Coverage and Access Changes During Medicaid Unwinding.

Importance: States resumed Medicaid eligibility redeterminations, which had been paused during the COVID-19 public health emergency, in 2023. This unwinding of the pandemic continuous coverage provision raised concerns about the extent to which beneficiaries would lose Medicaid coverage and how that would affect access to care. Objective: To assess early changes in insurance and access to care during Medicaid unwinding among individuals with low incomes in 4 Southern states. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multimodal survey was conducted in Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Texas from September to November 2023, used random-digit dialing and probabilistic address-based sampling, and included US citizens aged 19 to 64 years reporting 2022 incomes at or less than 138% of the federal poverty level. Exposure: Medicaid enrollment at any point since March 2020, when continuous coverage began. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported disenrollment from Medicaid, insurance at the time of interview, and self-reported access to care. Using multivariate logistic regression, factors associated with Medicaid loss were evaluated. Access and affordability of care among respondents who exited Medicaid vs those who remained enrolled were compared, after multivariate adjustment. Results: The sample contained 2210 adults (1282 women [58.0%]; 505 Black non-Hispanic individuals [22.9%], 393 Hispanic individuals [17.8%], and 1133 White non-Hispanic individuals [51.3%]) with 2022 household incomes less than 138% of the federal poverty line. On a survey-weighted basis, 1564 (70.8%) reported that they and/or a dependent child of theirs had Medicaid at some point since March 2020. Among adult respondents who had Medicaid, 179 (12.5%) were no longer enrolled in Medicaid at the time of the survey, with state estimates ranging from 7.0% (n = 19) in Kentucky to 16.2% (n = 82) in Arkansas. Fewer children who had Medicaid lost coverage (42 [5.4%]). Among adult respondents who left Medicaid since 2020 and reported coverage status at time of interview, 47.8% (n = 80) were uninsured, 27.0% (n = 45) had employer-sponsored insurance, and the remainder had other coverage as of fall 2023. Disenrollment was higher among younger adults, employed individuals, and rural residents but lower among non-Hispanic Black respondents (compared with non-Hispanic White respondents) and among those receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. Losing Medicaid was significantly associated with delaying care due to cost and worsening affordability of care. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this survey study indicated that 6 months into unwinding, 1 in 8 Medicaid beneficiaries reported exiting the program, with wide state variation. Roughly half who lost Medicaid coverage became uninsured. Among those moving to new coverage, many experienced coverage gaps. Adults exiting Medicaid reported more challenges accessing care than respondents who remained enrolled.

Impact of dementia special care units for short-stay nursing home patients.

BACKGROUND: Improving quality of care provided to short-stay patients with dementia in nursing homes is a policy priority. However, it is unknown whether dementia-focused care strategies are associated with improved clinical outcomes or lower utilization and costs for short-stay dementia patients. METHODS: We performed a national survey of nursing home administrators in 2020-2021, asking about the presence of three dementia-focused care services used for their short-stay patients: (1) a dementia care unit, (2) cognitive deficiency training for staff, and (3) dementia-specific occupational therapy. Using Medicare claims, we identified short-stay episodes for beneficiaries residing in surveyed skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) with and without dementia. We compared clinical, cost, and utilization outcomes for dementia patients in SNFs, which did and did not offer dementia-focused care services. As a counterfactual control, we compared these differences to those for non-dementia patients in the same facilities. Our primary quantity of interest was an interaction term between a patients' dementia status and the presence of a dementia-focused care tool. RESULTS: The study population included 102,860 Medicare episodes of care from 377 SNF survey respondents in 2018-2019. In adjusted comparisons of the interaction between dementia status and the presence of each dementia-focused care tool, dementia care units were associated with a 1.5-day increase in healthy days at home in the 90 days following discharge (p = 0.01) and a 3.1% decrease in the likelihood of a subsequent SNF admission (p = 0.001). Cognitive deficiency training was also associated with a 2.0% increase in antipsychotics (p = 0.03), whereas dementia-specific occupational therapy was associated with a 1.2% increase in falls (p = 0.01) per patient episode. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported use of dementia care units for short-stay patients was associated with modestly better performance in some, but not all, outcome measures. This provides hypothesis-generating evidence that dementia care units could be a promising mechanism to improve care delivery in nursing homes.

Changes in Cardiovascular Spending, Care Utilization, and Clinical Outcomes Associated With Participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement - Advanced.

