Differences in Primary Care Follow-up After Acute Care Discharge Within and Across Health Systems: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Timely primary care follow-up after acute care discharge may improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether post-discharge follow-up rates differ among patients discharged from hospitals directly affiliated with their primary care clinic (same-site), other hospitals within their health system (same-system), and hospitals outside their health system (outside-system). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS: Adult patients of five primary care clinics within a 14-hospital health system who were discharged home after a hospitalization or emergency department (ED) stay. MAIN MEASURES: Primary care visit within 14 days of discharge. A multivariable Poisson regression model was used to estimate adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) and risk differences (aRDs), controlling for sociodemographics, acute visit characteristics, and clinic characteristics. KEY RESULTS: The study included 14,310 discharges (mean age 58.4 [SD 19.0], 59.5% female, 59.5% White, 30.3% Black), of which 57.7% were from the same-site, 14.3% same-system, and 27.9% outside-system. By 14 days, 34.5% of patients discharged from the same-site hospital received primary care follow-up compared to 27.7% of same-system discharges (aRR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.98; aRD - 6.5 percentage points (pp), 95% CI - 11.6 to - 1.5) and 20.9% of outside-system discharges (aRR 0.77, 95% CI [0.70 to 0.85]; aRD - 11.9 pp, 95% CI - 16.2 to - 7.7). Differences were greater for hospital discharges than ED discharges (e.g., aRD between same-site and outside-system - 13.5 pp [95% CI, - 20.8 to - 8.3] for hospital discharges and - 10.1 pp [95% CI, - 15.2 to - 5.0] for ED discharges). CONCLUSIONS: Patients discharged from a hospital closely affiliated with their primary care clinic were more likely to receive timely follow-up than those discharged from other hospitals within and outside their health system. Improving care transitions requires coordination across both care settings and health systems.

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.

Changes in Quality of Care after Hospital Mergers and Acquisitions.

BACKGROUND: The hospital industry has consolidated substantially during the past two decades and at an accelerated pace since 2010. Multiple studies have shown that hospital mergers have led to higher prices for commercially insured patients, but research about effects on quality of care is limited. METHODS: Using Medicare claims and Hospital Compare data from 2007 through 2016 on performance on four measures of quality of care (a composite of clinical-process measures, a composite of patient-experience measures, mortality, and the rate of readmission after discharge) and data on hospital mergers and acquisitions occurring from 2009 through 2013, we conducted difference-in-differences analyses comparing changes in the performance of acquired hospitals from the time before acquisition to the time after acquisition with concurrent changes for control hospitals that did not have a change in ownership. RESULTS: The study sample included 246 acquired hospitals and 1986 control hospitals. Being acquired was associated with a modest differential decline in performance on the patient-experience measure (adjusted differential change, -0.17 SD; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.26 to -0.07; P = 0.002; the change was analogous to a fall from the 50th to the 41st percentile) and no significant differential change in 30-day readmission rates (-0.10 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.53 to 0.34; P = 0.72) or in 30-day mortality (-0.03 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.14; P = 0.72). Acquired hospitals had a significant differential improvement in performance on the clinical-process measure (0.22 SD; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.38; P = 0.03), but this could not be attributed conclusively to a change in ownership because differential improvement occurred before acquisition. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital acquisition by another hospital or hospital system was associated with modestly worse patient experiences and no significant changes in readmission or mortality rates. Effects on process measures of quality were inconclusive. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.).

Primary Care Visits in the USA and Australia 2000-2016.

