Perspectives of Physicians with Experience in Nursing Home Care on Telehealth Use During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.

BACKGROUND: Despite expanded access to telehealth services for Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes (NHs) during the COVID-19 public health emergency, information on physicians' perspectives on the feasibility and challenges of telehealth provision for NH residents is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To examine physicians' perspectives on the appropriateness and challenges of providing telehealth in NHs. PARTICIPANTS: Medical directors or attending physicians in NHs. APPROACH: We conducted 35 semistructured interviews with members of the American Medical Directors Association from January 18 through January 29, 2021. Outcomes of the thematic analysis reflected perspectives of physicians experienced in NH care on telehealth use. MAIN MEASURES: The extent to which participants used telehealth in NHs, the perceived value of telehealth for NH residents, and barriers to telehealth provision. KEY RESULTS: Participants included 7 (20.0%) internists, 8 (22.9%) family physicians, and 18 (51.4%) geriatricians. Five common themes emerged: (1) direct care is needed to adequately care for residents in NHs; (2) telehealth may allow physicians to reach NH residents more flexibly during offsite hours and other scenarios when physicians cannot easily reach patients; (3) NH staff and other organizational resources are critical to the success of telehealth, but staff time is a major barrier to telehealth provision; (4) appropriateness of telehealth in NHs may be limited to certain resident populations and/or services; (5) conflicting views about whether telehealth use will be sustained over time in NHs. Subthemes included the role of resident-physician relationships in facilitating telehealth and the appropriateness of telehealth for residents with cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Participants had mixed views on the effectiveness of telehealth in NHs. Staff resources to facilitate telehealth and the limitations of telehealth for NH residents were the most raised issues. These findings suggest that physicians in NHs may not view telehealth as a suitable substitute for most in-person services.

Clinicians Who Practice Primarily in Nursing Homes and the Quality of End-of-Life Care Among Residents.

Importance: Clinician specialization in the care of nursing home (NH) residents or patients in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) has become increasingly common. It is not known whether clinicians focused on NH care, often referred to as SNFists (ie, physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants concentrating their practice in the NH or SNF setting), are associated with a reduced likelihood of burdensome transitions in the last 90 days of life for residents, which are a marker of poor-quality end-of-life (EOL) care. Objective: To quantify the association between receipt of care from an SNFist and quality of EOL care for NH residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed Medicare fee-for-service claims for a nationally representative 20% sample of beneficiaries to examine burdensome transitions among NH decedents at the EOL from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2019. Statistical analyses were conducted from December 2022 to June 2023. Exposure: Receipt of care from an SNFist, defined as physicians and advanced practitioners who provided 80% or more of their evaluation and management visits in NHs annually. Main Outcomes and Measures: This study used augmented inverse probability weighting in analyses of Medicare fee-for-service claims for a nationally representative 20% sample of beneficiaries. Main outcomes included 4 measures of burdensome transitions: (1) hospital transfer in the last 3 days of life; (2) lack of continuity in NHs after hospitalization in the last 90 days of life; (3) multiple hospitalizations in the last 90 days of life for any reason or any hospitalization for pneumonia, urinary tract infection, dehydration, or sepsis; and (4) any hospitalization in the last 90 days of life for an ambulatory care-sensitive condition. Results: Of the 2 091 954 NH decedents studied (mean [SD] age, 85.4 [8.5] years; 1 470 724 women [70.3%]), 953 722 (45.6%) received care from SNFists and 1 138 232 (54.4%) received care from non-SNFists; 422 575 of all decedents (20.2%) experienced a burdensome transition at the EOL. Receipt of care by an SNFist was associated with a reduced risk of (1) hospital transfer in the last 3 days of life (-1.6% [95% CI, -2.5% to -0.8%]), (2) lack of continuity in NHs after hospitalization (-4.8% [95% CI, -6.7% to -3.0%]), and (3) decedents experiencing multiple hospitalizations for any reason or any hospitalization for pneumonia, urinary tract infection, dehydration, or sepsis (-5.8% [95% CI, -10.1% to -1.7%]). There was not a statistically significant association with the risk of hospitalization for an ambulatory care-sensitive condition in the last 90 days of life (0.0% [95% CI, -14.7% to 131.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that SNFists may be an important resource to improve the quality of EOL care for NH residents.

