Emergency Department Visits And Hospital Capacity In The US: Trends In The Medicare Population During The COVID-19 Pandemic.

Although emergency department (ED) and hospital overcrowding were reported during the later parts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the true extent and potential causes of this overcrowding remain unclear. Using data on the traditional fee-for-service Medicare population, we examined patterns in ED and hospital use during the period 2019-22. We evaluated trends in ED visits, rates of admission from the ED, and thirty-day mortality, as well as measures suggestive of hospital capacity, including hospital Medicare census, length-of-stay, and discharge destination. We found that ED visits remained below baseline throughout the study period, with the standardized number of visits at the end of the study period being approximately 25 percent lower than baseline. Longer length-of-stay persisted through 2022, whereas hospital census was considerably above baseline until stabilizing just above baseline in 2022. Rates of discharge to postacute facilities initially declined and then leveled off at 2 percent below baseline in 2022. These results suggest that widespread reports of overcrowding were not driven by a resurgence in ED visits. Nonetheless, length-of-stay remains higher, presumably related to increased acuity and reduced available bed capacity in the postacute care system.

The Road To Value Can't Be Paved With A Broken Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.

Value-based payment has been promoted for increasing quality, controlling spending, and improving patient and practitioner experience. Meanwhile, needed reforms to fee-for-service payment (the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule) have been ignored as policy makers seek to move payment toward alternatives, even though the fee schedule is an intrinsic part of Alternative Payment Models. In this article, we show how value-based payment and the fee schedule should be viewed as complementary, rather than as separate silos. We trace the origins of embedded flaws in the fee schedule that must be fixed if value-based payment is to succeed. These include payment distortions that directly compromise value by overpaying for certain procedures and imaging services while underpaying for services that add value for beneficiaries. We also show how the fee schedule can accommodate bundled payments and population-based payments that are central to Alternative Payment Models. We draw two conclusions. First, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should correct misvalued services and establish a hybrid payment for primary care that blends fee-for-service and population-based payment. Second, Congress should alter the thirty-five-year-old statutory basis for setting Medicare fees to allow CMS to explicitly consider policy priorities such as workforce shortages in refining fee levels.

The Effect Of Next Generation Accountable Care Organizations On Medicare Expenditures.

The Next Generation Accountable Care Organization (NGACO) model (active during 2016-21) tested the effects of high financial risk, payment mechanisms, and flexible care delivery on health care spending and value for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries. We used quasi-experimental methods to examine the model's effects on Medicare Parts A and B spending. Sixty-two ACOs with more than 4.2 million beneficiaries and more than 91,000 practitioners participated in the model. The model was associated with a $270 per beneficiary per year, or approximately $1.7 billion, decline in Medicare spending. After shared savings payments to ACOs were included, the model increased net Medicare spending by $56 per beneficiary per year, or $96.7 million. Annual declines in spending for the model grew over time, reflecting exit by poorer-performing NGACOs, improvement among the remaining NGACOs, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Larger declines in spending occurred among physician practice ACOs and ACOs that elected population-based payments and risk caps greater than 5 percent.

Incorporating Medicare Advantage Admissions Into the CMS Hospital-Wide Readmission Measure.

