Health Care Contact Days Among Older Adults in Traditional Medicare : A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Days spent obtaining health care outside the home can represent not only access to needed care but also substantial time, effort, and cost, especially for older adults and their care partners. Yet, these "health care contact days" have not been characterized. OBJECTIVE: To assess composition of, variation and patterns in, and factors associated with contact days among older adults. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Nationally representative 2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data linked to claims. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older in traditional Medicare. MEASUREMENTS: Ambulatory contact days (days with a primary care or specialty care office visit, test, imaging, procedure, or treatment) and total contact days (ambulatory days plus institutional days in a hospital, emergency department, skilled-nursing facility, or hospice facility); multivariable mixed-effects Poisson regression to identify patient factors associated with contact days. RESULTS: In weighted results, 6619 older adults (weighted: 29 694 084) had means of 17.3 ambulatory contact days (SD, 22.1) and 20.7 total contact days (SD, 27.5) in the year; 11.1% had 50 or more total contact days. Older adults spent most contact days on ambulatory care, including primary care visits (mean [SD], 3.5 [5.0]), specialty care visits (5.7 [9.6]), tests (5.3 [7.2]), imaging (2.6 [3.9]), procedures (2.5 [6.4]), and treatments (5.7 [13.3]). Half of the test and imaging days were not on the same days as office visits (48.6% and 50.1%, respectively). Factors associated with more ambulatory contact days included younger age, female sex, White race, non-Hispanic ethnicity, higher income, higher educational attainment, urban residence, more chronic conditions, and care-seeking behaviors (for example, "go to the doctor…as soon as (I)…feel bad"). LIMITATION: Study population limited to those in traditional Medicare. CONCLUSION: On average, older adults spent 3 weeks in the year getting care outside the home. These contact days were mostly ambulatory and varied widely not only by number of chronic conditions but also by sociodemographic factors, geography, and care-seeking behaviors. These results show factors beyond clinical need that may drive overuse and underuse of contact days and opportunities to optimize this person-centered measure to reduce patient burdens, for example, via care coordination. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging.

Changes in Cardiovascular Spending, Care Utilization, and Clinical Outcomes Associated With Participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement - Advanced.

BACKGROUND: Bundled Payments for Care Improvement - Advanced (BPCI-A) is a Medicare initiative that aims to incentivize reductions in spending for episodes of care that start with a hospitalization and end 90 days after discharge. Cardiovascular disease, an important driver of Medicare spending, is one of the areas of focus BPCI-A. It is unknown whether BPCI-A is associated with spending reductions or quality improvements for the 3 cardiovascular medical events or 5 cardiovascular procedures in the model. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we conducted difference-in-differences analyses using Medicare claims for patients discharged between January 1, 2017, and September 30, 2019, to assess differences between BPCI-A hospitals and matched nonparticipating control hospitals. Our primary outcomes were the differential changes in spending, before versus after implementation of BPCI-A, for cardiac medical and procedural conditions at BPCI-A hospitals compared with controls. Secondary outcomes included changes in patient complexity, care utilization, healthy days at home, readmissions, and mortality. RESULTS: Baseline spending for cardiac medical episodes at BPCI-A hospitals was $25 606. The differential change in spending for cardiac medical episodes at BPCI-A versus control hospitals was $16 (95% CI, -$228 to $261; P=0.90). Baseline spending for cardiac procedural episodes at BPCI-A hospitals was $37 961. The differential change in spending for cardiac procedural episodes was $171 (95% CI, -$429 to $772; P=0.58). There were minimal differential changes in physicians' care patterns such as the complexity of treated patients or in their care utilization. At BPCI-A versus control hospitals, there were no significant differential changes in rates of 90-day readmissions (differential change, 0.27% [95% CI, -0.25% to 0.80%] for medical episodes; differential change, 0.31% [95% CI, -0.98% to 1.60%] for procedural episodes) or mortality (differential change, -0.14% [95% CI, -0.50% to 0.23%] for medical episodes; differential change, -0.36% [95% CI, -1.25% to 0.54%] for procedural episodes). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in BPCI-A was not associated with spending reductions, changes in care utilization, or quality improvements for the cardiovascular medical events or procedures offered in the model.

