Veterans' use of inpatient and outpatient palliative care: The national landscape.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care improves the quality of life for people with life-limiting conditions, which are common among older adults. Despite the Veterans Health Administration (VA) outpatient palliative care expansion, most research has focused on inpatient palliative care. This study aimed to compare veteran characteristics and hospice use for palliative care users across care settings (inpatient vs. outpatient) and dose (number of palliative care encounters). METHODS: This national cohort included veterans with any VA palliative care encounters from 2014 through 2017. We used VA and Medicare administrative data (2010-2017) to describe veteran demographics, socioeconomic status, life-limiting conditions, frailty, and palliative care utilization. Specialty palliative care encounters were identified using clinic stop codes (353, 351) and current procedural terminology codes (99241-99245). RESULTS: Of 120,249 unique veterans with specialty palliative care over 4 years, 67.8% had palliative care only in the inpatient setting (n = 81,523) and 32.2% had at least one palliative care encounter in the outpatient setting (n = 38,726), with or without an inpatient palliative care encounter. Outpatient versus inpatient palliative care users were more likely to have cancer and less likely to have high frailty, but sociodemographic factors including rurality and housing instability were similar. Duration of hospice use was similar between inpatient (median = 37 days; IQR = 11, 112) and outpatient (median = 44 days; IQR = 14, 118) palliative care users, and shorter among those with only one palliative care encounter (median = 18 days; IQR = 5, 64). CONCLUSIONS: This national evaluation provides novel insights into the care setting and dose of VA specialty palliative care for veterans. Among veterans with palliative care use, one-third received at least some palliative care in the outpatient care setting. Differences between veterans with inpatient and outpatient use motivate the need for further research to understand how care settings and number of palliative care encounters impact outcomes for veterans and older adults.

Healthcare use and out-of-pocket costs for rural family caregivers and care recipients in a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Rural family caregivers (FCGs) in the United States often experience high economic costs. This randomized controlled trial compared a transitional palliative care intervention (TPC) to support FCGs of seriously ill care recipients (CRs) to an attention control condition. We evaluated the TPC's effect on healthcare use and out-of-pocket spending for both FCGs and CRs. METHODS: TPC FCGs received teaching, guidance, and counseling via video calls for 8 weeks following CR discharge from the hospital. After discharge, a research assistant called all FCGs once a month for up to 6 months or CR death to collect self-reported healthcare utilization (e.g., outpatient, emergency department, and hospital), out-of-pocket healthcare spending (e.g., deductibles and coinsurance), and health-related travel costs (e.g., transportation, lodging, food) for FCGs and CRs. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated using negative binomial regressions. RESULTS: The study included 282 FCG-CR dyads across three U.S. states. Follow-up over the 6-month period was shortened by high CR mortality rates across both arms (29%), but was similar across arms. TPC reduced nights in the hospital for CR (IRR = 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.56-0. 99). Total out-of-pocket spending was not significantly different for TPC versus control. Across both groups, mean out-of-pocket spending for dyads was $1401.85, with healthcare payments contributing $1048.58 and transportation expenses contributing $136.79. TPC dyads reported lower lodging costs (IRR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.56-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to evidence that palliative care interventions reduce the number of nights in the hospital for seriously ill patients. Yet, overall rural FCGs and seriously ill CRs experience substantial out-of-pocket economic costs in the 6 months following hospitalization. Transitional care intervention design should consider impacts on patient and caregiver spending. CLINICALTRIALS: gov # is NCT03339271.

ACO leakage among gynecologic cancer patients: Incidence, predictors, and impact on annual Medicare expenditure.

