Search

We provide empirical evidence on the relative importance of specific observable factors that can explain why individuals enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid (duals) are concentrated in lower quality nursing homes, relative to those not on Medicaid. Descriptive results show that duals are 9.7 percentage points more likely than nonduals to be admitted to a low-quality (1-2 stars) nursing home. Using the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition approach in a multivariate framework, we find that 35.4% of the difference in admission to low-quality nursing homes can be explained by differences in the distribution of observable characteristics. Differences in education and distance to high-quality nursing homes are important drivers, as are health status and race. Our findings highlight the need for creative policy solutions targeting the modifiable factors to reduce the disparity.

Importance: The incentive structure of accountable care organizations (ACOs) may lead to participating physician groups selecting fewer vulnerable patients., Objective: To test for changes in the percentage of racial minority patients and patients with low socioeconomic status cared for by physician groups after joining the ACO., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort consisted of a 15% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to physician groups from 2010 to 2016. Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) participation was determined using ACO files. Analyses were conducted between January 1, 2019, and February 25, 2020., Exposures: Using linear probability models, we conducted difference-in-differences analyses based on the year a physician group joined an ACO to estimate changes in vulnerable patients within ACO-participating groups compared with nonparticipating groups., Main Outcomes and Measures: Whether the patient was black, was dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, and poverty and unemployment rates of the patient's zip code., Results: In a cohort of 76 717 physician groups caring for 7 307 130 patients, 16.1% of groups caring for 27.8% of patients participated in an MSSP ACO. Using 2010 characteristics, patients attributed to ACOs from 2012 to 2016, compared with those who were not, were less likely to be black (8.0% [n = 81 698] vs 9.3% [n = 270 924]) or dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid (12.8% [n = 130 957] vs 18.2% [n = 528 685]), and lived in zip codes with lower poverty rates (13.8% vs 15.5%); unemployment rates were similar (8.0% vs 8.5%). In the difference-in-differences analysis, there was no statistically significant change associated with ACO participation in the proportions of vulnerable patients attributed to ACO-participating groups compared with nonparticipating groups. After joining an ACO, ACO-participating groups had 0.0 percentage points change (95% CI, -0.1 to 0.1 percentage points; P = .59) for black patients, -0.1 percentage points (95% CI, -0.2 to 0.1 percentage points; P = .32) for patients dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, 0.2 percentage points (95% CI, -3.5 to 4.0 percentage points; P = .91) in poverty rates, and -0.4 percentage points (95% CI, -2.0 to 1.2 percentage points; P = .62) in unemployment rates., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, there were no changes in the proportions of vulnerable patients cared for by ACO-participating physician groups after joining an ACO compared with changes among nonparticipating groups.

Importance: There are areas of skilled nursing facility (SNF) experience of importance to the public that are not currently included in public reporting initiatives on SNF quality. Whether patients, hospitals, and payers can leverage the information available from unsolicited online reviews to reduce avoidable rehospitalizations from SNFs is unknown., Objectives: To assess the association between rehospitalization rates and online ratings of SNFs; to compare the association of rehospitalization with ratings from a review website vs Medicare Nursing Home Compare (NHC) ratings; and to identify specific topics consistently reported in reviews of SNFs with the highest vs lowest rehospitalization rates using natural language processing., Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cross-sectional study of 1536 SNFs with online reviews on Yelp (a website that allows consumers to rate and review businesses and services, scored on a 1- to 5-star rating scale, with 1 star indicating the lowest rating and 5 stars indicating the highest rating) posted between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. The combined data set included 1536 SNFs with 8548 online reviews, NHC ratings, and readmission rates., Main Outcomes and Measures: A mean rating from the review website was calculated through the end of each year. Risk-standardized rehospitalization rates were obtained from NHC. Linear regression was used to measure the association between the rehospitalization rate of a SNF and the online ratings. Natural language processing was used to identify topics associated with reviews of SNFs in the top and bottom quintiles of rehospitalization rates., Results: The 1536 SNFs in the sample had a median of 6 reviews (interquartile range, 3-13 reviews), with a mean (SD) review website rating of 2.7 (1.1). The SNFs with the highest rating on both the review website and NHC had 2.0% lower rehospitalization rates compared with the SNFs with the lowest rating on both websites (21.3%; 95% CI, 20.7%-21.8%; vs 23.3%; 95% CI, 22.7%-24.0%; P = .04). Compared with the NHC ratings alone, review website ratings were associated with an additional 0.4% of the variation in rehospitalization rates across SNFs (adjusted R2 = 0.009 vs adjusted R2 = 0.013; P = .003). Thematic analysis of qualitative comments on the review website for SNFs with high vs low rehospitalization rates identified several areas of importance to the reviewers, such as the quality of physical infrastructure and equipment, staff attitudes and communication with caregivers., Conclusions and Relevance: Skilled nursing facilities with the best rating on both a review website and NHC had slightly lower rehospitalization rates than SNFs with the best rating on NHC alone. However, there was marked variation in the volume of reviews, and many SNF characteristics were underrepresented. Further refinement of the review process is warranted.

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.