BACKGROUND: Bundled Payments for Care Improvement - Advanced (BPCI-A) is a Medicare initiative that aims to incentivize reductions in spending for episodes of care that start with a hospitalization and end 90 days after discharge. Cardiovascular disease, an important driver of Medicare spending, is one of the areas of focus BPCI-A. It is unknown whether BPCI-A is associated with spending reductions or quality improvements for the 3 cardiovascular medical events or 5 cardiovascular procedures in the model. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we conducted difference-in-differences analyses using Medicare claims for patients discharged between January 1, 2017, and September 30, 2019, to assess differences between BPCI-A hospitals and matched nonparticipating control hospitals. Our primary outcomes were the differential changes in spending, before versus after implementation of BPCI-A, for cardiac medical and procedural conditions at BPCI-A hospitals compared with controls. Secondary outcomes included changes in patient complexity, care utilization, healthy days at home, readmissions, and mortality. RESULTS: Baseline spending for cardiac medical episodes at BPCI-A hospitals was $25 606. The differential change in spending for cardiac medical episodes at BPCI-A versus control hospitals was $16 (95% CI, -$228 to $261; P=0.90). Baseline spending for cardiac procedural episodes at BPCI-A hospitals was $37 961. The differential change in spending for cardiac procedural episodes was $171 (95% CI, -$429 to $772; P=0.58). There were minimal differential changes in physicians' care patterns such as the complexity of treated patients or in their care utilization. At BPCI-A versus control hospitals, there were no significant differential changes in rates of 90-day readmissions (differential change, 0.27% [95% CI, -0.25% to 0.80%] for medical episodes; differential change, 0.31% [95% CI, -0.98% to 1.60%] for procedural episodes) or mortality (differential change, -0.14% [95% CI, -0.50% to 0.23%] for medical episodes; differential change, -0.36% [95% CI, -1.25% to 0.54%] for procedural episodes). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in BPCI-A was not associated with spending reductions, changes in care utilization, or quality improvements for the cardiovascular medical events or procedures offered in the model.

Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility Use and Spending Before and After Introduction of the Public Health Emergency Waiver During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Medicare introduced a public health emergency (PHE) waiver in March 2020, removing a 3-day hospitalization requirement before fee-for-service beneficiaries could receive skilled nursing facility (SNF) care benefits. Objective: To assess whether there were changes in SNF episode volume and Medicare spending on SNF care before and during the PHE among long-term care (LTC) residents and other Medicare beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used Medicare fee-for-service claims and the Minimum Data Set for Medicare beneficiaries who were reimbursed for SNF care episodes from January 2018 to September 2021 in US SNFs. Exposures: The prepandemic period (January 2018-February 2020) vs the PHE period (March 2020-September 2021). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were SNF episode volume, characteristics, and costs. Episodes were defined as standard (with a preceding 3-day hospitalization) or waiver (with other or no acute care use). Results: Skilled nursing facility care was provided to 4 299 863 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Medicare beneficiaries had on average 130 400 monthly SNF episodes in the prepandemic period (mean [SD] age of beneficiaries, 78.9 [11.0] years; 59% female) and 108 575 monthly episodes in the PHE period (mean [SD] age of beneficiaries, 79.0 [11.1] years; 59% female). All waiver episodes increased from 6% to 32%, and waiver episodes without preceding acute care increased from 3% to 18% (from 4% to 49% among LTC residents). Skilled nursing facility episodes provided for LTC residents increased by 77% (from 15 538 to 27 537 monthly episodes), primarily due to waiver episodes provided for residents with COVID-19 in 2020 and early 2021 (62% of waiver episodes without preceding acute care). Skilled nursing facilities in the top quartile of waiver episodes were more often for-profit (80% vs 68%) and had lower quality ratings (mean [SD] overall star rating, 2.7 [1.4] vs 3.2 [1.4]; mean [SD] staffing star rating, 2.5 [1.1] vs 3.0 [1.2]) compared with SNFs in the other quartiles. Monthly Medicare spending on SNF care was $2.1 billion before the pandemic and $2.0 billion during the PHE. For LTC residents, monthly SNF spending increased from $301 million to $585 million while spending on hospitalizations remained relatively stable. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that the PHE waiver for SNF care was associated with a marked increase in the prevalence of SNF episodes without a preceding hospitalization, especially in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The waiver was used primarily among certain types of facilities and for LTC residents with COVID-19. Although the effect of the waiver cannot be differentiated from that of the pandemic, overall SNF care costs did not increase substantially; for LTC residents, the waiver was applied primarily for COVID-19 care, suggesting the waiver's successful implementation.