Importance: Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment is rapidly expanding, yet Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) claims-based hospital outcome measures, including readmission rates, have historically included only fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries. Objective: To assess the outcomes of incorporating MA data into the CMS claims-based FFS Hospital-Wide All-Cause Unplanned Readmission (HWR) measure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assessed differences in 30-day unadjusted readmission rates and demographic and risk adjustment variables for MA vs FFS admissions. Inpatient FFS and MA administrative claims data were extracted from the Integrated Data Repository for all admissions for Medicare beneficiaries from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019. Measure reliability and risk-standardized readmission rates were calculated for the FFS and MA cohort vs the FFS-only cohort, overall and within specialty subgroups (cardiorespiratory, cardiovascular, medicine, surgery, neurology), then changes in hospital performance quintiles were assessed after adding MA admissions. Main Outcome and Measure: Risk-standardized readmission rates. Results: The cohort included 11 029 470 admissions (4 077 633 [37.0%] MA; 6 044 060 [54.8%] female; mean [SD] age, 77.7 [8.2] years). Unadjusted readmission rates were slightly higher for MA vs FFS admissions (15.7% vs 15.4%), yet comorbidities were generally lower among MA beneficiaries. Test-retest reliability for the FFS and MA cohort was higher than for the FFS-only cohort (0.78 vs 0.73) and signal-to-noise reliability increased in each specialty subgroup. Mean hospital risk-standardized readmission rates were similar for the FFS and MA cohort and FFS-only cohorts (15.5% vs 15.3%); this trend was consistent across the 5 specialty subgroups. After adding MA admissions to the FFS-only HWR measure, 1489 hospitals (33.1%) had their performance quintile ranking changed. As their proportion of MA admissions increased, more hospitals experienced a change in their performance quintile ranking (147 hospitals [16.3%] in the lowest quintile of percentage MA admissions; 408 [45.3%] in the highest). The combined cohort added 63 hospitals eligible for public reporting and more than 4 million admissions to the measure. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, adding MA admissions to the HWR measure was associated with improved measure reliability and precision and enabled the inclusion of more hospitals and beneficiaries. After MA admissions were included, 1 in 3 hospitals had their performance quintile changed, with the greatest shifts among hospitals with a high percentage of MA admissions.

Equity in the Setting of Heart Failure Diagnosis: An Analysis of Differences Between and Within Clinician Practices.

BACKGROUND: Timely heart failure (HF) diagnosis can lead to earlier intervention and reduced morbidity. Among historically marginalized patients, new-onset HF diagnosis is more likely to occur in acute care settings (emergency department or inpatient hospitalization) than outpatient settings. Whether inequity within outpatient clinician practices affects diagnosis settings is unknown. METHODS: We determined the setting of incident HF diagnosis among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries between 2013 and 2017. We identified sociodemographic and medical characteristics associated with HF diagnosis in the acute care setting. Within each outpatient clinician practice, we compared acute care diagnosis rates across sociodemographic characteristics: female versus male sex, non-Hispanic White versus other racial and ethnic groups, and dual Medicare-Medicaid eligible (a surrogate for low income) versus nondual-eligible patients. Based on within-practice differences in acute diagnosis rates, we stratified clinician practices by equity (high, intermediate, and low) and compared clinician practice characteristics. RESULTS: Among 315 439 Medicare patients with incident HF, 173 121 (54.9%) were first diagnosed in acute care settings. Higher adjusted acute care diagnosis rates were associated with female sex (6.4% [95% CI, 6.1%-6.8%]), American Indian (3.6% [95% CI, 1.1%-6.1%]) race, and dual eligibility (4.1% [95% CI, 3.7%-4.5%]). These differences persisted within clinician practices. With clinician practice adjustment, dual-eligible patients had a 4.9% (95% CI, 4.5%-5.4%) greater acute care diagnosis rate than nondual-eligible patients. Clinician practices with greater equity across dual eligibility also had greater equity across sex and race and ethnicity and were more likely to be composed of predominantly primary care clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in HF diagnosis rates in the acute care setting between and within clinician practices highlight an opportunity to improve equity in diagnosing historically marginalized patients.

Identifying chronic kidney disease stage 3 with excess disease burden.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a widely prevalent disease with heterogeneous disease progression. Prior study findings suggest that early referral to nephrologists can improve health outcomes for patients with CKD. Current practice guidelines recommend nephrology referral when patients are diagnosed with CKD stage 4. We tested whether a subset of patients with CKD stage 3 and common medical comorbidities demonstrates disease progression, cost, and utilization patterns that would merit earlier referral. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with CKD stages 3 through 5 and end-stage kidney disease. METHODS: We identified 7 comorbidities with high prevalence in patients with progressive CKD and segmented beneficiaries with CKD stage 3 based on the presence of these comorbidities. Outcomes including costs, utilization, and disease progression were then compared across beneficiaries with different stages of CKD. RESULTS: We identified that beneficiaries with CKD stage 3 and at least 1 of the selected comorbidities (CKD stage 3-plus) represented 35.4% of all beneficiaries with CKD stage 3. The CKD stage 3-plus cohort had cost and utilization patterns that were more similar to beneficiaries with CKD stages 4 and 5 than to beneficiaries with CKD stage 3 without the selected comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate the use of a claims-based algorithm to identify patients with CKD stage 3 who have high costs and are at risk of disease progression, highlighting a potential subset of patients who might benefit from earlier nephrology intervention.

