Payment Innovation in Emergency Care: A Case for Global Clinician Budgets.

The fee-for-service funding model for US emergency department (ED) clinician groups is increasingly fragile. Traditional fee-for-service payment systems offer no financial incentives to improve quality, address population health, or make value-based clinical decisions. Fee-for-service also does not support maintaining ED capacity to handle peak demand periods. In fee-for-service, clinicians rely heavily on cross-subsidization, where high reimbursement from commercial payors offsets low reimbursement from government payors and the uninsured. Although fee-for-service survived decades of steady cuts in government reimbursement rates, it is increasingly strained because of visit volatility and the effects of the No Surprises Act, which is driving down commercial reimbursement. Financial pressures on ED clinician groups and higher hospital boarding and clinical workloads are increasing workforce attrition. Here, we propose an alternative model to address some of these fundamental issues: an all-payer-funded, voluntary global budget for ED clinician services. If designed and implemented effectively, the model could support robust clinician staffing over the long term, ensure stability in clinical workload, and potentially improve equity in payments. The model could also be combined with population health programs (eg, pre-ED and post-ED telehealth, frequent ED use programs, and other innovations), offering significant payer returns and addressing quality and value. A linked program could also change hospital incentives that contribute to boarding. Strategies exist to test and refine ED clinician global budgets through existing government programs in Maryland and potentially through state-level legislation as a precursor to broader adoption.

Defining Incidental Versus Non-incidental COVID-19 Hospitalizations.

Background Rates of COVID-19 hospitalization are an important measure of the health system burden of severe COVID-19 disease and have been closely followed throughout the pandemic. The highly transmittable, but often less severe, Omicron COVID-19 variant has led to an increase in hospitalizations with incidental COVID-19 diagnoses where COVID-19 is not the primary reason for admission. There is a strong public health need for a measure that is implementable at low cost with standard electronic health record (EHR) datasets that can separate these incidental hospitalizations from non-incidental hospitalizations where COVID-19 is the primary cause or an important contributor. Two crude metrics are in common use. The first uses in-hospital administration of dexamethasone as a marker of non-incidental COVID-19 hospitalizations. The second, used by the United States (US) CDC, relies on a limited set of COVID-19-related diagnoses (i.e., respiratory failure, pneumonia). Both measures likely undercount non-incidental COVID-19 hospitalizations. We therefore developed an improved EHR-based measure that is better able to capture the full range of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of ED visit data from a national emergency medicine group from April 2020 to August 2023. We assessed the CDC approach, the dexamethasone-based measure, and alternative approaches that rely on co-diagnoses likely to be related to COVID-19, to determine the proportion of non-incidental COVID-19 hospitalizations. Results Of the 153,325 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 at 112 general EDs in 17 US states, and admitted or transferred, our preferred measure classified 108,243 (70.6%) as non-incidental, compared to 71,066 (46.3%) using the dexamethasone measure and 77,399 (50.5%) using the CDC measure. Conclusions Identifying non-incidental COVID-19 hospitalizations using ED administration of dexamethasone or the CDC measure provides substantially lower estimates than our preferred measure.

Emergency Department Volume, Severity, and Crowding Since the Onset of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We describe emergency department (ED) visit volume, illness severity, and crowding metrics from the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic through mid-2022. METHODS: We tabulated monthly data from 14 million ED visits on ED volumes and measures of illness severity and crowding from March 2020 through August 2022 compared with the same months in 2019 in 111 EDs staffed by a national ED practice group in 18 states. RESULTS: Average monthly ED volumes fell in the early pandemic, partially recovered in 2022, but remained below 2019 levels (915 per ED in 2019 to 826.6 in 2022 for admitted patients; 3,026.9 to 2,478.5 for discharged patients). The proportion of visits assessed as critical care increased from 7.9% in 2019 to 11.0% in 2022, whereas the number of visits decreased (318,802 to 264,350). Visits billed as 99285 (the highest-acuity Evaluation and Management code for noncritical care visits) increased from 35.4% of visits in 2019 to 40.0% in 2022, whereas the number of visits decreased (1,434,454 to 952,422). Median and median of 90th percentile length of stay for admitted patients rose 32% (5.2 to 6.9 hours) and 47% (11.7 to 17.4 hours) in 2022 versus 2019. Patients leaving without treatment rose 86% (2.9% to 5.4%). For admitted psychiatric patients, the 90th percentile length of stay increased from 20 hours to more than 1 day. CONCLUSION: ED visit volumes fell early in the pandemic and have only partly recovered. Despite lower volumes, ED crowding has increased. This issue is magnified in psychiatric patients.