Cost-Effectiveness of Annual Prostate MRI and Potential MRI-Guided Biopsy After Prostate-Specific Antigen Test Results.

Importance: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and potential MRI-guided biopsy enable enhanced identification of clinically significant prostate cancer. Despite proven efficacy, MRI and potential MRI-guided biopsy remain costly, and there is limited evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of this approach in general and for different prostate-specific antigen (PSA) strata. Objective: To examine the cost-effectiveness of integrating annual MRI and potential MRI-guided biopsy as part of clinical decision-making for men after being screened for prostate cancer compared with standard biopsy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using a decision analytic Markov cohort model, an economic evaluation was conducted projecting outcomes over 10 years for a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old men in the US with 4 different PSA strata (<2.5 ng/mL, 2.5-4.0 ng/mL, 4.1-10.0 ng/mL, >10 ng/mL) identified by screening through Monte Carlo microsimulation with 10 000 trials. Model inputs for probabilities, costs in 2020 US dollars, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were from the literature and expert consultation. The model was specifically designed to reflect the US health care system, adopting a federal payer perspective (ie, Medicare). Exposures: Magnetic resonance imaging with potential MRI-guided biopsy and standard biopsy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY was estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: For the 3 PSA strata of 2.5 ng/mL or greater, the MRI and potential MRI-guided biopsy strategy was cost-effective compared with standard biopsy (PSA 2.5-4.0 ng/mL: base-case ICER, $21 131/QALY; PSA 4.1-10.0 ng/mL: base-case ICER, $12 336/QALY; PSA >10.0 ng/mL: base-case ICER, $6000/QALY). Results varied depending on the diagnostic accuracy of MRI and potential MRI-guided biopsy. Results of probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the MRI and potential MRI-guided biopsy strategy was cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY in a range between 76% and 81% of simulations for each of the 3 PSA strata of 2.5 ng/mL or more. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation of a hypothetical cohort suggests that an annual MRI and potential MRI-guided biopsy was a cost-effective option from a US federal payer perspective compared with standard biopsy for newly eligible male Medicare beneficiaries with a serum PSA level of 2.5 ng/mL or more.

Defining the Role and Value of Physicians Who Primarily Practice in Nursing Homes: Perspectives of Nursing Home Physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the perceptions of physicians with expertise in nursing home care on the value of physicians who primarily practice in nursing homes, often referred to as "SNFists," with the goal of enriching our understanding of specialization in nursing home care. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Virtual interviews conducted January 18-29, 2021. Participants included 35 physicians across the United States, who currently or previously served as medical directors or attending physicians in nursing homes. METHODS: Interviews were conducted virtually on Zoom and professionally transcribed. Outcomes were themes resulting from thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants had a mean 19.5 (SD = 11.3) years of experience working in nursing homes; 17 (48.6%) were female; the most common medical specializations were geriatrics (18; 51.4%), family medicine (8; 22.9%), internal medicine (7; 20.0%), physiatry (1; 2.9%), and pulmonology (1; 2.9%). Ten (28.6%) participants were SNFists. We identified 6 themes emphasized by participants: (1) An unclear definition and loose qualifications for SNFists may affect the quality of care; (2) Specific competencies are needed to be a "good SNFist"; (3) SNFists are distinguished by their unique practice approach and often provide services that are unbillable or underreimbursed; (4) SNFists achieve better outcomes, but opinions varied on performance measures; (5) SNFists may contribute to discontinuity of care; (6) SNFists remained in nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: There is a strong consensus among physicians with expertise in nursing home care that SNFists provide higher quality care for residents than other physicians. However, a uniform definition of a SNFist based on competencies in addition to standardized performance measures are needed. Unbillable and underreimbursed services create disincentives to physicians becoming SNFists. Policy makers may consider modifying Medicare reimbursements to incentivize more physicians to specialize in nursing home care.

