The COVID-19 Pandemic Led To A Large Decline In Physician Gross Revenue Across All Specialties In 2020.

US health care use declined during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Although utilization is known to have recovered in 2021 and 2022, it is unknown how revenue in 2020-22 varied by physician specialty and practice setting. This study linked medical claims from a large national federation of commercial health plans to physician and practice data to estimate pandemic-associated impacts on physician revenue (defined as payments to eligible physicians) by specialty and practice characteristics. Surgical specialties, emergency medicine, and medical subspecialties each experienced a greater than 9 percent adjusted gross revenue decline in 2020 relative to prepandemic baselines. By 2022, pathology and psychiatry revenue experienced robust recovery, whereas surgical and oncology revenue remained at or below baseline. Revenue recovery in 2022 was greater for physicians practicing in hospital-owned practices and in practices participating in accountable care organizations. Pandemic-associated revenue recovery in 2021 and 2022 varied by specialty and practice type. Given that physician financial instability is associated with health care consolidation and leaving practice, policy makers should closely monitor revenue trends among physicians in specialties or practice settings with sustained gross revenue reductions during the pandemic.

Hospice Administrators' and Providers' Perspectives on Providing Upstream Palliative Care: Facilitators, Barriers, and Policy Prescriptions.

Background: Among patients with serious illness, palliative care before hospice enrollment is associated with improved quality of life, reduced symptom burden, and earlier transitions to hospice. However, fewer than half of eligible patients receive specialty palliative care referrals. As most hospice clinicians and administrators have experience in specialty palliative care, several emerging programs propose engaging hospice clinicians to provide early palliative care. Objective: We sought to identify barriers and facilitators to upstream palliative care. Design: We conducted a key informant qualitative study among hospice administrators and clinicians. Setting/Subjects: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 hospice administrators and clinicians in eight states from March to August 2022. We identified participants using snowball and purposive sampling using states that participate in Medicare Advantage's value-based insurance design Model. Results: Respondents indicated that barriers to early palliative care included inadequate staffing and reimbursement. Hospice clinicians providing community-based palliative care can address access barriers and improve transitions to hospice. Respondents expressed desire for payer guidance in identifying eligible patients but were cautious about payers acting as direct palliative care providers. However, payers could facilitate uptake by broadening and specifying coverage of services to include goals of care conversations and symptom management. Routine referrals initiated by objective measures could potentially increase access. Conclusions: Utilizing hospice providers to provide upstream palliative care can increase access, improve outcomes, and ease the transition to hospice.

Clinician Perspectives on Virtual Specialty Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Illnesses.

Background: Patients with serious illnesses have unmet symptom and psychosocial needs. Specialty palliative care could address many of these needs; however, access varies by geography and health system. Virtual visits and automated referrals could increase access and lead to improved quality of life, health outcomes, and patient-centered care for patients with serious illness. Objectives: We sought to understand referring clinician perspectives on barriers and facilitators to utilizing virtual tools to increase upstream access to palliative care. Design: Participants in this multisite qualitative study included practicing clinicians who commonly place palliative care referrals across multiple specialties, including hematology/oncology, family medicine, cardiology, and geriatrics. All interviews were transcribed and subsequently coded and analyzed by trained research coordinators using Atlas.ti software. Settings/Subjects: This study included 23 clinicians (21 physicians, 2 nonphysicians) across 5 specialties, 4 practice settings, and 7 states in the United States. Results: Respondents felt that community-based specialty palliative services including symptom management, advance care planning, physical therapy, and mental health counseling would benefit their patients. However, they had mixed feelings about automated referrals, with some clinicians feeling hesitant about not being alerted to such referrals. Many respondents were supportive of virtual palliative care, particularly for those who may have difficulty accessing physician offices, but most respondents felt that such care should only be provided after an initial in-person consultation where clinicians can meet face-to-face with patients. Conclusion: Clinicians believe that automated referrals and virtual palliative care could increase access to the benefits of specialty palliative care. However, virtual palliative care models should give attention to iterative communication with primary clinicians and the perceived need for an initial in-person visit.

Accelerated Approval Of Cancer Drugs: No Economic Reward For Drug Makers That Conduct Confirmatory Trials.