BACKGROUND: There are major concerns about the sustainability of the US primary care (PC) system. OBJECTIVE: We use similar data from the USA and Australia on adult visits to primary care physicians to examine how primary care service delivery and content in the countries have changed since the year 2001. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Longitudinal analyses of nationally representative data collected in a similar manner on outpatient visits to PC in the USA (National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, NAMCS) and Australia (Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health, BEACH), 2001-2016. MAIN MEASURES: For each visit, we ascertained the problems/diagnoses managed; the length of the visit in minutes; what medications were recorded; whether counseling, advice, or education was provided; the rate of imaging and diagnostics tests; the laboratory tests ordered; and whether the visit resulted in a referral to another physician. KEY RESULTS: Between 2001 and 2016, there were 128,770 encounters with adult patients in NAMCS and 1,338,963 in BEACH. In the USA, the proportion of encounters with 3 or more problems managed increased from 28.7 to 54.8% whereas Australia started at a lower proportion (10.6%) and increased to just 14.1%. Visit times in the USA increased from 17.2 min in 2001 to 22.9 min in 2016 as compared to 14.4 min increasing to 15.2 in Australia. There were significantly more medications recorded over time in NAMCS than BEACH (2.02 in 2001 to 3.32 in 2016, USA, and 1.10 and 1.04, Australia), and US encounters resulted in imaging studies, lab tests, or referrals with relatively increasing frequency. CONCLUSION: Relative to Australia, PC visits in the USA increasingly entail more complexity with visits that have grown comparatively longer over time, with more problems addressed, and with more content.

The Underuse of Medicare's Prevention and Coordination Codes in Primary Care : A Cross-Sectional and Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to better support primary care include the addition of primary care-focused billing codes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS). OBJECTIVE: To examine potential and actual use by primary care physicians (PCPs) of the prevention and coordination codes that have been added to the MPFS. DESIGN: Cross-sectional and modeling study. SETTING: Nationally representative claims and survey data. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare patients. MEASUREMENTS: Frequency of use and estimated Medicare revenue involving 34 billing codes representing prevention and coordination services for which PCPs could but do not necessarily bill. RESULTS: Eligibility among Medicare patients for each service ranged from 8.8% to 100%. Among eligible patients, the median use of billing codes was 2.3%, even though PCPs provided code-appropriate services to more patients, for example, to 5.0% to 60.6% of patients eligible for prevention services. If a PCP provided and billed all prevention and coordination services to half of all eligible patients, the PCP could add to the practice's annual revenue $124 435 (interquartile range [IQR], $30 654 to $226 813) for prevention services and $86 082 (IQR, $18 011 to $154 152) for coordination services. LIMITATION: Service provision based on survey questions may not reflect all billing requirements; revenues do not incorporate the compliance, billing, and opportunity costs that may be incurred when using these codes. CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians forego considerable amounts of revenue because they infrequently use billing codes for prevention and coordination services despite having eligible patients and providing code-appropriate services to some of those patients. Therefore, creating additional billing codes for distinct activities in the MPFS may not be an effective strategy for supporting primary care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging.

Evolving Practice Choices by Newly Certified and More Senior General Internists : A Cross-Sectional and Panel Comparison.

BACKGROUND: Hospital medicine has grown as a field. However, no study has examined trends in career choices by internists over the past decade. OBJECTIVE: To measure changes in practice setting for general internists. DESIGN: Using Medicare fee-for-service claims (2008 to 2018) and data from the American Board of Internal Medicine, practice setting types were measured annually for general internists initially certifying between 1990 and 2017. SETTING: General internists (non-subspecializing) treating Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. PATIENTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years and older with at least 20 evaluation and management (E&M) visits annually. MEASUREMENTS: Practice setting types were defined as hospitalist (>95% inpatient E&M), outpatient only (100% outpatient E&M), or mixed. RESULTS: 67 902 general internists, comprising 80% of all general internists initially certified from 1990 to 2017 (n = 84 581), were studied. From 2008 to 2018, both hospitalists and outpatient-only physicians increased as percentages of general internists (25% to 40% and 23% to 38%, respectively). This was accompanied by a 56% decline in the percentage of mixed-practice physicians (52% to 23%) as these physicians largely migrated to outpatient-only practice. By 2018, 71% of newly certified general internists practiced as hospitalists compared with only 8% practicing as outpatient-only physicians. Most (86% of hospitalists in 2013) had the same practice type 5 years later. This retention rate was similar across early career and more senior physicians (86% and 85% for the 1999 and 2012 initial certification cohorts, respectively) and for the outpatient-only practice type (95%) but was only 57% for the mixed practice type. LIMITATION: Practice setting measurement relied only on Medicare fee-for-service claims. CONCLUSION: Newly certified general internists are largely choosing hospital medicine as their career choice whereas more senior physicians increasingly see patients only in the outpatient setting. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: This study did not receive direct funding.

