Measuring Equity in Readmission as a Distinct Assessment of Hospital Performance.

Importance: Equity is an essential domain of health care quality. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) developed 2 Disparity Methods that together assess equity in clinical outcomes. Objectives: To define a measure of equitable readmissions; identify hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance (dual eligible vs non-dual eligible) or patient race (Black vs White); and compare hospitals with and without equitable readmissions by hospital characteristics and performance on accountability measures (quality, cost, and value). Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of US hospitals eligible for the CMS Hospital-Wide Readmission measure using Medicare data from July 2018 through June 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: We created a definition of equitable readmissions using CMS Disparity Methods, which evaluate hospitals on 2 methods: outcomes for populations at risk for disparities (across-hospital method); and disparities in care within hospitals' patient populations (within-a-single-hospital method). Exposures: Hospital patient demographics; hospital characteristics; and 3 measures of hospital performance-quality, cost, and value (quality relative to cost). Results: Of 4638 hospitals, 74% served a sufficient number of dual-eligible patients, and 42% served a sufficient number of Black patients to apply CMS Disparity Methods by insurance and race. Of eligible hospitals, 17% had equitable readmission rates by insurance and 30% by race. Hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance or race cared for a lower percentage of Black patients (insurance, 1.9% [IQR, 0.2%-8.8%] vs 3.3% [IQR, 0.7%-10.8%], P < .01; race, 7.6% [IQR, 3.2%-16.6%] vs 9.3% [IQR, 4.0%-19.0%], P = .01), and differed from nonequitable hospitals in multiple domains (teaching status, geography, size; P < .01). In examining equity by insurance, hospitals with low costs were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.38-1.77), and there was no relationship between quality and value, and equity. In examining equity by race, hospitals with high overall quality were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.26]), and there was no relationship between cost and value, and equity. Conclusion and Relevance: A minority of hospitals achieved equitable readmissions. Notably, hospitals with equitable readmissions were characteristically different from those without. For example, hospitals with equitable readmissions served fewer Black patients, reinforcing the role of structural racism in hospital-level inequities. Implementation of an equitable readmission measure must consider unequal distribution of at-risk patients among hospitals.

Associations of Internal Medicine Residency Milestone Ratings and Certification Examination Scores With Patient Outcomes.

Importance: Despite its importance to medical education and competency assessment for internal medicine trainees, evidence about the relationship between physicians' milestone residency ratings or the American Board of Internal Medicine's initial certification examination and their hospitalized patients' outcomes is sparse. Objective: To examine the association between physicians' milestone ratings and certification examination scores and hospital outcomes for their patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort analyses of 6898 hospitalists completing training in 2016 to 2018 and caring for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries during hospitalizations in 2017 to 2019 at US hospitals. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome measures included 7-day mortality and readmission rates. Thirty-day mortality and readmission rates, length of stay, and subspecialist consultation frequency were also assessed. Analyses accounted for hospital fixed effects and adjusted for patient characteristics, physician years of experience, and year. Exposures: Certification examination score quartile and milestone ratings, including an overall core competency rating measure equaling the mean of the end of residency milestone subcompetency ratings categorized as low, medium, or high, and a knowledge core competency measure categorized similarly. Results: Among 455 120 hospitalizations, median patient age was 79 years (IQR, 73-86 years), 56.5% of patients were female, 1.9% were Asian, 9.8% were Black, 4.6% were Hispanic, and 81.9% were White. The 7-day mortality and readmission rates were 3.5% (95% CI, 3.4%-3.6%) and 5.6% (95% CI, 5.5%-5.6%), respectively, and were 8.8% (95% CI, 8.7%-8.9%) and 16.6% (95% CI, 16.5%-16.7%) for mortality and readmission at 30 days. Mean length of stay and number of specialty consultations were 3.6 days (95% CI, 3.6-3.6 days) and 1.01 (95% CI, 1.00-1.03), respectively. A high vs low overall or knowledge milestone core competency rating was associated with none of the outcome measures assessed. For example, a high vs low overall core competency rating was associated with a nonsignificant 2.7% increase in 7-day mortality rates (95% CI, -5.2% to 10.6%; P = .51). In contrast, top vs bottom examination score quartile was associated with a significant 8.0% reduction in 7-day mortality rates (95% CI, -13.0% to -3.1%; P = .002) and a 9.3% reduction in 7-day readmission rates (95% CI, -13.0% to -5.7%; P < .001). For 30-day mortality, this association was -3.5% (95% CI, -6.7% to -0.4%; P = .03). Top vs bottom examination score quartile was associated with 2.4% more consultations (95% CI, 0.8%-3.9%; P < .003) but was not associated with length of stay or 30-day readmission rates. Conclusions and Relevance: Among newly trained hospitalists, certification examination score, but not residency milestone ratings, was associated with improved outcomes among hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries.

