Prevalence of Gender-Affirming Surgical Procedures Among Minors and Adults in the US.

This cross-sectional study uses a national dataset to examine the prevalence of gender-affirming surgical procedures among minors and adults in the US.

Disparities in Access to Outpatient Surgery Related to Removal of Procedures from Medicare's Inpatient Only List.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the shift from inpatient to outpatient surgical care related to changes to the Inpatient Only List in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The extent to which procedures shift from the inpatient to outpatient setting following removal from Medicare's Inpatient Only List is unknown. Many health systems also encouraged a shift from inpatient to outpatient surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessing the relative change in outpatient surgical utilization for procedures removed from the Inpatient Only List during COVID-19 would provide empirical data on whether reimbursement policy changes or inpatient capacity needs during the pandemic were more likely to shift care from the inpatient to outpatient setting. METHODS: We used administrative data from the PINC AI Healthcare Database across 723 hospitals to determine the within-facility relative change in outpatient vs inpatient procedural volume in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019 using a multivariable conditional fixed-effects Poisson regression model. We also assessed whether outpatient surgical utilization varied by race and ethnicity. Using a multivariable linear probability model, we assessed the absolute change in risk-adjusted 30-day complication, readmission, and mortality rates for inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures. RESULTS: In 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019 respectively, there was a 5.3% (95% CI, 1.4% to 9.5%) and 41.3% (95% CI 33.1% to 50.0%) relative increase in outpatient elective procedural volume. Outpatient procedural volume increased most significantly for hip replacement which was removed from the Inpatient Only List in 2020 (increase in outpatient surgical utilization of 589.3% (95% CI, 524.9% to 660.3%)). The shift to outpatient hip replacement procedures was concentrated among White patients; in 2021, hip replacement procedural volume increased by 271.1% (95% CI, 241.2% and 303.7%) for White patients and 29.5% (95% CI, 24.4% and 34.9%) for Black patients compared to 2019 levels. There were no consistent or large changes in 30-day complication, readmission, or mortality risk in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019. CONCLUSION: There was a modest increase in elective outpatient surgeries and a pronounced increase in outpatient orthopedic surgeries which were removed from the Inpatient Only List during the COVID-19 pandemic. Utilization of outpatient surgical procedures was concentrated among White patients.

Why the US spends more treating high-need high-cost patients: a comparative study of pricing and utilization of care in six high-income countries.

One of the most pressing challenges facing most health care systems is rising costs. As the population ages and the demand for health care services grows, there is a growing need to understand the drivers of these costs across systems. This paper attempts to address this gap by examining utilization and spending of the course of a year for two specific high-need high-cost patient types: a frail older person with a hip fracture and an older person with congestive heart failure and diabetes. Data on utilization and expenditure is collected across five health care settings (hospital, post-acute rehabilitation, primary care, outpatient specialty and drugs), in six countries (Canada (Ontario), France, Germany, Spain (Aragon), Sweden and the United States (fee for service Medicare) and used to construct treatment episode Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) that compare prices using baskets of goods from the different care settings. The treatment episode PPPs suggest other countries have more similar volumes of care to the US as compared to other standardization approaches, suggesting that US prices account for more of the differential in US health care expenditures. The US also differs with regards to the share of expenditures across care settings, with post-acute rehab and outpatient speciality expenditures accounting for a larger share of the total relative to comparators.

ACO Participation Associated With Decreased Spending For Medicare Beneficiaries With Serious Mental Illness.

Serious mental illness (SMI) is a major source of suffering among Medicare beneficiaries. To date, limited evidence exists evaluating whether Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs) are associated with decreased spending among people with SMI. Using national Medicare data from the period 2009-17, we performed difference-in-differences analyses evaluating changes in spending and use associated with enrollment in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) among beneficiaries with SMI. After five years, participation in MSSP ACOs was associated with small savings for beneficiaries with SMI (-$233 per person per year) in total health care spending, primarily related to savings from chronic medical conditions (excluding mental health; -$227 per person per year) and not from savings related to mental health services (-$6 per person per year). Savings were driven by reductions in acute and postacute care for medical conditions. Further work is needed to ensure that Medicare ACOs invest in strategies to reduce potentially unnecessary care related to mental health disorders and to improve health outcomes.