Objective: To investigate the impact of Medicare's skilled nursing facility (SNF) copayment policy, with a large increase in the daily copayment rate on the 20th day of a benefit period, on length of stay, patient outcomes, and costs., Data Sources and Study Setting: Retrospective cohort study from 2012 to 2016 using Medicare claims and SNF assessment data, including SNF admissions for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries., Study Design: We first estimate how changes in Medicare's SNF copayment on the 21st day of a patient's benefit period affect length of SNF stay. We then use benefit day on admission as an instrumental variable to estimate the impact of SNF length of stay related to the copayment policy on readmission and Medicare payment., Principal Findings: From 2012 to 2016, we examined 291 134 SNF admissions. Higher benefit day on SNF admission was strongly associated with shorter SNF stays. A 1-day shorter SNF stay was associated with higher readmission rate within 30 days of hospital discharge (1.5 percentage points; 95% CI 1.4-1.6, P < .001) and within 30 days of SNF discharge (0.9 percentage points; 95% CI 0.8-1.0), lower total Medicare payment for the 90-day episode after hospital discharge ($396; 95% CI 361-431, P < .001), but $179 higher payment for the 90 days after SNF discharge (95% CI 149-210, P < .001), offsetting the lower payment for the shorter index SNF stay., Conclusions: Medicare's SNF copayment policy is associated with shorter lengths of stay and worse patient outcomes, suggesting the copayment policy has unintended and negative effects on patient outcomes., (© 2019 The Authors. Health Services Research published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Objectives: To evaluate whether participation in Medicare's voluntary Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) model was associated with changes in discharge referral patterns to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), specifically number of SNF partners and discharge concentration., Study Design: Retrospective observational study using difference-in-differences analysis., Methods: We used Medicare claims data from 2010 to 2015 to identify admissions for lower joint replacement surgery and the following medical conditions: congestive heart failure, renal failure, sepsis, pneumonia, urinary tract and kidney infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and stroke. We used difference-in-differences analyses to assess changes in discharge patterns among BPCI-participating hospitals compared with matched control hospitals., Results: Our analytic sample included 3078 acute care hospitals and 14,866 Medicare-certified SNFs in the United States, encompassing more than 47 million hospital discharges. Of these hospitals, 416 participated in BPCI, with the majority selecting into joint replacement episodes (n = 295). BPCI participation was not associated with any change in number of SNF partners (increase by 0.8 SNFs among BPCI hospitals relative to non-BPCI hospitals; 95% CI, -0.2 to 1.9; P = .11) or in discharge concentration (increase in Herfindahl-Hirschman Index of 0.2 among BPCI hospitals relative to non-BPCI hospitals; 95% CI, -68.7 to 69.1; P = .36). Results did not vary across clinical conditions and were robust across duration of BPCI participation and with different comparison groups., Conclusions: Hospital participation in BPCI was not associated with changes in the number of SNF partners or in discharge concentration relative to non-BPCI hospitals. More research is needed to understand how hospitals are responding to bundled payment incentives and specific practices that contribute to improvements in cost and quality.

Objective: To measure the association between clinician specialization in nursing home (NH) practice and outcomes of patients who received postacute care in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs)., Data Sources: Medicare claims and NH assessments for 2 118 941 hospital discharges to 14 526 SNFs in January 2012-October 2014 and MD-PPAS data for 52 379 clinicians., Study Design: Generalist physicians and advanced practitioners with ≥ 90 percent of claims for NH-based care were considered NH specialists. The primary clinician during each SNF stay was determined based on plurality of claims during that stay. We estimated the effect of being treated by a NH specialist on 30-day rehospitalizations, successful discharge to community, and 60-day episode-of-care Medicare payments (Parts A and B). All models included patient demographics, clinical variables, and SNF fixed effects., Principal Findings: Nursing home specialists' patients were less likely to be rehospitalized (14.71 percent vs 16.23 percent; adjusted difference, -1.51 percent, 95% CI -1.78 to -1.24), more likely to be successfully discharged to community (56.33 percent vs 55.49 percent; adjusted difference, 0.84 percent, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.14), but had higher 60-day Medicare payments ($31 628 vs $31 292; adjusted difference, $335; 95% CI $242 to $429)., Conclusions: Clinicians who specialize in NH practice may achieve better postacute care outcomes at slightly higher costs., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

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., Main Outcomes and Measures: Probability of any consultation during a hospitalization was estimated using logistic regression. The number of consultations per stay and the number of consultative visits per hospital day were estimated using Poisson regression. Part B payments for consultative and nonconsultative care were estimated using generalized linear regression with gamma-log link. All models were adjusted for patient demographics and case mix. Payment models also included HRR fixed effects., 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.

Importance: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) may increase health care disparities by excluding physician groups that care for socially and clinically vulnerable patients., Objective: To estimate the association between the patient characteristics of a physician group and the group's participation in a newly formed ACO., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study investigated a 20% random sample of US Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to physician groups identified in Medicare claims before ACO participation from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2011. Physician groups that participated and did not participate in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2014, were identified in the Medicare MSSP 2014 provider file. Data analyses were conducted from September 1, 2017, to March 30, 2018., Exposures: Using multivariable regression, the association between physician group participation in the MSSP and the group's patients' characteristics before ACO formation was estimated focusing on measures of the vulnerability of the group's patients. All ACO-participating physician groups were compared with ACO-nonparticipating physician groups for reference, and estimates were made at the physician and patient level., Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentage of a physician group's patient panel that was socially vulnerable (based on race, dual Medicare and Medicaid enrollment, or living in high-poverty zip code) or clinically high risk., Results: Among 67 891 physician groups caring for 5 394 181 patients, 7215 physician groups (10.6%) participated in an MSSP ACO by 2014. Comparing mean percentages across practices, the patients of non-ACO-participating physician groups, more patients of ACO-participating physician groups were black (mean percentage across practices, 12.1% vs 10.6%), dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid (23.0% vs 19.3%), living in poverty (10.7% vs 11.1%), and high risk (34.2% vs 30.2%). After adjustment, physician groups that participated in an ACO had 5.1 percentage points (95% CI, 0.1-10.0 percentage points; P = .05) more dually enrolled patients and 4.0 percentage points (95% CI, 1.9-6.1 percentage points; P < .001) more high-risk patients. At the patient level, patients who were at high risk were more likely to be attributed to a group that became part of an ACO, with 4.5 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5-8.5 percentage points; P = .03) more high-risk patients being attributed to an ACO, but other associations were not statistically different from zero., Conclusions and Relevance: Accountable care organizations may be an effective approach to target care among high-risk patients. In this study, physician groups that participated in the MSSP ACO program cared for more clinically vulnerable patients than did nonparticipating groups, and ACO-participating physician groups cared for an equally large number of socially vulnerable patients compared with nonparticipating physician groups.