Characteristics of Nursing Homes by COVID-19 Cases Among Staff: March to August 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the association between nursing home (NH) characteristics and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevalence among NH staff. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 database for US NHs between March and August 2020, linked to NH facility characteristics (LTCFocus database) and local COVID-19 prevalence (USA Facts). METHODS: We estimated the associations between NH characteristics, local infection rates, and other regional characteristics and COVID-19 cases among NH staff (nursing staff, clinical staff, aides, and other facility personnel) measured per 100 beds, controlling for the hospital referral regions in which NHs were located to account for local infection control practices and other unobserved characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 11,858 NHs in our sample, 78.6% reported at least 1 staff case of COVID-19. After accounting for local COVID-19 prevalence, NHs in the highest quartile of confirmed resident cases (413.5 to 920.0 cases per 1000 residents) reported 18.9 more staff cases per 100 beds compared with NHs that had no resident cases. Large NHs (150 or more beds) reported 2.6 fewer staff cases per 100 beds compared with small NHs (<50 beds) and for-profit NHs reported 0.8 fewer staff cases per 100 beds compared with nonprofit NHs. Higher occupancy and more direct-care hours per day were associated with more staff cases (0.4 more cases per 100 beds for a 10% increase in occupancy, and 0.7 more cases per 100 beds for an increase in direct-care staffing of 1 hour per resident day, respectively). Estimates associated with resident demographics, payer mix, or regional socioeconomic characteristics were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: These findings highlight the urgent need to support facilities with emergency resources such as back-up staff and protocols to reduce resident density within the facility, which may help stem outbreaks.

Comparative Performance of Private Equity-Owned US Nursing Homes During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: It is not known whether nursing homes with private equity (PE) ownership have performed better or worse than other nursing homes during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Objective: To evaluate the comparative performance of PE-owned nursing homes on COVID-19 outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of 11 470 US nursing homes used the Nursing Home COVID-19 Public File from May 17, 2020, to July 2, 2020, to compare outcomes of PE-owned nursing homes with for-profit, nonprofit, and government-owned homes, adjusting for facility characteristics. Exposure: Nursing home ownership status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported number of COVID-19 cases and deaths and deaths by any cause per 1000 residents; possessing 1-week supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE); staffing shortages. Results: Of 11 470 nursing homes, 7793 (67.9%) were for-profit; 2523 (22.0%), nonprofit; 511 (5.3%), government-owned; and 543 (4.7%), PE-owned; with mean (SD) COVID-19 cases per 1000 residents of 88.3 [2.1], 67.0 [3.8], 39.8 [7.6] and 110.8 [8.1], respectively. Mean (SD) COVID-19 deaths per 1000 residents were 61.9 [1.6], 66.4 [3.0], 56.2 [7.3], and 78.9 [5.9], respectively; mean deaths by any cause per 1000 residents were 78.1 [1.3], 91.5 [2.2], 67.6 [4.5], and 87.9 [4.8], respectively. In adjusted analyses, government-owned homes had 35.5 (95% CI, -69.2 to -1.8; P = .03) fewer COVID-19 cases per 1000 residents than PE-owned nursing homes. Cases in PE-owned nursing homes were not statistically different compared with for-profit and nonprofit facilities; nor were there statistically significant differences in COVID-19 deaths or deaths by any cause between PE-owned nursing homes and for-profit, nonprofit, and government-owned facilities. For-profit, nonprofit, and government-owned nursing homes were 10.5% (9.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.8 to 16.3 percentage points; P = .006), 15.0% (13.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 5.5 to 20.6 percentage points; P < .001), and 17.0% (14.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 6.5 to 23.0 percentage points; P < .001), respectively, more likely to have at least a 1-week supply of N95 masks than PE-owned nursing homes. They were 24.3% (21.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 11.8 to 30.8 percentage points; P < .001), 30.7% (27.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 17.7 to 36.2 percentage points; P < .001), and 29.2% (25.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 16.1 to 35.3 percentage points; P < .001) more likely to have a 1-week supply of medical gowns than PE-owned nursing homes. Government nursing homes were more likely to have a shortage of nurses (6.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.0 to 13.9 percentage points; P = .049) than PE-owned nursing homes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, PE-owned nursing homes performed comparably on staffing levels, resident cases, and deaths with nursing homes with other types of ownership, although their shortages of PPE may warrant monitoring.