Disparities in Access to Outpatient Surgery Related to Removal of Procedures from Medicare's Inpatient Only List.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the shift from inpatient to outpatient surgical care related to changes to the Inpatient Only List in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The extent to which procedures shift from the inpatient to outpatient setting following removal from Medicare's Inpatient Only List is unknown. Many health systems also encouraged a shift from inpatient to outpatient surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessing the relative change in outpatient surgical utilization for procedures removed from the Inpatient Only List during COVID-19 would provide empirical data on whether reimbursement policy changes or inpatient capacity needs during the pandemic were more likely to shift care from the inpatient to outpatient setting. METHODS: We used administrative data from the PINC AI Healthcare Database across 723 hospitals to determine the within-facility relative change in outpatient vs inpatient procedural volume in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019 using a multivariable conditional fixed-effects Poisson regression model. We also assessed whether outpatient surgical utilization varied by race and ethnicity. Using a multivariable linear probability model, we assessed the absolute change in risk-adjusted 30-day complication, readmission, and mortality rates for inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures. RESULTS: In 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019 respectively, there was a 5.3% (95% CI, 1.4% to 9.5%) and 41.3% (95% CI 33.1% to 50.0%) relative increase in outpatient elective procedural volume. Outpatient procedural volume increased most significantly for hip replacement which was removed from the Inpatient Only List in 2020 (increase in outpatient surgical utilization of 589.3% (95% CI, 524.9% to 660.3%)). The shift to outpatient hip replacement procedures was concentrated among White patients; in 2021, hip replacement procedural volume increased by 271.1% (95% CI, 241.2% and 303.7%) for White patients and 29.5% (95% CI, 24.4% and 34.9%) for Black patients compared to 2019 levels. There were no consistent or large changes in 30-day complication, readmission, or mortality risk in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019. CONCLUSION: There was a modest increase in elective outpatient surgeries and a pronounced increase in outpatient orthopedic surgeries which were removed from the Inpatient Only List during the COVID-19 pandemic. Utilization of outpatient surgical procedures was concentrated among White patients.

Year 1 of the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement-Advanced Model.

BACKGROUND: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation launched the Medicare Bundled Payments for Care Improvement-Advanced (BPCI-A) program for hospitals in October 2018. Information is needed about the effects of the program on health care utilization and Medicare payments. METHODS: We conducted a modified segmented regression analysis using Medicare claims and including patients with discharge dates from January 2017 through September 2019 to assess differences between BPCI-A participants and two control groups: hospitals that never joined the BPCI-A program (nonjoining hospitals) and hospitals that joined the BPCI-A program in January 2020, after the conclusion of the intervention period (late-joining hospitals). The primary outcomes were the differences in changes in quarterly trends in 90-day per-episode Medicare payments and the percentage of patients with readmission within 90 days after discharge. Secondary outcomes were mortality, volume, and case mix. RESULTS: A total of 826 BPCI-A participant hospitals were compared with 2016 nonjoining hospitals and 334 late-joining hospitals. Among BPCI-A hospitals, the mean baseline 90-day per-episode Medicare payment was $27,315; the change in the quarterly trends in the intervention period as compared with baseline was -$78 per quarter. Among nonjoining hospitals, the mean baseline 90-day per-episode Medicare payment was $25,994; the change in quarterly trends as compared with baseline was -$26 per quarter (difference between nonjoining hospitals and BPCI-A hospitals, $52 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 34 to 70] per quarter; P<0.001; 0.2% of the baseline payment). Among late-joining hospitals, the mean baseline 90-day per-episode Medicare payment was $26,807; the change in the quarterly trends as compared with baseline was $4 per quarter (difference between late-joining hospitals and BPCI-A hospitals, $82 [95% CI, 41 to 122] per quarter; P<0.001; 0.3% of the baseline payment). There were no meaningful differences in the changes with regard to readmission, mortality, volume, or case mix. CONCLUSIONS: The BPCI-A program was associated with small reductions in Medicare payments among participating hospitals as compared with control hospitals. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.).

Antiretroviral Therapy Use and Disparities Among Medicare Beneficiaries with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral therapy (ART) is recommended for all people with HIV. Understanding ART use among Medicare beneficiaries with HIV is therefore critically important for improving quality and equity of care among the growing population of older adults with HIV. However, a comprehensive national evaluation of filled ART prescriptions among Medicare beneficiaries is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in ART use among Medicare beneficiaries with HIV from 2013 to 2019 and to evaluate whether racial and ethnic disparities in ART use are narrowing over time. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SUBJECTS: Traditional Medicare beneficiaries with Part D living with HIV in 2013-2019. MAIN MEASURES: Months of filled ART prescriptions each year. KEY RESULTS: Compared with beneficiaries not on ART, beneficiaries on ART were younger, less likely to be Black (41.6% vs. 47.0%), and more likely to be Hispanic (13.1% vs. 9.7%). While the share of beneficiaries who filled ART prescriptions for 10 + months/year improved (+ 0.48 percentage points/year [p.p.y.], 95% CI 0.34-0.63, p < 0.001), 25.8% of beneficiaries did not fill ART for 10 + months in 2019. Between 2013 and 2019, the proportion of beneficiaries who filled ART for 10 + months improved for Black beneficiaries (65.8 to 70.3%, + 0.66 p.p.y., 95% CI 0.43-0.89, p < 0.001) and White beneficiaries (74.8 to 77.4%, + 0.38 p.p.y.; 95% CI 0.19-0.58, p < 0.001), while remaining stable for Hispanic beneficiaries (74.5 to 75.0%, + 0.12 p.p.y., 95% CI - 0.24-0.49, p = 0.51). Although Black-White disparities in ART use narrowed over time, the share of beneficiaries who filled ART prescriptions for 10 + months/year was significantly lower among Black beneficiaries relative to White beneficiaries each year. CONCLUSIONS: ART use improved from 2013 to 2019 among Medicare beneficiaries with HIV. However, about 25% of beneficiaries did not consistently fill ART prescriptions within a given year. Despite declining differences between Black and White beneficiaries, concerning disparities in ART use persist.