Impact of star ratings on Medicare health plan enrollment: A systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: The Medicare star ratings program was developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2007 as an approach to evaluate health plan performance and quality. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify and narratively describe studies that attempted to quantitatively assess the impact that Medicare star ratings have on health plan enrollment. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted of PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, and Google to identify articles that quantitatively assessed the impact of Medicare star ratings on health plan enrollment. Inclusion criteria consisted of studies that conducted quantitative analyses to estimate the potential impact. Exclusion criteria consisted of qualitative studies and studies that did not directly assess plan enrollment. RESULTS: This SLR identified 10 studies that sought to measure the impact of Medicare star ratings on plan enrollment. Nine of the studies found that plan enrollment increased in accordance with increases in star ratings or that plan disenrollment increased with decreases in star ratings. One study conducted of data before the implementation of the Medicare quality bonus payment found contradictory results from one year to the next, whereas all the studies that assessed data after implementation found increases in enrollment in accordance to increases in star ratings or increases in disenrollment for decreases in star ratings. One concerning finding from some of the articles included in the SLR is that increases in star ratings had less of an impact on enrollment in higher-rated plans for ethnic and racial minorities and older adults. CONCLUSIONS: Increases in Medicare star ratings led to statistically significant increases in health plan enrollment and decreases in health plan disenrollment. Future studies are needed to assess whether this increase has a causal association or is caused by additional factors outside of or in addition to increases in overall star rating.

Changes in Hospital Adverse Events and Patient Outcomes Associated With Private Equity Acquisition.

Importance: The effects of private equity acquisitions of US hospitals on the clinical quality of inpatient care and patient outcomes remain largely unknown. Objective: To examine changes in hospital-acquired adverse events and hospitalization outcomes associated with private equity acquisitions of US hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: Data from 100% Medicare Part A claims for 662 095 hospitalizations at 51 private equity-acquired hospitals were compared with data for 4 160 720 hospitalizations at 259 matched control hospitals (not acquired by private equity) for hospital stays between 2009 and 2019. An event study, difference-in-differences design was used to assess hospitalizations from 3 years before to 3 years after private equity acquisition using a linear model that was adjusted for patient and hospital attributes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital-acquired adverse events (synonymous with hospital-acquired conditions; the individual conditions were defined by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as falls, infections, and other adverse events), patient mix, and hospitalization outcomes (including mortality, discharge disposition, length of stay, and readmissions). Results: Hospital-acquired adverse events (or conditions) were observed within 10 091 hospitalizations. After private equity acquisition, Medicare beneficiaries admitted to private equity hospitals experienced a 25.4% increase in hospital-acquired conditions compared with those treated at control hospitals (4.6 [95% CI, 2.0-7.2] additional hospital-acquired conditions per 10 000 hospitalizations, P = .004). This increase in hospital-acquired conditions was driven by a 27.3% increase in falls (P = .02) and a 37.7% increase in central line-associated bloodstream infections (P = .04) at private equity hospitals, despite placing 16.2% fewer central lines. Surgical site infections doubled from 10.8 to 21.6 per 10 000 hospitalizations at private equity hospitals despite an 8.1% reduction in surgical volume; meanwhile, such infections decreased at control hospitals, though statistical precision of the between-group comparison was limited by the smaller sample size of surgical hospitalizations. Compared with Medicare beneficiaries treated at control hospitals, those treated at private equity hospitals were modestly younger, less likely to be dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, and more often transferred to other acute care hospitals after shorter lengths of stay. In-hospital mortality (n = 162 652 in the population or 3.4% on average) decreased slightly at private equity hospitals compared with the control hospitals; there was no differential change in mortality by 30 days after hospital discharge. Conclusions and Relevance: Private equity acquisition was associated with increased hospital-acquired adverse events, including falls and central line-associated bloodstream infections, along with a larger but less statistically precise increase in surgical site infections. Shifts in patient mix toward younger and fewer dually eligible beneficiaries admitted and increased transfers to other hospitals may explain the small decrease in in-hospital mortality at private equity hospitals relative to the control hospitals, which was no longer evident 30 days after discharge. These findings heighten concerns about the implications of private equity on health care delivery.

A Comparison of Home Health Utilization, Outcomes, and Cost Between Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare.

