Assessing post-discharge costs of hepatopancreatic surgery: an evaluation of Medicare expenditure.

BACKGROUND: The true cost of liver and pancreatic surgery may not be completely ascertained by examining costs associated solely with the index hospitalization. We sought to assess post-discharge costs related to liver and pancreatic surgery after the index hospitalization. METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries who underwent liver and pancreatic resection between 2013 and 2015. To assess post-discharge costs, costs were assessed for the following: all inpatient readmissions associated with an operative complication, follow-up outpatient visits with their operating surgeon, and use of skilled nursing facilities, hospice, and home health care within 90 days of discharge. RESULTS: Among the 21,737 patients who underwent either pancreatic or liver resection, the median cost of the index admission was $20,500 (interquartile range: $16,100-$34,300) (pancreas median: $22,100; interquartile range: $16,800-$36,500 vs liver median: $19,100; interquartile range: $15,100-$29,000). Approximately 30% (n = 6,435) had an all-cause readmission; more than half of readmissions (55.8%; n = 3,589) were related to an operative complication. Skilled nursing facilities and home health care services were utilized by 18.5% (n = 4,016) and 42.6% (n = 9,259) of patients, respectively. In total, nearly 75% of patients had additional, post-discharge hidden costs associated with their operative episode of care (n = 15,733: 72.4%). Male sex (95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.30) and black/African American race (95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.34) were associated with greater odds of post-discharge costs (both <0.05). CONCLUSION: Nearly 3 out of 4 patients who underwent a liver or pancreatic resection had post-discharge costs. Male and black/African American patients had greater odds of incurring post-discharge costs. As payers move to more bundled care payment models, strategies aimed at bending the cost curve associated with both the in-hospital, as well as the post-discharge setting, are needed.

Trends in Contracting and Common Ownership Between Hospice Agencies and Nursing Homes.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, policymakers have paid particular attention to the emergence of a robust for-profit hospice sector and increased hospice use by nursing home residents. Previous research has explored financial incentives for nursing home-hospice use, but there has been limited research on nursing home-hospice partnerships and none on the extent of nursing home-hospice common ownership. OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in nursing home-hospice contracting and common ownership and to identify potential tradeoffs in care provided by nursing homes and hospice agencies that share common ownership. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of nursing home-hospice patients between 2005 and 2015. RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2015, the number of hospice agencies and nursing homes with common ownership grew substantially, now representing almost 1-in-5 providers in each sector. Relative to individuals using hospice in nursing homes without common ownership, adjusted analyses found that individuals receiving hospice from a commonly owned agency had a greater likelihood of having stays of 90 days or more [odds ratio (OR)=1.06; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-1.10], having a stay resulting in a live discharge (OR=1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11), and having at least 1 registered nurse/licensed practical nurse visit during the last 3 days of life (OR=1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29); these individuals also had a lower mean visit hours per day (-0.07; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Common ownership between hospice agencies and nursing homes is an emerging trend that reflects a broader push toward consolidation in the health care sector. Our analyses highlight potential concerns relevant to Medicare payment policy and are a first step toward improving our understanding of these trends and their implications.

Use of Advance Care Planning Billing Codes in a Tertiary Care Center Setting.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released the final payment rules for reimbursement of advance care planning (ACP) effective January 2016. In its first year, 23,000 providers nationwide submitted 624,000 claims using the Current Procedural Terminology codes 99497 and 99498. The objectives of our study were to 1) assess the frequency of ACP codes used at a single academic tertiary care center in Iowa, 2) determine when and by whom the codes were used, and 3) summarize ACP clinical notes. METHODS: Using the electronic medical record data warehouse from a single tertiary teaching hospital and affiliated clinics, date of service, department where service was provided, provider name and type, patient medical record number, date of birth, and gender linked to the ACP codes 99497 and 99498 were collected. The content of ACP clinical notes were reviewed and summarized. Study period was from January 1, 2016 through September 19, 2018. RESULTS: During the 33 months, code 99497 was used 17 times and code 99498 was never used. Code 99497 was successfully reimbursed 4 times. DISCUSSION: Charges were not reimbursed if the ACP visits did not meet the minimum time requirement or were conducted by an individual not considered a qualified health care professional per Medicare rules. CONCLUSION: ACP codes 99497 and 99498 were very rarely used at this tertiary care center during the initial 33-months after the Medicare rules went into effect. Interventions are needed to promote the use of ACP codes, so the time spent in important ACP discussions are properly compensated.