Effect of Medicare Advantage on Hospital Readmission and Mortality Rankings.

BACKGROUND: Medicare links hospital performance on readmissions and mortality to payment solely on the basis of outcomes among fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries. Whether including Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries, who account for nearly half of all Medicare beneficiaries, in the evaluation of hospital performance affects rankings is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine if the inclusion of MA beneficiaries in readmission and mortality measures reclassifies hospital performance rankings compared with current measures. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Population-based. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitals participating in the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program or Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. MEASUREMENTS: Using the 100% Medicare files for FFS and MA claims, the authors calculated 30-day risk-adjusted readmissions and mortality for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and pneumonia on the basis of only FFS beneficiaries and then both FFS and MA beneficiaries. Hospitals were divided into quintiles of performance based on FFS beneficiaries only, and the proportion of hospitals that were reclassified to a different performance group with the inclusion of MA beneficiaries was calculated. RESULTS: Of the hospitals in the top-performing quintile for readmissions and mortality based on FFS beneficiaries, between 21.6% and 30.2% were reclassified to a lower-performing quintile with the inclusion of MA beneficiaries. Similar proportions of hospitals were reclassified from the bottom performance quintile to a higher one across all measures and conditions. Hospitals with a higher proportion of MA beneficiaries were more likely to improve in performance rankings. LIMITATION: Hospital performance measurement and risk adjustment differed slightly from those used by Medicare. CONCLUSION: Approximately 1 in 4 top-performing hospitals is reclassified to a lower performance group when MA beneficiaries are included in the evaluation of hospital readmissions and mortality. These findings suggest that Medicare's current value-based programs provide an incomplete picture of hospital performance. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Longitudinal Trends in 30-Day Mortality Between Multi-Site and Single-Site Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Quality leaders are concerned that creation of multi-hospital health systems may lead to surgeons traveling to and from distant hospitals and thus to more fragmented surgical care and worse outcomes for their patients. Despite this concern, little empirical data exist on outcomes of multi-site versus single-site surgeons. METHODS: Using national Medicare data, we assessed trends in the number of multi-site vs. single-site surgeons from 2011 to 2016. We performed a multivariable regression analysis to compare overall 30-day mortality differences, stratified by system and rural status, and examined trends over time. RESULTS: The number of multi-site surgeons and the percentage of multi-site surgeons per hospital decreased over time (24.2%-19.0%; 44.3%-41.8%). Overall, multi-site surgeons had lower 30-day mortality than single-site surgeons (2.24% vs 2.50%, P < 0.01). When stratified by system status, multi-site surgeons performed better in-system (2.47% vs 2.58%, P < 0.01); by rural status, multi-site surgeons had lower mortality in non-rural hospitals (2.42% vs 2.51%, P < 0.01). The statistically significant but small mortality advantage of multi-site versus single-site surgeons decreased over time, such that by 2016 there was no difference in outcomes between multi-site and single-site surgeons. CONCLUSION: For the majority of study years, multi-site surgeons had lower 30-day mortality than single-site surgeons, but this trend narrowed until outcomes were equivalent by 2016. Surgeons operating at multiple hospitals can provide surgical care to patients without any evidence of increased mortality.