BACKGROUND: Home health use is rising rapidly in the United States as the population ages, the prevalence of chronic disease increases, and older Americans express their desire to age at home. Enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans rather than Traditional Medicare (TM) has grown as well, from 13% of total Medicare enrollment in 2004 to 39% in 2020. Despite these shifts, little is known about outcomes and costs following home health in MA as compared with TM. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to measure the association of MA enrollment with outcomes and costs for patients using home health. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients enrolled in plans offered by 1 large, national MA organization and patients enrolled in TM, with at least 1 home health visit between January 1, 2017, and June 30, 2018. EXPOSURE: MA enrollment. MAIN MEASURES: We compared the intensity of home health services and types of care delivered. The main outcome measures were hospitalization, the proportion of days in the home, and total allowed costs during the 180-day period following the first qualifying home health visit during the study period. KEY RESULTS: Among patients who used home health, our models demonstrated enrollment in MA was associated with 14%, and 6% decreased odds of 60- and 180-day hospitalization, respectively, a 12.8% and 14.7% decrease in medical costs exclusive and inclusive of home health costs, respectively, and a 0.27% increase in the proportion of days at home during the 180-day follow-up, equivalent to an additional half-day at home. There were few differences in home health care delivered for MA and TM [mean number of visits in the first episode of care (17.1 vs. 17.3) and mean visits per week (3.2 vs. 3.3)]. The mean number of visits by visit type and percent of patients with each type was similar between MA and TM as well. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with enrollment in TM, enrollment in MA was associated with improved patient-centered outcomes and lower cost and utilization, despite few differences in the way home health was delivered. These findings might be explained by structural components of MA that encourage better care management, but further investigation is needed to clarify the mechanisms by which MA enrollment may lead to higher value home health care.

Association Between Individual Primary Care Physician Merit-based Incentive Payment System Score and Measures of Process and Patient Outcomes.

Importance: The Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) influences reimbursement for hundreds of thousands of US physicians, but little is known about whether program performance accurately captures the quality of care they provide. Objective: To examine whether primary care physicians' MIPS scores are associated with performance on process and outcome measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of 80 246 US primary care physicians participating in the MIPS program in 2019. Exposures: MIPS score. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association between physician MIPS scores and performance on 5 unadjusted process measures, 6 adjusted outcome measures, and a composite outcome measure. Results: The study population included 3.4 million patients attributed to 80 246 primary care physicians, including 4773 physicians with low MIPS scores (≤30), 6151 physicians with medium MIPS scores (>30-75), and 69 322 physicians with high MIPS scores (>75). Compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly worse mean performance on 3 of 5 process measures: diabetic eye examinations (56.1% vs 63.2%; difference, -7.1 percentage points [95% CI, -8.0 to -6.2]; P < .001), diabetic HbA1c screening (84.6% vs 89.4%; difference, -4.8 percentage points [95% CI, -5.4 to -4.2]; P < .001), and mammography screening (58.2% vs 70.4%; difference, -12.2 percentage points [95% CI, -13.1 to -11.4]; P < .001) but significantly better mean performance on rates of influenza vaccination (78.0% vs 76.8%; difference, 1.2 percentage points [95% CI, 0.0 to 2.5]; P = .045] and tobacco screening (95.0% vs 94.1%; difference, 0.9 percentage points [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5]; P = .001). MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with risk-adjusted patient outcomes: compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly better mean performance on 1 outcome (307.6 vs 316.4 emergency department visits per 1000 patients; difference, -8.9 [95% CI, -13.7 to -4.1]; P < .001), worse performance on 1 outcome (255.4 vs 225.2 all-cause hospitalizations per 1000 patients; difference, 30.2 [95% CI, 24.8 to 35.7]; P < .001), and did not have significantly different performance on 4 ambulatory care-sensitive admission outcomes. Nineteen percent of physicians with low MIPS scores had composite outcomes performance in the top quintile, while 21% of physicians with high MIPS scores had outcomes in the bottom quintile. Physicians with low MIPS scores but superior outcomes cared for more medically complex and socially vulnerable patients, compared with physicians with low MIPS scores and poor outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among US primary care physicians in 2019, MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with performance on process and outcome measures. These findings suggest that the MIPS program may be ineffective at measuring and incentivizing quality improvement among US physicians.

Association of Hospital Participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced With Medicare Spending and Hospital Incentive Payments.