Care delivery approaches and perceived barriers to improving quality of care: A national survey of skilled nursing facilities.

BACKGROUND: Nursing home quality of care is a persistent challenge, with recent reports calling for increased reforms to improve quality and safety. Less is known about the clinical approaches currently used and the barriers perceived by skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) to provide care for their short-stay residents. METHODS: We conducted a nationally representative survey of SNFs from October 2020 to May 2021 to understand their care delivery approaches and perceived barriers. Our primary outcomes were the reported number of 23 separate care delivery approaches and the reported number of 12 separate barriers to reduce spending or improve care for SNF short-stay residents. We also performed stratified analyses by facility participation in bundled payments and other SNF characteristics. RESULTS: We received 377 responses from 693 SNFs contacted (response rate = 54%). SNFs reported an average of 16.8 care delivery approaches and an average of 5.0 barriers. While there were some differences observed in SNF characteristics, such as by bundled payments participation or ownership type, there were common care delivery approaches and barriers shared by most facilities. Care management practices, including reviewing the patient census and medication reconciliation on discharge, were the most common delivery approaches reported. SNFs were less likely to ensure the completion of a follow-up appointment with a primary care provider or track repeat emergency room visits. Issues concerning staffing, such as staff turnover and/or burnout, and lack of resources to provide patients social support, mental health, and substance use services, were the most cited barriers to care delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Nationally, SNFs implemented a wide array of care delivery approaches, but challenges with staffing and limited resources to address patients' social and mental health needs were dominant. Individual SNFs may have limited ability to address these key barriers, so the involvement of many stakeholders across the entire healthcare system may be necessary.

Care Disruption During COVID-19: a National Survey of Hospital Leaders.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused massive disruption in usual care delivery patterns in hospitals across the USA, and highlighted long-standing inequities in health care delivery and outcomes. Its effect on hospital operations, and whether the magnitude of the effect differed for hospitals serving historically marginalized populations, is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the perspectives of hospital leaders on the effects of COVID-19 on their facilities' operations and patient outcomes. METHODS: A survey was administered via print and electronic means to hospital leaders at 588 randomly sampled acute-care hospitals participating in Medicare's Inpatient Prospective Payment System, fielded from November 2020 to June 2021. Summary statistics were tabulated, and responses were adjusted for sampling strategy and non-response. RESULTS: There were 203 responses to the survey (41.6%), with 20.7% of respondents representing safety-net hospitals and 19.7% representing high-minority hospitals. Over three-quarters of hospitals reported COVID testing shortages, about two-thirds reported staffing shortages, and 78.8% repurposed hospital spaces to intensive care units, with a slightly higher proportion of high-minority hospitals reporting these effects. About half of respondents felt that non-COVID inpatients received worsened quality or outcomes during peak COVID surges, and almost two-thirds reported worsened quality or outcomes for outpatient non-COVID patients as well, with few differences by hospital safety-net or minority status. Over 80% of hospitals participated in alternative payment models prior to COVID, and a third of these reported decreasing these efforts due to the pandemic, with no differences between safety-net and high-minority hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 significantly disrupted the operations of hospitals across the USA, with hospitals serving patients in poverty and racial and ethnic minorities reporting relatively similar care disruption as non-safety-net and lower-minority hospitals.

Changes in Racial Equity Associated With Participation in the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced Program.