Care Disruption During COVID-19: a National Survey of Hospital Leaders.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused massive disruption in usual care delivery patterns in hospitals across the USA, and highlighted long-standing inequities in health care delivery and outcomes. Its effect on hospital operations, and whether the magnitude of the effect differed for hospitals serving historically marginalized populations, is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the perspectives of hospital leaders on the effects of COVID-19 on their facilities' operations and patient outcomes. METHODS: A survey was administered via print and electronic means to hospital leaders at 588 randomly sampled acute-care hospitals participating in Medicare's Inpatient Prospective Payment System, fielded from November 2020 to June 2021. Summary statistics were tabulated, and responses were adjusted for sampling strategy and non-response. RESULTS: There were 203 responses to the survey (41.6%), with 20.7% of respondents representing safety-net hospitals and 19.7% representing high-minority hospitals. Over three-quarters of hospitals reported COVID testing shortages, about two-thirds reported staffing shortages, and 78.8% repurposed hospital spaces to intensive care units, with a slightly higher proportion of high-minority hospitals reporting these effects. About half of respondents felt that non-COVID inpatients received worsened quality or outcomes during peak COVID surges, and almost two-thirds reported worsened quality or outcomes for outpatient non-COVID patients as well, with few differences by hospital safety-net or minority status. Over 80% of hospitals participated in alternative payment models prior to COVID, and a third of these reported decreasing these efforts due to the pandemic, with no differences between safety-net and high-minority hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 significantly disrupted the operations of hospitals across the USA, with hospitals serving patients in poverty and racial and ethnic minorities reporting relatively similar care disruption as non-safety-net and lower-minority hospitals.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Inpatient and Outpatient Utilization of Bariatric Surgery.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, deferral of inpatient elective surgical procedures served as a primary mechanism to increase surge inpatient capacity. Given the benefit of bariatric surgery on treating obesity and associated comorbidities, decreased access to bariatric surgery may have long-term public health consequences. Understanding the extent of the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic to bariatric surgery will help health systems plan for appropriate access. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an observational cohort study using the PINC AI Healthcare Database from 1/1/2019-6/31/2021. A Poisson regression model with patient characteristics and hospital-fixed effects was used to assess the relative monthly within-hospital reduction in surgical encounters, variations by race and ethnicity, and shift from inpatient to outpatient procedures. A multivariate linear probability model was used to assess the change in 30-day readmissions from 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019. RESULTS: Among 309 hospitals, there were 46,539 bariatric procedures conducted in 2019 with a 14.8% reduction in volume to 39,641 procedures in 2020. There were 22,642 bariatric procedures observed from January to June of 2021. The most pronounced decrease in volume occurred in April with an 89.7% relative reduction from 2019. Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to receive bariatric surgery after the height of the pandemic compared to white patients. A clinically significant shift from inpatient to outpatient bariatric surgical procedures was not observed. Relative to 2019, there were no significant differences in bariatric surgical readmission rates. CONCLUSION: During the pandemic there was a sizable decrease in bariatric surgical volume. There did not appear to be disparities in access to bariatric surgery for minority patients. We did not observe a meaningful shift toward outpatient bariatric surgical procedures. Post-pandemic, monitoring is needed to assess if hospitals have been able to meet the demand for bariatric surgical procedures.

A Multilevel Primary Care Intervention to Improve Follow-Up of Overdue Abnormal Cancer Screening Test Results: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Realizing the benefits of cancer screening requires testing of eligible individuals and processes to ensure follow-up of abnormal results. Objective: To test interventions to improve timely follow-up of overdue abnormal breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening results. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, cluster randomized clinical trial conducted at 44 primary care practices within 3 health networks in the US enrolling patients with at least 1 abnormal cancer screening test result not yet followed up between August 24, 2020, and December 13, 2021. Intervention: Automated algorithms developed using data from electronic health records (EHRs) recommended follow-up actions and times for abnormal screening results. Primary care practices were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to (1) usual care, (2) EHR reminders, (3) EHR reminders and outreach (a patient letter was sent at week 2 and a phone call at week 4), or (4) EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation (a patient letter was sent at week 2 and a navigator outreach phone call at week 4). Patients, physicians, and practices were unblinded to treatment assignment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was completion of recommended follow-up within 120 days of study enrollment. The secondary outcomes included completion of recommended follow-up within 240 days of enrollment and completion of recommended follow-up within 120 days and 240 days for specific cancer types and levels of risk. Results: Among 11 980 patients (median age, 60 years [IQR, 52-69 years]; 64.8% were women; 83.3% were White; and 15.4% were insured through Medicaid) with an abnormal cancer screening test result for colorectal cancer (8245 patients [69%]), cervical cancer (2596 patients [22%]), breast cancer (1005 patients [8%]), or lung cancer (134 patients [1%]) and abnormal test results categorized as low risk (6082 patients [51%]), medium risk (3712 patients [31%]), or high risk (2186 patients [18%]), the adjusted proportion who completed recommended follow-up within 120 days was 31.4% in the EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation group (n = 3455), 31.0% in the EHR reminders and outreach group (n = 2569), 22.7% in the EHR reminders group (n = 3254), and 22.9% in the usual care group (n = 2702) (adjusted absolute difference for comparison of EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation group vs usual care, 8.5% [95% CI, 4.8%-12.0%], P < .001). The secondary outcomes showed similar results for completion of recommended follow-up within 240 days and by subgroups for cancer type and level of risk for the abnormal screening result. Conclusions and Relevance: A multilevel primary care intervention that included EHR reminders and patient outreach with or without patient navigation improved timely follow-up of overdue abnormal cancer screening test results for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03979495.