Importance: Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-A) is a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) initiative that aims to produce financial savings by incentivizing decreases in clinical spending. Incentives consist of financial bonuses from CMS to hospitals or penalties paid by hospitals to CMS. Objective: To investigate the association of hospital participation in BPCI-A with spending, and to characterize hospitals receiving financial bonuses vs penalties. Design, Setting, and Participants: Difference-in-differences and cross-sectional analyses of 4 754 139 patient episodes using 2013-2019 US Medicare claims at 694 participating and 2852 nonparticipating hospitals merged with hospital and market characteristics. Exposures: BPCI-A model years 1 and 2 (October 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019). Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitals' per-episode spending, CMS gross and net spending, and the incentive allocated to each hospital. Results: The study identified 694 participating hospitals. The analysis observed a -$175 change in mean per-episode spending (95% CI, -$378 to $28) and an aggregate spending change of -$75.1 million (95% CI, -$162.1 million to $12.0 million) across the 428 670 episodes in BPCI-A model years 1 and 2. However, CMS disbursed $354.3 million (95% CI, $212.0 million to $496.0 million) more in bonuses than it received in penalties. Hospital participation in BPCI-A was associated with a net loss to CMS of $279.2 million (95% CI, $135.0 million to $423.0 million). Hospitals in the lowest quartile of Medicaid days received a mean penalty of $0.41 million; (95% CI, $0.09 million to $0.72 million), while those in the highest quartile received a mean bonus of $1.57 million; (95% CI, $1.09 million to $2.08 million). Similar patterns were observed for hospitals across increasing quartiles of Disproportionate Share Hospital percentage and of patients from racial and ethnic minority groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among US hospitals measured between 2013 and 2019, participation in BPCI-A was significantly associated with an increase in net CMS spending. Bonuses accrued disproportionately to hospitals providing care for marginalized communities.

Association of Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare With 30-Day Mortality Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Importance: Medicare Advantage health plans covered 37% of beneficiaries in 2018, and coverage increased to 48% in 2022. Whether Medicare Advantage plans provide similar care for patients presenting with specific clinical conditions is unknown. Objective: To compare 30-day mortality and treatment for Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI) from 2009 to 2018. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study that included 557 309 participants with ST-segment elevation [acute] MI (STEMI) and 1 670 193 with non-ST-segment elevation [acute] MI (NSTEMI) presenting to US hospitals from 2009-2018 (date of final follow up, December 31, 2019). Exposures: Enrollment in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was adjusted 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included age- and sex-adjusted rates of procedure use (catheterization, revascularization), postdischarge medication prescriptions and adherence, and measures of health system performance (intensive care unit [ICU] admission and 30-day readmissions). Results: The study included a total of 2 227 502 participants, and the mean age in 2018 ranged from 76.9 years (Medicare Advantage STEMI) to 79.3 years (traditional Medicare NSTEMI), with similar proportions of female patients in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare (41.4% vs 41.9% for STEMI in 2018). Enrollment in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare was associated with significantly lower adjusted 30-day mortality rates in 2009 (19.1% vs 20.6% for STEMI; difference, -1.5 percentage points [95% CI, -2.2 to -0.7] and 12.0% vs 12.5% for NSTEMI; difference, -0.5 percentage points [95% CI, -0.9% to -0.1%]). By 2018, mortality had declined in all groups, and there were no longer statically significant differences between Medicare Advantage (17.7%) and traditional Medicare (17.8%) for STEMI (difference, 0.0 percentage points [95% CI, -0.7 to 0.6]) or between Medicare Advantage (10.9%) and traditional Medicare (11.1%) for NSTEMI (difference, -0.2 percentage points [95% CI, -0.4 to 0.1]). By 2018, there was no statistically significant difference in standardized 90-day revascularization rates between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. Rates of guideline-recommended medication prescriptions were significantly higher in Medicare Advantage (91.7%) vs traditional Medicare patients (89.0%) who received a statin prescription (difference, 2.7 percentage points [95% CI, 1.2 to 4.2] for 2018 STEMI). Medicare Advantage patients were significantly less likely to be admitted to an ICU than traditional Medicare patients (for 2018 STEMI, 50.3% vs 51.2%; difference, -0.9 percentage points [95% CI, -1.8 to 0.0]) and significantly more likely to be discharged to home rather than to a postacute facility (for 2018 STEMI, 71.5% vs 70.2%; difference, 1.3 percentage points [95% CI, 0.5 to 2.1]). Adjusted 30-day readmission rates were consistently lower in Medicare Advantage than in traditional Medicare (for 2009 STEMI, 13.8% vs 15.2%; difference, -1.3 percentage points [95% CI, -2.0 to -0.6]; and for 2018 STEMI, 11.2% vs 11.9%; difference, 0.6 percentage points [95% CI, -1.5 to 0.0]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare beneficiaries with acute MI, enrollment in Medicare Advantage, compared with traditional Medicare, was significantly associated with modestly lower rates of 30-day mortality in 2009, and the difference was no longer statistically significant by 2018. These findings, considered with other outcomes, may provide insight into differences in treatment and outcomes by Medicare insurance type.

Medicare Advantage Chart Reviews Are Associated With Billions in Additional Payments for Some Plans.