Differences in Treatment Patterns and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction for Low- and High-Income Patients in 6 Countries.

Importance: Differences in the organization and financing of health systems may produce more or less equitable outcomes for advantaged vs disadvantaged populations. We compared treatments and outcomes of older high- and low-income patients across 6 countries. Objective: To determine whether treatment patterns and outcomes for patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction differ for low- vs high-income individuals across 6 countries. Design, Setting, and Participants: Serial cross-sectional cohort study of all adults aged 66 years or older hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction from 2013 through 2018 in the US, Canada, England, the Netherlands, Taiwan, and Israel using population-representative administrative data. Exposures: Being in the top and bottom quintile of income within and across countries. Main Outcomes and Measures: Thirty-day and 1-year mortality; secondary outcomes included rates of cardiac catheterization and revascularization, length of stay, and readmission rates. Results: We studied 289 376 patients hospitalized with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 843 046 hospitalized with non-STEMI (NSTEMI). Adjusted 30-day mortality generally was 1 to 3 percentage points lower for high-income patients. For instance, 30-day mortality among patients admitted with STEMI in the Netherlands was 10.2% for those with high income vs 13.1% for those with low income (difference, -2.8 percentage points [95% CI, -4.1 to -1.5]). One-year mortality differences for STEMI were even larger than 30-day mortality, with the highest difference in Israel (16.2% vs 25.3%; difference, -9.1 percentage points [95% CI, -16.7 to -1.6]). In all countries, rates of cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention were higher among high- vs low-income populations, with absolute differences ranging from 1 to 6 percentage points (eg, 73.6% vs 67.4%; difference, 6.1 percentage points [95% CI, 1.2 to 11.0] for percutaneous intervention in England for STEMI). Rates of coronary artery bypass graft surgery for patients with STEMI in low- vs high-income strata were similar but for NSTEMI were generally 1 to 2 percentage points higher among high-income patients (eg, 12.5% vs 11.0% in the US; difference, 1.5 percentage points [95% CI, 1.3 to 1.8 ]). Thirty-day readmission rates generally also were 1 to 3 percentage points lower and hospital length of stay generally was 0.2 to 0.5 days shorter for high-income patients. Conclusions and Relevance: High-income individuals had substantially better survival and were more likely to receive lifesaving revascularization and had shorter hospital lengths of stay and fewer readmissions across almost all countries. Our results suggest that income-based disparities were present even in countries with universal health insurance and robust social safety net systems.

National Trends in Antihypertensive Treatment Among Older Adults by Race and Presence of Comorbidity, 2008 to 2017.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, hypertension guidelines for older adults endorsed increased use of fixed-dose combinations, prioritized thiazide diuretics and calcium channel blockers (CCBs) for Black patients, and no longer recommend beta-blockers as first-line therapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate older adults' antihypertensive use following guideline changes. DESIGN: Time series analysis. PATIENTS: Twenty percent national sample of Medicare Part D beneficiaries aged 66 years and older with hypertension. INTERVENTION: Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC8) guidelines MAIN MEASURES: Quarterly trends in prevalent and initial antihypertensive use were examined before (2008 to 2013) and after (2014 to 2017) JNC8. Analyses were conducted among all beneficiaries with hypertension, beneficiaries without chronic conditions that might influence antihypertensive selection (hypertension-only cohort), and among Black patients, given race-based guideline recommendations. KEY RESULTS: The number of beneficiaries with hypertension increased from 1,978,494 in 2008 to 2,809,680 in 2017, the proportions using antihypertensives increased from 80.3 to 81.2%, and the proportion using multiple classes and fixed-dose combinations declined (60.8 to 58.1% and 20.7 to 15.1%, respectively, all P<.01). Prior to JNC8, the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and CCBs was increasing. Use of CCBs as initial therapy increased more rapidly following JNC8 (relative change in quarterly trend 0.15% [95% CI, 0.13-0.18%), especially among Black beneficiaries (relative change 0.44% [95% CI, 0.21-0.68%]). Contrary to guidelines, the use of thiazides and combinations as initial therapy consistently decreased in the hypertension-only cohort (13.8 to 8.3% and 25.1 to 15.7% respectively). By 2017, 65.9% of Black patients in the hypertension-only cohort were initiated on recommended first-line or combination therapy compared to 80.3% of non-Black patients. CONCLUSIONS: Many older adults, particularly Black patients, continue to be initiated on antihypertensive classes not recommended as first-line, indicating opportunities to improve the effectiveness and equity of hypertension care and potentially reduce antihypertensive regimen complexity.