Background & Aims: Gastrointestinal bleeding results in significant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs in the United States. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services' payment reform programs assess quality and value based on rates of hospital readmission for patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, but they identify these patients using Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Groups (MS-DRGs), which include many types of gastrointestinal bleeding and do not account for the clinical heterogeneity among these patients. We aimed to characterize heterogeneity in outcomes of subgroups of patients with gastrointestinal bleeding., Methods: We performed was a cross-sectional, claims-based retrospective analysis of Medicare fee for service beneficiaries hospitalized for gastrointestinal bleeding in 2014 (159,000 hospitalizations). The primary outcome was unplanned readmission within 30 days of discharge from the hospital (30-day readmission). Secondary outcomes included length of stay, inpatient mortality, and death within 30 days of admission to the hospital (30-day mortality). Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, race, and Elixhauser comorbidities using logistic and Poisson regression, adjusting for clustering within hospitals., Results: The 30-day readmission rate was 16.0%. Readmission rates varied among patients with different types of gastrointestinal bleeding, ranging from 13.5% for diverticular bleeding to 18.6% for small bowel bleeding. The mean length of stay was 4.2 days and 30-day mortality was 6.9% (ranging from 3.4% for diverticular bleeding to 12.1% for upper gastrointestinal bleeding not otherwise specified). When hospitalizations were stratified by MS-DRGs, the main source of variation in rates of readmission and mortality was MS-DRGs., Conclusions: In a retrospective analysis of Medicare fee for service beneficiaries hospitalized for gastrointestinal bleeding, we found that 16% of these patients are readmitted to the hospital. Rates of hospital readmission, length of stay, and mortality vary with type of gastrointestinal bleeding, but MS-DRGs account for the largest source of variation. Policies focused on quality and value should account for this heterogeneity., (Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: It remains unknown whether high-functioning teams can compensate for poor continuity of care to support important patient outcomes., Data Source: Linked VA administrative and Medicare claims data to measure the relationship of team-based care and continuity of care with high-cost utilization., Study Design: Retrospective cohort study of 1.2 million VA-Medicare dual eligible Veterans assigned to a VA primary care provider (PCP) in 2012. Continuity was the proportion of primary care visits to the assigned VA provider of care. Clinics were categorized as low, average, or high-team functioning based on survey data. Our primary outcomes were the number of all-cause hospitalizations, ambulatory care sensitive (ACSC) hospitalizations, and emergency department (ED) visits in 2013., Principal Findings: A 10-percentage point increase in continuity with a VA PCP was associated with 4.5 fewer hospitalizations (p < .001), 3.2 fewer ACSC hospitalizations (p < .001), and 2.6 more ED visits (p = .07) per 1,000 patients. Team-based care was not significantly associated with any high-cost utilization category. Associations were heterogeneous across VA-reliant and nonreliant Veterans. Finally, the interaction results demonstrated that the quality of team-based care functioning could not compensate for poor continuity on hospitalizations, ACSC hospitalizations, or ED visits., Conclusions: In Veterans who were reliant on the VA for services, increasing continuity with a VA PCP and high-functioning team-based care clinics was associated with fewer ED visits and hospitalizations. Furthermore, leveraging combined data from VA and Medicare allowed to better measure continuity and assess high-cost utilization among Veterans who are and are not reliant on the VA for services., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

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., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Importance: Although readmission rates are declining under Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), concerns remain that the HRRP will harm quality at safety-net hospitals because they are penalized more often. Disparities between white and black patients might widen because more black patients receive care at safety-net hospitals. Disparities may be particularly worse for clinical conditions not targeted by the HRRP because hospitals might reallocate resources toward targeted conditions (acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, and heart failure) at the expense of nontargeted conditions., Objective: To examine disparities in readmission rates between white and black patients discharged from safety-net or non-safety-net hospitals after the HRRP began, evaluating discharges for any clinical condition and the subsets of targeted and nontargeted conditions., Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study conducting quasi-experimental analyses of patient hospital discharges for any clinical condition among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries from 2007 to 2015 after controlling for patient and hospital characteristics. Changes in disparities were measured within safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals after the HRRP penalties were enforced and compared with prior trends. These analyses were then stratified by targeted and nontargeted conditions. Analyses were conducted from October 1, 2017, through August 31, 2018., Main Outcomes and Measures: Trends in 30-day readmission rates among white and black patients by quarter and differences in trends across periods., Results: The study sample included 58 237 056 patient discharges (black patients, 9.8%; female, 57.7%; mean age [SD] age, 78.8 [7.9] years; nontargeted conditions, 50 372 806 [86.5%]). Within safety-net hospitals, disparities in readmission rates for all clinical conditions widened between black and white patients by 0.04 percentage point per quarter in the HRRP penalty period (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.07; P = .01). This widening was driven by nontargeted conditions (0.05 percentage point per quarter [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.08]; P = .006), whereas disparities for the HRRP-targeted conditions did not change (with an increase of 0.01 percentage point per quarter [95% CI, -0.07 to 0.10]; P = .74). Within non-safety-net hospitals, racial disparities remained stable in the HRRP penalty period across all conditions, whether the conditions were HRRP-targeted or nontargeted., Conclusions and Relevance: Findings from this study suggest that disparities are widening within safety-net hospitals, specifically for non-HRRP-targeted conditions. Although increases in racial disparities for nontargeted conditions were modest, they represent 6 times more discharges in our cohort than targeted conditions.