OBJECTIVE: To examine patterns of Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) leakage, the receipt of healthcare by ACO-assigned patients from institutions outside assigned ACO network, among patients with gynecologic cancer. ACO leakage was estimated as rates of patients seeking care external to their ACO assignment. Factors associated with ACO leakage were identified and cost differences within the first year of cancer diagnosis described. METHODS: Medicare 5% data (2013-2017) was used to quantify rates of leakage among gynecologic cancer patients with stable ACO assignment. Crude and multivariable adjusted risk ratios of ACO leakage risk factors were estimated using log-binomial regression models. Overall and cancer-specific spending differences by ACO leakage status were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Overall incidence of ACO leakage was 28.1% with highest leakage for outpatient care and uterine cancer patients. ACO leakage risk was 56% higher among Black relative to White patients, and 77% more for those in higher relative to lowest quintiles of median household income. Leakage decreased by 3% and 8% with each unit increase in ACO size and number of subspecialists, respectively. Healthcare costs were 19.5% higher for leakage patients. CONCLUSIONS: ACO leakage rates among gynecologic cancer patients was overall modest, with some regional and temporal variation, higher leakage for certain subgroups and substantially higher Medicare spending in inpatient and outpatient settings for patients with ACO leakage. These findings identify targets for further investigations and strategies to encourage oncologists to participate in ACOs and prevent increased health care costs associated with use of non-ACO providers.

Racial Disparities in Low-Value Care in the Last Year of Life for Medicare Beneficiaries With Neurodegenerative Disease.

Background and Objectives: There are racial disparities in health care services received by patients with neurodegenerative diseases, but little is known about disparities in the last year of life, specifically in high-value and low-value care utilization. This study evaluated racial disparities in the utilization of high-value and low-value care in the last year of life among Medicare beneficiaries with dementia or Parkinson disease. Methods: This was a retrospective, population-based cohort analysis using data from North and South Carolina fee-for-service Medicare claims between 2013 and 2017. We created a decedent cohort of beneficiaries aged 50 years or older at diagnosis with dementia or Parkinson disease. Specific low-value utilization outcomes were selected from the Choosing Wisely initiative, including cancer screening, peripheral artery stenting, and feeding tube placement in the last year of life. Low-value outcomes included hospitalization, emergency department visits, neuroimaging services, and number of days receiving skilled nursing. High-value outcomes included receipt of occupational and physical therapy, hospice care, and medications indicated for dementia and/or Parkinson disease. Results: Among 70,650 decedents, 13,753 were Black, 55,765 were White, 93.1% had dementia, and 7.7% had Parkinson disease. Adjusting for age, sex, Medicaid dual enrollment status, rural vs urban location, state (NC and SC), and comorbidities, Black decedents were more likely to receive low-value care including colorectal cancer screening (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.46 [1.32-1.61]), peripheral artery stenting (aHR 1.72 [1.43-2.08]), and feeding tube placement (aHR 2.96 [2.70-3.24]) and less likely to receive physical therapy (aHR 0.73 [0.64-0.85)], dementia medications (aHR 0.90 [0.86-0.95]), or Parkinson disease medications (aHR 0.88 [0.75-1.02]) within the last year of life. Black decedents were more likely to be hospitalized (aHR 1.28 [1.25-1.32]), more likely to be admitted to skilled nursing (aHR 1.09 [1.05-1.13]), and less likely to be admitted to hospice (aHR 0.82 [0.79-0.85]) than White decedents. Discussion: We found racial disparities in care utilization among patients with neurodegenerative disease in the last year of life, such that Black decedents were more likely to receive specific low-value care services and less likely to receive high-value supportive care than White decedents, even after adjusting for health status and socioeconomic factors.

Changes in Outpatient Health Care Use After COVID-19 Infection Among Veterans.

