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]

Background and Objectives The reported percent of nursing home residents suffering adverse outcomes decreased dramatically since Nursing Home Compare began reporting them, but the validity of scores is questionable for nursing homes that score well on measures using facility-reported data but poorly on inspections. Our objective was to assess whether nursing homes with these "discordant" scores are meaningfully better than nursing homes that score poorly across domains. Research Design and Methods We used a convergent mixed-methods design, starting with quantitative analyses of 2012–2016 national data. We conducted in-depth interviews and observations in 12 nursing homes in 2017–2018, focusing on how facilities achieved their Nursing Home Compare ratings. Additional quantitative analyses were conducted in parallel to study performance trajectories over time. Quantitative and qualitative results were interpreted together. Results Discordant facilities engage in more quality improvement strategies than poor performers, but do not seem to invest in quality improvement in resource-intensive, broad-based ways that would spill over into other domains of quality and change their trajectory of improvement. Instead, they focus on lower-resource improvements related to data quality, staff training, leadership, and communication. In contrast, poor-performing facilities seemed to lack the leadership and continuity of staff required for even these low-resource interventions. Discussion and Implications High performance on the quality measures using facility-reported data is mostly meaningful rather than misleading to consumers who care about those outcomes, although discordant facilities still have quality deficits. The quality measures domain should continue to have a role in Nursing Home Compare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Informal care, or care provided by family and friends, is the most common form of care received by community-dwelling older adults with functional limitations. However, less is known about informal care provision within residential care settings including residential care facilities (for example, assisted living) and nursing homes. Using data from the Health and Retirement Study (2016) and the National Health and Aging Trends Study (2015), we found that informal care was common among older adults with functional limitations, whether they lived in the community, a residential care facility, or a nursing home. The hours of informal care provided were also nontrivial across all settings. This evidence suggests that informal caregiving and some of the associated burdens do not end when a person transitions from the community to residential care or a nursing home setting. It also points to the large role that families play in the care and well-being of these residents, which is especially important considering the recent visitor bans during the COVID-19 epidemic. Family members are an invisible workforce in nursing homes and residential care facilities, providing considerable front-line work for their loved ones. Providers and policy makers could improve the lives of both the residents and their caregivers by acknowledging, incorporating, and supporting this workforce. [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]