Surgical Outcomes in Canada and the United States: An Analysis of the ACS-NSQIP Clinical Registry.

BACKGROUND: There has been longstanding uncertainty over whether lower healthcare spending in Canada might be associated with inferior outcomes for hospital-based care. We hypothesized that mortality and surgical complication rates would be higher for patients who underwent four common surgical procedures in Canada as compared to the US. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all adults who underwent hip fracture repair, colectomy, pancreatectomy, or spine surgery in 96 Canadian and 585 US hospitals participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP) between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019. We compared patients with respect to demographic characteristics and comorbidity. We then compared unadjusted and adjusted outcomes within 30-days of surgery for patients in Canada and the US including: (1) Mortality; (2) A composite constituting 1-or-more of the following complications (cardiac arrest; myocardial infarction; pneumonia; renal failure/; return to operating room; surgical site infection; sepsis; unplanned intubation). RESULTS: Our hip fracture cohort consisted of 21,166 patients in Canada (22.3%) and 73,817 in the US (77.7%), for colectomy 21,279 patients in Canada (8.9%) and 218,307 (91.1%), for pancreatectomy 873 (7.8%) in Canada and 12,078 (92.2%) in the US, and for spine surgery 14,088 (5.3%) and 252,029 (94.7%). Patient sociodemographics and comorbidity were clinically similar between jurisdictions. In adjusted analyses odds of death was significantly higher in Canada for two procedures (colectomy (OR 1.22; 95% CI 1.044-1.424; P = .012) and pancreatectomy (OR 2.11; 95% CI 1.26-3.56; P = .005)) and similar for hip fracture and spine surgery. Odds of the composite outcome were significantly higher in Canada for all 4 procedures, largely driven by higher risk of cardiac events and post-operative infections. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of higher rates of mortality and surgical complications within 30-days of surgery for patients in Canada as compared to the US.

Trends in Outpatient Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Implications for Primary Care, 2000 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Despite the central role of primary care in improving health system performance, there are little recent data on how use of primary care and specialists has evolved over time and its implications for the range of care coordination needed in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in outpatient care delivery and the implications for primary care provider (PCP) care coordination. DESIGN: Descriptive, repeated, cross-sectional study using Medicare claims from 2000 to 2019, with direct standardization used to control for changes in beneficiary characteristics over time. SETTING: Traditional fee-for-service Medicare. PATIENTS: 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries. MEASUREMENTS: Annual counts of outpatient visits and procedures, the number of distinct physicians seen, and the number of other physicians seen by a PCP's assigned Medicare patients. RESULTS: The proportion of Medicare beneficiaries with any PCP visit annually only slightly increased from 61.2% in 2000 to 65.7% in 2019. The mean annual number of primary care office visits per beneficiary also changed little from 2000 to 2019 (2.99 to 3.00), although the mean number of PCPs seen increased from 0.89 to 1.21 (36.0% increase). In contrast, the mean annual number of visits to specialists increased 20% from 4.05 to 4.87, whereas the mean number of unique specialists seen increased 34.2% from 1.63 to 2.18. The proportion of beneficiaries seeing 5 or more physicians annually increased from 17.5% to 30.1%. In 2000, a PCP's Medicare patient panel saw a median of 52 other physicians (interquartile range, 23 to 87), increasing to 95 (interquartile range, 40 to 164) in 2019. LIMITATION: Data were limited to Medicare beneficiaries and, because of the use of a 20% sample, may underestimate the number of other physicians seen across a PCP's entire panel. CONCLUSION: Outpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries has shifted toward more specialist care received from more physicians without increased primary care contact. This represents a substantial expansion of the coordination burden faced by PCPs. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging.