Importance: The association of COVID-19 infection with outpatient care utilization is unclear. Many studies reported population surveillance studies rather than comparing outpatient health care use between COVID-19-infected and uninfected cohorts. Objective: To compare outpatient health care use across 6 categories of care (primary care, specialty care, surgery care, mental health, emergency care, and diagnostic and/or other care) between veterans with or without COVID-19 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs primary care patients, veterans with COVID-19 infection were matched to a cohort of uninfected veterans. Data were obtained from the Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Fee-for-Service Carrier/Physician Supplier file from January 2019 through December 2022. Data analysis was performed from September 2022 to April 2023. Exposure: COVID-19 infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the count of outpatient visits after COVID-19 infection. Negative binomial regression models compared outpatient use over a 1-year preinfection period, and peri-infection (0-30 days), intermediate (31-183 days), and long-term (184-365 days) postinfection periods. Results: The infected (202 803 veterans; mean [SD] age, 60.5 [16.2] years; 178 624 men [88.1%]) and uninfected (202 803 veterans; mean [SD] age, 60.4 [16.5] years; 178 624 men [88.1%]) cohorts were well matched across all covariates. Outpatient use in all categories (except surgical care) was significantly elevated during the peri-infection period for veterans with COVID-19 infection compared with the uninfected cohort, with an increase in all visits of 5.12 visits per 30 days (95% CI, 5.09-5.16 visits per 30 days), predominantly owing to primary care visits (increase of 1.86 visits per 30 days; 95% CI, 1.85-1.87 visits per 30 days). Differences in outpatient use attenuated over time but remained statistically significantly higher at 184 to 365 days after infection (increase of 0.25 visit per 30 days; 95% CI, 0.23-0.27 visit per 30 days). One-half of the increased outpatient visits were delivered via telehealth. The utilization increase was greatest for veterans aged 85 years and older (6.1 visits, 95% CI, 5.9-6.3 visits) vs those aged 20 to 44 years (4.8 visits, 95% CI, 4.7-4.8 visits) and unvaccinated veterans (4.5 visits, 95% CI, 4.3-4.6 visits) vs vaccinated veterans (3.2 visits; 95% CI, 3.4-4.8 visits). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that outpatient use increased significantly in the month after infection, then attenuated but remained greater than the uninfected cohorts' use through 12 months, which suggests that there are sustained impacts of COVID-19 infection.

Implementation Costs of Technology-Enhanced Transitional Palliative Care for Rural Caregivers.

OBJECTIVES: Compared to urban family caregivers (FCG), rural FCG experience greater burdens accessing coordinated care for their loved ones during and after hospitalization. The impact of technology-enhanced transitional palliative care (TPC) on caregiver outcomes is currently being evaluated in a randomized control trial. This study evaluates resource use and health system costs of this FCG-focused TPC intervention and potential Medicare reimbursement mechanisms. METHODS: Rural caregivers of hospitalized patients were randomized into an 8-week intervention consisting of video visits conducted by a registered nurse certified in palliative care, supplemented with phone calls and texts (n = 215), or attentional control. Labor costs were estimated for a registered nurse and compared to scenario analyses using a nurse practitioner or social worker wages. Medicare reimbursement scenarios included Transitional Care Management (TCM) and Chronic Care Management (CCM) CPT codes. RESULTS: In the base case, TPC cost was $395 per FCG facilitated by a registered nurse, compared to $337 and $585 if facilitated by a social worker or nurse practitioner, respectively. Mean Medicare reimbursement in the TCM-only scenario was $322 and $260 for high or moderate complexity patients, respectively. Reimbursement in the CCM only scenario was $348 and $274 for complex and non-complex patients, respectively. Reimbursement in the TCM+CCM scenario was $496 and $397, for high/complex and moderate/non-complex patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: TPC is a feasible, low cost and sustainable strategy to enhance FCG support in rural areas. Potential reimbursement mechanisms are available to offset the costs to the health system for providing transitional palliative care to caregivers of patients recently hospitalized.