Diabetes Care Among Older Adults Enrolled in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare Fee-For-Service Plans: The Diabetes Collaborative Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicare's managed care program, is quickly expanding, yet little is known about diabetes care quality delivered under MA compared with traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years old enrolled in the Diabetes Collaborative Registry from 2014 to 2019 with type 2 diabetes treated with one or more antihyperglycemic therapies. Quality measures, cardiometabolic risk factor control, and antihyperglycemic prescription patterns were compared between Medicare plan groups, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: Among 345,911 Medicare beneficiaries, 229,598 (66%) were enrolled in FFS and 116,313 (34%) in MA plans (for ≥1 month). MA beneficiaries were more likely to receive ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers for coronary artery disease, tobacco cessation counseling, and screening for retinopathy, foot care, and kidney disease (adjusted P ≤ 0.001 for all). MA beneficiaries had modestly but significantly higher systolic blood pressure (+0.2 mmHg), LDL cholesterol (+2.6 mg/dL), and HbA1c (+0.1%) (adjusted P < 0.01 for all). MA beneficiaries were independently less likely to receive glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (6.9% vs. 9.0%; adjusted odds ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.77-0.84) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (5.4% vs. 6.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.87-0.95). When integrating Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-linked data from 2014 to 2017 and more recent unlinked data from the Diabetes Collaborative Registry through 2019 (total N = 411,465), these therapeutic differences persisted, including among subgroups with established cardiovascular and kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: While MA plans enable greater access to preventive care, this may not translate to improved intermediate health outcomes. MA beneficiaries are also less likely to receive newer antihyperglycemic therapies with proven outcome benefits in high-risk individuals. Long-term health outcomes under various Medicare plans requires surveillance.

ACO Spending and Utilization Among Medicare Patients at the End of Life: an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life (EOL) costs constitute a substantial portion of healthcare spending in the USA and have been increasing. ACOs may offer an opportunity to improve quality and curtail EOL spending. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether practices that became ACOs altered spending and utilization at the EOL. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Medicare claims. PATIENTS: We assigned patients who died in 2012 and 2015 to an ACO or non-ACO practice. Practices that converted to ACOs in 2013 or 2014 were matched to non-ACOs in the same region. A total of 23,643 ACO patients were matched to 23,643 non-ACO patients. MAIN MEASURES: Using a difference-in-differences model, we examined changes in EOL spending and care utilization after ACO implementation. KEY RESULTS: The introduction of ACOs did not significantly impact overall spending for patients in the last 6 months of life (difference-in-difference (DID) = $192, 95%CI -$841 to $1125, P = 0.72). Changes in spending did not differ between ACO and non-ACO patients across spending categories (inpatient, outpatient, physician services, skilled nursing, home health, hospice). No differences were seen between ACO and non-ACO patients in rates of ED visits, inpatient admissions, ICU admission, mean healthy days at home, and mean hospice days at 180 and 30 days prior to death. However, non-ACO patients had a significantly greater increase in hospice utilization compared to ACO patients at 180 days (DID P-value = 0.02) and 30 days (DID P-value = 0.01) prior to death. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of hospice care utilization, spending and utilization were not different between ACOs and non-ACO patients at the EOL. Longer follow-up may be necessary to evaluate the impact of ACOs on EOL spending and care.

Spending outcomes among patients with cancer in accountable care organizations 4 years after implementation.

BACKGROUND: The long-term impact of affordable care organizations (ACOs) on cancer spending remains unknown. The authors examined whether practices that became ACOs altered their spending for patients with cancer in the first 4 years after ACO implementation. METHODS: By using national Medicare data from 2011 to 2017, a random sample of 20% of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older with cancer was obtained (n = 866,532), and each patient was assigned to a practice. Practices that became ACOs in the Medicare Shared Savings Program were matched to non-ACO practices. Total, cancer-specific, and service category-specific yearly spending per patient was calculated. A difference-in-differences model was used to determine spending changes associated with ACO status for patients with cancer in the 4 years after ACO implementation. RESULTS: The introduction of ACOs did not have a significant impact on overall spending for patients with cancer in the 2 years after ACO implementation (difference, -$38; 95% CI, -$268, $191; P = .74). Changes in spending also did not differ between ACO and non-ACO patients within service categories or among the 11 cancer types examined. The lack of difference in spending for patients with cancer in ACO and non-ACO practices persisted in the third and fourth years after ACO implementation (difference, -$120; 95% CI, -$284, $525; P = .56). CONCLUSIONS: ACOs did not significantly change spending for patients with cancer in the first 4 years after their implementation compared with non-ACOs. This prompts a reevaluation of the current efficacy of ACOs in reducing spending for cancer care and may encourage policymakers to reconsider the incentive structures of ACOs. LAY SUMMARY: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) were developed to curtail health care spending and improve quality, but their effects on cancer spending in their first 2 years have been minimal. The long-term impact of ACOs on cancer spending remains unknown. By using data from 866,532 Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, the authors observed that the association of a practice with an ACO did not significantly change total yearly spending per patient in the first 4 years after ACO implementation. This finding prompts a reevaluation of the current efficacy of ACOs in reducing spending for cancer care.