Financing the "Village": Establishing a Sustainable Financial System for Child Behavioral Health.

An increased need for child and adolescent behavioral health services compounded by a long-standing professional workforce shortage frames our discussion on how behavioral health services can be sustainably delivered and financed. This article provides an overview of different payment models, such as traditional fee-for-service and alternatives like provider salary, global payments, and pay for performance models. It discusses the advantages and drawbacks of each model, emphasizing the need to transition toward value-based care to improve health care quality and control costs.

Is Electronic Information Exchange Associated With Lower 30-Day Readmission Charges Among Medicare Beneficiaries?

OBJECTIVE: Fragmented readmissions, when admission and readmission occur at different hospitals, are associated with increased charges compared with nonfragmented readmissions. We assessed if hospital participation in health information exchange (HIE) was associated with differences in total charges in fragmented readmissions. DATA SOURCE: Medicare Fee-for-Service Data, 2018. STUDY DESIGN: We used generalized linear models with hospital referral region and readmission month fixed effects to assess relationships between information sharing (same HIE, different HIEs, and no HIE available) and total charges of 30-day readmissions among fragmented readmissions; analyses were adjusted for patient-level clinical/demographic characteristics and hospital-level characteristics. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: We included beneficiaries with a hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, syncope, urinary tract infection, dehydration, or behavioral issues with a 30-day readmission for any reason. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In all, 279,729 admission-readmission pairs were included, 27% of which were fragmented (n=75,438); average charges of fragmented readmissions were $64,897-$71,606. Compared with fragmented readmissions where no HIE was available, the average marginal effects of same-HIE and different-HIE admission-readmission pairs were -$2329.55 (95% CI: -7333.73, 2674.62) and -$3905.20 (95% CI: -7592.85, -307.54), respectively. While the average marginal effects of different-HIE pairs were lower than those for no-HIE fragmented readmissions, the average marginal effects of same-HIE and different-HIE pairs were not significantly different from each other. CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistical differences in charges between fragmented readmissions to hospitals that share an HIE or that do not share an HIE compared with hospitals with no HIE available.

Receipt of Diabetes Specialty Care and Management Services by Older Adults With Diabetes in the U.S., 2015-2019: An Analysis of Medicare Fee-for-Service Claims.

OBJECTIVE: We characterized the receipt of diabetes specialty care and management services among older adults with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using a 20% random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years, we analyzed cohorts of type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) with history of severe hypoglycemia (HoH), and all other T2D annually from 2015 to 2019. Outcomes were receipt of office-based endocrinology care, diabetes education, outpatient diabetes health services, excluding those provided in primary care, and any of the aforementioned services. RESULTS: In the T1D cohort, receipt of endocrinology care and any service increased from 25.9% and 29.2% in 2015 to 32.7% and 37.4% in 2019, respectively. In the T2D with HoH cohort, receipt of endocrinology care and any service was 13.9% and 16.4% in 2015, with minimal increases. Age, race/ethnicity, residential setting, and income were associated with receiving care. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that many older adults may not receive specialty diabetes care and underscore health disparities.

Artificial intelligence in Medicare: utilization, spending, and access to AI-enabled clinical software.

OBJECTIVES: In 2018, CMS established reimbursement for the first Medicare-covered artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled clinical software: CT fractional flow reserve (FFRCT) to assist in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. This study quantified Medicare utilization of and spending on FFRCT from 2018 through 2022 and characterized adopting hospitals, clinicians, and patients. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis, using 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims data, of the hospitals, clinicians, and patients who performed or received coronary CT angiography with or without FFRCT. METHODS: We measured annual trends in utilization of and spending on FFRCT among hospitals and clinicians from 2018 through 2022. Characteristics of FFRCT-adopting and nonadopting hospitals and clinicians were compared, as well as the characteristics of patients who received FFRCT vs those who did not. RESULTS: From 2018 to 2022, FFRCT billing volume in Medicare increased more than 11-fold (from 1083 to 12,363 claims). Compared with nonbilling hospitals, FFRCT-billing hospitals were more likely to be larger, part of a health system, nonprofit, and financially profitable. FFRCT-billing clinicians worked in larger group practices and were more likely to be cardiac specialists. FFRCT-receiving patients were more likely to be male and White and less likely to be dually enrolled in Medicaid or receiving disability benefits. CONCLUSIONS: In the initial 5 years of Medicare reimbursement for FFRCT, growth was concentrated among well-resourced hospitals and clinicians. As Medicare begins to reimburse clinicians for the use of AI-enabled clinical software such as FFRCT, it is crucial to monitor the diffusion of these services to ensure equal access.