Spending outcomes among patients with cancer in accountable care organizations 4 years after implementation.

BACKGROUND: The long-term impact of affordable care organizations (ACOs) on cancer spending remains unknown. The authors examined whether practices that became ACOs altered their spending for patients with cancer in the first 4 years after ACO implementation. METHODS: By using national Medicare data from 2011 to 2017, a random sample of 20% of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older with cancer was obtained (n = 866,532), and each patient was assigned to a practice. Practices that became ACOs in the Medicare Shared Savings Program were matched to non-ACO practices. Total, cancer-specific, and service category-specific yearly spending per patient was calculated. A difference-in-differences model was used to determine spending changes associated with ACO status for patients with cancer in the 4 years after ACO implementation. RESULTS: The introduction of ACOs did not have a significant impact on overall spending for patients with cancer in the 2 years after ACO implementation (difference, -$38; 95% CI, -$268, $191; P = .74). Changes in spending also did not differ between ACO and non-ACO patients within service categories or among the 11 cancer types examined. The lack of difference in spending for patients with cancer in ACO and non-ACO practices persisted in the third and fourth years after ACO implementation (difference, -$120; 95% CI, -$284, $525; P = .56). CONCLUSIONS: ACOs did not significantly change spending for patients with cancer in the first 4 years after their implementation compared with non-ACOs. This prompts a reevaluation of the current efficacy of ACOs in reducing spending for cancer care and may encourage policymakers to reconsider the incentive structures of ACOs. LAY SUMMARY: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) were developed to curtail health care spending and improve quality, but their effects on cancer spending in their first 2 years have been minimal. The long-term impact of ACOs on cancer spending remains unknown. By using data from 866,532 Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, the authors observed that the association of a practice with an ACO did not significantly change total yearly spending per patient in the first 4 years after ACO implementation. This finding prompts a reevaluation of the current efficacy of ACOs in reducing spending for cancer care.

Two-Year Evaluation of Mandatory Bundled Payments for Joint Replacement.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, Medicare implemented Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR), a national mandatory bundled-payment model for hip or knee replacement in randomly selected metropolitan statistical areas. Hospitals in such areas receive bonuses or pay penalties based on Medicare spending per hip- or knee-replacement episode (defined as the hospitalization plus 90 days after discharge). METHODS: We conducted difference-in-differences analyses using Medicare claims from 2015 through 2017, encompassing the first 2 years of bundled payments in the CJR program. We evaluated hip- or knee-replacement episodes in 75 metropolitan statistical areas randomly assigned to mandatory participation in the CJR program (bundled-payment metropolitan statistical areas, hereafter referred to as "treatment" areas) as compared with those in 121 control areas, before and after implementation of the CJR model. The primary outcomes were institutional spending per hip- or knee-replacement episode (i.e., Medicare payments to institutions, primarily to hospitals and post-acute care facilities), rates of postsurgical complications, and the percentage of "high-risk" patients (i.e., patients for whom there was an elevated risk of spending - a measure of patient selection). Analyses were adjusted for the hospital and characteristics of the patients and procedures. RESULTS: From 2015 through 2017, there were 280,161 hip- or knee-replacement procedures in 803 hospitals in treatment areas and 377,278 procedures in 962 hospitals in control areas. After the initiation of the CJR model, there were greater decreases in institutional spending per joint-replacement episode in treatment areas than in control areas (differential change [i.e., the between-group difference in the change from the period before the CJR model], -$812, or a -3.1% differential decrease relative to the treatment-group baseline; P<0.001). The differential reduction was driven largely by a 5.9% relative decrease in the percentage of episodes in which patients were discharged to post-acute care facilities. The CJR program did not have a significant differential effect on the composite rate of complications (P=0.67) or on the percentage of joint-replacement procedures performed in high-risk patients (P=0.81). CONCLUSIONS: In the first 2 years of the CJR program, there was a modest reduction in spending per hip- or knee-replacement episode, without an increase in rates of complications. (Funded by the Commonwealth Fund and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health.).

ACO Spending and Utilization Among Medicare Patients at the End of Life: an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life (EOL) costs constitute a substantial portion of healthcare spending in the USA and have been increasing. ACOs may offer an opportunity to improve quality and curtail EOL spending. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether practices that became ACOs altered spending and utilization at the EOL. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Medicare claims. PATIENTS: We assigned patients who died in 2012 and 2015 to an ACO or non-ACO practice. Practices that converted to ACOs in 2013 or 2014 were matched to non-ACOs in the same region. A total of 23,643 ACO patients were matched to 23,643 non-ACO patients. MAIN MEASURES: Using a difference-in-differences model, we examined changes in EOL spending and care utilization after ACO implementation. KEY RESULTS: The introduction of ACOs did not significantly impact overall spending for patients in the last 6 months of life (difference-in-difference (DID) = $192, 95%CI -$841 to $1125, P = 0.72). Changes in spending did not differ between ACO and non-ACO patients across spending categories (inpatient, outpatient, physician services, skilled nursing, home health, hospice). No differences were seen between ACO and non-ACO patients in rates of ED visits, inpatient admissions, ICU admission, mean healthy days at home, and mean hospice days at 180 and 30 days prior to death. However, non-ACO patients had a significantly greater increase in hospice utilization compared to ACO patients at 180 days (DID P-value = 0.02) and 30 days (DID P-value = 0.01) prior to death. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of hospice care utilization, spending and utilization were not different between ACOs and non-ACO patients at the EOL. Longer follow-up may be necessary to evaluate the impact of ACOs on EOL spending and care.