Importance: The Medicare alternative payment models are designed to incentivize cost reduction and quality improvement, but there are no requirements established for evaluating the outcomes of the Medicare populations. Objective: To examine whether participation in the Medicare Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-A) program was associated with narrowing or widening of Black and White racial inequities in outcomes and access. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort alternative payment models on equity and quality for disadvantaged populations were studied between April 6, 2021, and August 28, 2022, in US hospitals. Black and White Medicare beneficiaries admitted for any of the 29 inpatient conditions in the BPCI-A program between January 1, 2017, and September 31, 2019, were included. Exposures: BPCI-A participation implemented in 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ninety-day readmission and mortality, healthy days at home, and proportion of Black patients hospitalized. Segmented regression models were used to examine quarterly changes in slopes for each outcome. Results: The sample included 6 690 336 episodes (6 019 359 White patients, 670 977 Black patients). The population comprised approximately 43% men, 57% women, 17% individuals younger than 65 years, 47% between ages 65 and 80 years, and 36% older than 80 years. Prior to implementation of the BPCI-A program, compared with episodes for White patients, Black patients had higher 90-day readmissions (36.3% vs 29.6%), similar 90-day mortality (12.3% vs 13.3%), and fewer healthy days at home (mean, 68.5 vs 69.5 days). BPCI-A participation was not associated with significant changes in the racial gap in readmissions but was associated with a greater gain in heathy days at home (differences by race, -0.07 days per quarter; 95% CI, -0.12 to -0.01 days per quarter). Among Black patients admitted to BPCI-A hospitals vs controls, healthy days at home increased by 0.09 more days/episode per quarter (95% CI, 0.02-0.17 days/episode per quarter). The proportion of Black patients decreased similarly at BPCI-A and control hospitals. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, BPCI-A participation was not associated with improvements in racial inequities in clinical outcomes. Black patients in BPCI-A had a slight gain in healthy days at home; there were no changes in access. The findings of this study suggest that more needs to be done if payment policy reform is going to be part of the efforts to address glaring racial inequities in health care quality and outcomes. These findings support a need for payment policy reform specifically targeting equity-enhancing programs.

Medicare's Bundled Payments For Care Improvement Advanced Model: Impact On High-Risk Beneficiaries.

Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced Model (BPCI-A) is a voluntary Alternative Payment Model in which participating hospitals are held accountable for ninety-day episodes of care. To meet spending targets, hospitals must either decrease utilization or attract a less sick patient population; this could lead to the elimination of necessary care or avoidance of patients with medical or social vulnerability. We used publicly available data on BPCI-A participation, along with Medicare claims from the period 2017-19, to examine patient selection, changes in Medicare payment, and key clinical outcomes among three groups: patients with frailty, patients with multimorbidity, and patients with dual enrollment (both Medicare and Medicaid). We found no consistent change in patient selection associated with BPCI-A participation. Patients with frailty, multimorbidity, or dual enrollment were more expensive at baseline, but Medicare payments decreased similarly in these groups compared with lower-risk patients. There were no differential negative changes in clinical outcomes between BPCI-A participants and nonparticipants among patients with medical or social vulnerability.

Changes in Health and Quality of Life in US Skilled Nursing Facilities by COVID-19 Exposure Status in 2020.

Importance: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the US federal government required that skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) close to visitors and eliminate communal activities. Although these policies were intended to protect residents, they may have had unintended negative effects. Objective: To assess health outcomes among SNFs with and without known COVID-19 cases. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective observational study used US Medicare claims and Minimum Data Set 3.0 for January through November in each year beginning in 2018 and ending in 2020 including 15 477 US SNFs with 2 985 864 resident-years. Exposures: January through November of calendar years 2018, 2019, and 2020. COVID-19 diagnoses were used to assign SNFs into 2 mutually exclusive groups with varying membership by month in 2020: active COVID-19 (≥1 COVID-19 diagnosis in the current or past month) or no-known COVID-19 (no observed diagnosis by that month). Main Outcomes and Measures: Monthly rates of mortality, hospitalization, emergency department (ED) visits, and monthly changes in activities of daily living (ADLs), body weight, and depressive symptoms. Each SNF in 2018 and 2019 served as its own control for 2020. Results: In 2018-2019, mean monthly mortality was 2.2%, hospitalization 3.0%, and ED visit rate 2.9% overall. In 2020, among active COVID-19 SNFs compared with their own 2018-2019 baseline, mortality increased by 1.60% (95% CI, 1.58% to 1.62%), hospitalizations decreased by 0.10% (95% CI, -0.12% to -0.09%), and ED visit rates decreased by 0.57% (95% CI, -0.59% to -0.55%). Among no-known COVID-19 SNFs, mortality decreased by 0.15% (95% CI, -0.16% to -0.13%), hospitalizations by 0.83% (95% CI, -0.85% to -0.81%), and ED visits by 0.79% (95% CI, -0.81% to -0.77%). All changes were statistically significant. In 2018-2019, across all SNFs, residents required assistance with an additional 0.89 ADLs between January and November, and lost 1.9 lb; 27.1% had worsened depressive symptoms. In 2020, residents in active COVID-19 SNFs required assistance with an additional 0.36 ADLs (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.38), lost 3.1 lb (95% CI, -3.2 to -3.0 lb) more weight, and were 4.4% (95% CI, 4.1% to 4.7%) more likely to have worsened depressive symptoms, all statistically significant changes. In 2020, residents in no-known COVID-19 SNFs had no significant change in ADLs (-0.06 [95% CI, -0.12 to 0.01]), but lost 1.8 lb (95% CI, -2.1 to -1.5 lb) more weight and were 3.2% more likely (95% CI, 2.3% to 4.1%) to have worsened depressive symptoms, both statistically significant changes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among skilled nursing facilities in the US during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and prior to the availability of COVID-19 vaccination, mortality and functional decline significantly increased at facilities with active COVID-19 cases compared with the prepandemic period, while a modest statistically significant decrease in mortality was observed at facilities that had never had a known COVID-19 case. Weight loss and depressive symptoms significantly increased in skilled nursing facilities in the first year of the pandemic, regardless of COVID-19 status.