Nursing Home Compare (NHC) reports quality measures (QMs) for nursing homes (NHs) as part of its 5-star rating system. Most of the QMs are based on facility self-reported data, prompting questions about their validity. To better understand how NHs interact with the QMs, we used qualitative methods, including semistructured interviews with NH personnel (n = 110), NH provider association representatives (n = 23), and observations of organizational processes in 12 NHs in three states. We found that most NHs are working to improve the quality of care they provide, not merely their QM scores. However, our interviews and observations revealed limitations with the QMs, suggesting that the QMs-on their own-may not accurately reflect the quality of care NHs provide. Our findings suggest several changes to improve NHC, including adding information related to resident and family experience, providing greater risk adjustment, and providing incentives for NHs that serve socially and medically complex residents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Approximately two decades ago, federally mandated public reporting began for U.S. nursing homes through a system now known as Nursing Home Compare. The goals were to provide information to enable consumers to choose higher quality nursing homes and to incent providers to improve the quality of care delivered. We conduct a systematic review of the literature on responses to Nursing Home Compare and its effectiveness in meeting these goals. We find evidence of modest but meaningful response by both consumers and providers. However, we also find evidence that some improvement in scores does not reflect true quality improvement, that disparities by race and income have increased, that risk-adjustment of the measures is likely inadequate, and that several key domains of quality are not represented. Our results support moderate success of Nursing Home Compare in achieving intended goals but also reveal the need for continued refinement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior research and the popular press have anecdotally reported inadequate nursing home staffing levels during the COVID-19 pandemic. Maintaining adequate staffing levels is critical to ensuring high-quality nursing home care and an effective response to the pandemic. We therefore sought to examine nursing home staffing levels during the first nine months of 2020 (compared with the same period in 2019), using auditable daily payroll-based staffing data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We found that the total number of hours of direct care nursing declined in nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic, as did the average nursing home census. When we accounted for changes in census, the number of nurse staff hours per resident day remained steady or, if anything, increased slightly during the pandemic. The observed increases in staff hours per resident day were small but concentrated in nursing homes operating in counties with high COVID-19 prevalence, in nursing homes with low Medicaid census (which typically have more financial resources), and in not-for-profit nursing homes (which typically invest more in staffing). These findings raise concerns that although the number of staff hours in nursing homes did not decline, the perception of shortages has been driven by increased stresses and demands on staff time due to the pandemic, which are harder to quantify. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Objectives: We sought to compare the post‐acute and long‐term care experience of Medicare beneficiaries with and without Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD), and whether differences changed from January 1, 2007 to September 30, 2015. Design Retrospective cross‐sectional trend study using Medicare claims linked to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) Minimum Data Set. Setting: CMS‐certified skilled nursing facilities (skilled nursing facility (SNF), n = 17,043). Participants: Fee‐for‐service Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥66 years (n = 6,614,939) discharged from a hospital to a SNF who had not lived in a nursing home during the year before hospitalization. Measurements ADRD was defined by the Chronic Condition Data Warehouse. Outcome measures included: (1) successful discharge defined as being in SNF less than 90 days, then discharged back to the community, alive without subsequent inpatient health care for 30 continuous days; (2) became long‐stay resident in SNF; (3) death in SNF within 90 days; (4) hospital readmission within 30 days of entering SNF; and (5) transferred to another nursing home within 30 days of entering SNF. Results: Successful discharge of beneficiaries with ADRD increased from 43.4% in 2007 to 53.9% in 2015 (average annual percent change (AAPC) = 2.1 (95% CI = 2.0–2.2)); those without ADRD also increased (from 59.1% to 63.6%, AAPC = 0.9 (95% CI = 0.7–1.1)) but not as fast as those with ADRD (P <.01). The proportion of all beneficiaries who became long‐stay or were readmitted to the hospital decreased (P <.05). The proportion with ADRD who became long‐stay was nearly three times higher than those without throughout the study (15.0% vs 5.5% in 2007; 11.3% vs 4.3% in 2015). Conclusion: Though disparity in ADRD in becoming long‐stay residents remains, the increase in successful discharges among those with ADRD also stresses the increasing importance of community as a care setting for adults with ADRD. [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]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [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]

The past several decades have seen significant policy efforts to improve the quality of care in nursing homes, but the patient safety movement has largely ignored this setting. In this study we compared nursing homes' performance on several composite quality measures from Nursing Home Compare, the most prominent recent example of a national policy aimed at improving the quality of nursing home care, to their performance on measures of patient safety in nursing homes such as pressure sores, infections, falls, and medication errors. Although Nursing Home Compare captures some aspects of patient safety, we found the relationship to be weak and somewhat inconsistent, leaving consumers who care about patient safety with little guidance. We recommend that Nursing Home Compare be refined to provide a clearer picture of patient safety and quality of life, allowing consumers to weight these domains according to their preferences and priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [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.

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]

Health care report cards are intended to improve quality, but there may be considerable heterogeneity in who benefits. In this article, we examine the intended and unintended effects of quality reporting for nursing home residents with severe dementia relative to other residents, using a difference-in-differences design to examine selected reported and unreported quality measures. Our results indicate that prior to public reporting, nursing home residents with severe dementia were at significantly higher risk of poor outcomes on most reported quality measures. After public reporting was initiated, outcomes for nursing home residents with severe dementia did not consistently improve or worsen. We see no evidence that individuals with severe dementia are being avoided by nursing homes, despite their potential negative impact on quality scores, but we do find an increase in coding of end-stage disease. Additional risk-adjustment, stratification, or additional quality measures may be warranted. [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]

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]

Objective Pay-for-performance (P4P) is commonly used to improve health care quality in the United States and is expected to be frequently implemented under the Affordable Care Act. However, evidence supporting its use is mixed with few large-scale, rigorous evaluations of P4P. This study tests the effect of P4P on quality of care in a large-scale setting-the implementation of P4P for nursing homes by state Medicaid agencies. Data Sources/Study Setting 2001-2009 nursing home Minimum Data Set and Online Survey, Certification, and Reporting ( OSCAR) datasets. Study Design Between 2001 and 2009, eight state Medicaid agencies adopted P4P programs in nursing homes. We use a difference-in-differences approach to test for changes in nursing home quality under P4P, taking advantage of the variation in timing of implementation across these eight states and using nursing homes in the 42 non-P4P states plus Washington, DC as contemporaneous controls. Principal Findings Quality improvement under P4P was inconsistent. While three clinical quality measures (the percent of residents being physically restrained, in moderate to severe pain, and developed pressure sores) improved with the implementation of P4P in states with P4P compared with states without P4P, other targeted quality measures either did not change or worsened. Of the two structural measures of quality that were tied to payment (total number of deficiencies and nurse staffing) deficiency rates worsened slightly under P4P while staffing levels did not change. Conclusions Medicaid-based P4P in nursing homes did not result in consistent improvements in nursing home quality. Expectations for improvement in nursing home care under P4P should be tempered. [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]

