Bundled Payment Episodes Initiated by Physician Group Practices: Medicare Beneficiary Perceptions of Care Quality.

BACKGROUND: The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative incentivizes participating providers to reduce total Medicare payments for an episode of care. However, there are concerns that reducing payments could reduce quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of BPCI with patient-reported functional status and care experiences. DESIGN: We surveyed a stratified random sample of Medicare beneficiaries with BPCI episodes attributed to participating physician group practices, and matched comparison beneficiaries, after hospitalization for one of the 18 highest volume clinical episodes. The sample included beneficiaries discharged from the hospital from February 2017 through September 2017. Beneficiaries were surveyed approximately 90 days after their hospital discharge. We estimated risk-adjusted differences between the BPCI and comparison groups, pooled across all 18 clinical episodes and separately for the five largest clinical episodes. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries with BPCI episodes (n=16,898, response rate=44.5%) and comparison beneficiaries hospitalized for similar conditions selected using coarsened exact matching (n=14,652, response rate=46.2%). MAIN MEASURES: Patient-reported functional status, care experiences, and overall satisfaction with recovery. KEY RESULTS: Overall, we did not find differences between the BPCI and comparison respondents across seven measures of change in functional status or overall satisfaction with recovery. Both BPCI and comparison respondents reported generally positive care experiences, but BPCI respondents were less likely to report positive care experience for 3 of 8 measures (discharged at the right time, -1.2 percentage points (pp); appropriate level of care, -1.8 pp; preferences for post-discharge care taken into account, -0.9 pp; p<0.05 for all three measures). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of respondents with favorable care experiences was smaller for BPCI than comparison respondents. However, we did not detect differences in self-reported change in functional status approximately 90 days after hospital discharge, indicating that differences in care experiences did not affect functional recovery.

Patient-reported Outcomes Among Vulnerable Populations in the Medicare Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative tested whether episode-based payment models could reduce Medicare payments without harming quality. Among patients with vulnerabilities, BPCI appeared to effectively reduce payments while maintaining the quality of care. However, these findings could overlook potential adverse patient-reported outcomes in this population. RESEARCH DESIGN: We surveyed beneficiaries with 4 characteristics (Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility; dementia; recent institutional care; or racial/ethnic minority) treated at BPCI-participating or comparison hospitals for congestive heart failure, sepsis, pneumonia, or major joint replacement of the lower extremity. We estimated risk-adjusted differences in patient-reported outcomes between BPCI and comparison respondents, stratified by clinical episode and vulnerable characteristic. MEASURES: Patient care experiences during episodes of care and patient-reported functional outcomes assessed roughly 90 days after hospitalization. RESULTS: We observed no differences in self-reported functional improvement between BPCI and comparison respondents with vulnerable characteristics. Patient-reported care experience was similar between BPCI and comparison respondents in 11 of 15 subgroups of clinical episode and vulnerability. BPCI respondents with congestive heart failure, sepsis, and pneumonia were less likely to indicate positive care experiences than comparison respondents for at least 1 subgroup with vulnerabilities. CONCLUSIONS: As implemented by hospitals, BPCI Model 2 was not associated with adverse effects on patient-reported functional status among beneficiaries who may be vulnerable to reductions in care. Hospitals participating in heart failure, sepsis or pneumonia bundled payment episodes should focus on patient care experience while implementing changes in care delivery.

Association of Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative with patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative affected patient-reported measures of quality. DATA SOURCES: Surveys of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged from acute care hospitals participating in BPCI Model 2 and comparison hospitals between October 2014 and June 2017. Variables from Medicare administrative data and the Provider of Services file were used for sampling and risk adjustment. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated risk-adjusted differences in patient-reported measures of care experience and changes in functional status, for beneficiaries treated by BPCI and comparison hospitals. DATA COLLECTION: We selected a stratified random sample of BPCI and matched comparison beneficiaries. We fielded nine waves of surveys using a mail and phone protocol, yielding 29 193 BPCI and 29 913 comparison respondents. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Most BPCI and comparison survey respondents reported a positive care experience and high satisfaction. BPCI respondents were slightly less likely than comparison respondents to report positive care experience or high satisfaction. Despite these differences in care experience, there was no difference between BPCI and comparison respondents in self-reported functional status approximately 90 days after hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: These findings reduce concerns that BPCI may have unintentionally harmed patient health but suggest room for improvement in patient care experience.

Medicare's Bundled Payments For Care Improvement Initiative Maintained Quality Of Care For Vulnerable Patients.

The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative established four models to test whether linking payments for an episode of care could reduce Medicare payments while maintaining or improving quality. Evaluations concluded that model 2, the largest, generally lowered payments without reducing quality for the average beneficiary, but these global results could mask adverse findings among vulnerable subpopulations. We analyzed changes in emergency department visits, unplanned hospital readmissions, and all-cause mortality within ninety days of hospital discharge among beneficiaries with one or more of three vulnerable characteristics-dementia, dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid, and recent institutional care-in 105,458 beneficiary episodes in the period October 2013-December 2016. The results for twelve types of medical and surgical BPCI episodes were evaluated relative to results in matched comparison groups. Our findings suggest that BPCI model 2 did not adversely affect care quality for beneficiaries with vulnerabilities. While this conclusion does not discourage the further development of bundled payment models, policy makers should support ongoing research to ensure that vulnerable populations are not adversely affected by these approaches.

Association Between Hospital Participation in a Medicare Bundled Payment Initiative and Payments and Quality Outcomes for Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Episodes.

