Association of Mandatory Bundled Payments for Joint Replacement With Postacute Care Outcomes Among Medicare and Medicaid Dual Eligible Patients.

IMPORTANCE: The Medicare comprehensive care for joint replacement (CJR) model, a mandatory bundled payment program started in April 2016 for hospitals in randomly selected metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), may help reduce postacute care (PAC) use and episode costs, but its impact on disparities between Medicaid and non-Medicaid beneficiaries is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine effects of the CJR program on differences (or disparities) in PAC use and outcomes by Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility status. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study of 2013-2017, based on difference-in-differences (DID) analyses on Medicare data for 1,239,452 Medicare-only patients, 57,452 dual eligibles with full Medicaid benefits, and 50,189 dual eligibles with partial Medicaid benefits who underwent hip or knee surgery in hospitals of 75 CJR MSAs and 121 control MSAs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk-adjusted differences in rates of institutional PAC [skilled nursing facility (SNF), inpatient rehabilitation, or long-term hospital care] use and readmissions; and for the subgroup of patients discharged to SNF, risk-adjusted differences in SNF length of stay, payments, and quality measured by star ratings, rate of successful discharge to community, and rate of transition to long-stay nursing home resident. RESULTS: The CJR program was associated with reduced institutional PAC use and readmissions for patients in all 3 groups. For example, it was associated with reductions in 90-day readmission rate by 1.8 percentage point [DID estimate=-1.8; 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.6 to -0.9; P<0.001] for Medicare-only patients, by 1.6 percentage points (DID estimate=-1.6; 95% CI, -3.1 to -0.1; P=0.04) for full-benefit dual eligibles, and by 2.0 percentage points (DID estimate=-2.0; 95% CI, -3.6 to -0.4; P=0.01) for partial-benefit dual eligibles. These CJR-associated effects did not differ between dual eligibles (differences in above DID estimates=0.2; 95% CI, -1.4 to 1.7; P=0.81 for full-benefit patients; and -0.3; 95% CI, -1.9 to 1.3; P=0.74 for partial-benefit patients) and Medicare-only patients. Among patients discharged to SNF, the CJR program showed no effect on successful community discharge, transition to long-term care, or their persistent disparities. CONCLUSIONS: The CJR program did not help reduce persistent disparities in readmissions or SNF-specific outcomes related to Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility, likely due to its lack of financial incentives for reduced disparities and improved SNF outcomes.

Trends in Postacute Care Use and Outcomes After Hip and Knee Replacements in Dual-Eligible Medicare and Medicaid Beneficiaries, 2013-2016.

Importance: Several Medicare alternative payment models were implemented in recent years, but their implications for socioeconomic gaps in postacute care (PAC) are unknown. Objectives: To determine the longitudinal trends in PAC use and outcomes after hip and knee replacements and in gaps among 3 groups: Medicare-only patients, dual-eligible patients with full Medicaid benefits, and dual-eligible patients with partial Medicaid benefits. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cohort study was conducted of PAC use and outcomes among Medicare fee-for-service patients undergoing hip or knee replacement surgery from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016, in approximately 3000 hospitals, using Medicare claims, assessment, hospital, and skilled nursing facility (SNF) files. Statistical analysis was performed from October 1, 2018, to December 17, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk-adjusted differences among dual-eligible groups in institutional PAC use (SNF, inpatient rehabilitation, or long-term hospital care), readmission rate, and payment for readmissions; for patients discharged to a SNF, risk-adjusted differences in SNF quality measured by star ratings, proportion successfully discharged to the community, proportion transitioned to long-stay residence, and SNF length of stay and payments. Results: The sample included 1 302 256 patients (837 256 women [64.3%]; mean [SD] age, 75.4 [7.2] years) who underwent joint replacement. The proportion of patients discharged to institutional PAC and the 30-day and 90-day readmission rates decreased for all 3 groups during the period from 2013 to 2016. In 2013, institutional PAC use was 43.7% (95% CI, 43.5%-43.9%) for Medicare-only patients (n = 1 182 555), 70.1% (95% CI, 69.4%-70.8%; n = 60 461) for dual-eligible patients with full benefits, and 70.3% (95% CI, 69.6%-71.0%; n = 59 240) for dual-eligible patients with partial benefits; in 2016, the rates decreased to 32.5% (95% CI, 32.4%-32.7%) for Medicare-only patients, 62.3% (95% CI, 61.5%-63.0%) for dual-eligible patients with full benefits, and 61.5% (95% CI, 60.7%-62.3%) for dual-eligible patients with partial benefits. Among patients discharged to SNFs, outcomes remained flat over time. For example, the proportion of patients successfully discharged to the community remained at 80.5% (95% CI, 80.4%-80.7%) for Medicare-only patients, 59.8% (95% CI, 59.3%-60.3%) for dual-eligible patients with full benefits, and 50.0% (95% CI, 49.4%-50.5%) for dual-eligible patients with partial benefits. Multivariable analyses with adjustment for patient, hospital (or SNF), and geographical covariates suggested maintained or enlarged gaps in all outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that, during the period from 2013 to 2016, Medicare patients undergoing hip or knee replacement showed reduced institutional PAC use, reduced readmissions, and, among those discharged to SNFs, roughly unchanged outcomes. However, dual-eligible patients, especially those with partial Medicaid benefits, had persistently worse outcomes than Medicare-only patients.