Importance: Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) surgery has been associated with a reduction in episode spending and stable-to-improved quality. However, BPCI may create unintended effects by prompting participating hospitals to increase the overall volume of episodes paid for by Medicare, which could potentially eliminate program-related savings or prompt them to shift case mix to lower-risk patients., Objective: To evaluate whether hospital BPCI participation for LEJR was associated with changes in overall volume and case mix., Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational study using Medicare claims data and a difference-in-differences method to compare 131 markets (hospital referral regions) with at least 1 BPCI participant hospital (n = 322) and 175 markets with no participating hospitals (n = 1340), accounting for 580 043 Medicare beneficiaries treated before (January 2011-September 2013) and 462 161 after (October 2013-December 2015) establishing the BPCI initiative. Hospital-level case-mix changes were assessed by comparing 265 participating hospitals with a 1:1 propensity-matched set of nonparticipating hospitals from non-BPCI markets., Exposures: Hospital BPCI participation., Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in market-level LEJR volume in the before vs after BPCI periods and changes in hospital-level case mix based on demographic, socioeconomic, clinical, and utilization factors., Results: Among the 1 717 243 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent LEJR (mean age, 75 years; 64% women; and 95% nonblack race/ethnicity), BPCI participation was not significantly associated with a change in overall market-level volume. The mean quarterly market volume in non-BPCI markets increased 3.8% from 3.8 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries before BPCI to 3.9 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries after BPCI was launched. For BPCI markets, the mean quarterly market volume increased 4.4% from 3.6 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries before BPCI to 3.8 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries after BPCI was launched. The adjusted difference-in-differences estimate between the market types was 0.32% (95% CI, -0.06% to 0.69%; P = .10). Among 20 demographic, socioeconomic, clinical, and utilization factors, BPCI participation was associated with differential changes in hospital-level case mix for only 1 factor, prior skilled nursing facility use (adjusted difference-in-differences estimate, -0.53%; 95% CI, -0.96% to -0.10%; P = .01) in BPCI vs non-BPCI markets., Conclusions and Relevance: In this observational study of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent LEJR, hospital participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement was not associated with changes in market-level lower extremity joint replacement volume and largely was not associated with changes in hospital case mix. These findings may provide reassurance regarding 2 potential unintended effects associated with bundled payments for LEJR.

Improving the value of post-acute care at skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) has become a Medicare policy priority. Anecdotally, hospitals have responded by formally acquiring or pursuing tighter informal connections with SNFs. We evaluated the trend in connections between US acute care hospitals and Medicare-certified SNFs between 2000 and 2013 using vertical integration and two novel network-based measures (number of SNF partners, and discharge concentration). Among 4441 hospitals and 17,215 SNFs, hospitals with weaker connections with SNFs were more often non-profit, major teaching hospitals with a larger number of discharges and beds. We found an apparent weakening of hospital-SNF connections over time for all three measures. Over one-third (39%) of hospitals were vertically integrated in 2000 compared to 8.2% in 2013. The number of SNF partners increased between 2000 and 2013, while hospitals' discharge concentration declined steadily. Additional work is needed to understand the implications of these trends., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In this paper we examine empirically the effect of integration on Medicare payment and rehospitalization. We use 2005-2013 data on Medicare beneficiaries receiving post-acute care (PAC) in the U.S. to examine integration between hospitals and the two most common post-acute care settings: skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and home health agencies (HHA), using two measures of integration-formal vertical integration and informal integration representing preferential relationships between providers without formal relationships. Our identification strategy is twofold. First, we use longitudinal models with a fixed effect for each hospital-PAC pair in a market to test how changes in integration impact patient outcomes. Second, we use an instrumental variable approach to account for patient selection into integrated providers. We find that vertical integration between hospitals and SNFs increases Medicare payments and reduces rehospitalization rates. However, vertical integration between hospitals and HHAs has little effect, nor does informal integration between hospitals and either PAC setting., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: While early evidence suggests that Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs) may reduce post-acute care (PAC) utilization for attributed beneficiaries, whether these effects spill over to all beneficiaries admitted to hospitals participating in ACOs stray is unknown., Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether changes in PAC use and Medicare spending spill over to all beneficiaries admitted to hospitals participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP)., Design: Observational study using a difference-in-differences design comparing changes in PAC utilization and spending among beneficiaries admitted to ACO-participating hospitals before and after the start of the ACO contracts, compared to those admitted to non-ACO hospitals., Setting: A total of 233 hospitals participate in MSSP ACOs and 3103 non-ACO hospitals., Participants: A national sample of 11,683,573 Medicare beneficiaries experiencing 26,503,086 hospital admissions from 2010 to 2013., Exposure: Admission to a hospital participating in an MSSP ACO., Main Measures: The probability of discharge and Medicare payments to inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF), skilled nursing facilities (SNF), and home health agencies (HHA)., Key Results: For beneficiaries admitted to hospitals that joined an ACO, the likelihood of being discharged to PAC did not change after the hospital joined the ACO compared with non-ACO hospitals over the same period (differential change in probability of discharge to any PAC was 0.000 (P = 0.89), SNF was 0.000 (P = 0.73), IRF was 0.000 (P = 0.96), and HHA was 0.001 (P = 0.57)). Payments reduced significantly for PAC overall (- $130.41, P = 0.03), but not for any individual PAC type alone. These results were consistent in samples that were conditional on discharge to any PAC, across conditions with high PAC use nationally, and among ACO-participating hospitals that also had a PAC participant., Conclusions: Hospital participation in an ACO did not result in spillovers in PAC utilization or payments to all beneficiaries, even when considering high PAC-use conditions and ACO hospitals that also have an ACO-participating PAC.