IMPORTANCE: Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) is a voluntary initiative of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to test the effect of holding an entity accountable for all services provided during an episode of care on episode payments and quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether BPCI was associated with a greater reduction in Medicare payments without loss of quality of care for lower extremity joint (primarily hip and knee) replacement episodes initiated in BPCI-participating hospitals that are accountable for total episode payments (for the hospitalization and Medicare-covered services during the 90 days after discharge). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A difference-in-differences approach estimated the differential change in outcomes for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who had a lower extremity joint replacement at a BPCI-participating hospital between the baseline (October 2011 through September 2012) and intervention (October 2013 through June 2015) periods and beneficiaries with the same surgical procedure at matched comparison hospitals. EXPOSURE: Lower extremity joint replacement at a BPCI-participating hospital. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Standardized Medicare-allowed payments (Medicare payments), utilization, and quality (unplanned readmissions, emergency department visits, and mortality) during hospitalization and the 90-day postdischarge period. RESULTS: There were 29 441 lower extremity joint replacement episodes in the baseline period and 31 700 in the intervention period (mean [SD] age, 74.1 [8.89] years; 65.2% women) at 176 BPCI-participating hospitals, compared with 29 440 episodes in the baseline period (768 hospitals) and 31 696 episodes in the intervention period (841 hospitals) (mean [SD] age, 74.1 [8.92] years; 64.9% women) at matched comparison hospitals. The BPCI mean Medicare episode payments were $30 551 (95% CI, $30 201 to $30 901) in the baseline period and declined by $3286 to $27 265 (95% CI, $26 838 to $27 692) in the intervention period. The comparison mean Medicare episode payments were $30 057 (95% CI, $29 765 to $30 350) in the baseline period and declined by $2119 to $27 938 (95% CI, $27 639 to $28 237). The mean Medicare episode payments declined by an estimated $1166 more (95% CI, -$1634 to -$699; P < .001) for BPCI episodes than for comparison episodes, primarily due to reduced use of institutional postacute care. There were no statistical differences in the claims-based quality measures, which included 30-day unplanned readmissions (-0.1%; 95% CI, -0.6% to 0.4%), 90-day unplanned readmissions (-0.4%; 95% CI, -1.1% to 0.3%), 30-day emergency department visits (-0.1%; 95% CI, -0.7% to 0.5%), 90-day emergency department visits (0.2%; 95% CI, -0.6% to 1.0%), 30-day postdischarge mortality (-0.1%; 95% CI, -0.3% to 0.2%), and 90-day postdischarge mortality (-0.0%; 95% CI, -0.3% to 0.3%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the first 21 months of the BPCI initiative, Medicare payments declined more for lower extremity joint replacement episodes provided in BPCI-participating hospitals than for those provided in comparison hospitals, without a significant change in quality outcomes. Further studies are needed to assess longer-term follow-up as well as patterns for other types of clinical care.

Practice-Level Variation in Outpatient Cardiac Care and Association With Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Utilization of cardiac services varies across regions and hospitals, yet little is known regarding variation in the intensity of outpatient cardiac care across cardiology physician practices or the association with clinical endpoints, an area of potential importance to promote efficient care. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 7 160 732 Medicare beneficiaries who received services from 5635 cardiology practices in 2012. Beneficiaries were assigned to practices providing the plurality of office visits, and practices were ranked and assigned to quartiles using the ratio of observed to predicted annual payments per beneficiary for common cardiac services (outpatient intensity index). The median (interquartile range) outpatient intensity index was 1.00 (0.81-1.24). Mean payments for beneficiaries attributed to practices in the highest (Q4) and lowest (Q1) quartile of outpatient intensity were: all cardiac payments (Q4 $1272 vs Q1 $581; ratio, 2.2); cardiac catheterization (Q4 $215 vs Q1 $64; ratio, 3.4); myocardial perfusion imaging (Q4 $253 vs Q1 $83; ratio, 3.0); and electrophysiology device procedures (Q4 $353 vs Q1 $142; ratio, 2.5). The adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) for 1 incremental quartile of outpatient intensity for each outcome was: cardiac surgical/procedural hospitalization (1.09 [1.09, 1.10]); cardiac medical hospitalization (1.00 [0.99, 1.00]); noncardiac hospitalization (0.99 [0.99, 0.99]); and death at 1 year (1.00 [0.99, 1.00]). CONCLUSION: Substantial variation in the intensity of outpatient care exists at the cardiology practice level, and higher intensity is not associated with reduced mortality or hospitalizations. Outpatient cardiac care is a potentially important target for efforts to improve efficiency in the Medicare population.

Multidrug-resistant organism infections in US nursing homes: a national study of prevalence, onset, and transmission across care settings, October 1, 2010-December 31, 2011.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the prevalence of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) infections among nursing home (NH) residents and the potential for their spread between NHs and acute care hospitals (ACHs). METHODS: Descriptive analyses of MDRO infections among NH residents using all NH residents in the Long-Term Care Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 between October 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011. RESULTS: Analysis of MDS data revealed a very high volume of bidirectional patient flow between NHs and ACHs, indicating the need to study MDRO infections in NHs as well as in hospitals. A total of 4.24% of NH residents had an active MDRO diagnosis on at least 1 MDS assessment during the study period. This rate significantly varied by sex, age, urban/rural status, and state. Approximately 2% of NH discharges to ACHs involved a resident with an active diagnosis of infection due to MDROs. Conversely, 1.8% of NH admissions from an ACH involved a patient with an active diagnosis of infection due to MDROs. Among residents who acquired an MDRO infection during the study period, 57% became positive in the NH, 41% in the ACH, and 2% in other settings (eg, at a private home or apartment). CONCLUSION: Even though NHs are the most likely setting where residents would acquire MDROs after admission to an NH (accounting for 57% of cases), a significant fraction of NH residents acquire MDRO infection at ACHs (41%). Thus, effective MDRO infection control for NH residents requires simultaneous, cooperative interventions among NHs and ACHs in the same community.