Differences in health outcomes for high-need high-cost patients across high-income countries.

OBJECTIVE: This study explores variations in outcomes of care for two types of patient personas-an older frail person recovering from a hip fracture and a multimorbid older patient with congestive heart failure (CHF) and diabetes. DATA SOURCES: We used individual-level patient data from 11 health systems. STUDY DESIGN: We compared inpatient mortality, mortality, and readmission rates at 30, 90, and 365 days. For the hip fracture persona, we also calculated time to surgery. Outcomes were standardized by age and sex. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Data was compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes and Needs in Care across 11 countries for the years 2016-2017 (or nearest): Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The hip sample across ranged from 1859 patients in Aragon, Spain, to 42,849 in France. Mean age ranged from 81.2 in Switzerland to 84.7 in Australia, and the majority of hip patients across countries were female. The congestive heart failure (CHF) sample ranged from 742 patients in England to 21,803 in the United States. Mean age ranged from 77.2 in the United States to 80.3 in Sweden, and the majority of CHF patients were males. Average in-hospital mortality across countries was 4.1%. for the hip persona and 6.3% for the CHF persona. At the year mark, the mean mortality across all countries was 25.3% for the hip persona and 32.7% for CHF persona. Across both patient types, England reported the highest mortality at 1 year followed by the United States. Readmission rates for all periods were higher for the CHF persona than the hip persona. At 30 days, the average readmission rate for the hip persona was 13.8% and 27.6% for the CHF persona. CONCLUSION: Across 11 countries, there are meaningful differences in health system outcomes for two types of patients.

Practice Consolidation Among U.S. Radiation Oncologists Over Time.

PURPOSE: Health care practices across the United States have been consolidating in response to various market forces. The degree of practice consolidation varies widely across specialties but has not been well studied within radiation oncology. This study used Medicare data to characterize the extent of practice consolidation among radiation oncologists and to investigate associated market factors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We utilized Medicare Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System data to assess the practice size and billing patterns of U.S. radiation oncologists in 2013 and again in 2017. Individual practices were categorized by the number of radiation oncologists practicing together: solo practices had 1 radiation oncologist, small practices 2 to 10, and large practices 11 or more. Market consolidation within each hospital referral region (HRR) across the country was quantified using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. Hospital and market level data were obtained for each HRR, and factors associated with the growth of radiation oncology practices over time were calculated via multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: Across the United States, radiation oncology practices appear to be highly consolidated. The mean Herfindahl-Hirschman Index was 0.4711 in 2013-indicating high levels of consolidation at baseline-and increased further to 0.4865 by 2017. Between 2013 and 2017, the number of practices with radiation oncologists in the United States decreased 3.8%, from 1679 to 1615, whereas the number of practicing radiation oncologists increased 9.4%, from 4948 to 5415. Over the study period, the number of solo practices fell 11% (from 708 in 2013 to 627 in 2017), whereas the number of large practices (those with 11 or more radiation oncologists) increased 50% (from 60 to 90). Large practices likewise grew to employ a greater share of all radiation oncologists (23.9%-32.4%) and accounted for a larger proportion of total Medicare billing (21%-26%). Two market factors were predictive for increases in the mean radiation oncology practice size. HRRs with greater hospital market consolidation and those with lower levels of baseline radiation oncology consolidation were more likely to experience higher levels of growth over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation oncologists are increasingly working in larger practices. By 2017, nearly one-third of all practicing radiation oncologists in the United States were employed by just the 90 largest practices. Radiation oncology, as a field, is highly concentrated, and represents one of the most consolidated specialties across the country. The implications of practice consolidation among radiation oncologists warrants further investigation.

Comparison of General Surgical Practice Size and Setting in 2017 vs 2013 in the US.