Early evidence suggested that accountable care organizations (ACOs) could improve health care quality while constraining costs, and ACOs are expanding throughout the United States. However, if disadvantaged patients have unequal access to physicians who participate in ACOs, that expansion may exacerbate health care disparities. We examined the relationship between physicians' participation in both Medicare and commercial ACOs across the country and the sociodemographic characteristics of their likely patient populations. Physicians' participation in ACOs varied widely across hospital referral regions, from nearly 0 percent to over 85 percent. After we adjusted for individual physician and practice characteristics, we found that physicians who practiced in ZIP Code Tabulation Areas where a higher percentage of the population was black, living in poverty, uninsured, or disabled or had less than a high school education-compared to other areas-had significantly lower rates of ACO participation than other physicians. Our findings suggest that vulnerable populations' access to physicians participating in ACOs may not be as great as access for other groups, which could exacerbate existing disparities in health care quality., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

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., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Medicare's new hospital pay-for-performance program for all acute care hospitals will begin in October 2012. It will be the largest Medicare quality improvement initiative for hospitals to date. Using 2009 data on hospital performance, we calculated hospital performance scores and projected payments under the new program for all eligible hospitals. Despite differences across hospitals in terms of performance, expected changes in payments were small, even for hospitals with the best and worst performance scores. Almost two-thirds of hospitals would experience changes of just a fraction of 1 percent. Although the program will in effect redistribute resources among hospitals, our data suggest that the redistribution is not likely to cause major problems because the amount being redistributed is also small. These results raise questions about whether the new pay-for-performance program will substantially alter the quality of hospital care, and they highlight the challenges of designing effective quality improvement incentives.

Context: In response to concerns about the quality of care in US hospitals, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services began measuring hospital performance and reporting this performance on their Web site, Hospital Compare. It is unknown whether these process performance measures are related to hospital-level outcomes., Objective: To determine whether quality measured with the process measures used in Hospital Compare are correlated with and predictive of hospitals' risk-adjusted mortality rates., Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of hospital care between January 1 and December 31, 2004, for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia at acute care hospitals in the United States included on the Hospital Compare Web site. Ten process performance measures included in Hospital Compare were compared with hospital risk-adjusted mortality rates, which were measured using Medicare Part A claims data., Main Outcome Measures: Condition-specific inpatient, 30-day, and 1-year risk-adjusted mortality rates., Results: A total of 3657 acute care hospitals were included in the study based on their performance as reported in Hospital Compare. Across all acute myocardial infarction performance measures, the absolute reduction in risk-adjusted mortality rates between hospitals performing in the 25th percentile vs those performing in the 75th percentile was 0.005 for inpatient mortality, 0.006 for 30-day mortality, and 0.012 for 1-year mortality (P<.001 for each comparison). For the heart failure performance measures, the absolute mortality reduction was smaller, ranging from 0.001 for inpatient mortality (P = .03) to 0.002 for 1-year mortality (P = .08). For the pneumonia performance measures, the absolute reduction in mortality ranged from 0.001 for 30-day mortality (P = .05) to 0.005 for inpatient mortality (P<.001). Differences in mortality rates for hospitals performing in the 75th percentile on all measures within a condition vs those performing lower than the 25th percentile on all reported measures for acute myocardial infarction ranged between 0.008 (P = .06) and 0.018 (P = .008). For pneumonia, the effects ranged between 0.003 (P = .09) and 0.014 (P<.001); for heart failure, the effects ranged between -0.013 (P = .06) and -0.038 (P = .45)., Conclusions: Hospital performance measures predict small differences in hospital risk-adjusted mortality rates. Efforts should be made to develop performance measures that are tightly linked to patient outcomes.

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]

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed fundamental problems with the structure of long-term care financing and payment in the United States. The piecemeal system that exists suffers from several key problems, including underfunding, fragmentation across types and sites of care, and substantial variation in payment across states and populations. These problems result in inefficient allocation of resources, limited access to care, substandard quality, and inequities in both access and quality. We propose a new federal benefit for long-term care, most likely as part of the Medicare program. Essential features of this benefit include taxpayer subsidies, along the lines of other Medicare benefits, and coverage across the range of long-term care services, including both residential and home- and community-based care. A new federal benefit has the most potential to break down administrative barriers and improve resource allocation, to ensure adequate payment rates across all states, to expand access to care by spreading risk across the entire Medicare population, and to improve equity by extending coverage to all Medicare beneficiaries who want it. A new federal benefit is politically challenging, requiring bold action by Congress, and entails the risks of administrative challenges and unintended consequences. However, in this case, retaining the status quo remains the far greater risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Addressing social determinants of health may help hospitals improve population health and outcomes that are tied to financial incentives, such as readmission rates. Whether this strategy is effective remains unknown. The authors measure the association between nonprofit hospital spending on their community's social needs and Medicare readmission rates. This is a retrospective cohort study (July 2013 to June 2014) that combines Internal Revenue Service tax reports of community benefit spending by private, acute care, nonprofit hospitals with Medicare readmissions data for residents of their surrounding community, the hospital's zip code. Total community benefit spending and 2 of the largest subsets of spending—health care-related and community-directed spending—were measured and normalized as the proportion of each hospital's total expenditure. Associations between quintiles of community benefit spending and Medicare readmission rates were measured using discharge-level multivariate linear regression, adjusting for patient, hospital, community characteristics, and local public health department spending. The sample consisted of 1405 nonprofit hospitals with 341,913 discharges. Associations between readmission rates and total community benefit spending and the health care-related subset were not statistically significant. Discharges from hospitals in the upper quintiles of community-directed spending were associated with lower readmission rates by 0.82 to 1.21 absolute percentage points (P = 0.01 to <0.001) compared to the lowest quintile. The magnitude of associations between community-directed spending and readmissions was larger for preventable readmissions and smaller when including beneficiaries beyond the hospital's zip code. These associations suggest that community-directed spending may be associated with better health care outcomes. [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]