BACKGROUND: In the Medicare Advantage (MA) program, private plans receive capitated payments that are adjusted based on their enrollees' number and type of clinical conditions. Plans have the ability to review charts to identify additional conditions that are not present in claims data, thereby increasing risk-adjusted payments. Recently the Government Accountability Office released a report raising concerns about the use of these chart reviews as a potential tool for upcoding. OBJECTIVES: To measure the extent to which plans receive additional payments for chart reviews, and the variation in chart reviews across plans. RESEARCH DESIGN: In this cross-sectional study we use 2015 MA Encounter data to calculate how many additional diagnoses codes were added for each enrollee using chart reviews. We then calculate how these additional diagnosis codes translate to additional reimbursements across plans. SUBJECTS: A total of 14,021,692 beneficiaries enrolled in 510 MA contracts in 2015. MEASURES: Individual and contract level hierarchical condition category codes, total plan reimbursement. RESULTS: Chart reviews were associated with a $2.3 billion increase in payments to plans, a 3.7% increase in Medicare spending to MA plans. Just 10% of plans accounted for 42% of the $2.3 billion in additional spending attributed to chart review. Among these plans, the relative increase in risk score from chart review was 17.2%. For-profit plans engaged in chart reviews substantially more frequently than nonprofit plans. CONCLUSIONS: Given the substantial and highly variable increase in payments attributable to chart review, further investigation of the validity of this practice and its implications for Medicare spending is needed.

Association of a Medicare Outpatient Payment Reform With Hospital-Primary Care Integration: Heterogeneity Across Markets and Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-physician integration increased rapidly in the past decade, threatening the affordability of care with minimal gains in quality. Medicare recently reformed its facility fee payments to hospitals for office consultations delivered by hospital-integrated physicians. This policy reform, affecting 200 million office visits annually, may have inadvertently encouraged hospitals to integrate with certain primary care physicians. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether the policy reform was associated with hospital-primary care integration. RESEARCH DESIGN: I used a large sample of primary care physicians (n=98,884) drawn from Medicare claims data. I estimated cross-sectional multivariable linear probability models to measure whether the change in physicians' value-to-hospitals was associated with integration. RESULTS: The reform created heterogenous results: some physicians' value-to-hospitals decreased, while others increased (first percentile to 99th percentile, -$16,000 to $47,000). This change in value had a small association with integration: for every $10,000 increase, a physician was about 0.34 percentage points (95% confidence interval: 0.16-0.52) more likely to become integrated. Among high-volume physicians, the reform had larger effects: physicians whose value-to-hospitals grew by $20,000 or more were nearly 3 percentage points more likely to become integrated. Changes in value had no effect in concentrated hospital markets and rural areas. CONCLUSIONS: Effects of Medicare's site-based payments on hospital-primary care integration were concentrated among a small subset of physicians. Reforms to Medicare payment policy could influence integration among this group.

Assessing the downstream value of first-line cardiac positron emission tomography (PET) imaging using real world Medicare fee-for-service claims data.

BACKGROUND: Higher imaging quality makes cardiac positron emission tomography (PET) desirable for evaluation of suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). High cost of PET imaging may be offset by reduced utilization and/or improved outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective observational study utilized Medicare fee-for-service dataset. Study participants had no CAD diagnosis within 1 year prior to initial imaging. The PET group (PET imaging) and propensity score matched comparison group (single photon emission computed tomography or stress echocardiography) underwent index imaging between January 2014 and December 2016. Outcomes were analyzed using generalized linear models. RESULTS: Among 144,503 study subjects, 4619 (3.2%) had PET and 139,884 (96.8%) had conventional imaging. After matching, each group had 4619 patients (mean age 74 years, 59% female). The PET group had lower radiation exposure (3.8 milliSievert less per year, 95% CI - 3.96 to - 3.64, P < .0001) and unstable coronary syndrome (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.94, P = .008). The PET group experienced more hospital admissions (IRR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06-1.15, P < .0001), more use of percutaneous coronary intervention (IRR 1.24, 95% CI 1.02-1.50, P = 0.03), while similar mortality rate (hazard ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.78-1.14, P = 0.55). The PET group had higher medical spending ($2358.2 vs $1774.3, difference = $583.9 per patient per month, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: First-line PET imaging was not associated with reduced levels of utilization and spending. Clinical outcomes were mostly similar.