Importance: As health care delivery markets have changed and new payment models have emerged, physicians in many specialties have consolidated their practices, but whether this consolidation has occurred in surgical practices is unknown. Objective: To examine changes in the size of surgical practices, market-level factors associated with this consolidation, and how place of service for surgical care delivery varies by practice size. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty from January 1 to December 31, 2013, compared with January 1 to December 31, 2017, was conducted on all general surgeon practices caring for patients enrolled in Medicare in the US. Data analysis was performed from November 4, 2019, to January 9, 2020. Exposures: Practice sizes in 2013 and 2017 were compared relative to hospital market concentration measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index in the hospital referral region. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the change in size of surgical practices over the study period. Secondary outcomes included change in surgical practice market concentration and the place of service for provision of surgical care stratified by surgical practice size. Results: From 2013 to 2017, the number of surgical practices in the US decreased from 10 432 to 8451. The proportion of surgeons decreased in practices with 1 (from 26.2% to 17.4%), 2 (from 8.3% to 6.6%), and 3 to 5 (from 18.0% to 16.5%) surgeons, and the proportion of surgeons in practices with 6 or more surgeons increased (from 47.6% to 59.5%). Hospital concentration was associated with an increase in the size of the surgical practice. Each 10% increase in the hospital market concentration was associated with an increase of 0.204 surgeons (95% CI, 0.020-0.388 surgeons; P = .03) per practice from 2013 to 2017. Similarly, a 10% increase in the hospital-level HHI was associated with an increase in the surgical practice HHI of 0.023 (95% CI, 0.013-0.033; P < .001). Large surgical practices increased their share of Medicare services provided from 36.5% in 2013 to 45.6% in 2017. Large practices (31.3% inpatient in 2013 to 33.1% in 2017) were much more likely than small practices (19.0% inpatient in 2013 to 17.7% in 2017) to be based in hospital settings and this gap widened over time. Conclusions and Relevance: Surgeons have increasingly joined larger practices over time, and there has been a significant decrease in solo, small, and midsize surgical practices. The consolidation of surgeons into larger practices appears to be associated with hospital market concentration in the same market. Although overall care appears to be more hospital based for larger practices, the association between the consolidation of surgical practices and patient access and outcomes should be studied.

Changes in Racial Disparities in Mortality After Cancer Surgery in the US, 2007-2016.

Importance: Racial disparities are well documented in cancer care. Overall, in the US, Black patients historically have higher rates of mortality after surgery than White patients. However, it is unknown whether racial disparities in mortality after cancer surgery have changed over time. Objective: To examine whether and how disparities in mortality after cancer surgery have changed over 10 years for Black and White patients overall and for 9 specific cancers. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, national Medicare data were used to examine the 10-year (January 1, 2007, to November 30, 2016) changes in postoperative mortality rates in Black and White patients. Data analysis was performed from August 6 to December 31, 2019. Participants included fee-for-service beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Part A who had a major surgical resection for 9 common types of cancer surgery: colorectal, bladder, esophageal, kidney, liver, ovarian, pancreatic, lung, or prostate cancer. Exposures: Cancer surgery among Black and White patients. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk-adjusted 30-day, all-cause, postoperative mortality overall and for 9 specific types of cancer surgery. Results: A total of 870 929 cancer operations were performed during the 10-year study period. In the baseline year, a total of 103 446 patients had cancer operations (96 210 White patients and 7236 Black patients). Black patients were slightly younger (mean [SD] age, 73.0 [6.4] vs 74.5 [6.8] years), and there were fewer Black vs White men (3986 [55.1%] vs 55 527 [57.7%]). Overall national mortality rates following cancer surgery were lower for both Black (-0.12%; 95% CI, -0.17% to -0.06% per year) and White (-0.14%; 95% CI, -0.16% to -0.13% per year) patients. These reductions were predominantly attributable to within-hospital mortality improvements (Black patients: 0.10% annually; 95% CI, -0.15% to -0.05%; P < .001; White patients: 0.13%; 95% CI, -0.14% to -0.11%; P < .001) vs between-hospital mortality improvements. Across the 9 different cancer surgery procedures, there was no significant difference in mortality changes between Black and White patients during the period under study (eg, prostate cancer: 0.35; 95% CI, 0.02-0.68; lung cancer: 0.61; 95% CI, -0.21 to 1.44). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings offer mixed news for policy makers regarding possible reductions in racial disparities following cancer surgery. Although postoperative cancer surgery mortality rates improved for both Black and White patients, there did not appear to be any narrowing of the mortality gap between Black and White patients overall or across individual cancer surgery procedures.

A PATH TO RESUME AESTHETIC CARE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AesCert™ GUIDANCE SUPPLEMENT: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR AESTHETIC MEDICINE PROFESSIONALS SUPPORTING CLINIC PREPAREDNESS IN RESPONSE TO THE SARS-CoV-2 OUTBREAK.