The Food and Drug Administration uses expedited approval of drugs to speed the development and assessment of drugs that address unmet needs related to serious or life-threatening conditions. Drugs approved via this route rely on surrogate endpoints or other clinical indicators that are not direct measures of benefits to patients, such as survival or quality of life. Companies are required to conduct a clinical trial confirming that a drug provides long-term benefits that are clinically meaningful, but prompt completion of these trials frequently does not occur. Theory suggests that because confirmatory trials reduce uncertainty, they should provide an economic reward in the form of higher prices for a positive finding. We used a sample of physician-administered cancer drugs and data on average sales price to test this hypothesis. We found no significant relationship between confirmatory trial completion with a positive outcome and elevated prices. This represents a failure of the market to reward reduced uncertainty about a cancer drug's true benefits. This inefficiency would be mitigated if major payers such as Medicare built price schedules that directly rewarded completion of confirmatory trials. More completed trials would ensure that patients are receiving truly effective chemotherapies and not suffering the adverse effects of drugs that are ultimately not effective.

Spillover Effects of Medicare's Voluntary Bundled Payments for Joint Replacement Surgery to Patients Insured by Commercial Health Plans.

BACKGROUND: Under the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program, bundled paymtents for lower-extremity joint replacement (LEJR) are associated with 2% to 4% cost savings with stable quality among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. However, BPCI may prompt practice changes that benefit all patients, not just fee-for-service beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between hospital participation in BPCI and LEJR outcomes for patients with commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage (MA). DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study using Health Care Cost Institute claims from 2011 to 2016. SETTING: LEJR at 281 BPCI hospitals and 562 non-BPCI hospitals. PATIENTS: 184 922 patients with MA or commercial insurance. MEASUREMENTS: Differential changes in LEJR outcomes at BPCI hospitals versus at non-BPCI hospitals matched on propensity score were evaluated using a difference-in-differences (DID) method. Secondary analyses evaluated associations by patient MA status and hospital characteristics. Primary outcomes were changes in 90-day total spending on LEJR episodes and 90-day readmissions; secondary outcomes were postacute spending and discharge to postacute care providers. RESULTS: Average episode spending decreased more at BPCI versus non-BPCI hospitals (change, -2.2% [95% CI, -3.6% to -0.71%]; P = 0.004), but differences in changes in 90-day readmissions were not significant (adjusted DID, -0.47 percentage point [CI, -1.0 to 0.06 percentage point]; P = 0.084). Participation in BPCI was also associated with differences in decreases in postacute spending and discharge to institutional postacute care providers. Decreases in episode spending were larger for hospitals with high baseline spending but did not vary by MA status. LIMITATION: Nonrandomized studies are subject to residual confounding and selection. CONCLUSION: Participation in BPCI was associated with modest spillovers in episode savings. Bundled payments may prompt hospitals to implement broad care redesign that produces benefits regardless of insurance coverage. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at the University of Pennsylvania.

Comparing Health Outcomes of Privileged US Citizens With Those of Average Residents of Other Developed Countries.

Importance: The average health outcomes in the US are not as good as the average health outcomes in other developed countries. However, whether high-income US citizens have better health outcomes than average individuals in other developed countries is unknown. Objective: To assess whether the health outcomes of White US citizens living in the 1% and 5% richest counties (hereafter referred to as privileged White US citizens) are better than the health outcomes of average residents in other developed countries. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study, conducted from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2015, identified White US citizens living in the 1% (n = 32) and 5% (n = 157) highest-income counties in the US and measured the following 6 health outcomes associated with health care interventions: infant and maternal mortality, colon and breast cancer, childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia, and acute myocardial infarction. The study used Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development data, CONCORD-3 cancer data, and Medicare data to compare their outcomes with all residents in 12 other developed countries: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland. Statistical analysis took place from July 25, 2017, to August 29, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Infant mortality; maternal mortality; 5-year survival of patients with colon cancer, breast cancer, or childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia; and 30-day age-standardized case fatality after acute myocardial infarction. Results: The infant mortality rate among White US citizens in the 5% highest-income counties was 4.01 per 1000, and the maternal mortality rate among White US citizens in the 5% highest-income counties was 10.85 per 100 000, both higher than the mean rates for any of the 12 comparison countries. (The infant mortality rate for the top 1% counties was 3.54 per 1000, and the maternal mortality rate was 10.05 per 100 000.) The 5-year survival rate for White US citizens in the 5% highest-income counties was 67.2% (95% CI, 66.7%-67.7%) for colon cancer, higher than that of average US citizens (64.9% [95% CI, 64.7%-65.1%]) and average citizens in 6 countries, comparable with that of average citizens in 4 countries, and lower than that of average citizens for 2 countries. The 5-year survival rate for breast cancer among White US women in the 5% highest-income US counties was 92.0% (95% CI, 91.6%-92.4%), higher than in all 12 comparison countries. The 5-year survival rate for White children with acute lymphocytic leukemia in the 5% highest-income US counties was 92.6% (95% CI, 90.7%-94.2%), exceeding the mean survival rate for only 1 country and comparable with the mean survival rates in 11 countries. The adjusted 30-day acute myocardial infarction case-fatality rate for White US citizens in the 5% highest-income US counties was 8% below the rate for all US citizens and was 5% below the rate for all US citizens in the 1% highest-income US counties; these estimates were similar to the median outcome of other high-income countries. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that privileged White US citizens have better health outcomes than average US citizens for 6 health outcomes but often fare worse than the mean measure of health outcomes of 12 other developed countries. These findings imply that even if all US citizens experienced the same health outcomes enjoyed by privileged White US citizens, US health indicators would still lag behind those in many other countries.