Changes in Employment Status and Access to Care During COVID-19 Pandemic Among Low-Income Adults in 4 Southern States.

BACKGROUND: While the impact of the COVID-19 recession on the economy is clear, there is limited evidence on how the COVID-19 pandemic-related job losses among low-income people may have affected their access to health care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of job loss during the pandemic with insurance coverage and access to and affordability of health care among low-income adults. DESIGN: Using a random digit dialing telephone survey from October 2020 to December 2020 of low-income adults in 4 states-Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Texas-we conducted a series of multivariable logistic regression analyses, adjusting for demographics, chronic conditions, and state of residence. PARTICIPANTS: US citizens aged 19-64 with a family income less than 138% of the federal poverty line who became newly unemployed during pandemic, remained employed during pandemic, or were chronically unemployed before and during the pandemic. MAIN MEASURES: Rates of insurance, type of insurance coverage, measures of access to/affordability of care, and food/housing security KEY RESULTS: Of 1,794 respondents, 14.5% were newly unemployed, 49.6% were chronically unemployed, and 35.7% were employed. The newly unemployed were slightly younger and more likely Black or Latino. The newly unemployed were more likely to report uninsurance compared to the employed (+16.4 percentage points, 95% CI 6.0-26.9), and the chronically unemployed (+26.4 percentage points, 95% CI 16.2-36.6), mostly driven by Texas' populations. The newly unemployed also reported lower rates of access to care and higher rates of financial barriers to care. They were also more likely to report food and housing insecurity compared to others. CONCLUSIONS: In a survey of 4 Southern States during pandemic, the newly unemployed had higher rates of uninsurance and worse access to care-largely due to financial barriers-and reported more housing and food insecurity than other groups. Our study highlights the vulnerability of low-income populations who experienced a job loss, especially in Texas, which did not expand Medicaid.

Marketplace Health Insurance Ratings: Most Potential Enrollees Have Access To Plans Of Medium Or High Quality.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace plays a critical role in providing affordable health insurance for the nongroup market, yet the accessibility of plans from insurers with high quality ratings has not been investigated. Our analysis of recently released insurer quality star ratings for plan year 2020 found substantial variation in access to high rated plans in the federally facilitated ACA Marketplace. In most participating counties (1,390 of 2,265, or 61.4 percent), the highest-rated ACA Marketplace insurer had a three-star rating. Fewer than one-third of counties (703, or 31.0 percent) had access to four- or five-star-rated insurers. Fewer than 10 percent (172, or 7.6 percent) had access to only one- or two-star-rated insurers. In plan-based analyses, each one-point increase in star rating was associated with a $28 increase in the average monthly plan premium. Counties with the highest proportion of residents obtaining individual coverage through the ACA Marketplace and counties with more insurers were the most likely to have access to plans from high-rated insurers. We found no systematic racial or ethnic disparities in access to plans from high-rated insurers. Policy makers should continue to monitor the quality of available health plans.

