Search

Abstract With ongoing efforts to improve the value of health care in the United States and reduce wasteful spending, we examine empirically the value trade-offs involved in an additional day in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) after hospital discharge. To control for potential endogeneity, we use the percentage of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage in each county-year as an instrument for individuals' SNF length of stay among Traditional Medicare beneficiaries, as local Medicare Advantage penetration puts downward pressure on SNF length of stay for all SNF patients but does not directly affect utilization management of those enrolled in Traditional Medicare. We also test for heterogeneity in treatment effect across patients by clinical complexity and two non-health-related factors, marital status and nursing home profit status. We find that one additional day in a SNF lowers short-term readmission rates, but this effect is small and heterogeneous across patient types. The most clinically complex patients (those with the longest predicted SNF stays) benefit the most from an additional SNF day, as do patients whose stays are shorter because of non-health-related factors. The cost savings from reduced readmission rates are small and do not offset the additional SNF costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To examine the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on post-acute care utilization and spending. We used a large national multipayer claims data set from January 2019 through October 2020 to examine trends in posthospital discharge location and spending. We identified and included 975,179 hospital discharges who were aged ≥65 years. We summarized postdischarge utilization and spending in each month of the study: (1) the percentage of patients discharged from the hospital to home for self-care and to the 3 common post-acute care locations: home with home health, skilled nursing facility (SNF), and inpatient rehabilitation; (2) the rate of discharge to each location per 100,000 insured members in our cohort; (3) the total amount spent per month in each post-acute care location; and (4) the percentage of spending in each post-acute care location out of the total spending across the 3 post-acute care settings. The percentage of patients discharged from the hospital to home or to inpatient rehabilitation did not meaningfully change during the pandemic whereas the percentage discharged to SNF declined from 19% of discharges in 2019 to 14% by October 2020. Total monthly spending declined in each of the 3 post-acute care locations, with the largest relative decline in SNFs of 55%, from an average of $42 million per month in 2019 to $19 million in October 2020. Declines in total monthly spending were smaller in home health (a 41% decline) and inpatient rehabilitation (a 32% decline). As a percentage of all post-acute care spending, spending on SNFs declined from 39% to 31%, whereas the percentage of post-acute care spending on home health and inpatient rehabilitation both increased. Changes in posthospital discharge location of care represent a significant shift in post-acute care utilization, which persisted 9 months into the pandemic. These shifts could have profound implications on the future of post-acute care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past decade, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have led the nationwide shift toward value-based payment. A major strategy for achieving this goal has been to implement alternative payment models (APMs) that encourage high-value care by holding providers financially accountable for both the quality and the costs of care. In particular, the CMS has implemented and scaled up two types of APMs: population-based models that emphasize accountability for overall quality and costs for defined patient populations, and episode-based payment models that emphasize accountability for quality and costs for discrete care. Both APM types have been associated with modest reductions in Medicare spending without apparent compromises in quality. However, concerns about the unintended consequences of these APMs remain, and more work is needed in several important areas. Nonetheless, both APM types represent steps to build on along the path toward a higher-value national health care system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hospitals are increasingly at risk for post-acute care outcomes and spending, such as those in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). While hospitalists are thought to improve patient outcomes of acute care, whether these effects extend to the post-acute setting in SNFs is unknown.Objective: To compare longer term outcomes of patients discharged to SNFs who were treated by hospitalists vs. non-hospitalists during their hospitalization.Design: This was a retrospective cohort study.Participants: Participants are Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries over 66 years of age who were hospitalized and discharged to a SNF in 2012-2014 (N = 2,839,779).Main Measures: We estimated the effect of being treated by a hospitalist on 30-day rehospitalization and mortality, 60-day episode Medicare payments (Parts A and B), and successful discharge to community. Patients discharged to the community within 100 days of SNF admission who remained alive and not readmitted to a hospital or SNF for at least 30 days were considered successfully discharged. All outcomes were adjusted for demographics and clinical characteristics. To account for heterogeneity across facilities, we included hospital fixed effects.Key Results: The 30-day rehospitalization rate was 17.59% for hospitalists' vs. 17.31% for non-hospitalists' patients (adjusted difference, 0.28%; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.44). Sixty-day payments were $26,301 for hospitalists' vs. $25,996 for non-hospitalists' patients (adjusted difference, $305; 95% CI, $243 to $367). There was a non-significant trend toward lower successful discharge to the community rate (adjusted difference, - 0.26%; 95% CI, - 0.48 to - 0.04) and lower mortality for patients of hospitalists (adjusted difference, - 0.12%; 95% CI, - 0.22 to - 0.02).Conclusions: Among hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries who were discharged to SNFs, readmissions and Medicare costs were slightly higher for stays under the care of hospitalists compared with those of non-hospitalist generalist physicians, but there was a non-significant trend toward lower mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance High use of subspecialty care is an important source of health care spending. Medical subspecialty care in particular may duplicate the scope of practice of the primary attending physicians for patients hospitalized for medical conditions. Under value-based payments, which aim to control overall spending during an episode of hospitalization (including Part B physician fees), subspecialty consultations may be a target for hospitals working to reduce costs. Objectives To measure the use of subspecialty consultation for Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for nonsurgical conditions; to compare payments for consultative and nonconsultative care, adjusted for case mix and demographics; and to measure variation in payments across hospital referral regions (HRRs). Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cross-sectional study included a 15% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries enrolled in Parts A and B and identified all discharges after acute care hospital stays for nonsurgical conditions from January 1 through December 31, 2014. A total of 735 627 discharges were included. The analyses were conducted from December 1, 2017, through February 12, 2019. Total Part B payments were extrapolated to the population of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cross-sectional study included a 15% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries enrolled in Parts A and B and identified all discharges after acute care hospital stays for nonsurgical conditions from January 1 through December 31, 2014. A total of 735 627 discharges were included. The analyses were conducted from December 1, 2017, through February 12, 2019. Total Part B payments were extrapolated to the population of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Results A total of 735 627 discharges from 4534 hospitals in 2014 were included in the analysis (41.2% men and 58.8% women; mean [SD] age, 79.6 [8.9] years; 84.7% white, 10.1% black, and 5.2% other race). After adjusting for patient case mix and demographics, a 6-fold variation between the top and bottom quintiles of hospitals (relative difference, $401 [95% CI, $368-$434]) and HRRs (relative difference, $363 [95% CI, $337-$389]) was found in payments per stay for consultative care. Part B payments for consultative care by medical subspecialists accounted for 41.3% of payments for physician visits during hospitalization and totaled $1.3 billion in 2014. Conclusions and Relevance The substantial variation in the use of subspecialty consultative care suggests potential opportunities for cost savings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To test for differences in patient outcomes when hospital and post-acute care (PAC) providers participate in accountable care organizations (ACOs).Data/setting: Using Medicare claims, we examined changes in readmission, Medicare spending, and length of stay among patients admitted to ACO-participating hospitals and PAC providers.Design: We compared changes in outcomes among patients discharged from ACO-participating hospitals/PACs before and after participation to changes among patients discharged from non-participating hospitals/PACs over the same time period.Results: Patients discharged from an ACO-participating hospitals and skilled nursing facilities (SNF) had lower readmission rates (-1.7 percentage points, p-value = .03) than before ACO participation and non-participants; and lower per-discharge Medicare spending (-$940, p-value = .001), and length of stay (-3.1 days, p-value <.001) in SNF. Effects among ACO-participating hospitals without a co-participating SNF were smaller. Patients discharged from an ACO-participating hospital and home health agency had lower Medicare per-discharge spending (-$209; p-value = .06) and length of stay (-1.6 days, p-value <.001) for home health compared to before ACO participation and non-participants. Discharge from an ACO-participating hospital and inpatient rehabilitation facility did not impact patient outcomes or spending.Conclusions: Hospital and SNF participation in an ACO was associated with lower readmission rates, Medicare spending on SNF, and SNF length of stay. These results lend support to the ACO payment model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Non-profit hospitals are facing greater pressure to address the social determinants of health. Since 2012, with new requirements for greater transparency and community health needs assessments, non-profit tax exemption requirements are believed to incentivize investments in the community, particularly for vulnerable populations. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of community benefit spending by private, acute care, non-profit hospitals from 2012–2014 to measure if hospitals have begun to address local community needs. We measured total community benefit spending and two subsets of spending—health care-related expenditures and community-directed contributions—as the proportion of their total expenditure. We obtained sociodemographic characteristics for their community, defined by ZIP code. In unadjusted and adjusted analyses using hospital-level and community-level covariates, community benefit spending has not varied and community-directed contribution amounts did not reflect local needs. Stronger incentives—tax-based or otherwise—are needed to steer non-profit hospitals to invest in community health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the challenges faced by the Nursing Home Crisis amid the Covid-19 pandemic in the U.S. It mentions that U.S. regulatory policies, including the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987, have attempted to address deficiencies in the quality of care amid the pandemic in the U.S.