Knowledge, goals, and misperceptions about palliative care in adults with chronic disease or cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Limited evidence investigates how knowledge, misconceptions, and beliefs about palliative care vary across patients with cancerous versus non-cancerous chronic disease. We examined the knowledge of and misconceptions about palliative care among these groups. METHODS: We used weighted data from the National Cancer Institute Health Information National Trends Survey 5 (Cycle 2) for nationally representative estimates and logistic regression to adjust for respondent characteristics. We identified respondents who reported having (1) cancer ([n = 585]; breast, lung, and colorectal), (2) chronic conditions ([n = 543]; heart failure, lung disease, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder), or (3) neither cancer nor other chronic conditions (n = 2,376). RESULTS: Compared to cancer respondents, chronic condition respondents were more likely to report being Black or Hispanic, report a disability, and have lower socioeconomic status. In the sample, 65.6% of cancer respondents and 72.8% chronic conditions respondents reported they had never heard of palliative care. Chronic condition respondents were significantly (p < 0.05) less likely to report high palliative care knowledge than cancer respondents (9.1% vs. 16.6%, respectively). In adjusted analyses, cancer respondents had greater odds of high palliative care knowledge (odd ratio [OR] = 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01, 2.86) compared to respondents with neither cancer nor chronic disease; chronic condition respondents did not have increased odds (OR = 0.96; CI = 0.59, 1.54). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Disparities in palliative care knowledge exist among people with non-cancerous chronic disease compared to cancer. Supportive educational efforts to boost knowledge about palliative care remains urgent and is critical for promoting equity, particularly for underserved people with chronic illnesses.

Using a home time measure to differentiate ACO performance for seriously ill populations.

BACKGROUND: Alternative Payment Models (APMs) piloted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) such as ACO Realizing Equity, Access and Community Health (REACH) seek to improve care and quality of life among seriously ill populations (SIP). Days at Home (DAH) was proposed for use in this model to evaluate organizational performance. It is important to assess the utility and feasibility of person-centered outcomes measures, such as DAH, as CMS seeks to advance care models for seriously ill beneficiaries. We leverage existing Accountable Care Organization (ACO) contracts to evaluate the feasibility of ACO-level DAH measure and examine characteristics associated with ACOs with more DAH. METHODS: We calculated DAH for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 68 and over who were retrospectively attributed to a Medicare ACO between 2014 and 2018 and met the seriously ill criteria. We then aggregated to the ACO level DAH for each ACO's seriously ill beneficiaries and risk-adjusted this aggregated measure. Finally, we evaluated associations between risk-adjusted DAH per person-year and ACO, beneficiary, and market characteristics. RESULTS: ACOs' seriously ill beneficiaries spent an average of 349.3 risk-adjusted DAH per person-year. Risk-adjusted ACO variation, defined as the interquartile range, was 4.21 days (IQR = 347.32-351.53). Beneficiaries of ACOs are composed of a less racially diverse beneficiary cohort, opting for two-sided risk models, and operating in markets with fewer hospital and Skilled Nursing Facility beds had more DAH. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation across ACOs in the DAH measure for seriously ill beneficiaries suggests the measure can differentiate between high and low performing provider groups. Key to the success of the metric is accurate risk adjustment to ensure providers have adequate resources to care for seriously ill beneficiaries. Organizational factors, such as the ACO size and level of risk, are strongly associated with more days at home.

Polypharmacy in Palliative Care for Advanced Heart Failure: The PAL-HF Experience.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care (PC) in advanced heart failure (HF) aims to improve symptoms and quality of life (QOL), in part through medication management. The impact of PC on polypharmacy (>5 medications) remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We explored patterns of polypharmacy in the Palliative Care in HF (PAL-HF) randomized controlled trial of standard care vs interdisciplinary PC in advanced HF (N = 150). We describe differences in medication counts between arms at 2, 6, 12, and 24 weeks for HF (12 classes) and PC (6 classes) medications. General linear mixed models were used to evaluate associations between treatment arm and polypharmacy over time. The median age of the patients was 72 years (interquartile range 62-80 years), 47% were female, and 41% were Black. Overall, 48% had ischemic etiology, and 55% had an ejection fraction of 40% or less. Polypharmacy was present at baseline in 100% of patients. HF and PC medication counts increased in both arms, with no significant differences in counts by drug class at any time point between arms. CONCLUSIONS: In a trial of patients with advanced HF considered eligible for PC, polypharmacy was universal at baseline and increased during follow-up with no effect of the palliative intervention on medication counts relative to standard care.

Comparing Palliative Care Knowledge in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas of the United States: Results from a National Survey.

