Methods for Estimating Costs for Stays at Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities and Long-Term Care Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare 3 methods for estimating stay-level Medicare facility (Part A) costs using claims and cost report data for inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) and long-term care hospitals (LTCHs), the 2 hospital-based postacute care providers. DESIGN: We calculated stay-level facility costs using different methods. Method 1 used routine costs per day and ancillary cost-to-charge ratios. Method 2 used routine and ancillary cost-to-charge ratios (freestanding IRFs and LTCHs only). Method 3 used facility-specific operating cost-to-charge ratios from the Provider Specific File. For each method, we compared the costs with payments and charges at the claim and facility levels and examined facility margins. SETTING: Data are from 1619 providers, including 266 freestanding IRFs, 909 IRF units, and 444 LTCHs. PARTICIPANTS: The analyses included 239,284 claims from 2014, of which 86,118 claims were from freestanding IRFs, 92,799 claims were from IRF units, and 60,367 claims were from LTCHs. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs and payments in 2014 United States Dollars. RESULTS: For freestanding IRFs, the mean facility stay-level costs were calculated to be $13,610 (method 1), $13,575 (method 2), and $13,783 (method 3). For IRF units, the mean facility stay-level costs were $17,385 (method 1) and $19,093 (method 3). For LTCHs, the mean facility stay-level costs were $36,362 (method 1), $36,407 (method 2), and $37,056 (method 3). CONCLUSIONS: The 3 methods resulted in small differences in facility mean stay-level costs. Using the facility-level cost-to-charge ratio (method 3) is the least resource-intensive method. Although more resource-intensive, using routine cost per day and ancillary cost-to-charge ratios (method 1) for cost calculations allows for differentiation in costs across patients based on differences in the mix of services used. As policymakers consider postacute care payment reforms, cost, rather than charge or payment data, needs to be calculated and the results of the methods compared.

Quality, Costs, and Policy: Factors Influencing Choice of Anesthesia Staffing Models.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) can practice independently or with varying degrees of supervision by physicians or anesthesiologists. Before 2001, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) conditions of participation required CRNAs to be supervised by a physician. Starting in November 2001, CMS implemented an opt-out policy to give states greater autonomy in determining how anesthesia services are delivered. The policy also provided a mechanism to increase access to anesthesia services.We sought to understand and describe surgical facility leaders' perceptions of CRNA quality, safety, and cost-effectiveness; the motivation and rationale for using different anesthesia staffing models; and facilitators and barriers to using CRNAs. We applied a mixed-methods approach to understand surgical facility leadership decision-making for staffing arrangements.The use of anesthesia staffing models differed by location and surgical facility type. For example, the predominantly CRNA model was used in only 10% of large urban hospitals but in 61% of rural ambulatory surgical centers. Interviews with surgical facility leaders revealed that geographic location, surgeon preference, and organizational inertia were powerful contributors to a facility's choice of staffing model. Other factors included the Medicare opt-out provision, facility experience, and cost considerations. Differences in quality and safety between models were not contributing factors for most facilities.

Historical data indicates a wage premium for black registered nurses.

The average observed wage of Black registered nurses (RNs) is higher than that of White RNs in the National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses over 2 decades from 1984 to 2004. In this study, wages of Black and White RNs were analyzed controlling for factors likely to affect wages in addition to race. Results indicate racial inequality in wages of RNs: Black RN wages exceeded White RNs wages over 2 decades from 1984-2004. This significant difference remained after controlling for factors likely to affect wages in addition to race such as experience, education, employer type, and specialty among other factors.

Reducing Transfers among Long-Stay Nursing Facility Residents to Acute Care Settings: Effect of the 2013‒2016 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Initiative.