End-of-life patterns of symptom management and cancer-directed care among Medicare beneficiaries with lung cancer: a claims-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rather than early hospice enrollment, most Medicare beneficiaries receive "usual care" in the last months of life, outside of the hospice setting. While care intensity during the last weeks of life has been studied extensively, patterns of symptom management services (SMS) and/or cancer-directed therapies (CDT) received over a 6-month end-of-life period have not. METHODS: This retrospective study used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database to identify decedents diagnosed with lung cancer at age ≥ 66 years between January 2007 and December 2013 who survived ≥ 6 months from diagnosis. Medicare claims identified receipt of SMS and/or CDT. We created monthly indicators for care content (SMS-only, CDT-only, or both; otherwise full-month hospice or inpatient/skilled nursing). Multinomial logistic regression estimated associations between sociodemographics and comorbidity, with care content in the final month. RESULTS: Between 6 and 1 months before death, full-month hospice and inpatient/skilled nursing increased; CDT decreased from 31.9 to 18.5%; SMS increased from 86.6 to 97.7%. Relative to full-month hospice, the percentage of patients receiving SMS-only was higher for males, unmarried, younger age, and higher comorbidity; the percentage receiving CDT was also higher for males, unmarried, and younger age, but decreased with increasing comorbidity and over calendar time. CONCLUSION: Among lung cancer decedents observed in the outpatient, nonhospice setting, SMS receipt increased and was nearly universal as death approached. CDT diminished dramatically over the end-of-life period. Associations between sociodemographic characteristics and care setting suggest differences in care preferences or access barriers. Claims represent an important resource for characterizing end-of-life care patterns.

What Is the Quality of Surgical Care for Patients with Hip Fractures at Critical Access Hospitals?

BACKGROUND: Critical access hospitals (CAHs) play an important role in providing access to care for many patients in rural communities. Prior studies have shown that these facilities are able to provide timely and quality care for patients who undergo various elective and emergency general surgical procedures. However, little is known about the quality and reimbursement of surgical care for patients undergoing surgery for hip fractures at CAHs compared with non-CAH facilities. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Are there any differences in 90-day complications, readmissions, mortality, and Medicare payments between patients undergoing surgery for hip fractures at CAHs and those undergoing surgery at non-CAHs? METHODS: The 2005 to 2014 Medicare 100% Standard Analytical Files were queried using ICD-9 procedure codes to identify Medicare-eligible beneficiaries undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (79.15, 79.35, and 78.55), hemiarthroplasty (81.52), and THA (81.51) for isolated closed hip fractures. This database was selected because the claims capture inpatient diagnoses, procedures, charged amounts and paid claims, as well as hospital-level information of the care, of Medicare patients across the nation. Patients with concurrent fixation of an upper extremity, lower extremity, and/or polytrauma were excluded from the study to ensure an isolated cohort of hip fractures was captured. The study cohort was divided into two groups based on where the surgery took place: CAHs and non-CAHs. A 1:1 propensity score match, adjusting for baseline demographics (age, gender, Census Bureau-designated region, and Elixhauser comorbidity index), clinical characteristics (fixation type and time to surgery), and hospital characteristics (whether the hospital was located in a rural ZIP code, the average annual procedure volume of the operating facility, hospital bed size, hospital ownership and teaching status), was used to control for the presence of baseline differences in patients presenting at CAHs and those presenting at non-CAHs. A total of 1,467,482 patients with hip fractures were included, 29,058 of whom underwent surgery in a CAH. After propensity score matching, each cohort (CAH and non-CAH) contained 29,058 patients. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess for differences in 90-day complications, readmissions, and mortality between the two matched cohorts. As funding policies of CAHs are regulated by Medicare, an evaluation of costs-of-care (by using Medicare payments as a proxy) was conducted. Generalized linear regression modeling was used to assess the 90-day Medicare payments among patients undergoing surgery in a CAH, while controlling for differences in baseline demographics and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Patients undergoing surgery for hip fractures were less likely to experience many serious complications at a critical access hospital (CAH) than at a non-CAH. In particular, after controlling for patient demographics, hospital-level factors and procedural characteristics, patients treated at a CAH were less likely to experience: myocardial infarction (3% (916 of 29,058) versus 4% (1126 of 29,058); OR 0.80 [95% CI 0.74 to 0.88]; p < 0.001), sepsis (3% (765 of 29,058) versus 4% (1084 of 29,058); OR 0.69 [95% CI 0.63 to 0.78]; p < 0.001), acute renal failure (6% (1605 of 29,058) versus 8% (2353 of 29,058); OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.61 to 0.69]; p < 0.001), and Clostridium difficile infections (1% (367 of 29,058) versus 2% (473 of 29,058); OR 0.77 [95% CI 0.67 to 0.88]; p < 0.001) than undergoing surgery in a non-CAH. CAHs also had lower rates of all-cause 90-day readmissions (18% (5133 of 29,058) versus 20% (5931 of 29,058); OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.86]; p < 0.001) and 90-day mortality (4% (1273 of 29,058) versus 5% (1437 of 29,058); OR 0.88 [95% CI 0.82 to 0.95]; p = 0.001) than non-CAHs. Further, CAHs also had risk-adjusted lower 90-day Medicare payments than non-CAHs (USD 800, standard error 89; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients who received hip fracture surgical care at CAHs had a lower risk of major medical and surgical complications than those who had surgery at non-CAHs, even though Medicare reimbursements were lower as well. Although there may be some degree of patient selection at CAHs, these facilities appear to provide high-value care to rural communities. These findings provide evidence for policymakers evaluating the impact of the CAH program and allocating funding resources, as well as for community members seeking emergent care at local CAH facilities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Federal requirements for nursing homes to include certified nursing assistants in resident care planning and interdisciplinary teams: A policy analysis.