Impact of Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program Penalties on Hip and Knee Replacement Readmissions: Comparison of Hospitals at Risk of Varying Penalty Amounts.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) expansion to include readmissions following elective primary total hip and knee replacements; the expansion was finalized in 2013 and was implemented in 2014. We examined whether hospitals at risk of relatively large penalties from this expansion experienced greater declines in joint replacement readmissions compared with hospitals at risk of smaller penalties. METHODS: We used Medicare's 2009 to 2016 Hospital Compare data sets to examine the impact of the HRRP's expansion in the July 2013 to June 2016 period (post-expansion) compared with the July 2009 to June 2012 period (pre-expansion). The primary outcome was the hospital-level, 30-day, risk-standardized readmission rate (hereafter called the readmission rate) following joint replacement surgical procedures. We used the percentage of a hospital's total inpatient revenue attributed to Medicare (categorized into quartiles) to represent the risk of penalties. We used hierarchical linear regression models to examine the adjusted impact of the HRRP's expansion. RESULTS: Our study cohort included 2,326 acute care hospitals. In the pre-HRRP expansion phase, the mean readmission rate was 5.36% among hospitals with the highest proportion of Medicare revenues (quartile 4) and 5.46% among hospitals with the lowest proportion of Medicare revenues (quartile 1). With the HRRP expansion, the readmission rate declined by 18.92% (1.01 percentage points) among quartile-4 hospitals and by 17.97% (0.98 percentage point) among quartile-1 hospitals (p = 0.45). This nonsignificant difference in readmission rate declines between quartiles persisted in multivariable analysis (a decline of 18.41% [0.98 percentage point] in quartile 4 and a decline of 17.35% [0.94 percentage point] in quartile 1; p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: The HRRP's expansion to include joint replacements did not lead to greater reductions in postoperative readmissions among hospitals at risk of larger penalties in comparison with hospitals at risk of smaller penalties. Readmission rates were declining at similar rates among all hospitals, before and after the HRRP's expansion. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Readmissions and complications following joint replacements are measures of the quality of surgical care. These events have important clinical and economic implications for patients and providers. This study is clinically relevant because it examines whether policy interventions, such as the HRRP, have the potential to reduce these unintended consequences of surgical care.

Trends in spinal deformity surgery in Marfan syndrome.

STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of a national database. OBJECTIVE: To analyze trends in fusion surgery for spinal deformity in Marfan syndrome (MFS) patients, compare patients with and without Marfan, and evaluate differences in surgical approaches. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: National trends of fusion surgery for spinal deformities in MFS patients are not known. Given the rarity of MFS and the nuanced differences in the spinal deformity it causes, it is important to explore differences in fusion surgery between spinal deformity patients with and without MFS. METHODS: We identified 314 patients (1,410 weighted) with a diagnosis of MFS and spinal deformity who underwent spinal fusion between the years 2003 and 2014. Our primary outcome was national trends in the use of posterior (PSF), anterior-posterior (APSF), and anterior (ASF) spinal fusions. We also compared perioperative complications, mortality rate, length of stay, and hospital charges in a propensity score matched sample of spinal fusion patients with and without a diagnosis of MFS. RESULTS: The proportion of PSF surgeries increased significantly (p<.01) from 66.7% in 2003 to 92.0% in 2014. MFS patients were more likely to have higher neurologic (2.4% vs. 0.79%, p=.01) complications. There was a significant association between age and approach (p<.01). PSF had a mean age of 20.2, whereas APSF and ASF had mean ages of 27.1 and 35.2, respectively. Approximately 62% of cervical fusions used ASF. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides findings from the largest sample analyzed to date and is the only thus far that investigates national trends. Our results are largely consistent with those of other works in that MFS patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery have higher neurologic complications. We also report that surgical treatment has shifted toward a posterior approach. Our findings can give surgeons a better understanding of the postoperative complications and changing national trends in spinal fusion surgery for patients with MFS.