Lymphoedema management by independent hospices: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To consider the type and cost of clinical services delivered for patients with lymphoedema. DESIGN: Clinical cohort. SETTING: Independent hospices in the North East of England. PARTICIPANTS: All those attending lymphoedema services delivered by the independent hospice sector 2017/2018. RESULTS: 13 914 lymphoedema appointments were recorded across four independent hospices. Twelve thousand nine hundred and sixty-five were attended, which equates to an approximate cost of £1.56 million. Those with lymphoedema were predominately aged over 65 (54.5%) years with females across all age groups being more predominant (3.3:1). Where the cause was recorded, 66% of activity related to lymphoedema was not secondary to cancer. CONCLUSION: Independent hospices are providing a specialist lymphoedema service, which is high in volume and largely invisible. This service is delivered at not insignificant cost. In contrast to previous work, in the North East of England, lymphoedema sufferers are more likely to be female and not have the condition in association with cancer. The availability of rigorous data collection will allow the independent hospices to understand better the delivery and associated costs of lymphoedema services.

Lots of little ones: Analysis of charitable donations to a hospice and palliative care unit in Taiwan.

BACKGROUND: Charitable donations play a major role in the provision of hospice and palliative care (HPC) services, most of which are not reimbursed by health insurance programs. A good understanding of the constitution and use of donations is thus conducive to maintaining a high-quality HPC unit. METHODS: The data sources were the publicly available balance sheet, work report, and donor lists of a foundation exclusively supporting one of the best HPC units in Taiwan in the fiscal year of 2017. The analysis included the donation amounts and frequencies by donor type (individual, corporate, and group) and the categories of expenses. RESULTS: The foundation received 3033 donations worth a total of 7.8 million New Taiwan dollars (NTD) (approximately 258 thousand US dollars) in 2017. Two-thirds of the donations were allocated to the provision of direct care services. Of the 3033 donations, only 11 (0.4%) were worth 100 000 NTD or more, while 108 (3.6%) were valued between 10 000 and 99 999 NTD, 1268 (41.8%) were valued between 1000 and 9999 NTD, and 1646 (54.2%) were worth less than 1000 NTD. Of 1051 donors, 974 (92.7%) were individuals, 378 (36.0%) donated more than once, and 106 (10.1%) donated 12 or more times in one year. CONCLUSION: HPC services in Taiwan are sponsored by lots of individuals and small donations. For sustainability of standards-based and quality HPC services, the benevolence of the public should be thus cherished and adequately responded to.

Have Hospice Costs Increased After Implementation of the Hospice Quality-Reporting Program?

CONTEXT: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospice Quality-Reporting Program introduced the requirement that hospices nationwide begin collecting and submitting standardized patient-level quality data on July 1, 2014. OBJECTIVES: This study examined whether this requirement has increased hospice total costs, general costs, and visiting services costs. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the 2012 and 2014 Medicare hospice cost reports linked to hospice claims. We measured total costs per patient day (PPD), general costs PPD, and visiting services costs PPD for freestanding hospices. We estimated the incremental costs of operating in 2014 vs. 2012 using hierarchical random effects models and adjusting for year, wage index, care volume, case-mix, and hospice and market characteristics, stratified by hospice ownership type. RESULTS: Both for-profit and nonprofit hospices reported higher total costs PPD and general services costs PPD in 2014 than 2012. Nonprofit hospices also reported higher general costs PPD in 2014 than 2012. In adjusted models, the total costs PPD in 2014 were $10.55 higher than in 2012 for nonprofit hospices and $6.43 higher for for-profit hospices. The increase in general costs PPD and visiting services costs PPD ranged from $3.15 to $5.87 by ownership and type of costs. Both for-profit and nonprofit hospices showed lower costs PPD for all types associated with more patients and longer length of stay. CONCLUSION: Hospice costs increased after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospice Quality-Reporting Program quality data collection/submission requirement. Complementary studies need to understand whether increased costs brought additional benefits.

How we use hospice: Hospice enrollment patterns and costs in elderly ovarian cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To describe disparities in patterns of hospice use and end-of-life costs among ovarian cancer patients. METHODS: Using Texas Cancer Registry-Medicare data, ovarian cancer patients deceased 2005-2012 with >12 months of continuous Medicare coverage before death were included. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regressions were used to evaluate patterns of hospice use. Cost and resource utilization was obtained from Medicare claims and analyzed using a non-parametric Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: 2331 patients were assessed: 1788 (77%) white, 359 (15%) Hispanic, 158 (7%) black and 26 (1%) other. 1756 (75%) enrolled in hospice prior to death but only 1580 (68%) died with hospice. 176 (10%) of 1756 patients unenrolled and died without hospice. 346 (20%) unenrolled from hospice multiple times. From 2008 to 2012, patients were less likely to unenroll from hospice prior to death. Black patients were more likely to unenroll from hospice prior to death (OR 2.07 [1.15-3.73]; p = 0.02) compared to white patients. The median amount paid by Medicare during the last six months of life was $38,530 for those in hospice compared to $49,942 if never enrolled in hospice (p < 0.0001) and was higher for black and Hispanic patients compared to white patients. 30% hospice unenrolled patients and 40% multiply enrolled hospice patients received at least one life extending or invasive care procedure following unenrollment from hospice. CONCLUSION: Recently, more patients remain enrolled in hospice, but black patients have a higher risk of unenrollment. Hospice enrollment was associated with lower costs as long as a patient did not unenroll from hospice.