Spillover effects of mandatory hip and knee replacement surgery bundles in medicare.

BACKGROUND: Medicare used the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Model to mandate that hospitals in certain health care markets accept bundled payments for lower extremity joint replacement surgery. CJR has reduced spending with stable quality as intended among Medicare fee-for-service patients, but benefits could "spill over" to individuals insured through private health plans. Definitive evidence of spillovers remains lacking. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between CJR participation and changes in outcomes among privately insured individuals. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: We used 2013-2017 Health Care Cost Institute claims for 418,016 privately insured individuals undergoing joint replacement in 75 CJR and 121 Non-CJR markets. Multivariable generalized linear models with hospital and market random effects and time fixed effects were used to analyze the association between CJR participation and changes in outcomes. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total episode spending, discharge to institutional post-acute care, and quality (e.g., surgical complications, readmissions). RESULTS: Patients in CJR and Non-CJR markets did not differ in total episode spending (difference of -$157, 95% CI -$1043 to $728, p = 0.73) or discharge to institutional post-acute care (difference of -1.1%, 95% CI -3.2%-1.0%, p = 0.31). Similarly, patients in the two groups did not differ in quality or other utilization outcomes. Findings were generally similar in stratified and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: There was a lack of evidence of cost or utilization spillovers from CJR to privately insured individuals. There may be limits in the ability of certain value-based payment reforms to drive broad changes in care delivery and patient outcomes.

Designing a commercial medical bundle for cancer care: Hawaii Medical Service Association's Cancer Episode Model.

BACKGROUND: Oncology care is expensive and exhibits substantial variation in cost and quality across clinicians and patients. Unlike many conditions with established bundled payment programs, cancer care includes a mix of inpatient and outpatient care that precludes hospital-based designs. In 2018, we worked with Hawaii Medical Service Association (HMSA), the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Hawaii, to design a novel commercial bundle for cancer care, the Cancer Episode Model. METHODS: Descriptive analysis of HMSA's Cancer Episode Model, including its inclusion criteria, episode definitions, suite of enhanced services, shared savings model, and incentivized quality metrics. We also compare HMSA's Cancer Episode Model to Medicare's Oncology Care Model and three major commercial oncologic alternative payment models offered by Anthem, UnitedHealthcare, and Aetna. RESULTS: HMSA's Cancer Episode Model builds upon the successes and limitations of Medicare's Oncology Care Model and existing commercial alternative payment models. Compared to Medicare's Oncology Care Model, HMSA's Cancer Episode Model has stricter inclusion criteria, fewer incentivized quality metrics, a higher proportion of regional pricing, a different risk-adjustment model, and first-dollar shared savings. Compared to the majority of existing commercial models, HMSA's Cancer Episode Model includes total cost of care and a different risk-adjustment model. CONCLUSIONS: Reviewing features of the Cancer Episode Model in comparison to other programs is intended to provide guidance to health plans and health policymakers in the design of programs and policies aimed at improving cancer care value. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Spending And Quality After Three Years Of Medicare's Voluntary Bundled Payment For Joint Replacement Surgery.

Medicare has reinforced its commitment to voluntary bundled payment by building upon the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative via an ongoing successor program, the BPCI Advanced Model. Although lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) is the highest-volume episode in both BPCI and BPCI Advanced, there is a paucity of independent evidence about its long-term impact on outcomes and about whether improvements vary by timing of participation or arise from patient selection rather than changes in clinical practice. We found that over three years, compared to no participation, participation in BPCI was associated with a 1.6 percent differential decrease in average LEJR episode spending with no differential changes in quality, driven by early participants. Patient selection accounted for 27 percent of episode savings. Our findings have important policy implications in view of BPCI Advanced and its two participation waves.