Changes in Employment Status and Access to Care During COVID-19 Pandemic Among Low-Income Adults in 4 Southern States.

BACKGROUND: While the impact of the COVID-19 recession on the economy is clear, there is limited evidence on how the COVID-19 pandemic-related job losses among low-income people may have affected their access to health care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of job loss during the pandemic with insurance coverage and access to and affordability of health care among low-income adults. DESIGN: Using a random digit dialing telephone survey from October 2020 to December 2020 of low-income adults in 4 states-Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Texas-we conducted a series of multivariable logistic regression analyses, adjusting for demographics, chronic conditions, and state of residence. PARTICIPANTS: US citizens aged 19-64 with a family income less than 138% of the federal poverty line who became newly unemployed during pandemic, remained employed during pandemic, or were chronically unemployed before and during the pandemic. MAIN MEASURES: Rates of insurance, type of insurance coverage, measures of access to/affordability of care, and food/housing security KEY RESULTS: Of 1,794 respondents, 14.5% were newly unemployed, 49.6% were chronically unemployed, and 35.7% were employed. The newly unemployed were slightly younger and more likely Black or Latino. The newly unemployed were more likely to report uninsurance compared to the employed (+16.4 percentage points, 95% CI 6.0-26.9), and the chronically unemployed (+26.4 percentage points, 95% CI 16.2-36.6), mostly driven by Texas' populations. The newly unemployed also reported lower rates of access to care and higher rates of financial barriers to care. They were also more likely to report food and housing insecurity compared to others. CONCLUSIONS: In a survey of 4 Southern States during pandemic, the newly unemployed had higher rates of uninsurance and worse access to care-largely due to financial barriers-and reported more housing and food insecurity than other groups. Our study highlights the vulnerability of low-income populations who experienced a job loss, especially in Texas, which did not expand Medicaid.

Predictors of Success in the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Program.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals participating in Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program were incented to reduce Medicare payments for episodes of care. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that influenced whether or not hospitals were able to save in the BPCI program, how the cost of different services changed to produce those savings, and if "savers" had lower or decreased quality of care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: BPCI-participating hospitals. MAIN MEASURES: We designated hospitals that met the program goal of decreasing costs by at least 2% from baseline in average Medicare payments per 90-day episode as "savers." We used regression models to determine condition-level, patient-level, hospital-level, and market-level characteristics associated with savings. KEY RESULTS: In total, 421 hospitals participated in BPCI, resulting in 2974 hospital-condition combinations. Major joint replacement of the lower extremity had the highest proportion of savers (77.6%, average change in payments -$2235) and complex non-cervical spinal fusion had the lowest (22.2%, average change +$8106). Medical conditions had a higher proportion of savers than surgical conditions (11% more likely to save, P=0.001). Conditions that were mostly urgent/emergent had a higher proportion of savers than conditions that were mostly elective (6% more likely to save, P=0.007). Having higher than median costs at baseline was associated with saving (OR: 3.02, P<0.001). Hospitals with more complex patients were less likely to save (OR: 0.77, P=0.003). Savings occurred across both inpatient and post-acute care, and there were no decrements in clinical care associated with being a saver. CONCLUSIONS: Certain conditions may be more amenable than others to saving under bundled payments, and hospitals with high costs at baseline may perform well under programs which use hospitals' own baseline costs to set targets. Findings may have implications for the BPCI-Advanced program and for policymakers seeking to use payment models to drive improvements in care.

Iron deficiency and biomarkers of inflammation: a 3-year prospective analysis of the DO-HEALTH trial.