Association of Sensory and Cognitive Impairment With Healthcare Utilization and Cost in Older Adults.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between self-reported vision impairment (VI), hearing impairment (HI), and dual-sensory impairment (DSI), stratified by dementia status, on hospital admissions, hospice use, and healthcare costs. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey from 1999 to 2006. PARTICIPANTS: Rotating panel of community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries, aged 65 years and older (N = 24 009). MEASUREMENTS: VI and HI were ascertained by self-report. Dementia status was determined by self-report or diagnosis codes in claims data. Primary outcomes included any inpatient admission over a 2-year period, hospice use over a 2-year period, annual Medicare fee-for-service costs, and total healthcare costs (which included information from Medicare claims data and other self-reported payments). RESULTS: Self-reported DSI was present in 30.2% (n = 263/871) of participants with dementia and 17.8% (n = 4112/23 138) of participants without dementia. In multivariable logistic regression models, HI, VI, or DSI was generally associated with increased odds of hospitalization and hospice use regardless of dementia status. In a generalized linear model adjusted for demographics, annual total healthcare costs were greater for those with DSI and dementia compared to those with DSI without dementia ($28 875 vs $3340, respectively). Presence of any sensory impairment was generally associated with higher healthcare costs. In a model adjusted for demographics, Medicaid status, and chronic medical conditions, DSI compared with no sensory impairment was associated with a small, but statistically significant, difference in total healthcare spending in those without dementia ($1151 vs $1056; P < .001) but not in those with dementia ($11 303 vs $10 466; P = .395). CONCLUSION: Older adults with sensory and cognitive impairments constitute a particularly prevalent and vulnerable population who are at increased risk of hospitalization and contribute to higher healthcare spending. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1617-1624, 2019.

Factors Associated With Hospices' Nonparticipation in Medicare's Hospice Compare Public Reporting Program.

BACKGROUND: To enhance the quality of hospice care and to facilitate consumers' choices, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) began the Hospice Quality Reporting Program, in which CMS posted the quality measures of participating hospices on its reporting website, Hospice Compare. Little is known about the participation rate and the types of nonparticipating hospices. OBJECTIVE: To examine the factors associated with hospices' nonparticipation in Hospice Compare. RESEARCH DESIGN: We analyzed data from the CMS 2016 Hospice Compare. "Nonparticipants" were those who did not submit any quality measure. With the data of the Provider of Service file, the Healthcare Cost Report Information System, and the Area Health Resources File, multivariate logistic regressions estimated the association between nonparticipants and hospice and market characteristics, including ownership, size, nurse staffing ratio, and market competition intensity. RESULTS: Among the 4123 certified hospices subject to penalty from nonparticipation, 259 did not participate in Hospice Compare. California, New Mexico, Texas, and Wyoming had participation rates lower than 80%. Hospices that were for-profit, had no accreditation, had few nurses per patient day, provided no inpatient care, and were located in competitive markets were less likely to participate than other hospices. CONCLUSIONS: Hospice Compare successfully motivated hospice in participating in the quality report program in most of states. For-profit hospices, hospices with less quality, and hospices located in competitive markets were less likely to participate. Further research is warranted to examine the quality of these nonparticipants, especially in the 4 states with a lower participation rate.

Better together: Coexistence of for-profit and nonprofit firms with an application to the U.S. hospice industry.

Many markets maintain a nontrivial mix of both nonprofit and for-profit firms, particularly in health care industries such as hospice, nursing homes, and home health. What are the effects of coexistence vs. dominance of one ownership type? We show how the presence of both ownership types can lead to greater diversity in consumer types served, even if both firms merely profit-maximize. This is the case where firms serve consumers for multiple consumption durations, but where donations are part of a nonprofit firm objective function and happen after services have been provided. This finding is strengthened if the good or service has value beyond immediate consumption or the direct consumer. We show these predictions empirically in the hospice industry, using data containing over 90 percent of freestanding U.S. hospices, 2000-2008. Nonprofit and for-profit providers split the patient market according to length of stay, leading to a wider range of patients being served than in the absence of this coexistence.

Hospice Underutilization in the U.S.: The Misalignment of Regulatory Policy and Clinical Reality.