Starting in 2016, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services implemented the first phase of a 3-year multi-phase plan revising the manner in which nursing homes are regulated. In this revision, attention was placed on the importance of certified nursing assistants (CNAs) to resident care and the need to empower these frontline workers. Phase II mandates that CNAs be included as members of the nursing home interdisciplinary team that develops care plans for the resident that are person-centered and comprehensive and reviews and revises these care plans after each resident assessment. While these efforts are laudable, there are no direct guidelines for how to integrate CNAs in the interdisciplinary team. We recommend the inclusion of direct guidelines, in which this policy revision clarifies the expected contributions from CNAs, their responsibilities, their role as members of the interdisciplinary team, and the expected patterns of communication between CNAs and other members of the interdisciplinary team.

Early Performance of Hospital Value-based Purchasing Program in Medicare: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Under the Affordable Care Act, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has greatly expanded inpatient fee-for-value programs including the Hospital Value-based Purchasing (HVBP) program. Existing evidence from the HVBP program is mixed. There is a need for a systematic review of the HVBP program to inform discussions on how to improve the program's effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To review and summarize studies that evaluated the HVBP program's impact on clinical processes, patient satisfaction, costs and outcomes, or assessed hospital characteristics associated with performance on the program. DESIGN: We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest database for literature published between January 2013 and July 2019 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. RESULTS: Of 988 studies reviewed, 33 studies that met the selection criteria were included. A small group of studies (n=7) evaluated the impact of the HVBP program, and no impact on processes or patient outcomes was reported. None of the included studies evaluated the effect of HVBP program on health care costs. Other studies (n=28) evaluated the hospital characteristics associated with HVBP performance, suggesting that safety-net hospitals reportedly performed worse on several quality and cost measures. Other hospital characteristics' associations with performance were unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the current HVBP does not lead to meaningful improvements in quality of care or patient outcomes and may negatively affect safety-net hospitals. More rigorous and comprehensive adjustment is needed for more valid hospital comparisons.

Events Associated With Changes in Reliance on the Veterans Health Administration Among Medicare-eligible Veterans.

OBJECTIVES: We can learn something about how Veterans value the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) versus community providers by observing Veterans' choices between VHA and Medicare providers after they turn 65. For a cohort of Veterans who were newly age-eligible for Medicare, we estimated the change in VHA reliance (VHA outpatient visits divided by total VHA and Medicare visits) associated with specific events: receiving a life-threatening diagnosis, having a Medicare-paid hospitalization, or moving further from the VHA. RESEARCH DESIGN: A longitudinal cohort study of VHA and Medicare administrative data. SUBJECTS: A total of 5932 VHA users who completed a health survey in 1999 and became age-eligible for Medicare from 1998 to 2000 were followed through 2016. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: More Veterans chose to rely on the VHA than Medicare (64% vs. 36.%). For a VHA-reliant Veteran, a Medicare-paid hospital stay was associated with a decrease of 7.8 percentage points (pps) (P<0.001) in VHA reliance in the subsequent 12 months, but by 36 months reliance increased to near prehospitalization levels (-1.5 pps; P=0.138). Moving further from the VHA, or receiving a diagnosis of cancer, heart failure, or renal failure had no significant association with subsequent VHA reliance; however, a diagnosis of dementia was associated with a decrease in VHA reliance (-8.6 pps; P=0.026). CONCLUSIONS: A significant majority of newly Medicare-eligible VHA users voted with their feet in favor of sustaining the VHA as a provider of comprehensive medical care for Veterans. These VHA-reliant Veterans maintained their reliance even after receiving a life-threatening diagnosis, and after experiencing Medicare-provided hospital care.