BACKGROUND: The longitudinal association between iron deficiency and inflammatory biomarkers levels has not been fully explored among relatively healthy older adults. AIMS: To assess whether iron deficiency at baseline and at any yearly follow-up time point, with or without anemia, was associated with changes from baseline in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels over 3 years. METHODS: This is a post-hoc observational analysis of DO-HEALTH, a double-blind, randomized controlled trial including 2157 European community-dwelling adults age 70+. The outcomes were changes from baseline in hs-CRP and IL-6 levels, measured at 12, 24, and 36 months of follow-up. Iron deficiency was defined by soluble transferrin receptor levels > 28.1 nmol/L and baseline anemia by hemoglobin levels < 130 g/L for men and < 120 g/L for women. RESULTS: In total, 2141 participants were included in the analyses (mean age: 74.9 years, 61.5% of women, 26.8% with iron deficiency). Baseline iron deficiency was associated with greater increase in IL-6 levels (mean difference in change: 0.52 ng/L, 95%CI 0.03-1.00, P = .04) over 3 years. Iron deficiency at any yearly time point was associated with higher increases in hs-CRP (mean difference in change: 1.62 mg/L, 95%CI 0.98-2.26, P < .001) and IL-6 levels (mean difference in change: 1.33 ng/L, 95%CI 0.87-1.79, P < .001) over 3 years. No significant interaction between iron deficiency and anemia was found, suggesting that the results are independent of the anemic status. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that iron deficiency may play a role in low-grade chronic inflammation among relatively healthy older adults.

Prevalence and incidence of iron deficiency in European community-dwelling older adults: an observational analysis of the DO-HEALTH trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Iron deficiency is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in older adults. However, data on its prevalence and incidence among older adults is limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and incidence of iron deficiency in European community-dwelling older adults aged ≥ 70 years. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the DO-HEALTH trial, a 3-year clinical trial including 2157 community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 70 years from Austria, France, Germany, Portugal and Switzerland. Iron deficiency was defined as soluble transferrin receptor (sTfR) > 28.1 nmol/L. Prevalence and incidence rate (IR) of iron deficiency per 100 person-years were examined overall and stratified by sex, age group, and country. Sensitivity analysis for three commonly used definitions of iron deficiency (ferritin < 45 µg/L, ferritin < 30 µg/L, and sTfR-ferritin index > 1.5) were also performed. RESULTS: Out of 2157 participants, 2141 had sTfR measured at baseline (mean age 74.9 years; 61.5% women). The prevalence of iron deficiency at baseline was 26.8%, and did not differ by sex, but by age (35.6% in age group ≥ 80, 29.3% in age group 75-79, 23.2% in age group 70-74); P < 0.0001) and country (P = 0.02), with the highest prevalence in Portugal (34.5%) and the lowest in France (24.4%). As for the other definitions of iron deficiency, the prevalence ranged from 4.2% for ferritin < 30 µg/L to 35.3% for sTfR-ferritin index > 1.5. Occurrences of iron deficiency were observed with IR per 100 person-years of 9.2 (95% CI 8.3-10.1) and did not significantly differ by sex or age group. The highest IR per 100 person-years was observed in Austria (20.8, 95% CI 16.1-26.9), the lowest in Germany (6.1, 95% CI 4.7-8.0). Regarding the other definitions of iron deficiency, the IR per 100 person-years was 4.5 (95% CI 4.0-4.9) for ferritin < 45 µg/L, 2.4 (95% CI 2.2-2.7) for ferritin < 30 µg/L, and 12.2 (95% CI 11.0-13.5) for sTfR-ferritin index > 1.5. CONCLUSIONS: Iron deficiency is frequent among relatively healthy European older adults, with people aged ≥ 80 years and residence in Austria and Portugal associated with the highest risk.

Changes in Health and Quality of Life in US Skilled Nursing Facilities by COVID-19 Exposure Status in 2020.