Rationale: Increasing intensive care unit (ICU) beds and the critical care workforce are often advocated to address an aging and increasingly medically complex population. However, reducing potentially preventable ICU stays may be an alternative to ensure adequate capacity.Objectives: To determine the proportions of ICU admissions meeting two definitions of being potentially preventable using nationally representative U.S. claims databases.Methods: We analyzed claims from 2006 to 2015 from all Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) beneficiaries and from a large national payer offering a private insurance (PI) plan and a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan. Potentially preventable hospitalizations were identified using existing definitions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) and life-limiting malignancies (LLMs).Results: We analyzed 420,369,434 person-years of insurance coverage, during which there were 99,793,416 acute inpatient hospitalizations, of which 16,646,977 (16.7%) were associated with an ICU admission. Of these, the proportions with an ACSC were 12.9%, 12.7%, and 15.8%, and with an LLM were 5.2%, 5.4%, and 6.4%, among those with PI, MA, and FFS, respectively. Over 10 years, the absolute percentages of ACSC-associated ICU stays declined (PI = -1.1%, MA -6.4%, FFS -6.4%; all P < 0.001 for all trends). Smaller changes were noted among LLM-associated ICU stays, declining in the MA cohort (-0.8%) and increasing in the FFS (+0.3%) and PI (+0.2%) populations (P < 0.001 for all trends).Conclusions: An appreciable proportion of U.S. ICU admissions may be preventable with community-based interventions. Investment in the outpatient infrastructure required to prevent these ICU admissions should be considered as a complementary, if not alternative, strategy to expanding ICU capacity to meet future demand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While early evidence suggests that Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs) may reduce post-acute care (PAC) utilization for attributed beneficiaries, whether these effects spill over to all beneficiaries admitted to hospitals participating in ACOs stray is unknown.Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether changes in PAC use and Medicare spending spill over to all beneficiaries admitted to hospitals participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP).Design: Observational study using a difference-in-differences design comparing changes in PAC utilization and spending among beneficiaries admitted to ACO-participating hospitals before and after the start of the ACO contracts, compared to those admitted to non-ACO hospitals.Setting: A total of 233 hospitals participate in MSSP ACOs and 3103 non-ACO hospitals.Participants: A national sample of 11,683,573 Medicare beneficiaries experiencing 26,503,086 hospital admissions from 2010 to 2013.Exposure: Admission to a hospital participating in an MSSP ACO.Main Measures: The probability of discharge and Medicare payments to inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF), skilled nursing facilities (SNF), and home health agencies (HHA).Key Results: For beneficiaries admitted to hospitals that joined an ACO, the likelihood of being discharged to PAC did not change after the hospital joined the ACO compared with non-ACO hospitals over the same period (differential change in probability of discharge to any PAC was 0.000 (P = 0.89), SNF was 0.000 (P = 0.73), IRF was 0.000 (P = 0.96), and HHA was 0.001 (P = 0.57)). Payments reduced significantly for PAC overall (- $130.41, P = 0.03), but not for any individual PAC type alone. These results were consistent in samples that were conditional on discharge to any PAC, across conditions with high PAC use nationally, and among ACO-participating hospitals that also had a PAC participant.Conclusions: Hospital participation in an ACO did not result in spillovers in PAC utilization or payments to all beneficiaries, even when considering high PAC-use conditions and ACO hospitals that also have an ACO-participating PAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors analyze the relationship between acute and postacute medical care in the U.S. The authors discuss the problems associated with patient transition between acute and postacute care settings and the medical policies that have been implemented to reduce fragmentation between the two patient care settings. They recommend their own solutions to reducing fragmentation, including integrating acute and postacute care into a single financial entity.