Long-term cardiovascular disease outcomes in non-hospitalized medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with COVID-19: Population-based matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can affect multiple human organs structurally and functionally, including the cardiovascular system and brain. Many studies focused on the acute effects of COVID-19 on risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and stroke especially among hospitalized patients with limited follow-up time. This study examined long-term mortality, hospitalization, CVD and stroke outcomes after non-hospitalized COVID-19 among Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries in the United States. METHODS: This retrospective matched cohort study included 944,371 FFS beneficiaries aged ≥66 years diagnosed with non-hospitalized COVID-19 from April 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021, and followed-up to May 31, 2022, and 944,371 propensity score matched FFS beneficiaries without COVID-19. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hospitalization, and incidence of 15 CVD and stroke. Because most outcomes violated the proportional hazards assumption, we used restricted cubic splines to model non-proportional hazards in Cox models and presented time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) and Bonferroni corrected 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The mean age was 75.3 years; 58.0% women and 82.6% non-Hispanic White. The median follow-up was 18.5 months (interquartile range 16.5 to 20.5). COVID-19 showed initial stronger effects on all-cause mortality, hospitalization and 12 incident CVD outcomes with adjusted HRs in 0-3 months ranging from 1.05 (95% CI 1.01-1.09) for mortality to 2.55 (2.26-2.87) for pulmonary embolism. The effects of COVID-19 on outcomes reduced significantly after 3-month follow-up. Risk of mortality, acute myocardial infarction, cardiomyopathy, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism returned to baseline after 6-month follow-up. Patterns of initial stronger effects of COVID-19 were largely consistent across age groups, sex, and race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed a consistent time-varying effects of COVID-19 on mortality, hospitalization, and incident CVD among non-hospitalized COVID-19 survivors.

Telehealth Expansion and Medicare Beneficiaries' Care Quality and Access.

Importance: Understanding the association of telehealth use with health care outcomes is fundamental to determining whether telehealth waivers implemented during the COVID-19 public health emergency should be made permanent. The current literature has yielded inconclusive findings owing to its focus on select states, practices, or health care systems. Objective: To estimate the association of telehealth use with outcomes for all Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries by comparing hospital service areas (HSAs) with different levels of telehealth use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This US population-based, retrospective cohort study was conducted from July 2022 to April 2023. Participants included Medicare claims of beneficiaries attributed to HSAs with FFS enrollment in Parts A and B. Exposures: Low, medium, or high tercile of telehealth use created by ranking HSAs according to the number of telehealth visits per 1000 beneficiaries. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were quality (ambulatory care-sensitive [ACS] hospitalizations and emergency department [ED] visits per 1000 FFS beneficiaries), access to care (clinician encounters per FFS beneficiary), and cost (total cost of care for Part A and/or B services per FFS Medicare beneficiary) determined with a difference-in-difference analysis. Results: In this cohort study of claims from approximately 30 million Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age in 2019, 71.04 [1.67] years; mean [SD] percentage female in 2019, 53.83% [2.14%]) within 3436 HSAs, between the second half of 2019 and the second half of 2021, mean ACS hospitalizations and ED visits declined sharply, mean clinician encounters per beneficiary declined slightly, and mean total cost of care per beneficiary per semester increased slightly. Compared with the low group, the high group had more ACS hospitalizations (1.63 additional hospitalizations per 1000 beneficiaries; 95% CI, 1.03-2.22 hospitalizations), more clinician encounters (0.30 additional encounters per beneficiary per semester; 95% CI, 0.23-0.38 encounters), and higher total cost of care ($164.99 higher cost per beneficiary per semester; 95% CI, $101.03-$228.96). There was no statistically significant difference in ACS ED visits between the low and high groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries across all 3436 HSAs, high levels of telehealth use were associated with more clinician encounters, more ACS hospitalizations, and higher total health care costs. COVID-19 cases were still high during the period of study, which suggests that these findings partially reflect a higher capacity for providing health services in HSAs with higher telehealth intensity than other HSAs.