Estimated Effect on Life Expectancy of Alleviating Primary Care Shortages in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have reported that greater numbers of primary care physicians (PCPs) per population are associated with reduced population mortality, but the effect of increasing PCP density in areas of low density is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To estimate how alleviating PCP shortages might change life expectancy and mortality. DESIGN: Generalized additive models, mixed-effects models, and generalized estimating equations. SETTING: 3104 U.S. counties from 2010 to 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Children and adults. MEASUREMENTS: Age-adjusted life expectancy; all-cause mortality; and mortality due to cardiovascular disease, cancer, infectious disease, respiratory disease, and substance use or injury. RESULTS: Persons living in counties with less than 1 physician per 3500 persons in 2017 had a mean life expectancy that was 310.9 days shorter than for persons living in counties above that threshold. In the low-density counties (n = 1218), increasing the density of PCPs above the 1:3500 threshold would be expected to increase mean life expectancy by 22.4 days (median, 19.4 days [95% CI, 0.9 to 45.6 days]), and all such counties would require 17 651 more physicians, or about 14.5 more physicians per shortage county. If counties with less than 1 physician per 1500 persons (n = 2636) were to reach the 1:1500 threshold, life expectancy would be expected to increase by 56.3 days (median, 55.6 days [CI, 4.2 to 105.6 days]), and all such counties would require 95 754 more physicians, or about 36.3 more physicians per shortage county. LIMITATION: Some projections are based on extrapolations of the actual data. CONCLUSION: In counties with fewer PCPs per population, increases in PCP density would be expected to substantially improve life expectancy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Evaluation of Hospital Performance Using the Excess Days in Acute Care Measure in the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) has penalized hospitals with higher 30-day readmission rates more than $3 billion to date. Clinicians and policy experts have raised concerns that the 30-day readmission measure used in this program provides an incomplete picture of performance because it does not capture all hospital encounters that may occur after discharge. In contrast, the excess days in acute care (EDAC) measure, which currently is not used in the HRRP, captures the full spectrum of hospital encounters (emergency department, observation stay, inpatient readmission) and their associated lengths of stay within 30 days of discharge. This study of 3173 hospitals that participated in the HRRP in fiscal year 2019 compared performance on the readmission and EDAC measures and evaluated whether using the EDAC measure would change hospitals' penalty status for 3 conditions targeted by the HRRP. Overall, only moderate agreement was found on hospital performance rankings by using the readmission and EDAC measures (weighted κ statistic: heart failure, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.47]; acute myocardial infarction [AMI], 0.37 [CI, 0.35 to 0.40]; and pneumonia, 0.50 [CI, 0.47 to 0.52]). Under the HRRP, the penalty status of 769 (27.0%) of 2845 hospitals for heart failure, 581 (28.3%) of 2055 for AMI, and 724 (24.9%) of 2911 for pneumonia would change if the EDAC measure were used instead of the readmission measure to evaluate performance. Fewer small and rural hospitals would receive penalties. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should consider using the EDAC measure, which provides a more comprehensive picture of postdischarge hospital use, rather than the 30-day readmission measure to evaluate health care system performance under federal quality, reporting, and value-based programs.

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 Spending after 3 Years of the Medicare Shared Savings Program.