Association of Bundled Payments for Joint Replacement Surgery and Patient Outcomes With Simultaneous Hospital Participation in Accountable Care Organizations.

Importance: An increasing number of hospitals have participated in Medicare's bundled payment and accountable care organization (ACO) programs. Although participation in bundled payments has been associated with savings for lower-extremity joint replacement (LEJR) surgery, simultaneous participation in ACOs may be associated with different outcomes given the prevalence of LEJR among patients receiving care at ACO participant organizations and potential overlap in care redesign strategies adopted under the 2 payment models. Objective: To examine whether simultaneous participation in a Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) ACO affects the association between hospitals' participation in LEJR episodes under the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative and patient outcomes compared with participation in the BPCI initiative alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study, conducted from January 1 to May 31, 2019, used 2011 to 2016 Medicare claims data and incorporated an instrumental variable with a difference-in-differences method among 483 008 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries undergoing LEJR surgery at 212 bundled payment participant hospitals, 105 coparticipant hospitals, and 1413 nonparticipant hospitals in the United States. Exposures: Hospital participation in both the BPCI initiative and the MSSP (coparticipants), BPCI only (bundled payment participants), or neither (nonparticipants). Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in clinical outcomes and mean LEJR episode spending. Results: A total of 483 008 patients (mean [SD] age, 73.0 [8.4] years; 308 173 [63.8%] female) were included in the study. No differential changes were found in patient and hospital characteristics across participation groups. In adjusted analysis, coparticipants had 1.5% (95% CI, 0.7%-2.2%; P < .001) more unplanned readmissions than did bundled payment participants. Compared with bundled payment participants, coparticipants also had differentially greater decreases in hospital length of stay (adjusted difference-in-differences value, -5.3%; 95% CI, -7.1% to -3.5%; P < .001) and home health care use (adjusted difference-in-differences value, -3.4%; 95% CI, -4.5% to -2.3%; P < .001) and greater increases in postdischarge outpatient follow-up (adjusted difference-in-differences value, 2.1%; 95% CI, 0.9%-3.3%; P < .001). Coparticipants and bundled payment participants did not have differential changes in episode spending (adjusted difference-in-differences value, 0.4%; 95% CI, -0.7% to 1.6%; P = .46), although both groups had more decreased spending compared with nonparticipants. Conclusions and Relevance: Among bundled payment participants, coparticipation in ACOs was not associated with LEJR episode savings but was associated with differential changes in postacute care use patterns and unplanned readmissions. These findings support the longer-term benefits of LEJR bundles and suggest that coparticipants may adopt care redesign strategies that differ from hospitals with bundled payments only.

Characteristics of Physicians Participating in Medicare's Oncology Care Model Bundled Payment Program.

PURPOSE: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is Medicare's first bundled payment program for patients with cancer. We examined baseline characteristics of OCM physician participants and markets with high OCM physician participation to inform generalizability and complement the ongoing practice-level evaluation of the OCM. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we identified characteristics of US medical oncologists practicing in 2016, using a national telephone-verified physician database. We linked these data with Dartmouth Atlas and Medicare claims data from 2011 through 2016 to identify characteristics of markets with high OCM participation. We used logistic regression to examine relationships between market characteristics and OCM participation. RESULTS: Of 10,428 US medical oncologists, 2,605 (24.9%) were listed in an OCM practice. There were no differences in sex or medical training between OCM participants and nonparticipants, although OCM participants were slightly younger. OCM participants practiced in larger (median daily patient volume, 80 v 55 patients) and urban practices (95.2% v 90.7%) and were less likely to be part of a health system (41.0% v 60.4%) or solo practice (45.5% v 67.4%; all P < .001). Participation was higher in southern and mid-Atlantic markets. Markets with high OCM physician participation had higher specialist density, hospital care intensity, and acute care use at the end of life (all P < .001). Market-level penetration of Accountable Care Organizations (adjusted odds ratio, 4.65; 95% CI 3.31 to 6.56; P < .001) and Medicare Advantage (adjusted odds ratio 2.82; 95% CI, 1.97 to 4.06; P < .001) were associated with higher OCM participation. CONCLUSION: In the first description of oncologists participating in the OCM, we found differences in practice demographics, care intensity, and exposure to nontraditional payment models between OCM-participating and nonparticipating physicians. Such provider-level differences may not be captured in Medicare's practice-level analysis.