Impact of Fee For Service on the Efficiency and Survival of Seguro Popular's Patients With Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Mexico.

PURPOSE: Cost containment and efficiency in the provision of health care are primary concerns for health systems that aim to provide affordable, high-quality care. Between 2005 and 2015, Seguro Poplar's Fund against Catastrophic Expenditures (FPGC) funded ALL treatment in Mexico. Before January 1, 2011, FPGC reimbursed a fixed amount per patient according to risk. In 2011, the per capita reimbursement method changed to fee for service. We used this natural experiment to estimate the impact of the reimbursement policy change on average expenditure and quality of care for ALL treatment in Mexico. METHODS: We used nationwide reimbursement data from the Seguro Poplar's FPGC from 2005 to 2015. We created a patient cohort to assess 3-year survival and estimate the average reimbursement before and after the fee-for-service policy. We examined survival and expenditure impacts, controlling for patients' and providers' characteristics, including sex, risk (standard and high), the volume of patients served, type of institution (federally funded v other), and level of care. To quantify the impact, we used a regression discontinuity approach. RESULTS: The average reimbursement for standard-risk patients in the 3-year survival cohort was $16,512 US dollars (USD; 95% CI, 16,042 to 17,032) before 2011 and $10,205 USD (95% CI, 4,659 to 12,541) under the fee-for-service reimbursement scheme after 2011. The average annual reimbursement per patient decreased by 136% among high-risk patients. The reduction was also significant for the standard-risk cohort, although the magnitude was substantially smaller (34%). CONCLUSION: As Mexico's government is currently restructuring the health system, our study provides evidence of the efficiency and effectiveness of the funding mechanism in the Mexican context. It also serves as a proof of concept for using administrative data to evaluate economic performance and quality of care of publicly funded health programs.

How medical insurance payment systems affect the physicians' provision behavior in China-based on experimental economics.

Background: It introduced an artefactual field experiment to analyze the influence of incentives from fee-for-service (FFS) and diagnosis-intervention package (DIP) payments on physicians' provision of medical services. Methods: This study recruited 32 physicians from a national pilot city in China and utilized an artefactual field experiment to examine medical services provided to patients with different health status. Results: In general, the average quantities of medical services provided by physicians under the FFS payment were higher than the optimal quantities, the difference was statistically significant. While the average quantities of medical services provided by physicians under the DIP payment were very close to the optimal quantities, the difference was not statistically significant. Physicians provided 24.49, 14.31 and 5.68% more medical services to patients with good, moderate and bad health status under the FFS payment than under the DIP payment. Patients with good, moderate and bad health status experienced corresponding losses of 5.70, 8.10 and 9.42% in benefits respectively under the DIP payment, the corresponding reductions in profits for physicians were 10.85, 20.85 and 35.51%. Conclusion: It found patients are overserved under the FFS payment, but patients in bad health status can receive more adequate treatment. Physicians' provision behavior can be regulated to a certain extent under the DIP payment and the DIP payment is suitable for the treatment of patients in relatively good health status. Doctors sometimes have violations under DIP payment, such as inadequate service and so on. Therefore, it is necessary to innovate the supervision of physicians' provision behavior under the DIP payment. It showed both medical insurance payment systems and patients with difference health status can influence physicians' provision behavior.

Time is money: general practitioners' reflections on the fee-for-service system.