This Project AesCert™ Guidance Supplement ("Guidance Supplement") was developed in partnership with a multi-disciplinary panel of board-certified physician and doctoral experts in the fields of Infectious Disease, Immunology, Public Health Policy, Dermatology, Facial Plastic Surgery and Plastic Surgery. The Guidance Supplement is intended to provide aesthetic medicine physicians and their staffs with a practical guide to safety considerations to support clinic preparedness for patients seeking non-surgical aesthetic treatments and procedures following the return-to-work phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, once such activity is permitted by applicable law. Many federal, state and local governmental authorities, public health agencies and professional medical societies have promulgated COVID-19 orders and advisories applicable to health care practitioners. The Guidance Supplement is intended to provide aesthetic physicians and their staffs with an additional set of practical considerations for delivering aesthetic care safely and generally conducting business responsibly in the new world of COVID-19. Aesthetic providers will face new and unique challenges as government stay-at-home orders and related commercial limitations are eased, and the U.S. economy reopens and healthcare systems transition from providing only urgent and other essential treatment to resuming routine care and elective procedures and services. The medical aesthetic specialties will therefore wish to resume practice in order to ensure high quality, expert care is available, and importantly to help promote patients' positive self-image and sense of well-being following a lengthy and stressful period of quarantine. In a number of areas, this Guidance Supplement exceeds traditional aesthetic office safety precautions, recognizing reduced tolerance in an elective treatment environment for any risk associated with COVID-19's highly variable presentation and unpredictable course. The disease has placed a disturbing number of young, otherwise healthy patients in extremis with severe respiratory and renal failure, stroke, pericarditis, neurologic deficits and other suddenly life-threatening complications, in addition to its pernicious effects on those with pre-existing morbidities and advanced age. Accordingly, the Guidance Supplement seeks to establish an elevated safety profile for providing patient care while reducing, to the greatest extent reasonably possible, the risk of infectious processes to both patients and providers. While the Guidance Supplement cannot foreclose the risk of infection, nor serve to establish or modify any standards of care, it does offer actionable risk-mitigation considerations for general office comportment and for certain non-surgical procedures typically performed in aesthetic medical settings. It is axiomatic that all such considerations are necessarily subject to the ultimate judgment of each individual healthcare professional based on patient situation, procedure details, office environment, staffing constraints, equipment and testing availability, and local legal status and public health conditions.

Spending Among Patients With Cancer in the First 2 Years of Accountable Care Organization Participation.

PURPOSE: Spending on patients with cancer can be substantial and has continued to increase in recent years. Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are arguably the most important national experiment to control health care spending, yet how ACOs are managing patients with cancer diagnoses is largely unknown. We aimed to determine whether practices that became ACOs had changes in overall or cancer-specific spending among patients with cancer. METHODS: Using 2011 to 2015 national Medicare claims, practices that became part of ACOs were identified and matched to non-ACO practices within the same geographic region. We calculated total and category-specific annual spending per beneficiary as well as spending for and utilization of emergency departments, inpatient admissions, hospice, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. A difference-in-differences model was used to examine changes in spending and utilization associated with ACO contracts in the Medicare Shared Savings Program for beneficiaries with cancer. RESULTS: We found that the introduction of ACOs had no meaningful impact on overall spending in patients with cancer (-$308 per beneficiary in ACOs v -$319 in non-ACOs; difference, $11; 95% CI, -$275 to $297; P = .94). We found no changes in total spending in patients within any of the 11 different cancer types examined. Finally, changes in spending and utilization did not meaningfully differ between ACO and non-ACO patients within various categories, including cancer-specific categories. CONCLUSION: Compared with patients with cancer treated at non-ACO practices, being a patient with a cancer diagnosis in a Medicare ACO is not associated with significantly reduced spending or heath care utilization. The introduction of ACOs does not seem to have had any meaningful effect on spending or utilization for patients with a cancer diagnosis.

Racial Disparities In Surgical Mortality: The Gap Appears To Have Narrowed.

Despite substantial attention to the greater likelihood of poor clinical outcomes among black versus white surgical patients, little is known about whether racial disparities in postoperative mortality in the United States have narrowed over time. Using nationwide Medicare inpatient claims data for the period 2005-14, we examined trends in thirty-day postoperative mortality rates in black and white patients for five high-risk and three low-risk procedures. Overall, national mortality trends improved for both black and white patients, by 0.10 percent per year and 0.07 percent per year, respectively-which significantly narrowed the black-white difference. The reduction occurred primarily within hospitals, rather than between hospitals. Certain subsets of hospitals, such as small hospitals in the Midwest or West that were not minority-serving (that is, not among the top 10 percent of hospitals by volume of black patients served), improved more than others. In spite of concerns that quality improvement efforts may widen disparities, these findings suggest that national racial disparities in surgical mortality are narrowing.