Predictors of Success in the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Program.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals participating in Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program were incented to reduce Medicare payments for episodes of care. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that influenced whether or not hospitals were able to save in the BPCI program, how the cost of different services changed to produce those savings, and if "savers" had lower or decreased quality of care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: BPCI-participating hospitals. MAIN MEASURES: We designated hospitals that met the program goal of decreasing costs by at least 2% from baseline in average Medicare payments per 90-day episode as "savers." We used regression models to determine condition-level, patient-level, hospital-level, and market-level characteristics associated with savings. KEY RESULTS: In total, 421 hospitals participated in BPCI, resulting in 2974 hospital-condition combinations. Major joint replacement of the lower extremity had the highest proportion of savers (77.6%, average change in payments -$2235) and complex non-cervical spinal fusion had the lowest (22.2%, average change +$8106). Medical conditions had a higher proportion of savers than surgical conditions (11% more likely to save, P=0.001). Conditions that were mostly urgent/emergent had a higher proportion of savers than conditions that were mostly elective (6% more likely to save, P=0.007). Having higher than median costs at baseline was associated with saving (OR: 3.02, P<0.001). Hospitals with more complex patients were less likely to save (OR: 0.77, P=0.003). Savings occurred across both inpatient and post-acute care, and there were no decrements in clinical care associated with being a saver. CONCLUSIONS: Certain conditions may be more amenable than others to saving under bundled payments, and hospitals with high costs at baseline may perform well under programs which use hospitals' own baseline costs to set targets. Findings may have implications for the BPCI-Advanced program and for policymakers seeking to use payment models to drive improvements in care.

Year 1 of the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement-Advanced Model.

BACKGROUND: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation launched the Medicare Bundled Payments for Care Improvement-Advanced (BPCI-A) program for hospitals in October 2018. Information is needed about the effects of the program on health care utilization and Medicare payments. METHODS: We conducted a modified segmented regression analysis using Medicare claims and including patients with discharge dates from January 2017 through September 2019 to assess differences between BPCI-A participants and two control groups: hospitals that never joined the BPCI-A program (nonjoining hospitals) and hospitals that joined the BPCI-A program in January 2020, after the conclusion of the intervention period (late-joining hospitals). The primary outcomes were the differences in changes in quarterly trends in 90-day per-episode Medicare payments and the percentage of patients with readmission within 90 days after discharge. Secondary outcomes were mortality, volume, and case mix. RESULTS: A total of 826 BPCI-A participant hospitals were compared with 2016 nonjoining hospitals and 334 late-joining hospitals. Among BPCI-A hospitals, the mean baseline 90-day per-episode Medicare payment was $27,315; the change in the quarterly trends in the intervention period as compared with baseline was -$78 per quarter. Among nonjoining hospitals, the mean baseline 90-day per-episode Medicare payment was $25,994; the change in quarterly trends as compared with baseline was -$26 per quarter (difference between nonjoining hospitals and BPCI-A hospitals, $52 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 34 to 70] per quarter; P<0.001; 0.2% of the baseline payment). Among late-joining hospitals, the mean baseline 90-day per-episode Medicare payment was $26,807; the change in the quarterly trends as compared with baseline was $4 per quarter (difference between late-joining hospitals and BPCI-A hospitals, $82 [95% CI, 41 to 122] per quarter; P<0.001; 0.3% of the baseline payment). There were no meaningful differences in the changes with regard to readmission, mortality, volume, or case mix. CONCLUSIONS: The BPCI-A program was associated with small reductions in Medicare payments among participating hospitals as compared with control hospitals. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.).

Savings and outcomes under Medicare's bundled payments initiative for skilled nursing facilities.

BACKGROUND: Model 3 of Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) was a voluntary alternative payment model that held participating skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) accountable for 90-day costs of care. Its overall impact on Medicare spending and clinical outcomes is unknown. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using Medicare claims from 2012 to 2017. We used an interrupted time-series design to compare participating vs matched control SNFs on total 90-day Medicare payments and payment components (initial SNF stay, readmissions, and outpatient/clinician), case mix (volume, proportion Medicaid, proportion black, number of comorbidities), and clinical outcomes (90-day readmission, mortality and healthy days at home, and length of initial SNF stay), overall and among key subgroups with frailty or dementia, for 47 of the 48 conditions in the program (excluding major lower extremity joint replacement). RESULTS: Our sample included 1001 participating and 3873 matched control SNFs. At baseline, total Medicare institutional payments were increasing at BPCI SNFs at a rate of $121 per episode per quarter; during the intervention period, payments decreased at a rate of -$398/episode/quarter. Among controls, payments were stable in the baseline period (+$17/episode/quarter) but decreased at -$424/episode/quarter during the intervention period, yielding a nonsignificant difference in slope changes of -$79/episode/quarter (95% confidence interval [CI] -$188, $31, p = 0.16). However, among patients with frailty, spending declined by $620/episode/quarter in the BPCI group, compared with $330/episode/quarter in the non-BPCI group, for a difference in slope changes of -$289 (95% CI -$482, -$96, p = 0.003). There were no differences in the change in slopes in case selection or clinical outcomes overall or in any clinical subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: SNF participation in BPCI was associated with no overall differential change in total Medicare payments per episode, case selection, or clinical outcomes. Exploratory analyses revealed a decrease in Medicare payments in patients with frailty that may warrant further study.