BACKGROUND: Fee-for-service is a common payment model for remunerating general practitioners (GPs) in OECD countries. In Norway, GPs earn two-thirds of their income through fee-for-service, which is determined by the number of consultations and procedures they register as fees. In general, fee-for-service incentivises many and short consultations and is associated with high service provision. GPs act as gatekeepers for various treatments and interventions, such as addictive drugs, antibiotics, referrals, and sickness certification. This study aims to explore GPs' reflections on and perceptions of the fee-for-service system, with a specific focus on its potential impact on gatekeeping decisions. METHODS: We conducted six focus group interviews with 33 GPs in 2022 in Norway. We analysed the data using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We identified three main themes related to GPs' reflections and perceptions of the fee-for-service system. First, the participants were aware of the profitability of different fees and described potential strategies to increase their income, such as having shorter consultations or performing routine procedures on all patients. Second, the participants acknowledged that the fees might influence GP behaviour. Two perspectives on the fees were present in the discussions: fees as incentives and fees as compensation. The participants reported that financial incentives were not directly decisive in gatekeeping decisions, but that rejecting requests required substantially more time compared to granting them. Consequently, time constraints may contribute to GPs' decisions to grant patient requests even when the requests are deemed unreasonable. Last, the participants reported challenges with remembering and interpreting fees, especially complex fees. CONCLUSIONS: GPs are aware of the profitability within the fee-for-service system, believe that fee-for-service may influence their decision-making, and face challenges with remembering and interpreting certain fees. Furthermore, the fee-for-service system can potentially affect GPs' gatekeeping decisions by incentivising shorter consultations, which may result in increased consultations with inadequate time to reject unnecessary treatments.

Medicare in the 21 st Century: Understanding the Program to Promote Improvements.

Medicare is the largest single purchaser of health care in the United States and currently helps to pay medical expenses for approximately one-fifth of the US population. The impetus for Medicare to move away from fee-for-service and toward value-based care payments reflects the need to incentivize and improve healthcare quality while containing increasing costs. This primer provides a detailed overview of several interrelated topics for an improved understanding of the Medicare program for orthopaedic surgeons, other clinicians, healthcare administrators, policymakers, and business leaders. An improved understanding may stimulate additional ideas for successful program advancements.

Long-term outcomes after rehabilitation in Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Financial incentives in capitated Medicare Advantage (MA) plans may lead to inadequate rehabilitation. We therefore investigated if MA enrollees had worse long-term physical performance and functional outcomes after rehabilitation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries in the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study. We compared MA and fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries reporting rehabilitation between 2014 and 2017 by change in (1) Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and (2) NHATS-derived Functional Independence Measure (FIM) from the previous year, using t-tests incorporating inverse-probability weighting and complex survey design. Secondary outcomes were self-reported: (1) improved function during rehabilitation, (2) worse function since rehabilitation ended, (3) meeting rehabilitation goals, and (4) meeting insurance limits. RESULTS: Among 738 MA and 1488 FFS participants, weighted mean age was 76 years (SD 7.0), 59% were female, and 9% had probable dementia. MA beneficiaries were more likely to be Black (9% vs. 6%) or Hispanic/other race (15% vs. 10%), be on Medicaid (14% vs. 10%), have lower income (median $35,000 vs. $48,000), and receive <1 month of rehabilitation (30% vs. 23%). MA beneficiaries had a similar decline in SPPB (-0.46 [SD 1.8] vs. -0.21 [SD 2.7], p-value 0.069) and adapted FIM (-1.05 [SD 3.7] vs. -1.13 [SD 5.45], p-value 0.764) compared to FFS. MA beneficiaries were less likely to report improved function during rehabilitation (61% [95% CI 56-67] vs. 70% [95% CI 67-74], p-value 0.006). Other outcomes and analyses restricted to inpatient rehabilitation participants were non-significant. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: MA enrollment was associated with lower likelihood of self-reported functional improvement during rehabilitation but no clinically or statistically significant differences in annual changes of physical performance or function. As MA expands, future studies must monitor implications on rehabilitation coverage and older adults' independence.

Identifying Sources of Inter-Hospital Variation in Episode Spending for Sepsis Care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate inter-hospital variation in 90-day total episode spending for sepsis, estimate the relative contributions of each component of spending, and identify drivers of spending across the distribution of episode spending on sepsis care. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Medicare fee-for-service claims for beneficiaries (n=324,694) discharged from acute care hospitals for sepsis, defined by MS-DRG, between October 2014 and September 2018. RESEARCH DESIGN: Multiple linear regression with hospital-level fixed effects was used to identify average hospital differences in 90-day episode spending. Separate multiple linear regression and quantile regression models were used to evaluate drivers of spending across the episode spending distribution. RESULTS: The mean total episode spending among hospitals in the most expensive quartile was $30,500 compared with $23,150 for the least expensive hospitals ( P <0.001). Postacute care spending among the most expensive hospitals was almost double that of least expensive hospitals ($7,045 vs. $3,742), accounting for 51% of the total difference in episode spending between the most expensive and least expensive hospitals. Female patients, patients with more comorbidities, urban hospitals, and BPCI-A-participating hospitals were associated with significantly increased episode spending, with the effect increasing at the right tail of the spending distribution. CONCLUSION: Inter-hospital variation in 90-day episode spending on sepsis care is driven primarily by differences in post-acute care spending.

