Hospital-associated deconditioning: Not only physical, but also cognitive.

INTRODUCTION: Hospital-associated deconditioning (HAD) or post-hospital syndrome is well recognized as reduced functional performance after an acute hospitalization. Recommendations for the management of HAD are still lacking, partly due to a poor understanding of the underlying processes. We aimed to review existing data on risk factors, pathophysiology, measurement tools, and potential interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review from bibliographical databases in English, Spanish and French with keywords such as 'post-hospitalization syndrome' or 'deconditioning'. We selected studies that included people aged 60 years or older. Three researchers independently selected articles and assessed their quality. RESULTS: From 4421 articles initially retrieved, we included 94 studies. Most were related to risk factors, trajectories and measures, and focused on the physical aspects of deconditioning. Risk factors for HAD included age, nutritional status, mobility, and pre-admission functional status, but also cognitive impairment and depression. Regarding interventions, almost all studies were devoted to physical rehabilitation and environmental modifications. Only one study focused on cognitive stimulation. DISCUSSION: In the last decade, studies on HAD have mostly focused on the physical domain. However, neurological changes may also play a role in the pathophysiology of HAD. Beyond physical interventions, cognitive rehabilitation and neurological interventions should also be evaluated to improve deconditioning prevention and treatment in the hospital setting.

Care partner needs of people with neurodegenerative disorders: What are the needs, and how well do the current assessment tools capture these needs? A systematic meta-review.

OBJECTIVES: The burden on care partners, particularly once dementia emerges, is among the greatest of all caregiving groups. This meta-review aimed to (1) synthesis evidence on the self-reported needs of care partners supporting people living with neurodegenerative disorders; (2) compare the needs according to care partner and care recipient characteristics; and (3) determine the face validity of existing care partner needs assessment tools. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of reviews involving a thematic synthesis of care partner needs and differences in needs according to demographic and other characteristics. We then conducted a gap analysis by identifying the themes of needs from existing needs assessment tools specific to dementia and cross-matching them with the needs derived from the thematic synthesis. RESULTS: Drawing on 17 published reviews, the identified range of needs fell into four key themes: (1) knowledge and information, (2) physical, social and emotional support, (3) care partner self-care, and (4) care recipient needs. Needs may differ according to disease trajectory, relationship to the care recipient, and the demographic characteristics of the care partner and recipient. The 'captured needs' range between 8% and 66% across all the included needs assessment tools. CONCLUSIONS: Current tools do not fully or adequately capture the self-identified needs of care partners of people living with neurodegenerative disorders. Given the high burden on care partners, which has been further exacerbated by the COVID-19 (SARS CoV-2) pandemic, the needs assessment tools should align with the self-reported needs of care partners throughout the caregiving trajectory to better understand unmet needs and target supportive interventions.

Politics and Policymaking in Medicare Part C.

BACKGROUND: Once just a small part of the Medicare program, private managed care plans now cover over one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries and cost the Federal government ~$210 billion each year. Importantly, the evolution of Medicare managed care policy has been far from linear; for several decades there have been dramatic shifts in the payment and regulatory policies facing private Medicare managed care plans. OBJECTIVES: This article presents a critical review of the history of Medicare managed care payment and regulatory policies and discusses the role of political ideology and stakeholder influence in shaping the direction of policy over time. CONCLUSIONS: As Medicare Advantage becomes an increasingly prominent area of focus for the health services, health policy, and medical research communities, it is important to bear in mind the highly political history of the program, the role of stakeholder influence in shaping the direction of policy, and to understand the historic barriers to evidence-based policymaking.

Competition and health plan quality in the Medicare Advantage market.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between insurer market structure, health plan quality, and health insurance premiums in the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Administrative data files from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, along with other secondary data sources. STUDY DESIGN: Trends in MA market concentration from 2008 to 2017 are presented, alongside logistic and linear regression models examining MA plan quality and premiums as a function of insurer market structure for 2011. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Data are publicly available. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: MA plans that tend to operate in more concentrated MA markets have a higher predicted probability of receiving a high-quality health plan rating. Operating in more concentrated MA markets was also found to be associated with higher premiums. Among plans that tend to operate in very concentrated MA markets, high-quality MA plans were associated with premiums as much as two times higher than premiums associated with lower-quality plans. CONCLUSIONS: Any policies directed at enhancing insurer competition should consider implications for health plan quality, which may be very different than the implications for enrollee premiums.

The continuing cost of privatization: extra payments to Medicare Advantage plans in 2008.

