Characteristics, Outcomes, and Trends of Patients With COVID-19-Related Critical Illness at a Learning Health System in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to surge in the United States and globally. OBJECTIVE: To describe the epidemiology of COVID-19-related critical illness, including trends in outcomes and care delivery. DESIGN: Single-health system, multihospital retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 5 hospitals within the University of Pennsylvania Health System. PATIENTS: Adults with COVID-19-related critical illness who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with acute respiratory failure or shock during the initial surge of the pandemic. MEASUREMENTS: The primary exposure for outcomes and care delivery trend analyses was longitudinal time during the pandemic. The primary outcome was all-cause 28-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were all-cause death at any time, receipt of mechanical ventilation (MV), and readmissions. RESULTS: Among 468 patients with COVID-19-related critical illness, 319 (68.2%) were treated with MV and 121 (25.9%) with vasopressors. Outcomes were notable for an all-cause 28-day in-hospital mortality rate of 29.9%, a median ICU stay of 8 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 17 days), a median hospital stay of 13 days (IQR, 7 to 25 days), and an all-cause 30-day readmission rate (among nonhospice survivors) of 10.8%. Mortality decreased over time, from 43.5% (95% CI, 31.3% to 53.8%) to 19.2% (CI, 11.6% to 26.7%) between the first and last 15-day periods in the core adjusted model, whereas patient acuity and other factors did not change. LIMITATIONS: Single-health system study; use of, or highly dynamic trends in, other clinical interventions were not evaluated, nor were complications. CONCLUSION: Among patients with COVID-19-related critical illness admitted to ICUs of a learning health system in the United States, mortality seemed to decrease over time despite stable patient characteristics. Further studies are necessary to confirm this result and to investigate causal mechanisms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Analysis of costs associated with administration of intravenous single-drug therapies in metastatic breast cancer in a U.S. population.

BACKGROUND: An estimated $8.1 billion (in 2004 dollars) is spent annually on total health care costs for the treatment of breast cancer in the United States. Breast cancer has traditionally been treated with intravenous (IV) cancer therapies that entail not only the drug acquisition cost, but additional costs of personnel time, supplies, and equipment used in the preparation and administration of the IV drug. A systematic study of the costs of IV administration in the metastatic breast cancer (MBC) population has not been performed. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost components, overall and by payer type and patient age group, for administering a single-agent IV breast cancer drug to women with MBC in the United States. METHODS: Women diagnosed with MBC (ICD-9-CM codes 174.XX and 196.XX-198.XX) reported any time between January 1, 2003, and May 31, 2006, and receiving single-agent IV breast cancer therapy (including intramuscular fulvestrant) during a visit were identified (using HCPCS and CPT codes) from an administrative claims database supporting 46 general/oncology clinics in the United States. Study drugs were either FDA-approved for breast cancer or recommended for use as preferred single agents per National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines for breast cancer. Costs were estimated using the contracted allowed payment, which is the amount that the provider is eligible to receive from all parties, including payers and patients. Costs were measured using 2 approaches-average cost per IV-administration visit and average cost per patient per month (PPPM). RESULTS: Over the 41-month study period (through May 31, 2006), 46,273 patients had a breast cancer diagnosis, of which 8,533 (18.4%) were metastatic; 828 (9.7%) of these patients received 1 of 11 single-agent IV breast cancer drugs over 7,406 visits. Mean (SD) total payments across all drugs and cost components were $2,477 ($1,842) per visit and $4,966 ($3,841) PPPM, of which IV administration costs were 10.2% of per-visit and 11.4% of PPPM costs, and other drugs and services provided during IV administration were 30.8% of per-visit and 32.2% of PPPM costs. In both the per-visit and PPPM analyses, approximately 80% of costs for other drugs and services (approximately 25% of total treatment costs) were attributed to (a) antihypercalcemic agents (e.g., zoledronic acid: 6%-8% of total treatment cost), (b) colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) (e.g., pegfilgrastim, epoetin: 6%-7%), or (c) other anticancer agents being used off-label or for other conditions (e.g., bevacizumab, irinotecan, carboplatin, vincristine: 11%-12%). The remaining 20% of costs for other drugs and services (about 6% of total costs) were attributable primarily to antiemetic agents (e.g., palonosetron, granisetron) and miscellaneous or unclassified products. Non-protein-bound paclitaxel was the most commonly used IV therapy at a mean cost of $2,804 per visit, with IV administration accounting for $353 (12.6%) and other services accounting for $1,237 (44.1%) of total costs per visit. The second most commonly used IV therapy was trastuzumab at a mean cost of $2,526 per visit, with IV administration accounting for $214 (8.5%) and other services accounting for $336 (13.3%) of total costs per visit. CONCLUSIONS: For patients being administered a single FDA-approved or NCCN-recommended IV drug for treatment of MBC, IV administration costs accounted for approximately 10%-11% of total cost, and the study drugs accounted for 56%-59%. Other drugs and services accounted for 31%-32%, most of which was attributable to antihypercalcemic agents, CSFs, anticancer drugs being used off-label for breast cancer or for other conditions, and antiemetic agents. Although costs of IV administration are 10%-11% of total IV chemotherapy costs for MBC and would clearly be avoided with the use of oral agents, the extent to which other costs would be avoided or incurred with use of oral agents is unknown and requires further research.

