages: 91
  • Paperback Price: $30.00
  • Paperback ISBN/EAN: 978-0-8330-1570-9
  • Document Number: R-4244/6-HA

Citation

RAND Style Manual
Anderson, Mary E., Susan D. Hosek, and Ellyn S. Bloomfield, Evaluation of the CHAMPUS Reform Initiative: Volume 6, Implementation and Operations, RAND Corporation, R-4244/6-HA, 1994. As of September 19, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R4244z6.html
Chicago Manual of Style
Anderson, Mary E., Susan D. Hosek, and Ellyn S. Bloomfield, Evaluation of the CHAMPUS Reform Initiative: Volume 6, Implementation and Operations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1994. https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R4244z6.html. Also available in print form.
BibTeX RIS

This publication is part of the RAND report series. The report series, a product of RAND from 1948 to 1993, represented the principal publication documenting and transmitting RAND's major research findings and final research.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.