Background: Despite recent growth in access to specialty palliative care (PC) services, awareness of PC by patients and caregivers is limited and misconceptions about PC persist. Identifying gaps in PC knowledge may help inform initiatives that seek to reduce inequities in access to PC in rural areas. Objective: We compared knowledge of PC in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas of the United States using a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. Design: We used data from the 2018 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) 5 Cycle 2 to compare prevalence and predictors of PC knowledge and misconceptions in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan areas as defined by the 2013 Urban-Rural Classification (URC) Scheme for Counties. We estimated the association between nonmetro status and knowledge of PC, adjusted for respondent characteristics, using multivariable logistic regression. Results: More respondents reported that they had never heard of PC in nonmetro (78.8%) than metro (70.1%) areas (p < 0.05). Controlling for other factors, nonmetro residence was associated with a 41% lower odds of PC knowledge (odds ratio [OR] = 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.37-0.94), and Hispanic respondents also demonstrated significantly lower odds of PC knowledge conditional on rural status (OR = 0.47; CI = 0.27-0.83). Misconceptions about PC were high in both metro and nonmetro areas. Conclusion: Awareness of PC was lower in rural and micropolitan areas compared with metropolitan areas, suggesting the need for tailored educational strategies. The reduced awareness of PC among Hispanic respondents regardless of rural status raises concerns about equitable access to PC services for this population.

Association of ACO Shared Savings Success and Serious Illness Spending.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) need confidence in their return on investment to implement changes in care delivery that prioritize seriously ill and high-cost Medicare beneficiaries. The objective of this study was to characterize spending on seriously ill beneficiaries in ACOs with Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) contracts and the association of spending with ACO shared savings. The population included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries identified with serious illness (N = 2,109,573) using the Medicare Master Beneficiary Summary File for 100% of ACO-attributed beneficiaries linked to MSSP beneficiary files (2014-2016). Lower spending for seriously ill Medicare beneficiaries and risk-bearing contracts in ACOs were associated with achieving ACO shared savings in the MSSP. For most ACOs, the seriously ill contribute approximately half of the spending and constitute 8%-13% of the attributed population. Patient and geographic (county) factors explained $2,329 of the observed difference in per beneficiary per year spending on seriously ill beneficiaries between high- and low-spending ACOs. The remaining $12,536 may indicate variation as a result of potentially modifiable factors. Consequently, if 10% of attributed beneficiaries were seriously ill, an ACO that moved from the worst to the best quartile of per capita serious illness spending could realize a reduction of $1,200 per beneficiary per year for the ACO population overall. Though the prevalence and case mix of seriously ill populations vary across ACOs, this association suggests that care provided for seriously ill patients is an important consideration for ACOs to achieve MSSP shared savings.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Palliative Care: Insights from the PAL-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized control trial, Palliative Care in Heart Failure (PAL-HF) improved heart failure-related quality of life, though cost-effectiveness remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the PAL-HF trial, which provided outpatient palliative care to patients with advanced heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Outcomes for usual care and PAL-HF strategies were compared using a Markov cohort model over 36 months from a payer perspective. The model parameters were informed by PAL-HF trial data and supplemented with meta-analyses and Medicare administrative data. Outcomes included hospitalization, place of death, Medicare expenditures, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Simulated mortality rates were the same for PAL-HF and usual care cohorts, at 89.7% at 36 months. In the base case analysis, the PAL-HF intervention resulted in an incremental gain of 0.03 QALYs and an incremental cost of $964 per patient for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $29,041 per QALY. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, an intervention cost of up to $140 per month is cost effective at $50,000 per QALY. Of 1000 simulations, the PC intervention had a 66.1% probability of being cost effective at a $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold assuming no decrease in hospitalization. In a scenario analysis, PAL-HF decreased payer spending through reductions in noncardiovascular hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: These results from this single-center trial are encouraging that palliative care for advanced heart failure is an economically attractive intervention. Confirmation of these findings in larger multicenter trials will be an important part of developing the evidence to support more widespread implementation of the PAL-HF palliative care intervention.