BACKGROUND: Health care providers who participate as an accountable care organization (ACO) in the voluntary Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) have incentives to lower spending for Medicare patients while achieving high performance on a set of quality measures. Little is known about the extent to which early savings achieved by ACOs in the program have grown and been replicated by ACOs that entered the program in later years. ACOs that are physician groups have stronger incentives to lower spending than hospital-integrated ACOs. METHODS: Using fee-for-service Medicare claims from 2009 through 2015, we performed difference-in-differences analyses to compare changes in Medicare spending for patients in ACOs before and after entry into the MSSP with concurrent changes in spending for local patients served by providers not participating in the MSSP (control group). We estimated differential changes (i.e., the between-group difference in the change from the pre-entry period) separately for hospital-integrated ACOs and physician-group ACOs that entered the MSSP in 2012, 2013, or 2014. RESULTS: MSSP participation was associated with differential spending reductions in physician-group ACOs. These reductions grew with longer participation in the program and were significantly greater than the reductions in hospital-integrated ACOs. By 2015, the mean differential change in per-patient Medicare spending was -$474 (-4.9% of the pre-entry mean, P<0.001) for physician-group ACOs that entered in 2012, -$342 (-3.5% of the pre-entry mean, P<0.001) for those that entered in 2013, and -$156 (-1.6% of the pre-entry mean, P=0.009) for those that entered in 2014. The corresponding differential changes for hospital-integrated ACOs were -$169 (P=0.005), -$18 (P=0.78), and $88 (P=0.14), which were significantly lower than for physician-group ACOs (P<0.001). Spending reductions in physician-group ACOs constituted a net savings to Medicare of $256.4 million in 2015, whereas spending reductions in hospital-integrated ACOs were offset by bonus payments. CONCLUSIONS: After 3 years of the MSSP, participation in shared-savings contracts by physician groups was associated with savings for Medicare that grew over the study period, whereas hospital-integrated ACOs did not produce savings (on average) during the same period. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging.).

Changes in Stress and Workplace Shortages Reported by U.S. Critical Care Physicians Treating Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Eleven months into the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the country faces accelerating rates of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Little is known about the experiences of critical care physicians caring for the sickest coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Our goal is to understand how high stress levels and shortages faced by these physicians during Spring 2020 have evolved. DESIGN: We surveyed (October 23, 2020 to November 16, 2020) U.S. critical care physicians treating coronavirus disease 2019 patients who participated in a National survey earlier in the pandemic (April 23, 2020 to May 3, 2020) regarding their stress and shortages they faced. SETTING: ICU. PATIENTS: Coronavirus disease 2019 patients. INTERVENTION: Irrelevant. MEASUREMENT: Physician emotional distress/physical exhaustion: low (not at all/not much), moderate, or high (a lot/extreme). Shortage indicators: insufficient ICU-trained staff and shortages in medication, equipment, or personal protective equipment requiring protocol changes. MAIN RESULTS: Of 2,375 U.S. critical care attending physicians who responded to the initial survey, we received responses from 1,356 (57.1% response rate), 97% of whom (1,278) recently treated coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Two thirds of physicians (67.6% [864]) reported moderate or high levels of emotional distress in the Spring versus 50.7% (763) in the Fall. Reports of staffing shortages persisted with 46.5% of Fall respondents (594) reporting a staff shortage versus 48.3% (617) in the Spring. Meaningful shortages of medication and equipment reported in the Spring were largely alleviated. Although personal protective equipment shortages declined by half, they remained substantial. CONCLUSIONS: Stress, staffing, and, to a lesser degree, personal protective equipment shortages faced by U.S. critical care physicians remain high. Stress levels were higher among women. Considering the persistence of these findings, rising levels of infection nationally raise concerns about the capacity of the U.S. critical care system to meet ongoing and future demands.