The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 explicitly increased Medicare payments to private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. As a result, every MA plan in the nation is paid more for its enrollees than they would have been expected to cost in traditional fee-for-service Medicare. The authors calculate that payments to MA plans in 2008 will be 12.4 percent greater than the corresponding costs in traditional Medicare-an average increase of $986 per MA plan enrollee, for a total of more than $8.5 billion. Over the five-year period 2004-2008, extra payments to MA plans are estimated to have totaled nearly $33 billion. Although Congress recently enacted modest reductions in MA plan payments, these changes will not take effect until 2010. Moreover, while the new legislation removes a few factors contributing to the extra payments, a number of other factors remain unaffected.

Medicare Advantage's private fee-for-service plans: paying for coordinated care without the coordination.

Like the private managed care plans offered under Medicare Advantage, private fee-for-service (PFFS) plans are paid more per beneficiary than those individuals would be expected to cost if they were enrolled in traditional fee-for-service Medicare. However, PFFS plans are not required to provide the same type of coordinated care required of Medicare Advantage plans. Payments to PFFS plans in 2008 average 16.6 percent more than costs in traditional Medicare, or $1,248 for each of the 2 million enrollees in PFFS plans-a total of nearly $2.5 billion in extra payments. Recently, Congress has made significant revisions to policies that will affect how PFFS plans will operate in 2011 and thereafter, as well as their prospects for continued growth. This issue brief examines the development of PFFS plans, the policies underlying the rapid increase in the plans and their enrollment, the payments they receive, and the potential impact of the new legislation.

Rising Use Of Observation Care Among The Commercially Insured May Lead to Total And Out-Of-Pocket Cost Savings.

Proponents of hospital-based observation care argue that it has the potential to reduce health care spending and lengths-of-stay, compared to short-stay inpatient hospitalizations. However, critics have raised concerns about the out-of-pocket spending associated with observation care. Recent reports of high out-of-pocket spending among Medicare beneficiaries have received considerable media attention and have prompted direct policy changes. Despite the potential for changed policies to indirectly affect non-Medicare patients, little is known about the use of, and spending associated with, observation care among commercially insured populations. Using multipayer commercial claims for the period 2009-13, we evaluated utilization and spending among patients admitted for six conditions that are commonly managed with either observation care or short-stay hospitalizations. In our study period, the use of observation care increased relative to that of short-stay hospitalizations. Total and out-of-pocket spending were substantially lower for observation care, though both grew rapidly-and at rates much higher than spending in the inpatient setting-over the study period. Despite this growth, spending on observation care is unlikely to exceed spending for short-stay hospitalizations. As observation care attracts greater attention, policy makers should be aware that Medicare policies that disincentivize observation may have unintended financial impacts on non-Medicare populations, where observation care may be cost saving.

The cost of privatization: extra payments to Medicare Advantage plans--updated and revised.

The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 sharply increased payments to private Medicare Advantage plans. As a result, every plan in every county in the nation was paid more in 2005 than its enrollees would have been expected to cost if they had been enrolled in traditional fee-for-service Medicare. The authors calculate that payments to Medicare Advantage plans averaged 12.4 percent more than costs in traditional Medicare during 2005: a total of more than $5.2 billion, or $922 for each of the 5.6 million Medicare enrollees in managed care. This issue brief updates an earlier analysis of Medicare Advantage payments in 2005 previously published by The Commonwealth Fund; the updated estimates in this report are based on final 2005 enrollment figures that were not available at the time the previous estimates were developed, and they include the effect of policy decisions that were not reflected in the previous estimates.

Out-of-Pocket Spending for Hospitalizations Among Nonelderly Adults.