Objective: Limited consumer use of health care report cards may be due to the large amount of information presented in report cards, which can be difficult to understand. These limitations may be overcome with summary measures. Our objective was to evaluate consumer response to summary measures in the setting of nursing homes.Data Sources/study Setting: 2005-2010 nursing home Minimum Data Set and Online Survey, Certification and Reporting (OSCAR) datasets.Study Design: In December 2008, Medicare converted its nursing home report card to summary or star ratings. We test whether there was a change in consumer demand for nursing homes related to the nursing home's star rating after the information was released.Principal Findings: The star rating system was associated with a significant change in consumer demand for low- and high-scoring facilities. After the star-based rating system was released, 1-star facilities typically lost 8 percent of their market share and 5-star facilities gained over 6 percent of their market share.Conclusions: The nursing home star rating system significantly affected consumer demand for high- and low-rated nursing homes. These results support the use of summary measures in report cards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the perceived usefulness of publicly reported nursing home quality indicators.Study Setting: Primary data were collected from October 2013 to August 2014 among a convenience sample of persons (or family member) recently admitted or anticipating admission to a nursing home within 75 miles of the city of Philadelphia.Study Design: Structured interviews were conducted to assess the salience of data on the Medicare Nursing Home Compare website, including star ratings, clinical quality measures, and benchmarking of individual nursing home quality with state and national data.Data Collection: Interviews were transcribed verbatim, independently coded by two reviewers, and agreement determined. A thematic analysis of transcripts was undertaken.Principal Findings: Thirty-five interviews were completed. Eighty-three percent (n = 29) were caregivers and 17 percent (n = 6) were residents. Star ratings, clinical quality measures, and benchmarking information were salient to decision making, with preferred formats varying across participants. Participants desired additional information on the source of quality data. Confusion was evident regarding the relationship between domain-specific and overall star quality ratings.Conclusions: The Nursing Home Compare website provides salient content and formats for consumers. Increased awareness of this resource and clarity regarding the definition of measures could further support informed decision making regarding nursing home choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The range of hospital charges for similar diagnoses show tremendous variability across U.S. hospitals. This charge variability remains unexplained.Objective: We aimed to describe hospital charge variability in the U.S. and examine its relationship to local health factors.Design: This was a descriptive study of the 2011 Medicare Inpatient Charge data summarizing inpatient hospital charges billed to Medicare. This data was evaluated using 29 county-level measures of health status, health behavior, clinical access and quality, built environment, and socioeconomic status in a clustered, multivariate linear regression.Participants: 2871 U.S. hospitals registered with Medicare and with at least ten discharges for diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) of six common inpatient conditions.Main Measure: Inpatient hospital charges were assessed.Key Results: No community health measures were associated with hospital charges. The one notable exception associated with higher charges was higher rates of uninsured status ($344.84 higher charges for every one-percentage point increase in prevalence (p < 0.001)). One variable was associated with lower hospital charges: the percentage of children living in poverty [$309.30 lower charges for every one-percentage point increase in prevalence (p < 0.001)].Conclusions: Overall, hospital charges lacked an association with population health measures, and their variability remains largely unexplained. However, the association of higher charges with uninsured status raises concerns about hospitals' price-setting strategies, such as price discrimination and cost-shifting strategies that expose vulnerable populations to great financial risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research Objective: To compare the outcomes of post‐acute care between home health (HH) and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) following hospitalization among Medicare beneficiaries with dementia. Despite the fact that both post‐acute care use and dementia are highly prevalent in the Medicare population, very few studies have compared the outcomes of different post‐acute care settings for patients with dementia, leaving patients, caregivers, and clinicians uncertain how to make optimal decisions around hospital discharge. Study Design: Retrospective analysis of secondary data using an instrumental variable design to compare outcomes of HH versus SNF following an acute hospitalization. We used a 100% sample of Medicare inpatient, outpatient, and post‐acute care claims and assessment data from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016 and used differential distance between home health and SNF as the instrumental variable to account for nonrandom allocation of patients (F‐statistic: 26.5). Outcomes included unplanned 30‐day readmission, 30‐ and 100‐day mortality, and a composite measure of readmission and mortality to address competing risks. Our analysis adjusted for beneficiary characteristics and year of analysis, included fixed effects for hospital and year, and adjusted for clustering at the hospital level. Population Studied: We used MedPAR to identify hospitalizations and Minimum Data Set and Outcome and Assessment Information Set assessments to identify SNF and HH stays following hospital discharge. We excluded beneficiaries younger than age 65, admitted to the hospital from a nursing home, or were enrolled in hospice. We identified dementia using validated diagnostic codes with a three‐year look‐back. We also measured demographics, comorbidities, characteristics of the index hospital stay, prior health care utilization, and both cognitive and physical function on admission to post‐acute care. Principal Findings: Our sample included 1,369,192 beneficiaries with a diagnosis of dementia; 404,539 (29.5%) received HH, while 964,653 (70.5%) went to SNF. The cohort was older (mean age 83), approximately 70% were cognitively impaired on SNF admission, and only 30.4% of patients were independent in Activities of Daily Living. Overall, 16.1% were readmitted to the hospital and 5.9% died within 30 days, while 19.5% died within 100 days of hospital discharge. In the instrumental variable analysis, there were no differences in any outcome between the two post‐acute care settings. These findings were similar when the analysis was stratified by degree of cognitive impairment. Conclusions: In a sample of more than 1.6 million Medicare beneficiaries discharged to post‐acute care following hospitalization, use of home health services and SNF were equivalent in terms of unplanned readmissions and 30‐ and 100‐day mortality. These are important findings given more than 7 in 10 Medicare beneficiaries with dementia are currently discharged to SNF for post‐acute care at much higher cost than HH, and the prevalence of both dementia and post‐acute care use are increasing in the United States. Implications for Policy or Practice: Our findings suggest HH may provide similar outcomes at lower cost following hospitalization for Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of dementia, and that home‐based models of care may provide increased post‐acute care value. Primary Funding Source: University of Pennsylvania Institute on Aging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses research regarding the prevalence of nursing home specialists in American between 2012 and 2015, and it mentions a strategy for improving medical care which involves the employment of medical professionals who specialize in treating hospitalized patients. Nursing home care costs and quality are addressed, along with U.S. Medicare health insurance fee-for-service billing and the claim that 21 percent of the nursing home clinicians in 2015 were nursing home specialists.