Variation in Rates of Hospital Admission from the Emergency Department Among Medicare Patients at the Regional, Hospital, and Physician Levels.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Rates of admission from the emergency department (ED) vary widely across regions of the country, hospitals within regions, and physicians within hospitals. Our objective was to determine the extent to which variation in admission decisions was described by differences in admission rates at these 3 levels. This understanding will serve to better target interventions to modify rates of admission where appropriate. METHODS: In this cross-sectional observational cohort study, we analyzed Medicare fee-for-service claims for ED visits from 2012 to 2015 in a 20% random sample of beneficiaries. We first estimated the total regional-, hospital-, and physician-level variations in rates of admission and their proportions of the total variation after adjusting for patient and each level's covariates. We then estimated the extent to which each level's characteristics accounted for variation at that respective level. RESULTS: Our study sample included 5,778,218 visits with 45,491 physicians at 3,480 EDs across 306 hospital referral regions. The mean rate of admission was 38.9% and ranged from 21.4% to 53.0% for physicians at the 10th and 90th percentile of the distribution, respectively. The residual (unexplained) variations at the regional, hospital, and physician levels were 13.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.2 to 15.5%), 60.1% (57.1 to 62.9%), and 26.7% (26.4 to 26.9%), respectively. Regional, hospital, and physician characteristics accounted for 9.1% (95% CI, -5.6 to 23.8%), 51.1% (48.8 to 53.5%), and 2.7% (1.3 to 4.1%), respectively, of the explained variation at their respective levels. CONCLUSION: Within-area variation, both across hospitals within a region and across physicians within a hospital, is a more substantial component of observed variation in admission rates from the ED than regional level variation. These findings suggest that variation in admission rates is at least in part related to institutional norms and cultures as well as heterogeneity of physician decisionmaking within hospitals, both of which could be targets of interventions to modify rates of admission.

The case for expanding abdominal aortic aneurysm screening.

Both the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence are re-evaluating their screening paradigms for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Currently, most countries that screen for AAA do so only in male ever-smokers between the ages of 65 and 75 years and in patients with a family history of AAA. However, these recommendations are based primarily on screening trials predating the endovascular era. The wider applicability of endovascular aneurysm repair and its safety profile, especially in the elderly, have changed the risk-benefit of repair and, by extension, screening. This is despite the decreasing prevalence of AAA thanks to improved medical therapies and lower smoking rates. This evidence summary critically examines the evidence behind screening and the potential for expanded screening.

Savings or Selection? Initial Spending Reductions in the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Considerations for Reform.

Policy Points Concerns have been raised about risk selection in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). Specifically, turnover in accountable care organization (ACO) physicians and patient panels has led to concerns that ACOs may be earning shared-savings bonuses by selecting lower-risk patients or providers with lower-risk panels. We find no evidence that changes in ACO patient populations explain savings estimates from previous evaluations through 2015. We also find no evidence that ACOs systematically manipulated provider composition or billing to earn bonuses. The modest savings and lack of risk selection in the original MSSP design suggest opportunities to build on early progress. Recent program changes provide ACOs with more opportunity to select providers with lower-risk patients. Understanding the effect of these changes will be important for guiding future payment policy. CONTEXT: The Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) establishes incentives for participating accountable care organizations (ACOs) to lower spending for their attributed fee-for-service Medicare patients. Turnover in ACO physicians and patient panels has raised concerns that ACOs may be earning shared-savings bonuses by selecting lower-risk patients or providers with lower-risk panels. METHODS: We conducted three sets of analyses of Medicare claims data. First, we estimated overall MSSP savings through 2015 using a difference-in-differences approach and methods that eliminated selection bias from ACO program exit or changes in the practices or physicians included in ACO contracts. We then checked for residual risk selection at the patient level. Second, we reestimated savings with methods that address undetected risk selection but could introduce bias from other sources. These included patient fixed effects, baseline or prospective assignment, and area-level MSSP exposure to hold patient populations constant. Third, we tested for changes in provider composition or provider billing that may have contributed to bonuses, even if they were eliminated as sources of bias in the evaluation analyses. FINDINGS: MSSP participation was associated with modest and increasing annual gross savings in the 2012-2013 entry cohorts of ACOs that reached $139 to $302 per patient by 2015. Savings in the 2014 entry cohort were small and not statistically significant. Robustness checks revealed no evidence of residual risk selection. Alternative methods to address risk selection produced results that were substantively consistent with our primary analysis but varied somewhat and were more sensitive to adjustment for patient characteristics, suggesting the introduction of bias from within-patient changes in time-varying characteristics. We found no evidence of ACO manipulation of provider composition or billing to inflate savings. Finally, larger savings for physician group ACOs were robust to consideration of differential changes in organizational structure among non-ACO providers (eg, from consolidation). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in the original MSSP program was associated with modest savings and not with favorable risk selection. These findings suggest an opportunity to build on early progress. Understanding the effect of new opportunities and incentives for risk selection in the revamped MSSP will be important for guiding future program reforms.