COVID-19-Related Insurance Coverage Changes and Disparities in Access to Care Among Low-Income US Adults in 4 Southern States.

Importance: It is unclear how the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated economic downturn have affected insurance coverage and disparities in access to health care among low-income families and people of color in states that have and have not expanded Medicaid. Objective: To determine changes in insurance coverage and disparities in access to health care among low-income families and people of color across 4 Southern states and by Medicaid expansion status. Design Setting and Participants: This random-digit dialing telephone survey study of US citizens ages 19 to 64 years with a family income less than 138% of the federal poverty line in in 4 states (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Texas) was conducted from October to December 2020. Using a difference-in-differences design, we estimated changes in outcomes by Medicaid expansion status overall and by race and ethnicity in 2020 (n = 1804) compared with 2018 to 2019 (n = 5710). We also explored barriers to health care and use of telehealth by race and ethnicity. Data analysis was conducted from January 2021 to March 2021. Exposures: COVID-19 pandemic and prior Medicaid expansion status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was the uninsured rate and secondary outcomes were financial and nonfinancial barriers to health care access. Results: Of 7514 respondents (11% response rate; 3889 White non-Latinx [51.8%], 1881 Black non-Latinx [25.0%], and 1156 Latinx individuals [15.4%]; 4161 women [55.4%]), 5815 (77.4%) were in the states with previous expansion and 1699 (22.6%) were in Texas (nonexpansion state). Respondents in the expansion states were older, more likely White, and less likely to have attended college compared with respondents in Texas. Uninsurance rate in 2020 rose by 7.4 percentage points in Texas (95% CI, 2.2-12.6; P = .01) and 2.5 percentage points in expansion states (95% CI, -1.9 to 7.0; P = .27), with a difference-in-differences estimate for Medicaid expansion of -4.9% (95% CI, -11.3 to 1.6; P = .14). Among Black and Latinx individuals, Medicaid expansion was associated with protection against a rise in the uninsured rate (difference-in-differences, -9.5%; 95% CI, -19.0 to -0.1; P = .048). Measures of access, including having a personal physician and regular care for chronic conditions, worsened significantly in 2020 in all 4 states, with no significant difference by Medicaid expansion status. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey of US adults, uninsured rates increased among low-income adults in 4 Southern states during the COVID-19 pandemic, but Medicaid expansion states, that association was diminished among Black and Latinx individuals. Nonfinancial barriers to care because of the pandemic were common in all states.

Association of Physician Group Practice Participation in Bundled Payments With Patient Selection, Costs, and Outcomes for Joint Replacement.

Importance: Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program, which ran from 2013 to 2018, was an important experiment in physician-focused alternative payment models. However, little is known about whether the program was associated with better quality or outcomes or lower costs. Objective: To determine whether participation in BPCI among physician group practices was associated with advantageous or deleterious changes in costs or patient outcomes. Design Setting and Participants: This cross-sectional study used 2013 to 2017 Medicare files and difference-in-differences (DID) models to compare the change over time in Medicare payments, patient selection, and clinical outcomes between 91 orthopedic groups in BPCI Model 2 and 169 propensity-matched controls for patients undergoing joint replacement. Analyses were performed between December 2019 and February 2021. Exposures: Voluntary participation in BPCI. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 90-day Medicare payments; secondary outcomes were patient selection (volume, comorbidities) and clinical outcomes (30-day and 90-day emergency department visits, readmissions, mortality, and healthy days at home). Results: There were 74 343 patient episodes in the baseline period and 102 790 during the intervention in BPCI practices, and 88 147 patient episodes in the baseline period and 120 253 during the intervention in control practices; 291 214 of 461 598 (63.1%) patients were women, and 419 619 (90.9%) were White. At baseline, mean episode payments among BPCI-participating practices were $18 257, which decreased to $15 320 during the intervention, while control practices decreased from $17 927 to $16 170 (DID, -$1180; 95% CI, -$1565 to -$795; P < .001). Savings were driven by a decrease in postacute care spending. There were no differential changes in volume or comorbidities. The BPCI practices increased the proportion of patients discharged home compared with controls (23.6% to 43.4% vs 22.2% to 31.8%; DID, 10.2% [95% CI, 6.2% to 14.1%]). There were no differential changes in 30-day or 90-day mortality rates or emergency department visits, but 30-day and 90-day readmission rates decreased more among BPCI practices than controls (90 days: 8.7% to 7.5% vs 8.9% to 8.7%; DID, -1.0% [95% CI, -1.4% to -0.5%]), and 90-day healthy days at home increased (BPCI, 82.9 to 84.8, vs controls, 83.1 to 84.4; DID, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.4 to 0.8]). Conclusions and Relevance: Group practice participation in BPCI for joint replacement was associated with reduced Medicare payments and improvements in clinical outcomes.