OBJECTIVES: From 2013 to 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Initiative to Reduce Avoidable Hospitalizations among Nursing Facility Residents ("the Initiative") tested a series of clinical interventions and care models, through organizations called Enhanced Care and Coordination Providers (ECCPs), with the goal of reducing avoidable inpatient hospital admissions among long-stay nursing home residents. We identify the effect of the Initiative on the probability and count of acute care transfers [capturing any transfer to the hospital, including hospitalizations (inpatient stays), emergency department visits, and observation stays]. DESIGN: We evaluate the effect of the Initiative on the probability and count of all-cause acute care transfers and potentially avoidable acute care transfers and estimate the average effect of the Initiative per resident per year. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We use 2011-2016 data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Minimum Data Set, version 3.0, nursing home resident assessments linked with Medicare eligibility and enrollment data and Medicare inpatient and outpatient hospital claims. Our sample is limited to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in participating ECCP facilities and a comparison group of long-stay nursing facility residents. METHODS: We evaluate the effect of the Initiative on both the probability and count of all-cause acute care transfers and potentially avoidable acute care transfers using difference-in-differences regression models controlling for both resident-level clinical and demographic characteristics as well as facility-level characteristics. RESULTS: We found statistically significant evidence of a reduction in both the probability and count of all-cause and potentially avoidable acute care transfers among long-stay nursing facility residents who participated in the Initiative, relative to comparison group residents. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The clinical interventions and care models implemented by the ECCPs show that by using staff education, facility leadership and physician engagement, and/or clinical assessment and treatment of residents who experienced a change in condition, it is possible to reduce acute care transfers of nursing facility residents. This could lead to better outcomes and reduced cost of care for this vulnerable patient population.

Nursing Facilities Can Reduce Avoidable Hospitalizations Without Increasing Mortality Risk For Residents.

Implementation of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Initiative to Reduce Avoidable Hospitalizations among Nursing Facility Residents reflected recognition of the adverse impacts of excess hospitalizations on the cost of care and the well-being of long-stay residents. Prior studies of the initiative have found favorable effects on reducing hospitalizations and costs, but were these accompanied by unintended consequences for well-being? We tracked all-cause mortality rates in each year for the period 2014-16 among long-stay residents at nursing facilities in seven states that participated in the initiative, and we found no evidence of excess mortality. The initiative's effects on mortality rates were small-ranging from a reduction of 0.8 percentage points to an increase of 1.5 percentage points, relative to changes in mortality rates at comparison-group facilities-and none of the effects was significant. This suggests that efforts to reduce unnecessary hospitalizations among nursing facility residents can succeed without increasing mortality rates.

Initiative To Reduce Avoidable Hospitalizations Among Nursing Facility Residents Shows Promising Results.

Nursing facility residents are frequently admitted to the hospital, and these hospital stays are often potentially avoidable. Such hospitalizations are detrimental to patients and costly to Medicare and Medicaid. In 2012 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services launched the Initiative to Reduce Avoidable Hospitalizations among Nursing Facility Residents, using evidence-based clinical and educational interventions among long-stay residents in 143 facilities in seven states. In state-specific analyses, we estimated net reductions in 2015 of 2.2-9.3 percentage points in the probability of an all-cause hospitalization and 1.4-7.2 percentage points in the probability of a potentially avoidable hospitalization for participating facility residents, relative to comparison-group members. In that year, average per resident Medicare expenditures were reduced by $60-$2,248 for all-cause hospitalizations and by $98-$577 for potentially avoidable hospitalizations. The effects for over half of the outcomes in these analyses were significant. Variability in implementation and engagement across the nursing facilities and organizations that customized and implemented the initiative helps explain the variability in the estimated effects. Initiative models that included registered nurses or nurse practitioners who provided consistent clinical care for residents demonstrated higher staff engagement and more positive outcomes, compared to models providing only education or intermittent clinical care. These results provide promising evidence of an effective approach for reducing avoidable hospitalizations among nursing facility residents.

Impact of hospital-acquired conditions on financial liabilities for Medicare patients.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired conditions (HACs) can increase the financial liabilities faced by patients when the HACs require additional treatment both in the hospital and in subsequent health care encounters. This article estimates incremental effects of 6 HACs on Medicare beneficiary financial liabilities. METHODS: Descriptive and multivariate analyses were used to examine the differences in beneficiary liability between care episodes with and without HACs. Episodes included the index hospitalization in which the HAC occurred and all inpatient, outpatient, and physician claims within 90 days of index hospital discharge. Medicare fee-for-service patients discharged from a hospital in fiscal year (FY) 2009 or FY 2010 with severe pressure ulcer, fracture, catheter-associated urinary tract infection, vascular catheter-associated infection, surgical site infection, or deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism after certain orthopedic procedures were matched by diagnosis, sex, race, and age to with patients without HACs. RESULTS: Medicare patients were liable for an additional $20.5 million per year across the HAC episodes compared with what they would have owed without the HACs. Beneficiaries with HACs were also more likely to exhaust their Part A days in the index hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: HACs create significant financial burden for Medicare beneficiaries. The incremental financial liabilities are concentrated in the episode of care after the index hospitalization with the HAC. Policies and programs that reduce HAC incidence will improve Medicare beneficiaries' physical and financial health.