IMPORTANCE Interventions to transform primary care practices into medical homes are increasingly common, but their effectiveness in improving quality and containing costs is unclear. OBJECTIVE To measure associations between participation in the Southeastern Pennsylvania Chronic Care Initiative, one of the earliest and largest multipayer medical home pilots conducted in the United States, and changes in the quality, utilization, and costs of care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Thirty-two volunteering primary care practices participated in the pilot (conducted from June 1, 2008, to May 31, 2011). We surveyed pilot practices to compare their structural capabilities at the pilot's beginning and end. Using claims data from 4 participating health plans, we compared changes (in each year, relative to before the intervention) in the quality, utilization, and costs of care delivered to 64 243 patients who were attributed to pilot practices and 55 959 patients attributed to 29 comparison practices (selected for size, specialty, and location similar to pilot practices) using a difference-in-differences design. EXPOSURES Pilot practices received disease registries and technical assistance and could earn bonus payments for achieving patient-centered medical home recognition by the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Practice structural capabilities; performance on 11 quality measures for diabetes, asthma, and preventive care; utilization of hospital, emergency department, and ambulatory care; standardized costs of care. RESULTS Pilot practices successfully achieved NCQA recognition and adopted new structural capabilities such as registries to identify patients overdue for chronic disease services. Pilot participation was associated with statistically significantly greater performance improvement, relative to comparison practices, on 1 of 11 investigated quality measures: nephropathy screening in diabetes (adjusted performance of 82.7% vs 71.7% by year 3, P < .001). Pilot participation was not associated with statistically significant changes in utilization or costs of care. Pilot practices accumulated average bonuses of $92 000 per primary care physician during the 3-year intervention. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE A multipayer medical home pilot, in which participating practices adopted new structural capabilities and received NCQA certification, was associated with limited improvements in quality and was not associated with reductions in utilization of hospital, emergency department, or ambulatory care services or total costs over 3 years. These findings suggest that medical home interventions may need further refinement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To evaluate the effects of Medicare's hospital pay-for-performance demonstration project on hospital revenues, costs, and margins and on Medicare costs. Data Sources/Study Setting All health care utilization for Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction ( AMI; ICD-9- CM code 410.x1) in fiscal years 2002-2005 from Medicare claims, containing 420,211 admissions with AMI. Study Design We test for changes in hospital costs and revenues and Medicare payments among 260 hospitals participating in the Medicare hospital pay-for-performance demonstration project and a group of 780 propensity-score-matched comparison hospitals. Effects were estimated using a difference-in-difference model with hospital fixed effects, testing for changes in costs among pay-for-performance hospitals above and beyond changes in comparison hospitals. Principal Findings We found no significant effect of pay-for-performance on hospital financials (revenues, costs, and margins) or Medicare payments (index hospitalization and 1 year after admission) for AMI patients. Conclusions Pay-for-performance in the CMS hospital demonstration project had minimal impact on hospital financials and Medicare payments to providers. As P4P extends to all hospitals under the Affordable Care Act, these results provide some estimates of the impact of P4P and emphasize our need for a better understanding of the financial implications of P4P on providers and payers if we want to create sustainable and effective programs to improve health care value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses why physicians are unwilling to acknowledge the presence the scarcity or the influence that it has on their practice in the U.S. Potential consequences of this denial on patients and the health care system; Patient placement on organ waiting lists; Fiscal scarcity in primary care; Prevention of the development of fair allocation systems.

While early evidence suggests that accountable care organizations (ACOs) are associated with higher quality and lower costs, there have been simultaneous concerns that ACOs may incentivize consolidation of physician groups. This is particularly concerning as previous research has shown that consolidation is associated with lower quality and higher prices. Using a difference-in differences strategy and data from the Medicare Shared Savings Program, which began in 2012, we examined whether physician practices consolidated after ACOs entered health care markets. We observed a 4.0-percentage-point increase in large practices (those with fifty or more physicians) in counties with the greatest ACO penetration, compared to counties with zero ACO penetration, and a 2.7-percentage-point decline in the percentage of small practices (ten or fewer physicians) from 2010 to 2015. The growth of large practices was concentrated in specialty and hospital-owned practices. These findings suggest that ACOs may contribute to the concentration of physician practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to an article related to the characteristics of state health care price websites for improving the utility of health information.

The author reflects on the effects of pay-for-performance programs in health care payment systems on health care quality. It mentions that hospitals that cared for low-income patients and offered low quality health care demonstrated improvement upon implementing the pay-for-performance programs. It also suggests that using pay-for-performance to improve health care quality should involve financial penalties where hospitals that did not improve will not be able to generate a return on investment.