Selection Bias in Observational Studies of Palliative Care: Lessons Learned.

CONTEXT: Palliative care (PC) programs are typically evaluated using observational data, raising concerns about selection bias. OBJECTIVES: To quantify selection bias because of observed and unobserved characteristics in a PC demonstration program. METHODS: Program administrative data and 100% Medicare claims data in two states and a 20% sample in eight states (2013-2017). The sample included 2983 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65+ participating in the PC program and three matched cohorts: regional; two states; and eight states. Confounding because of observed factors was measured by comparing patient baseline characteristics. Confounding because of unobserved factors was measured by comparing days of follow-up and six-month and one-year mortality rates. RESULTS: After matching, evidence for observed confounding included differences in observable baseline characteristics, including race, morbidity, and utilization. Evidence for unobserved confounding included significantly longer mean follow-up in the regional, two-state, and eight-state comparison cohorts, with 207 (P < 0.001), 192 (P < 0.001), and 187 (P < 0.001) days, respectively, compared with the 162 days for the PC cohort. The PC cohort had higher six-month and one-year mortality rates of 53.5% and 64.5% compared with 43.5% and 48.0% in the regional comparison, 53.4% and 57.4% in the two-state comparison, and 55.0% and 59.0% in the eight-state comparison. CONCLUSION: This case study demonstrates that selection of comparison groups impacts the magnitude of measured and unmeasured confounding, which may change effect estimates. The substantial impact of confounding on effect estimates in this study raises concerns about the evaluation of novel serious illness care models in the absence of randomization. We present key lessons learned for improving future evaluations of PC using observational study designs.

National Trends in Hospice Facility Deaths in the United States, 2003-2017.

CONTEXT: Hospice facilities are increasingly preferred as a location of death, but little is known about the characteristics of patients who die in these facilities in the U.S. OBJECTIVES: We sought to examine the trends and factors associated with death in a hospice facility. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study using mortality data for years 2003-2017 for deaths attributed to natural causes in the U.S. RESULTS: The proportion of natural deaths occurring in hospice facilities increased from 0.2% in 2003 to 8.3% in 2017, resulting in nearly 1.7 million deaths during this time frame. Females had increased odds of hospice facility deaths (odds ratio [OR] = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.04, 1.05). Nonwhite race was associated with lower odds of hospice facility death (black [OR = 0.915; 95% CI = 0.890, 0.940]; Native American [OR = 0.559; 95% CI = 0.515, 0.607]; and Asian [OR = 0.655; 95% CI = 0.601, 0.713]). Being married was associated with hospice facility death (OR = 1.06; 95% CI = 1.04, 1.07). Older age was associated with increased odds of hospice facility death (85 and older [OR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.39, 1.41]). Having at least some college education was associated with increased odds of hospice facility death (OR = 1.13; 95% CI = 1.11, 1.15). Decedents from cardiovascular disease had the lowest odds of hospice facility death (OR = 0.278; 95% CI = 0.274, 0.282). CONCLUSION: Hospice facility deaths increased among all patient groups; however, striking differences exist by age, sex, race, marital status, education level, cause of death, and geography. Factors underlying these disparities should be examined.

Prospective or retrospective ACO attribution matters for seriously ill patients.

OBJECTIVES: Since 2019, the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) has allowed accountable care organizations (ACOs) to choose either retrospectively or prospectively attributed ACO populations. To understand how ACOs' choice of attribution method affects incentives for care among seriously ill Medicare beneficiaries, this study compares beneficiary characteristics and Medicare per capita expenditures between prospective and retrospective ACO populations. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective, cross-sectional analysis describes survival, patient characteristics, and Medicare spending for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries identified with serious illness (n = 1,600,629) using 100% Medicare Master Beneficiary Summary and MSSP beneficiary files (2014-2016). METHODS: We used generalized linear models with ACO and year fixed effects to estimate the average within-ACO difference between potential retrospective and prospective ACO populations. RESULTS: Dying in the first 90 days of the performance year was associated with reduced odds of retrospective ACO attribution (odds ratio [OR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.24-0.25) relative to beneficiaries surviving 270 days or longer. Similarly, hospice use was associated with reduced odds of retrospective assignment (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.79-0.80). Among ACOs that did not achieve shared savings, average per capita Medicare expenditures (after truncation) were $2459 (95% CI, $2192-$2725) higher for prospective vs retrospective ACO populations. The difference was $834 (95% CI, $402-$1266) greater per capita among ACOs that achieved shared savings. CONCLUSIONS: The difference in survival and spending for ACO populations captured by prospective vs retrospective attribution methods means that ACOs may need to employ different care management strategies to improve performance depending on their attribution method.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Integrating Population Health Principles into Practice.