The impact of hospital-acquired conditions on Medicare program payments.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Hospital-acquired conditions, or HACs, often result in additional Medicare payments, generated during the initial hospitalization and in subsequent health care encounters. The purpose of this article is to estimate the incremental cost to Medicare, as measured by Medicare program payments, of six HACs. STUDY DESIGN: The researchers used a matched case-control design to determine the incremental increase in Medicare payments attributable to each HAC. For each HAC patient, five comparison patients were matched on diagnosis group, sex, race, and age. Using the matched sample, we estimated a hospital fixed effects log-linear regression on total Medicare payments for the episode of care, further controlling for co-morbid conditions. Care episodes included the initial hospitalization and all inpatient, outpatient, physician, home health, and hospice care that occurred within 90 days of hospital discharge. POPULATION STUDIED: All Medicare fee-for-service patients discharged alive from a hospital between October 2008 and June 2010 with one of six HACs-severe pressure ulcer, fracture, catheter-associated urinary tract infection, vascular catheter-associated infection, surgical site infection following certain orthopedic procedures, or deep vein thrombosis/ pulmonary embolism following certain orthopedic procedures-were included in the sample and matched to five similar patients without the HACs. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The multivariate analysis suggests that Medicare paid an additional $146 million per year across these HAC care episodes compared with what would have been paid without the HACs. CONCLUSIONS: HACs create a significant financial burden for the Medicare program. We compare the incremental Medicare payments for these six HACs to the current and upcoming Medicare HAC payment penalties.

Examination of the accuracy of coding hospital-acquired pressure ulcer stages.

OBJECTIVE: Pressure ulcers (PU) are considered harmful conditions that are reasonably prevented if accepted standards of care are followed. They became subject to the payment adjustment for hospitalacquired conditions (HACs) beginning October 1, 2008. We examined several aspects of the accuracy of coding for pressure ulcers under the Medicare Hospital-Acquired Condition Present on Admission (HAC-POA) Program. We used the "4010" claim format as a basis of reference to show some of the issues of the old format, such as the underreporting of pressure ulcer stages on pressure ulcer claims and how the underreporting varied by hospital characteristics. We then used the rate of Stage III and IV pressure ulcer HACs reported in the Hospital Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases data to look at the sensitivity of PU HAC-POA coding to the number of diagnosis fields. METHODS: We examined Medicare claims data for FYs 2009 and 2010 to examine the degree that the presence of stage codes were underreported on pressure ulcer claims. We selected all claims with a secondary diagnosis code of pressure ulcer site (ICD-9 diagnosis codes 707.00-707.09) that were not reported as POA (POA of "N" or "U"). We then created a binary indicator for the presence of any pressure ulcer stage diagnosis code. We examine the percentage of claims with a diagnosis of a pressure ulcer site code with no accompanying pressure ulcer stage code. RESULTS: Our results point to underreporting of PU stages under the "4010" format and that the reporting of stage codes varied across hospital type and location. Further, our results indicate that under the "5010" format, a higher number of pressure ulcer HACs can be expected to be reported and we should expect to encounter a larger percentage of pressure ulcers incorrectly coded as POA under the new format. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of the capture of 25 diagnosis codes under the new "5010" format and the change from ICD-9 to ICD-10 will likely alleviate the observed underreporting of pressure ulcer HACs. However, as long as coding guidelines direct that Stage III and IV pressure ulcers be coded as POA, if a lower stage pressure ulcer was POA and progressed to a higher stage pressure ulcer during the admission, the acquisition of Stage III and IV pressure ulcers in the hospital will be underreported.