Importance: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the US federal government required that skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) close to visitors and eliminate communal activities. Although these policies were intended to protect residents, they may have had unintended negative effects. Objective: To assess health outcomes among SNFs with and without known COVID-19 cases. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective observational study used US Medicare claims and Minimum Data Set 3.0 for January through November in each year beginning in 2018 and ending in 2020 including 15 477 US SNFs with 2 985 864 resident-years. Exposures: January through November of calendar years 2018, 2019, and 2020. COVID-19 diagnoses were used to assign SNFs into 2 mutually exclusive groups with varying membership by month in 2020: active COVID-19 (≥1 COVID-19 diagnosis in the current or past month) or no-known COVID-19 (no observed diagnosis by that month). Main Outcomes and Measures: Monthly rates of mortality, hospitalization, emergency department (ED) visits, and monthly changes in activities of daily living (ADLs), body weight, and depressive symptoms. Each SNF in 2018 and 2019 served as its own control for 2020. Results: In 2018-2019, mean monthly mortality was 2.2%, hospitalization 3.0%, and ED visit rate 2.9% overall. In 2020, among active COVID-19 SNFs compared with their own 2018-2019 baseline, mortality increased by 1.60% (95% CI, 1.58% to 1.62%), hospitalizations decreased by 0.10% (95% CI, -0.12% to -0.09%), and ED visit rates decreased by 0.57% (95% CI, -0.59% to -0.55%). Among no-known COVID-19 SNFs, mortality decreased by 0.15% (95% CI, -0.16% to -0.13%), hospitalizations by 0.83% (95% CI, -0.85% to -0.81%), and ED visits by 0.79% (95% CI, -0.81% to -0.77%). All changes were statistically significant. In 2018-2019, across all SNFs, residents required assistance with an additional 0.89 ADLs between January and November, and lost 1.9 lb; 27.1% had worsened depressive symptoms. In 2020, residents in active COVID-19 SNFs required assistance with an additional 0.36 ADLs (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.38), lost 3.1 lb (95% CI, -3.2 to -3.0 lb) more weight, and were 4.4% (95% CI, 4.1% to 4.7%) more likely to have worsened depressive symptoms, all statistically significant changes. In 2020, residents in no-known COVID-19 SNFs had no significant change in ADLs (-0.06 [95% CI, -0.12 to 0.01]), but lost 1.8 lb (95% CI, -2.1 to -1.5 lb) more weight and were 3.2% more likely (95% CI, 2.3% to 4.1%) to have worsened depressive symptoms, both statistically significant changes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among skilled nursing facilities in the US during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and prior to the availability of COVID-19 vaccination, mortality and functional decline significantly increased at facilities with active COVID-19 cases compared with the prepandemic period, while a modest statistically significant decrease in mortality was observed at facilities that had never had a known COVID-19 case. Weight loss and depressive symptoms significantly increased in skilled nursing facilities in the first year of the pandemic, regardless of COVID-19 status.

Healthy days at home: A population-based quality measure for cancer patients at the end of life.

BACKGROUND: Healthy Days at Home (HDAH) is a novel population-based outcome measure. In this study, its use as a potential measure for cancer patients at the end of life (EOL) was explored. METHODS: Patient demographics and health care use among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer who died over the years 2014 to 2017 were identified. The HDAH was calculated by subtracting the following components from 180 days: number of days spent in inpatient and outpatient hospital observation, the emergency room, skilled nursing facilities (SNF), inpatient psychiatry, inpatient rehabilitation, long-term hospitals, and inpatient hospice. How HDAH and its components varied by beneficiary demographics and health care market were evaluated. A patient-level linear regression model with HDAH as the outcome, hospital referral region (HRR) random effects, and market fixed effects were specified, as well as beneficiary age, sex, and comorbidities as covariates. RESULTS: The 294,751 beneficiaries at the EOL showed a mean number of 154.0 HDAH (out of 180 days). Inpatient (10.7 days) and SNF (9.7 days) resulted in the most substantial reductions in HDAH. Males had fewer adjusted HDAH (153.1 vs 155.7, P < .001) than females; Medicaid-eligible patients had fewer HDAH compared with non-Medicaid-eligible patients (152.0 vs 154.9; P < .001). Those with hematologic malignancies had the fewest number of HDAH (148.9). Across HRRs, HDAH ranged from 10.8 fewer to 10.9 more days than the national mean. At the HRR-level, home hospice was associated with greater HDAH, whereas home health was associated with fewer HDAH. CONCLUSIONS: HDAH may be a useful measure to understand, quantify, and improve patient-centered outcomes for cancer patients at EOL.

Evaluation of Medicare's Bundled Payments Initiative for Medical Conditions.

BACKGROUND: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) launched the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative in 2013. A subsequent study showed that the initiative was associated with reductions in Medicare payments for total joint replacement, but little is known about the effect of BPCI on medical conditions. METHODS: We used Medicare claims from 2013 through 2015 to identify admissions for the five most commonly selected medical conditions in BPCI: congestive heart failure (CHF), pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), sepsis, and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We used difference-in-differences analyses to assess changes in standardized Medicare payments per episode of care (defined as the hospitalization plus 90 days after discharge) for these conditions at BPCI hospitals and matched control hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 125 hospitals participated in BPCI for CHF, 105 hospitals for pneumonia, 101 hospitals for COPD, 88 hospitals for sepsis, and 73 hospitals for AMI. At baseline, the average Medicare payment per episode of care across the five conditions at BPCI hospitals was $24,280, which decreased to $23,993 during the intervention period (difference, -$286; P=0.41). Control hospitals had an average payment for all episodes of $23,901, which decreased to $23,503 during the intervention period (difference, -$398; P=0.08; difference in differences, $112; P=0.79). Changes from baseline to the intervention period in clinical complexity, length of stay, emergency department use or readmission within 30 or 90 days after hospital discharge, or death within 30 or 90 days after admission did not differ significantly between the intervention and control hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital participation in five common medical bundles under BPCI was not associated with significant changes in Medicare payments, clinical complexity, length of stay, emergency department use, hospital readmission, or mortality. (Funded by the Commonwealth Fund.).