Variation in cardiac procedure use and racial disparity among Veterans Affairs Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Lower or less racially equitable cardiac procedure rates at Veterans Affairs medical centers (VAMCs) with larger minority populations may be sources of racial disparities. This study's objectives were to determine if VAMCs with higher proportions of black inpatients performed fewer cardiac procedures or had larger racial differences in procedure rates than predominantly white VAMCs. METHODS: We identified 87536 potential candidates for bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, 50517 for implanted cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD), 92292 for dual-chambered pacemaker (DCP), and 70269 for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) hospitalized between 1998 and 2003. Multivariate regression models were fitted that controlled for patients' demographic and clinical characteristics as well as hospital factors such as academic affiliation and inpatient racial composition. Racial differences in procedure rates both across and within hospital-level classifications were examined. RESULTS: Across VA hospital types, there were few significant differences in adjusted procedure rates at VAMCs with larger compared with smaller black inpatient populations. Conversely, within-hospital estimates of black versus white procedure use indicated VAMCs with >30% black inpatients had greater racial differences compared to predominantly white VAMCs (adjusted black-white odds ratios of 0.45 vs 0.81 for aortic valve replacement [P = .07], 0.54 vs 0.85 for DCPs [P < .001], 0.54 vs 0.65 for ICDs [P = .30], and 0.69 vs 0.86 for PCI [P = .01].) CONCLUSIONS: Although VAMCs with larger black inpatient populations performed cardiac procedures at similar rates as predominantly white VAMCs, racial differences in procedures were greater within VAMCs with larger black populations. Improving equity at VAMCs with larger minority populations is critical to achieving systemwide health care equality.

Administration costs of intravenous chemotherapy in treating peripheral T-cell lymphoma.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective cohort analysis was conducted to examine the cost components of administering IV chemotherapy to peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) patients in the US to inform decision makers. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with PTCL (ICD-9 code 202.7X) between 1 October 2007 and 30 September 2012 were identified from a US administrative claims database. Costs for patients receiving at least one NCCN recommended IV chemotherapy were assessed using the allowed payment from claim line items, categorized into cost components (study drug costs, IV administration costs and other visit-related services). RESULTS: The mean costs to the payer for IV cancer therapy administration in a PTCL patient population averaged about $5735 per visit and $9356 per member per month (PMPM). Across all therapies, mean IV administration costs accounted for $127-$794 per visit and $594-$1808 PMPM, contributing an additional 2-32% to the total costs of the drug alone. Mean other visit-related services costs for treating PTCL accounted for $70-$2487 per visit and $444-$3094 PMPM, contributing an additional 2-74% to the total costs. Combined, these additional costs represent an additional mean cost of $220-$3150 per visit and $1193-$4609 PMPM to the base price of the drug alone. LIMITATIONS: This study used a convenience sample to identify PTCL patients and only included visits where at least one NCCN recommended IV chemotherapy was administered. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of IV administration and other visit-related services add measurable costs to the total cost of IV therapy for treating PTCL. When considering the cost of the drug, these additional costs can represent a substantial proportion of the overall costs and must be considered when evaluating the costs of IV treatment options for PTCL.

The impact of hospital pay-for-performance on hospital and Medicare costs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of Medicare's hospital pay-for-performance demonstration project on hospital revenues, costs, and margins and on Medicare costs. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: All health care utilization for Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI; ICD-9-CM code 410.x1) in fiscal years 2002-2005 from Medicare claims, containing 420,211 admissions with AMI. STUDY DESIGN: We test for changes in hospital costs and revenues and Medicare payments among 260 hospitals participating in the Medicare hospital pay-for-performance demonstration project and a group of 780 propensity-score-matched comparison hospitals. Effects were estimated using a difference-in-difference model with hospital fixed effects, testing for changes in costs among pay-for-performance hospitals above and beyond changes in comparison hospitals. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found no significant effect of pay-for-performance on hospital financials (revenues, costs, and margins) or Medicare payments (index hospitalization and 1 year after admission) for AMI patients. CONCLUSIONS: Pay-for-performance in the CMS hospital demonstration project had minimal impact on hospital financials and Medicare payments to providers. As P4P extends to all hospitals under the Affordable Care Act, these results provide some estimates of the impact of P4P and emphasize our need for a better understanding of the financial implications of P4P on providers and payers if we want to create sustainable and effective programs to improve health care value.

Impact of public reporting on unreported quality of care.

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