IMPORTANCE: Patients' out-of-pocket spending for major health care expenses, such as inpatient care, may result in substantial financial distress. Limited contemporary data exist on out-of-pocket spending among nonelderly adults. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate out-of-pocket spending associated with hospitalizations and to assess how this spending varied over time and by patient characteristics, region, and type of insurance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis of medical claims for 7.3 million hospitalizations using 2009-2013 data from Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, and Humana insurance companies representing approximately 50 million members was performed. Out-of-pocket spending was evaluated by age, sex, type of insurance, region, and principal diagnosis or procedure for hospitalized adults aged 18 to 64 years who were enrolled in employer-sponsored and individual-market health insurance plans from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2013. The study was conducted between July 1, 2015, and March 1, 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes were total out-of-pocket spending and spending attributed to deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance for all hospitalizations. Other outcomes included out-of-pocket spending associated with 7 commonly occurring inpatient diagnoses and procedures: acute myocardial infarction, live birth, pneumonia, appendicitis, coronary artery bypass graft, total knee arthroplasty, and spinal fusion. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2013, total cost sharing per inpatient hospitalization increased by 37%, from $738 in 2009 (95% CI, $736-$740) to $1013 in 2013 (95% CI, $1011-$1016), after adjusting for inflation and case-mix differences. This rise was driven primarily by increases in the amount applied to deductibles, which grew by 86% from $145 in 2009 (95% CI, $144-$146) to $270 in 2013 (95% CI, $269-$271), and by increases in coinsurance, which grew by 33% over the study period from $518 in 2009 (95% CI, $516-$520) to $688 in 2013 (95% CI, $686-$690). In 2013, total cost sharing was highest for enrollees in individual market plans ($1875 per hospitalization; 95% CI, $1867-$1883) and consumer-directed health plans ($1219; 95% CI, $1216-$1223). Cost sharing varied substantially across regions, diagnoses, and procedures. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Mean out-of-pocket spending among commercially insured adults exceeded $1000 per inpatient hospitalization in 2013. Wide variability in out-of-pocket spending merits greater attention from policymakers.

Health care costs, utilization and patterns of care following Lyme disease.

BACKGROUND: Lyme disease is the most frequently reported vector borne infection in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control have estimated that approximately 10% to 20% of individuals may experience Post-Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome - a set of symptoms including fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and neurocognitive complaints that persist after initial antibiotic treatment of Lyme disease. Little is known about the impact of Lyme disease or post-treatment Lyme disease symptoms (PTLDS) on health care costs and utilization in the United States. OBJECTIVES: 1) to examine the impact of Lyme disease on health care costs and utilization, 2) to understand the relationship between Lyme disease and the probability of developing PTLDS, 3) to understand how PTLDS may impact health care costs and utilization. METHODS: This study utilizes retrospective data on medical claims and member enrollment for persons aged 0-64 years who were enrolled in commercial health insurance plans in the United States between 2006-2010. 52,795 individuals treated for Lyme disease were compared to 263,975 matched controls with no evidence of Lyme disease exposure. RESULTS: Lyme disease is associated with $2,968 higher total health care costs (95% CI: 2,807-3,128, p<.001) and 87% more outpatient visits (95% CI: 86%-89%, p<.001) over a 12-month period, and is associated with 4.77 times greater odds of having any PTLDS-related diagnosis, as compared to controls (95% CI: 4.67-4.87, p<.001). Among those with Lyme disease, having one or more PTLDS-related diagnosis is associated with $3,798 higher total health care costs (95% CI: 3,542-4,055, p<.001) and 66% more outpatient visits (95% CI: 64%-69%, p<.001) over a 12-month period, relative to those with no PTLDS-related diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Lyme disease is associated with increased costs above what would be expected for an easy to treat infection. The presence of PTLDS-related diagnoses after treatment is associated with significant health care costs and utilization.

Premature adult mortality from non-communicable diseases (NCD) in three middle-income countries: do NCD programmes matter?

BACKGROUND In many middle-income countries, there is limited data available to evaluate the effectiveness of non-communicable disease (NCD) programmes. Since 1970, three neighbouring middle-income countries-Argentina, Chile and Uruguay-have undergone health sector reforms and reorganized their NCD programmes. In this paper, we explore whether data on premature adult mortality can be used to gauge the effectiveness of these programmes. METHODS We describe NCD programmes and examine mortality trends for the years 1970-2005 among adults aged 15-59 years. We contrast mortality trends from all-NCD to mortality trends from NCD that are avoidable through timely and effective medical care. The assumption is that if NCD programmes exert no effect, then all-NCD mortality and avoidable-NCD mortality will follow the same trend and avoidable-NCD mortality will not change at a faster pace. We used joinpoint regression analysis to describe the pace of change, measured as the geometric weighted average of the annual percentage change (AAPC). RESULTS Since the 1980s, all three countries have implemented NCD programmes delivered through health care, but only after the year 2000 did these countries begin to scale-up population-based NCD prevention programmes. In Argentina, all-NCD mortality is declining at a faster pace than avoidable-NCD mortality, while the contrary is occurring in Chile. In Uruguay, all-NCD mortality is declining at a faster pace than avoidable-NCD mortality among males, whereas among females, all-NCD mortality has stagnated while avoidable-NCD mortality continues to decline. CONCLUSION NCD interventions through health care have likely contributed to the reduction of premature NCD mortality in Chile and among women in Uruguay. In Argentina and among men in Uruguay, factors outside the health sector seem to have had a greater impact. This approach could be used in other countries to assess the effect of NCD interventions and raise key questions on programme effectiveness.