IMPORTANCE Hospital readmissions are common, costly, and potentially preventable. Little is known about the association between available skilled nursing facility (SNF) performance measures and the risk of hospital readmission. OBJECTIVE To measure the association between SNF performance measures and hospital readmissions among Medicare beneficiaries receiving postacute care at SNFs in the United States. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS Using national Medicare data on fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries discharged to a SNF after an acute care hospitalization between September 1, 2009, and August 31,2010, we examined the association between SNF performance on publicly available metrics (SNF staffing intensity, health deficiencies identified through site inspections, and the percentages of SNF patients with delirium, moderate to severe pain, and new or worsening pressure ulcers) and the risk of readmission or death 30 days after discharge to a SNF. Adjusted analyses controlled for patient case mix, SNF facility factors, and the discharging hospital. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Readmission to an acute care hospital or death within 30 days of the index hospital discharge. RESULTS Of 1530 824 patients discharged, 357 752 (23.3%; 99% Cl, 23.3%-23.5%) were readmitted or died within 30 days; 72 472 died within 30 days (4.7%; 99% Cl, 4.7%-4.8%), and 321 709 were readmitted (21.0%; 99% Cl, 20.9%-21.1%). The unadjusted risk of readmission or death was lower at SNFs with better staffing ratings and better facility inspection ratings. No. (%) of SNFs 30-d Risk of Readmission or Death, % (99% Cl) Lowest Rating Highest Rating Lowest Rating Highest Rating Unadjusted risk, by staffing Rating 2742 (19.2) 959 (6.7) 25.5 (25.3-25.8) 19.8 (19.5-20.1) Unadjusted risk, by facility inspection rating 2867 (20.1) 1396 (9.8) 24.9 (24.7-25.1) 21.5 (21.2-21.7) Adjusted risk, by facility inspection rating 23.7 (23.7-23.7) 23.0 (23.0-23.1) Adjustment for patient factors, SNF facility factors, and the discharging hospital attenuated these associations; we observed small differences in the adjusted risk of readmission or death according to SNF facility inspection ratings. Other measures did not predict clinically meaningful differences in the adjusted risk of readmission or death. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries discharged to a SNF after an acute care hospitalization, available performance measures were not consistently associated with differences in the adjusted risk of readmission or death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To describe recent trends in post-acute care provision within nursing homes, focusing specifically on nursing homes' degree of specialization in post-acute care. Retrospective cohort study. All US nursing homes between 2001 and 2017 and all fee-for-service Medicare admissions to nursing homes for post-acute care during that time. We measured post-acute care specialization as annual Medicare admissions per bed for each nursing home and examined changes in the distribution of specialization across nursing homes over the study period. We described the characteristics of nursing homes and the patients they serve based on degree of specialization. The average number of Medicare admissions per bed increased from 1.2 in 2001 to 1.6 in 2017, a relative increase of 41%. This upward trend in the number of Medicare admissions per bed was largest among new nursing homes (those established after 2001), increasing 68% from 2001 to 2017. In contrast, nursing homes that eventually closed during the study period experienced no meaningful growth in the number of admissions per bed. Over time, the number of Medicare admissions per bed increased among highly specialized nursing homes. The number of Medicare admissions per bed grew by 66% at the 95th percentile and by 25% at the 99th percentile. Nursing homes delivering the most post-acute care were more likely to be for-profit or part of a chain, had higher staffing levels, and were less likely to admit patients who were Black, Hispanic, or dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. Over the last 2 decades, post-acute care has become increasingly concentrated in a subset of nursing homes, which tend to be for-profit, part of a chain, and less likely to serve racial and ethnic minorities and persons on Medicaid. Although these nursing homes may benefit financially from higher Medicare payment, it may come at the expense of equitable access and patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Long-term acute care hospitals (LTACs) are an increasingly common discharge destination for patients recovering from intensive care. In this article the authors use U.S. Medicare claims data to examine regional- and hospital-level variation in LTAC utilization after intensive care to determine factors associated with their use. Using hierarchical regression models to control for patient characteristics, this study found wide variation in LTAC utilization across hospitals, even controlling for LTAC access within a region. Several hospital characteristics were independently associated with increasing LTAC utilization, including increasing hospital size, for-profit ownership, academic teaching status, and colocation of the LTAC within an acute care hospital. These findings highlight the need for research into LTAC admission criteria and the incentives driving variation in LTAC utilization across hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services publicly reports so-called process performance at all U.S. hospitals, such as whether certain recommended treatments are given to specific types of patients. We examined whether hospital performance on key process indicators improved during the three years since this reporting began. We also studied whether or not these changes improved patient outcomes or yielded other quality improvements, such as reduced hospital readmission rates. We found that, from 2004 to 2006, hospital process performance improved and was associated with better patient and quality outcomes. Most notably, for acute myocardial infarction, performance improvements were associated with declines in mortality rates, lengths-of-stay, and readmission rates. Although we cannot conclude that public reporting caused the improvement in processes or outcomes, these results are encouraging, since improving process performance may improve quality more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Quality measures may be associated with improved outcomes for two reasons. First, measured activities may directly improve care. Second, success on these measures may be a marker for other unmeasured aspects of high quality care. Our objective is to test the contribution of both possible effects.Data Sources: 2004 Medicare data on hospital performance from Hospital Compare and risk-adjusted mortality rates from Medicare Part A claims.Study Design: We studied 3,657 acute care U.S. hospitals and compared observed differences in condition-specific hospital mortality rates based on hospital performance with expected differences in mortality from the clinical studies underlying the measures.Principal Findings: Differences in observed mortality rates across U.S. hospitals are larger than what would be expected if these differences were due only to the direct effects of delivering measured care.Conclusions: Performance measures reflect care processes that both improve care directly and are also markers of elements of health care quality that are otherwise unmeasured. This finding suggests that process measures capture important information about care that is not directly measured, and that these unmeasured effects are in general larger than the measured effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]