Defining a taxonomy of Medicare-funded home-based clinical care using claims data.

BACKGROUND: As more Americans age in place, it is critical to understand care delivery in the home. However, data on the range of home-based services provided by Medicare is limited. We define a taxonomy of clinical care in the home funded through fee-for-service Medicare and methods to identify receipt of those services. METHODS: We analyzed Fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare claims data from a nationally-representative cohort of older adults, the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), to identify home-based clinical care. We included 6,664 NHATS enrollees age ≥ 70 and living in the community, observed an average of 3 times each on claims-linked NHATS surveys. We examined provider and service type of home-based clinical care to identify a taxonomy of 5 types: home-based medical care (physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner visits), home-based podiatry, skilled home health care (SHHC), hospice, and other fee-for-service (FFS) home-based care. We further characterized home-based clinical care by detailed care setting and visit types. RESULTS: From 2011-2016, 17.8%-20.8% of FFS Medicare beneficiaries age ≥ 70 received Medicare-funded home-based clinical care. SHHC was the most common service (12.8%-16.1%), followed by other FFS home-based care (5.5%-6.5%), home-based medical care (3.2%-3.9%), and hospice (2.6%-3.0%). Examination of the other-FFS home-based care revealed imaging/diagnostics and laboratory testing to be the most common service. CONCLUSIONS: We define a taxonomy of clinical care provided in the home, serving 1 in 5 FFS Medicare beneficiaries. This approach can be used to identify and address research and clinical care gaps in home-based clinical care delivery.

Role of Home Health for Community-Dwelling Older Adults Near the End of Life: A Resource Beyond Hospice?

Background: Medicare home health could be leveraged to care for those near the end of life (EOL), especially for those who cannot access nor desire the Medicare hospice benefit. It is unknown what role home health currently has either preceding or as an alternative to hospice use. Objective: The aim of this study is to compare populations served and visit patterns of Medicare beneficiaries receiving home health/hospice/both near the EOL. Design: Nationally representative cohort study of National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) respondents. Setting/Subjects: A total of 1,057 U.S. decedents in NHATS from 2012 to 2017 with linked Medicare claims were included in this study. Measurements: Measurements included the proportion of decedents who received home health/hospice/both/neither (yes/no) in the last six months of life (EOL) and mean number of visits by discipline (nurse/therapist [physical/occupational speech-language pathologist]/social worker/home health aide) per 30 eligible days at home for home health/hospice/both at the EOL. The primary independent variable was the clinician discipline providing services (nurse/therapist/social worker/aide). Results: In our sample, 19.9% received home health only, 25.8% hospice only, 18.8% both, and 35.6% neither at the EOL. These populations varied in their demographic, region, and clinical characteristics. Decedents who received home health only compared with hospice only were younger (44.1% over age 85 vs. 58.4%), members of a racially/ethnically diverse group (19.7% vs. 10.9%), and with less disability (37.2% required no assistance with activities of daily living vs. 22.7%), all p values <0.05. In adjusted models, those receiving home health versus hospice received similar numbers of visits per 30 days (average 5.4/30 vs. 6.6/30), while those receiving both received more visits (10.5/30). Home health provided more therapy visits, while hospice provided more social work and aide visits. Conclusions: More than one in three Medicare decedents nationwide received home health at the EOL. Home health has the potential to serve a population not reached by hospice and improve the quality of end-of-life care.

Medicare-funded home-based clinical care for community-dwelling persons with dementia: An essential healthcare delivery mechanism.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, medical care has shifted from institutions into home settings-particularly among persons with dementia. Yet it is unknown how home-based clinical services currently support persons with dementia, and what factors shape access. METHODS: Using the National Health and Aging Trends Study linked to Medicare claims 2012-2017, we identified 6664 community-dwelling adults age ≥ 70 years enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare. Annual assessment of dementia status was determined via self-report, cognitive interview, and/or proxy assessment. Receipt of four types of home-based clinical care (home-based medical care (HBMC) (i.e., nurse practitioner, physician, or physician assistant visits), skilled home health care (SHHC), podiatry visits, and other types of home-based clinical services (e.g., behavioral health)) was assessed annually. We compared age-adjusted rates of home-based clinical care by dementia status and determined sociodemographic, health, and environmental characteristics associated with utilization of home-based clinical care among persons with dementia. RESULTS: Nearly half (44.4%) of persons with dementia received any home-based clinical care annually compared to only 14.4% of those without dementia. Persons with dementia received substantially more of each type of home-based clinical care than those without dementia including a 5-fold increased use of HBMC (95% CI = 3.8-6.2) and double the use of SHHC (95% CI = 2.0-2.5). In adjusted models, Hispanic/Latino persons with dementia were less likely to receive HBMC (OR = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.11-0.93). Use of HBMC, podiatry, and other home-based clinical care was significantly more likely among those living in residential care facilities, in the Northeast and in metropolitan areas. CONCLUSION: Although almost half of community-dwelling persons with dementia receive home-based clinical care, there is significant variation in utilization based on race/ethnicity and environmental context. Increased understanding as to how these factors impact utilization is necessary to reduce potential inequities in healthcare delivery among the dementia population.