Abstract: Public reporting of quality information is designed to address information asymmetry in health care markets. Without public reporting, consumers may have little information to help them differentiate quality among providers, giving providers little incentive to compete on quality. Public reporting enables consumers to choose highly ranked providers. Using a four-year (2000–2003) panel dataset, we examine the relationship between report card scores and patient choice of nursing home after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services began publicly reporting nursing home quality information on post-acute care in 2002. We find that the relationship between reported quality and nursing home choice is positive and statistically significant suggesting that patients were more likely to choose facilities with higher reported post-acute care quality after public reporting was initiated. However, the magnitude of the effect was small. We conclude that there has been minimal consumer response to information in the post-acute care market. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective. Evidence supporting the use of public reporting of quality information to improve health care quality is mixed. While public reporting may improve reported quality, its effect on quality of care more broadly is uncertain. This study tests whether public reporting in the setting of nursing homes resulted in improvement of reported and broader but unreported quality of postacute care. Data Sources/Study Setting. 1999–2005 nursing home Minimum Data Set and inpatient Medicare claims. Study Design. We examined changes in postacute care quality in U.S. nursing homes in response to the initiation of public reporting on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website, Nursing Home Compare. We used small nursing homes that were not subject to public reporting as a contemporaneous control and also controlled for patient selection into nursing homes. Postacute care quality was measured using three publicly reported clinical quality measures and 30-day potentially preventable rehospitalization rates, an unreported measure of quality. Principal Findings. Reported quality of postacute care improved after the initiation of public reporting for two of the three reported quality measures used in Nursing Home Compare. However, rates of potentially preventable rehospitalization did not significantly improve and, in some cases, worsened. Conclusions. Public reporting of nursing home quality was associated with an improvement in most postacute care performance measures but not in the broader measure of rehospitalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. The impact of quality improvement incentives on nontargeted care is unknown and some have expressed concern that such incentives may be harmful to nontargeted areas of care. Our objective is to examine the effect of publicly reporting quality information on unreported quality of care. Data Sources/Study Setting. The nursing home Minimum Data Set from 1999 to 2005 on all postacute care admissions. Study Design. We studied 13,683 skilled nursing facilities and examined how unreported aspects of clinical care changed in response to changes in reported care after public reporting was initiated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on their website, Nursing Home Compare, in 2002. Principal Findings. We find that overall both unreported and reported care improved following the launch of public reporting. Improvements in unreported care were particularly large among facilities with high scores or that significantly improved on reported measures, whereas low-scoring facilities experienced no change or worsening of their unreported quality of care. Conclusions. Public reporting in the setting of postacute care had mixed effects on areas without public reporting, improving in high-ranking facilities, but worsening in low-ranking facilities. While the benefits of public reporting may extend beyond areas that are being directly measured, these initiatives may also widen the gap between high- and low-quality facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Public reporting of health care quality has become a popular tool for incenting quality improvement. A fundamental question about public reporting is whether it causes providers to select healthier patients for treatment. In the nursing home post-acute setting, where patients must achieve a minimum length of stay to be included in quality measures, selection may take the form of discharge from the nursing home using rehospitalization, a particularly costly and undesirable outcome. We study the population of post-acute patients of skilled nursing facilities nationwide during 1999–2005 to assess whether selective rehospitalization occurred when public reporting was instituted in 2002, using multiple quasi-experimental designs to identify effects. We find that after public reporting was implemented, rehospitalizations before the length-of-stay cutoff increased. We conclude that nursing homes rehospitalize higher-risk post-acute patients to improve scores, providing evidence for selection behavior on the part of nursing home providers in the presence of public reporting. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Nursing homes serve both long-term care and post-acute care (PAC) patients, two groups with distinct financing mechanisms and requirements for care. We examine empirically the effect of nursing home specialization in PAC using 2011–2018 data for Medicare patients admitted to nursing homes following a hospital stay. To address patient selection into specialized nursing homes, we use an instrumental variables approach that exploits variation over time in the distance from the patient's residential ZIP code to the closest nursing home with different levels of PAC specialization. We find that patients admitted to nursing homes more specialized in PAC have lower hospital readmissions and mortality, longer nursing home stays, and higher Medicare spending for the episode of care, suggesting that specialization improves patient outcomes but at higher costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A goal of Medicare's bundled payment models is to improve quality and control costs after hospital discharge. Little is known about how participating hospitals are focusing their efforts to achieve these objectives, particularly around the use of skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). To understand hospitals' approaches, we conducted semistructured interviews with an executive or administrator in each of twenty-two hospitals and health systems participating in Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement model or its Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative for lower extremity joint replacement episodes. We identified two major organizational responses. One principal strategy was to reduce SNF referrals, using risk-stratification tools, patient education, home care supports, and linkages with home health agencies to facilitate discharges to home. Another was to enhance integration with SNFs: fifteen hospitals or health systems in our sample had formed networks of preferred SNFs to exert influence over SNF quality and costs. Common coordination strategies included sharing access to electronic medical records, embedding providers across facilities, hiring dedicated care coordination staff, and creating platforms for data sharing. As hospitals presumably move toward home-based care and more selective SNF referrals, more evidence is needed to understand how these discharge practices affect the quality of care and patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Market-based reforms in health care, such as public reporting of quality, may inadvertently exacerbate disparities. We examined how the Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services' five-star rating system for nursing homes has affected residents who are dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid ("dual eligibles"), a particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged population. Specifically, we assessed the extent to which dual eligibles and non-dual eligibles avoided the lowest-rated nursing homes and chose the highest-rated homes once the five-star rating system began, in late 2008. We found that both populations resided in better- quality homes over time but that by 2010 the increased likelihood of choosing the highest-rated homes was substantially smaller for dual eligibles than for non-dual eligibles. Thus, the gap in quality, as measured by a nursing home's star rating, grew over time. Furthermore, we found that the benefit of the five-star system to dual eligibles was largely due to providers' improving their ratings, not to consumers' choosing different providers. We present evidence suggesting that supply constraints play a role in limiting dual eligibles' responses to quality ratings, since high-quality providers tend to be located close to relatively affluent areas. Increases in Medicaid payment rates for nursing home services may be the only long-term solution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasing recognition of the adverse events older adults experience in post-acute care in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) has led to multiple efforts to improve care integration between hospitals and SNFs. We sought to measure current care integration activities between hospitals and SNFs. Cross-sectional survey. A total of 500 randomly selected Medicare-certified SNFs in the United States in 2019. The survey inquired about 12 care integration activities with the 2 highest volume referring hospitals for each SNF. We collapsed survey responses into 5 categories of integration based on high correlations between the individual measures. These were: (1) formal integration (co-location or co-ownership); (2) informal integration (eg, formal affiliation, participation in SNF collaborative, shared pay for performance, or clinical leadership meetings between hospital and SNF); (3) shared quality/safety activities (eg, initiatives to improve medication safety or reduce hospital admission); (4) shared care coordinators; and/or (5) shared supervising clinicians. We then conducted multivariate regressions to examine associations between different care integration activities and hospital/SNF characteristics. Our overall response rate was 53.0%, including 265 SNFs that represented 487 SNF-hospital pairs. Informal integration was most common (in 53.3% of pairs), whereas shared clinicians (43.0%), care coordinators (36.5%), shared quality/safety activities (35.1%), and formal integration (7.4%) were present in a minority. Hospital-SNF pairs had lower odds of being formally integrated if the SNF was for-profit compared with not-for-profit [odds ratio (OR) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03–0.42, adjusted P =.04)] and higher odds of sharing quality improvement activities in metropolitan rather than rural areas (OR 4.06, 95% CI 1.80–9.17, adjusted P =.02) and in the Midwest compared with West (OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.44–6.06, adjusted P =.049). These findings raise important questions about what is driving variability in hospital-SNF integration activities, and which activities may be most effective for improving transitional care outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]