Association of Skilled Nursing Facility Participation in a Bundled Payment Model With Institutional Spending for Joint Replacement Surgery.

Importance: Medicare recently concluded a national voluntary payment demonstration, Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) model 3, in which skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) assumed accountability for patients' Medicare spending for 90 days from initial SNF admission. There is little evidence on outcomes associated with this novel payment model. Objective: To evaluate the association of BPCI model 3 with spending, health care utilization, and patient outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries undergoing lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR). Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational difference-in-difference analysis using Medicare claims from 2013-2017 to evaluate the association of BPCI model 3 with outcomes for 80 648 patients undergoing LEJR. The preintervention period was from January 2013 through September 2013, which was 9 months prior to enrollment of the first BPCI cohort. The postintervention period extended from 3 months post-BPCI enrollment for each SNF through December 2017. BPCI SNFs were matched with control SNFs using propensity score matching on 2013 SNF characteristics. Exposures: Admission to a BPCI model 3-participating SNF. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was institutional spending, a combination of postacute care and hospital Medicare-allowed payments. Additional outcomes included other categories of spending, changes in case mix, admission volume, home health use, length of stay, and hospital use within 90 days of SNF admission. Results: There were 448 BPCI SNFs with 18 870 LEJR episodes among 16 837 patients (mean [SD] age, 77.5 [9.4] years; 12 173 [72.3%] women) matched with 1958 control SNFs with 72 005 LEJR episodes among 63 811 patients (mean [SD] age, 77.6 [9.4] years; 46 072 [72.2%] women) in the preintervention and postintervention periods. Seventy-nine percent of matched BPCI SNFs were for-profit facilities, 85% were located in an urban area, and 85% were part of a larger corporate chain. There were no systematic changes in patient case mix or episode volume between BPCI-participating SNFs and controls during the program. Institutional spending decreased from $17 956 to $15 746 in BPCI SNFs and from $17 765 to $16 563 in matched controls, a differential decrease of 5.6% (-$1008 [95% CI, -$1603 to -$414]; P < .001). This decrease was related to a decline in SNF days per beneficiary (from 26.2 to 21.3 days in BPCI SNFs and from 26.3 to 23.4 days in matched controls; differential change, -2.0 days [95% CI, -2.9 to -1.1]). There was no significant change in mortality or 90-day readmissions. Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare patients undergoing lower extremity joint replacement from 2013-2017, the BPCI model 3 was significantly associated with a decrease in mean institutional spending on episodes initiated by admission to SNFs. Further research is needed to assess bundled payments in other clinical contexts.

Medicaid Work Requirements In Arkansas: Two-Year Impacts On Coverage, Employment, And Affordability Of Care.

In June 2018 Arkansas became the first US state to implement work requirements in Medicaid, requiring adults ages 30-49 to work twenty hours a week, participate in "community engagement" activities, or qualify for an exemption to maintain coverage. By April 2019, when a federal judge put the policy on hold, 18,000 adults had already lost coverage. We analyze the policy's effects before and after these events, using a telephone survey performed in late 2019 of 2,706 low-income adults in Arkansas and three control states compared with data from 2016 and 2018. We have four main findings. First, most of the Medicaid coverage losses in 2018 were reversed in 2019 after the court order. Second, work requirements did not increase employment over eighteen months of follow-up. Third, people in Arkansas ages 30-49 who had lost Medicaid in the prior year experienced adverse consequences: 50 percent reported serious problems paying off medical debt, 56 percent delayed care because of cost, and 64 percent delayed taking medications because of cost. These rates were significantly higher than among Arkansans who remained in Medicaid all year. Finally, awareness of the work requirements remained poor, with more than 70 percent of Arkansans unsure whether the policy was in effect.