Effectiveness of Hospital-directed Wellness Interventions in COVID-19: A Cross-sectional Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Hospitals have implemented various wellness interventions to offset the negative effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on emergency physician morale and burnout. There is limited high quality evidence regarding effectiveness of hospital-directed wellness interventions, leaving hospitals without guidance on best practices. We sought to determine intervention effectiveness and frequency of use in the spring/summer 2020. The goal was to facilitate evidence-based guidance for hospital wellness program planning. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study we used a novel survey tool piloted at a single hospital and then distributed throughout the United States via major emergency medicine (EM) society listservs and closed social media groups. Subjects reported their morale levels using a slider scale from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest) at the time of the survey and, retrospectively, at their respective COVID-19 peak in 2020. Subjects also rated effectiveness of wellness interventions using a Likert scale from 1 (not at all effective) to 5 (very effective). Subjects indicated their hospital's usage frequency of common wellness interventions. We analyzed results using descriptive statistics and t-tests. RESULTS: Of 76,100 EM society and closed social media group members, 522 (0.69%) subjects were enrolled. Study population demographics were similar to the national emergency physician population. Morale at the time of the survey was worse (mean [M] 4.36, SD 2.29) than the spring/summer 2020 peak (M 4.57, SD 2.13) [t(458)=-2.27, P=0.024]. The most effective interventions were hazard pay (M 3.59, SD 1.12), staff debriefing groups (M 3.51, SD 1.16), and free food (M 3.34, SD 1.14). The most frequently used interventions were free food (350/522, 67.1%), support sign display (300/522, 57.5%), and daily email updates (266/522, 51.0%). Infrequently used were hazard pay (53/522, 10.2%) and staff debriefing groups (127/522, 24.3%). CONCLUSION: There is discordance between the most effective and most frequently used hospital-directed wellness interventions. Only free food was both highly effective and frequently used. Hazard pay and staff debriefing groups were the two most effective interventions but were infrequently used. Daily email updates and support sign display were the most frequently used interventions but were not as effective. Hospitals should focus effort and resources on the most effective wellness interventions.

Community Hospital Response to COVID-19 Outbreak.

Since early 2020, the world has been living through coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Westchester County, New York, was one of the hardest and earliest hit places in the United States. Working within a community emergency department amid the rise of a highly infectious disease such as COVID-19 presented many challenges, including appropriate isolation, adequate testing, personnel shortages, supply shortfalls, facility changes, and resource allocation. Here we discuss our process in navigating these complexities, including the practice changes implemented within our institution to counter these unprecedented issues. These adjustments included establishing three outdoor tents to serve as triage areas; creating overflow intensive care units through conversion of areas that had previously served as the ambulatory surgery unit, post-anesthesia care unit, and endoscopy suite; increasing critical care staff to meet unprecedented need; anticipating and adapting to medical supply shortages; and adjusting resident physician roles to meet workflow requirements. By analyzing and improving upon the processes delineated below, our healthcare system should be better prepared for future pandemics.

An Evaluation of Risk Attitudes and Risk Tolerance in Emergency Medicine Residents.

Introduction Previous studies have shown that risk attitudes and tolerance for uncertainty are significant factors in clinical decision-making, particularly in the practice of defensive medicine. These attributes have also been linked with rates of physician burnout. To date, the risk profile of emergency medicine (EM) physicians has not yet been described. Our goal was to examine the risk profile of EM residents using a widely available risk tolerance and attitude assessment tool. Methods First-, second-, and third-year residents of Thomas Jefferson University Hospital's EM residency program completed the commercially available, unmodified Risk Type Compass, a validated instrument offered by Multi-Health Systems (MHS Inc, New York, USA). Scored reports included information on residents' risk type (one of eight personality types that reflect their temperament and disposition); risk attitudes (domains where residents are more likely to engage in risky behaviors); and an overall risk tolerance indicator (RTi) (a numerical estimate of risk tolerance). RTi scores are reported as means with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results There was no significant change in RTi scores in residents across different years of their post-graduate year (PGY) training. PGY-one residents trended towards risk aversion; PGY-two residents were more risk-taking; and PGY-three residents scored in the middle. Conclusion Our pilot assessment of risk types in EM residents highlighted shifts across the years of training. Variations between members of each PGY cohort outweighed any outright differences between classes with regards to absolute risk tolerance. There was an increase in the frequency of health and safety risk-taking attitude with higher PGY class, and this was also the risk attitude that was the prominent domain for resident risk tolerance. The study was limited by sample size and single cross-sectional evaluation.