Comparison of Hospital Mortality and Readmission Rates by Physician and Patient Sex.

BACKGROUND: Little is known as to whether the effects of physician sex on patients' clinical outcomes vary by patient sex. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the association between physician sex and hospital outcomes varied between female and male patients hospitalized with medical conditions. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Medicare claims data. PATIENTS: 20% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized with medical conditions during 2016 to 2019 and treated by hospitalists. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcomes were patients' 30-day mortality and readmission rates, adjusted for patient and physician characteristics and hospital-level averages of exposures (effectively comparing physicians within the same hospital). RESULTS: Of 458 108 female and 318 819 male patients, 142 465 (31.1%) and 97 500 (30.6%) were treated by female physicians, respectively. Both female and male patients had a lower patient mortality when treated by female physicians; however, the benefit of receiving care from female physicians was larger for female patients than for male patients (difference-in-differences, -0.16 percentage points [pp] [95% CI, -0.42 to 0.10 pp]). For female patients, the difference between female and male physicians was large and clinically meaningful (adjusted mortality rates, 8.15% vs. 8.38%; average marginal effect [AME], -0.24 pp [CI, -0.41 to -0.07 pp]). For male patients, an important difference between female and male physicians could be ruled out (10.15% vs. 10.23%; AME, -0.08 pp [CI, -0.29 to 0.14 pp]). The pattern was similar for patients' readmission rates. LIMITATION: The findings may not be generalizable to younger populations. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that patients have lower mortality and readmission rates when treated by female physicians, and the benefit of receiving treatments from female physicians is larger for female patients than for male patients. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Gregory Annenberg Weingarten, GRoW @ Annenberg.

Modifier 22 Use in Fee-for-Service Medicare.

Importance: Modifier 22 is a mechanism designed for surgeons to identify cases that are more complex than their Current Procedural Terminology code accounts for. However, empirical studies of the use and efficacy of modifier 22 are lacking. Objective: To assess the use of modifier 22 in common surgical procedures and the association of use with compensation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cross-sectional analysis of the 2021 Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Limited Data Set including all Part B carrier and durable medical equipment fee-for-service claims. Claims for 10 common surgical procedures were evaluated, including mastectomy, total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, coronary artery bypass grafting, laparoscopic right colectomy, laparoscopic appendectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, kidney transplant, laparoscopic total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and lumbar laminectomy. Data were analyzed from August to November 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rate of modifier 22 use, rate of claim denial, mean charges, mean payment for accepted claims, and mean payment for all claims. Results: The sample included 625 316 surgical procedures performed in calendar year 2021. The proportion of modifier 22 coding for a procedure ranged from 5725 of 251 521 (2.3%) in total knee arthroplasty to 1566 of 18 459 (8.5%) in laparoscopic total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Submitted charges were 11.1% (95% CI, 9.1-13.2) to 22.8% (95% CI, 21.3-24.3) higher for claims with modifier 22, depending on the procedure. Among accepted claims, those with modifier 22 had increased payments ranging from 0.8% (95% CI, 0.7-1.0) to 4.8% (95% CI, 4.5-5.1). However, claims with modifier 22 were more likely to be denied (7.4% vs 4.0%; P < .001). As a result, overall mean payments were mixed, with 4 procedures having lower payments when modifier 22 was appended, 4 procedures having higher payments with modifier 22, and 2 procedures with no difference. The largest increase in mean payment for modifier 22 claims was for kidney transplant with an increased payment of $71.46 (95% CI, 55.32-87.60), which translates to a relative increase of 3.4% (95% CI, 2.9-4.6). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings in this study suggest that modifier 22 had little to no financial benefit when appended to claims for a diverse panel of surgical procedures. In the current system, surgeons have little reason to request modifier 22, and no mechanisms currently exist for surgeons to recoup payment for difficult operations.