After three and a half decades of experience with the Medicare hospice benefit in the U.S., despite excellent quality outcomes in symptom management, patient and family satisfaction, and reduction in health care costs, only 12%-15% of beneficiaries' days during the last year of life are spent being cared for within the highly cost-effective interdisciplinary coordinated advanced illness care model known as hospice. Although there are many reasons for this, including difficulties in acknowledging mortality among patients, their families, and physicians, a significant cause of low overall hospice utilization and intractably low median lengths of stay, reflective of late admissions, can be attributed to increasingly difficult and highly variable prognostic determinations for most of the leading causes of death among Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare is the payer for most hospice care in the U.S. and requires certification of a prognosis of six months or less for a beneficiary to access hospice support. At the time of admission to hospice, two physicians must predict that a patient is more likely to die in the next six months than survive, based on clinical status. In addition to prognostic uncertainty constituting a barrier to timely hospice referral, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and its payer contractors have developed a robust and expensive retrospective review process that penalizes hospices when patients outlive their expected prognosis. The administratively burdensome and financially punitive review practices further delay or limit access to care for eligible patients as certifying physicians and agencies, fearful of the financial and legal repercussions of reviews and audits, are hesitant to take patients under care unless they are clearly in the dying process. This article will review pertinent history and address the core problem of access to a health care benefit built on a policy that requires far greater prognostic certainty than any clinician can reasonably ascertain and fails to take into consideration the favorable impact hospice care has on terminally ill patients in improving prognosis. This clinical conundrum that limits access of seriously ill people to high-value quality care is of profound importance to the U.S. Medicare population and also one with potential relevance to all complex and regulated health systems and to other models of care whose eligibility criteria are based on prognostication.

Hospice Use And End-Of-Life Spending Trajectories In Medicare Beneficiaries On Hemodialysis.

Infrequent and late referral to hospice among patients on dialysis likely reflects the impact of a Medicare payment policy that discourages the concurrent receipt of these services, but it may also reflect these patients' less predictable illness trajectories. Among a national cohort of patients on hemodialysis, we identified four distinct spending trajectories during the last year of life that represented markedly different intensities of care. Within the cohort, 9 percent had escalating spending and 13 percent had persistently high spending throughout the last year of life, while 41 percent had relatively low spending with late escalation, and 37 percent had moderate spending with late escalation. Across the four groups, the percentages of patients enrolled in hospice at the time of death were uniformly low ranging from only 19 percent of those with persistently high costs to 21 percent of those with moderate costs and the median number of days spent in hospice during the last year of life was virtually the same (either five or six days). These findings signal the need for greater flexibility in the provision of end-of-life care in this population.

What is the cost of palliative care in the UK? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the cost of a palliative care approach in the UK, and there is an absence of robust activity and unit cost data. The aim of this study was to review evidence on the costs of specialist and generalist palliative care in the UK, and to explore different approaches used for capturing activity and unit cost data. METHODS: A systematic review with narrative synthesis. Four electronic databases were searched for empirical literature on the costs of a palliative care approach in the UK, and a narrative method was used to synthesise the data. RESULTS: Ten papers met our inclusion criteria. The studies displayed significant variation in their estimates of the cost of palliative care, therefore it was not possible to present an accurate aggregate cost of palliative care in the UK. The majority of studies explored costs from a National Health Service perspective and only two studies included informal care costs. Approaches to estimating activity and costs varied. Particular challenges were noted with capturing activity and cost data for hospice and informal care. CONCLUSION: The data are limited, and the heterogeneity is such that it is not possible to provide an aggregate cost of palliative care in the UK. It is notable that the costs of hospice care and informal care are often neglected in economic studies. Further work is needed to address methodological and practical challenges in order to gain a more complete understanding of the costs of palliative care.

Development and validation of a casemix classification to predict costs of specialist palliative care provision across inpatient hospice, hospital and community settings in the UK: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Provision of palliative care is inequitable with wide variations across conditions and settings in the UK. Lack of a standard way to classify by case complexity is one of the principle obstacles to addressing this. We aim to develop and validate a casemix classification to support the prediction of costs of specialist palliative care provision. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Phase I: A cohort study to determine the variables and potential classes to be included in a casemix classification. Data are collected from clinicians in palliative care services across inpatient hospice, hospital and community settings on: patient demographics, potential complexity/casemix criteria and patient-level resource use. Cost predictors are derived using multivariate regression and then incorporated into a classification using classification and regression trees. Internal validation will be conducted by bootstrapping to quantify any optimism in the predictive performance (calibration and discrimination) of the developed classification. Phase II: A mixed-methods cohort study across settings for external validation of the classification developed in phase I. Patient and family caregiver data will be collected longitudinally on demographics, potential complexity/casemix criteria and patient-level resource use. This will be triangulated with data collected from clinicians on potential complexity/casemix criteria and patient-level resource use, and with qualitative interviews with patients and caregivers about care provision across difference settings. The classification will be refined on the basis of its performance in the validation data set. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the National Health Service Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee. The results are expected to be disseminated in 2018 through papers for publication in major palliative care journals; policy briefs for clinicians, commissioning leads and policy makers; and lay summaries for patients and public. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN90752212.