Financing Buprenorphine Treatment in Primary Care: A Microsimulation Model.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the financial impact to primary care practices of alternative strategies for offering buprenorphine-based treatment for opioid use disorder. METHODS: We interviewed 20 practice managers and identified 4 approaches to delivering buprenorphine-based treatment via primary care practice that differed in physician and nurse responsibilities. We used a microsimulation model to estimate how practice variations in patient type, payer, revenue, and cost across primary care practices nationwide would affect cost and revenue implications for each approach for the following types of practices: federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), non-FQHCs in urban high-poverty areas, non-FQHCs in rural high-poverty areas, and practices outside of high-poverty areas. RESULTS: The 4 approaches to buprenorphine-based treatment included physician-led visits with nurse-led logistical support; nurse-led visits with physician oversight; shared visits; and solo prescribing by physician alone. Net practice revenues would be expected to increase after introduction of any of the 4 approaches by $18,000 to $70,000 per full-time physician in the first year across practice type. Yet physician-led visits and shared medical appointments, both of which relied on nurse care managers, consistently produced the greatest net revenues ($29,000-$70,000 per physician in the first year). To ensure positive net revenues with any approach, providers would need to maintain at least 9 patients in treatment, with a no-show rate of <34%. CONCLUSIONS: Using a simulation model, we estimate that many types of primary care practices could financially sustain buprenorphine-based treatment if demand and no-show rate requirements are met, but a nurse care manager-based approach might be the most sustainable.

Incorporating machine learning and social determinants of health indicators into prospective risk adjustment for health plan payments.

BACKGROUND: Risk adjustment models are employed to prevent adverse selection, anticipate budgetary reserve needs, and offer care management services to high-risk individuals. We aimed to address two unknowns about risk adjustment: whether machine learning (ML) and inclusion of social determinants of health (SDH) indicators improve prospective risk adjustment for health plan payments. METHODS: We employed a 2-by-2 factorial design comparing: (i) linear regression versus ML (gradient boosting) and (ii) demographics and diagnostic codes alone, versus additional ZIP code-level SDH indicators. Healthcare claims from privately-insured US adults (2016-2017), and Census data were used for analysis. Data from 1.02 million adults were used for derivation, and data from 0.26 million to assess performance. Model performance was measured using coefficient of determination (R2), discrimination (C-statistic), and mean absolute error (MAE) for the overall population, and predictive ratio and net compensation for vulnerable subgroups. We provide 95% confidence intervals (CI) around each performance measure. RESULTS: Linear regression without SDH indicators achieved moderate determination (R2 0.327, 95% CI: 0.300, 0.353), error ($6992; 95% CI: $6889, $7094), and discrimination (C-statistic 0.703; 95% CI: 0.701, 0.705). ML without SDH indicators improved all metrics (R2 0.388; 95% CI: 0.357, 0.420; error $6637; 95% CI: $6539, $6735; C-statistic 0.717; 95% CI: 0.715, 0.718), reducing misestimation of cost by $3.5 M per 10,000 members. Among people living in areas with high poverty, high wealth inequality, or high prevalence of uninsured, SDH indicators reduced underestimation of cost, improving the predictive ratio by 3% (~$200/person/year). CONCLUSIONS: ML improved risk adjustment models and the incorporation of SDH indicators reduced underpayment in several vulnerable populations.