The field of palliative care (PC) has spent the past decade demonstrating that it improves outcomes for patients, clinicians, and health systems. Forward-thinking organizations preparing for a reimbursement system rooted in value have built robust inpatient PC programs and are rapidly moving toward the outpatient and community settings as well. As PC programs get larger and are increasingly tasked with leading a wide variety of diverse initiatives, population health principles can help to focus programs on high-value activities. This article, written by population health researchers and PC clinicians, seeks to provide PC teams nationally with a variety of population health strategies and tools to guide PC delivery throughout the health system and beyond.

ACO Serious Illness Care: Survey And Case Studies Depict Current Challenges And Future Opportunities.

Care for people living with serious illness is suboptimal for many reasons, including underpayment for key services (such as care coordination and social supports) in fee-for-service reimbursement. Accountable care organizations (ACOs) have potential to improve serious illness care because of their widespread dissemination, strong financial incentives for care coordination in downside-risk models, and flexibility in shared savings spending. Through a national survey we found that 94 percent of ACOs at least partially identify their seriously ill beneficiaries, yet only 8-21 percent have widely implemented serious illness initiatives such as advance care planning or home-based palliative care. We selected six diverse ACOs with successful programs for case studies and interviewed fifty-three leaders and front-line personnel. Cross-cutting themes include the need for up-front investment beyond shared savings to build serious illness infrastructure and workforce; supporting the business case for organizational buy-in; how ACO contract specifications affect savings for serious illness populations; and using data and health information technology to manage populations. We discuss the implications of the recent Medicare ACO regulatory overhaul and other policies related to serious illness quality measures, risk adjustment, attribution methods, supporting rural ACOs, and enhancing timely data access.

Paying for Palliative Care in Medicare: Evidence From the Four Seasons/Duke CMMI Demonstration.

CONTEXT: Palliative care improves patient and family outcomes and may reduce the cost of care, but this service is underutilized among Medicare beneficiaries. OBJECTIVES: To describe enrollment patterns and outcomes associated with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation expansion of a multisetting community palliative care program in North and South Carolina. METHODS: This observational study characterizes the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation cohort's care and cost trajectories after enrollment. Program participants were age-eligible Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries living in Western North Carolina and South Carolina who enrolled in a palliative care program from September 1, 2014, to August 31, 2017. End-of-life costs were compared between enrolled and nonenrolled decedents. Program administrative data and 100% Medicare claims data were used. RESULTS: A total of 5243 Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in the program from community (19%), facility (21%), small hospital (27%), or large hospital (33%) settings. Changes in Medicare expenditures in the 30 days after enrollment varied by setting. Adjusted odds of hospice use were 60% higher (OR = 1.60; CI = 1.47, 1.75) for enrolled decedents relative to nonenrolled decedents. Participants discharged to hospice vs. participants not had 17% (OR = 0.83 CI = 0.72, 0.94) lower costs. Among enrolled decedents those enrolled for at least 30 days vs. <30 days had 42% (OR = 0.58, CI = 0.49, 0.69) lower costs in the last 30 days of life. CONCLUSIONS: Expansion of community palliative care programs into multiple enrollment settings is feasible. It may improve hospice utilization among enrollees. Heterogeneous program participation by program setting pose challenges to a standardizing reimbursement policy.