Immunohistochemistry utilization in the diagnosis of melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The use of immunohistochemical (IHC) stains in dermatopathology is commonplace; however, little is known regarding utilization trends in melanoma diagnosis. Current Medicare local coverage determinations (LCDs) state that most pigmented lesions, including melanoma, can be diagnosed using H&E alone. METHODS: Histopathology reports for all biopsy-proven melanomas excised between January 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018, at a single dermatology clinic, were identified with the following parameters abstracted: laboratory/dermatopathologist rendering the diagnosis, whether IHC was performed, type/number of stains utilized, presence/depth of invasion, and melanoma subtype. The association of characteristics with IHC utilization was evaluated using χ2 test for categorical variables. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty six eligible melanomas were identified. IHC was employed in 228 (64%) of the diagnoses. Invasive melanoma was diagnosed in 199 cases (55.9%) while 157 (44.1%) were identified as melanoma in situ (MIS). Of the 228 that utilized IHC, 117 were performed on invasive melanoma (58.8%) and 111 were performed on MIS (70.7%). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest a higher IHC usage for the diagnosis of melanoma than previously reported. Existing LCDs regarding IHC utilization in melanoma do not reflect the current state of practice. Further investigation regarding IHC utilization and the development of appropriate-use criteria for melanoma IHC is necessary.

Validation of claims-based algorithms for psoriatic arthritis.

PURPOSE: An increasing number of new medications are being developed and approved for psoriatic arthritis (PsA). To generate real-world evidence on comparative safety and effectiveness of these drugs, a claims-based algorithm that can accurately identify PsA is greatly needed. METHODS: To identify patients with PsA, we developed seven claims-based algorithms based on a combination of diagnosis codes and medication dispensing using the claims data from Medicare parts A/B/D linked to electronic medical records (2012-2014). Two physicians independently conducted a chart review using the treating physician's diagnosis of PsA as the gold standard. We calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) and 95% confidence intervals of each algorithm. RESULTS: Of the total 2157 records identified by the seven algorithms, 45% of the records had relevant clinical data to determine the presence of PsA. The PPV of the algorithms ranged from 75.2% (algorithm 1: ≥2 diagnosis codes for PsA and ≥1 diagnosis code for psoriasis) to 88.6% (algorithm 7: ≥2 diagnosis codes for PsA with ≥1 code by rheumatologist and ≥1 dispensing for PsA medication). Having ≥2 diagnosis codes and ≥1 dispensing for PsA medications (algorithm 6) also had PPV of 82.4%. CONCLUSIONS: All seven claims-based algorithms demonstrated a moderately high PPV of 75% to 89% in identifying PsA. The use of ≥2 diagnosis codes plus ≥1 prescription claim for PsA appears to be a valid and efficient tool in identifying PsA patients in the claims data, while broader algorithms based on diagnoses without a prescription claim also have reasonably good PPVs.

Translating claims-based CHA2 DS2 -VaSc and HAS-BLED to ICD-10-CM: Impacts of mapping strategies.

PURPOSE: The CHA2 DS2 -VaSc and HAS-BLED risk scores are commonly used in the studies of oral anticoagulants (OACs). The best ways to map these scores to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes is unclear, as is how they perform in various types of OAC users. We aimed to assess the distributions of CHA2 DS2 -VaSc and HAS-BLED scores and C-statistics for outcome prediction in the ICD-10-CM era using different mapping strategies. METHODS: We compared the distributions of CHA2 DS2 -VaSc and HAS-BLED scores from various mapping strategies in atrial fibrillation patients before, during, and after ICD-10-CM transition. We estimated the C-statistics predicting the 90-day risk of hospitalized stroke (for CHA2 DS2 -VaSc) or hospitalized bleeding (for HAS-BLED) in patients identified at least 6 months after the ICD-10-CM transition, overall and by anticoagulant type. RESULTS: Forward-backward mapping produced higher CHA2 DS2 -VaSc and HAS-BLED scores in the ICD-10-CM era compared to the ICD-9-CM era: the mean difference was 0.074 (95% confidence interval 0.064-0.085) for CHA2 DS2 -VaSc and 0.055 (0.048-0.062) for HAS-BLED. Both scores had higher C-statistics in patients taking no OACs (0.697 [0.677-0.717] for CHA2 DS2 -VaSc; 0.719 [0.702-0.737] for HAS-BLED) or direct OACs (0.695 [0.654-0.735] for CHA2 DS2 -VaSc; 0.700 [0.673-0.728] for HAS-BLED) than those taking warfarin (0.655 [0.613-0.697] for CHA2 DS2 -VaSc; 0.663 [0.6320.695] for HAS-BLED). CONCLUSIONS: Existing mapping strategies generally preserved the distributions of CHA2 DS2 -VaSc and HAS-BLED scores after ICD-10-CM transition. Both scores performed better in patients on no OACs or direct OACs than patients on warfarin.