Total and Out-of-Pocket Costs Surrounding Emergency Department Care Among Older Adults Enrolled in Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to quantify differences in total and out-of-pocket health care costs associated with treat-and-release emergency department (ED) visits among older adults with traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage. METHODS: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional analysis of treat-and-release ED visits using 2015 to 2020 data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. We measured total and out-of-pocket health care spending during 3 time periods: the 30 days prior to the ED visit, the treat-and-release ED visit itself, and the 30 days after the ED visit. Stratified by traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage status, we determined median total costs and the proportion of costs that were out-of-pocket. RESULTS: Among the 5,011 ED visits by those enrolled in traditional Medicare, the weighted median total (and % out-of-pocket) costs were $881.95 (13.3%) for the 30 days prior to the ED visit, $419.70 (10.1%) for the ED visit, and $809.00 (13.8%) for the 30 days after the ED visit. For the 2,595 ED visits by those enrolled in Medicare Advantage, the weighted median total (and % out-of-pocket) costs were $484.92 (24.0%) for the 30 days prior to the ED visit, $216.66 (21.9%) for the ED visit, and $439.13 (22.4%) for the 30 days after the ED visit. CONCLUSION: Older adults insured by Medicare Advantage incur lower total health care costs and face similar overall out-of-pocket expenses in the time period surrounding emergency care. However, a higher proportion of expenses are out-of-pocket compared with those insured by traditional Medicare, providing evidence of greater cost sharing for Medicare Advantage plan enrollees.

Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Performance Measures in Alternative Payment Models: Current Use, Implementation Barriers, and Principles to Succeed.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based performance measures (PRO-PMs) offer opportunities to aggregate survey data into a reliable and valid assessment of performance at the entity-level (eg, clinician, hospital, and accountable care organization). Our objective was to address the existing literature gap regarding the implementation barriers, current use, and principles for PRO-PMs to succeed. METHODS: As quality measurement experts, we first highlighted key principles of PRO-PMs and how alternative payment models (APMs) may be integral in promoting more widespread use. In May 2023, we reviewed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Measures Inventory Tool for active PRO-PM usage within CMS programs. We finally present principles to prioritize as part PRO-PMs succeeding within APMs. RESULTS: We identified 5 implementation barriers to PRO-PM use: original development of instrument, response rate sufficiency, provider burden, hesitancy regarding fairness, and attribution of desired outcomes. There existed 54 instances of active PRO-PM usage across CMS programs, including 46 unique PRO-PMs within 14 CMS programs. Five principles to prioritize as part of greater PRO-PM development and incorporation within APMs include the following: (1) clinical salience, (2) adequate sample size, (3) meaningful range of performance among measured entities and the ability to detect performance change in a reasonable time frame, (4) equity focus, and (5) appropriate risk adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Identified barriers and principles to prioritize should be considered during PRO-PM development and implementation phases to link available and novel measures to payment programs while ensuring provider and stakeholder engagement.

Emergency medicine physician workforce attrition differences by age and gender.

BACKGROUND: Emergency care workforce concerns have gained national prominence given recent data suggesting higher than previously estimated attrition. With little known regarding characteristics of physicians leaving the workforce, we sought to investigate the age and number of years since residency graduation at which male and female emergency physicians (EPs) exhibited workforce attrition. METHODS: We performed a repeated cross-sectional analysis of EPs reimbursed by Medicare linked to date of birth and residency graduation date data from the American Board of Emergency Medicine for the years 2013-2020. Stratified by gender, our primary outcomes were the median age and number of years since residency graduation at the time of attrition, defined as the last year during the study time frame that an EP provided clinical services. We constructed a multivariate logistic regression model to examine the association between gender and EP workforce attrition. RESULTS: A total of 25,839 (70.2%) male and 10,954 (29.8%) female EPs were included. During the study years, 5905 male EPs exhibited attrition at a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 56.4 (44.5-65.4) years, and 2463 female EPs exhibited attrition at a median (IQR) age of 44.0 (38.0-53.9) years. Female gender (adjusted odds ratio 2.30, 95% confidence interval 1.82-2.91) was significantly associated with attrition from the workforce. Male and female EPs had respective median (IQR) post-residency graduation times in the workforce of 17.5 (9.5-25.5) years and 10.5 (5.5-18.5) years among those who exhibited attrition and one in 13 males and one in 10 females exited clinical practice within 5 years of residency graduation. CONCLUSIONS: Female physicians exhibited attrition from the EM workforce at an age approximately 12 years younger than male physicians. These data identify widespread disparities regarding EM workforce attrition that are critical to address to ensure stability, longevity, and diversity in the EP workforce.

Rising high-acuity emergency care services independently billed by advanced practice providers, 2013 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Advanced practice providers (APPs) comprise an increasing proportion of the emergency medicine (EM) workforce, particularly in rural geographies. With little known regarding potential expanding practice patterns, we sought to evaluate trends in independent emergency care services billed by APPs from 2013 to 2019. METHODS: We performed a repeated cross-sectional analysis of emergency clinicians independently reimbursed for at least 50 evaluation and management (E/M) services (99281-99285, 99291) from Medicare Part B, with high-acuity services including Codes 99285 and 99291. We describe the outcome proportion of E/M services by acuity level and report at (1) the encounter level and (2) at the clinician level. We stratified analyses by clinician type and geography. RESULTS: A total of 47,323 EM physicians, 10,555 non-EM physicians, and 26,599 APPs were included in analyses. APPs billed emergency care services independently for 5.1% (rural 7.3%, urban 4.8%) of all high-acuity encounters in 2013, increasing to 9.7% (rural 16.4%, urban 8.8%) by 2019. At the clinician level, in 2013, the average rural-practicing APP independently billed 22.8% of services as high acuity, 72.6% as moderate acuity, and 4.5% as low acuity. By 2019, the average rural-practicing APP independently billed 36.2% of services as high acuity, representing a +58.8% relative increase from 2013. Relative increases in high-acuity visits independently billed by APPs were substantially greater when compared to EM physicians across both rural and urban geographies. CONCLUSIONS: In 2019, APPs billed independent services for approximately one in six high-acuity ED encounters in rural geographies and one in 11 high-acuity ED encounters in urban geographies, and well over one-third of the average APPs' encounters were for high-acuity E/M services. Given differences in training and reimbursement between clinician types, these estimates suggest further work is needed evaluating emergency care staffing decision making.

The 2013 to 2019 Emergency Medicine Workforce: Clinician Entry and Attrition Across the US Geography.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify longitudinal trends in workforce entry and attrition among rural and urban emergency physicians, nonemergency physicians, and advanced practice providers. METHODS: We performed a repeated cross-sectional analysis, from 2013 to 2019, of emergency clinicians who received reimbursement for at least 50 Evaluation and Management services [99281-99285] from Medicare part B within any study year. We calculated the emergency workforce's entry and attrition rates annually. Entry was defined as clinicians newly entering or re-entering the workforce, and attrition was defined as clinicians leaving permanently or temporarily. We stratified the analyses by rural designation and assessed the proportions and state-level changes in clinician density. RESULTS: In total, 82,499 unique clinicians performed at least 50 Evaluation and Management services within any of the 7 study years examined, including 47,000 emergency physicians, 9,029 nonemergency physicians, and 26,470 advanced practice providers. Emergency physicians made up a decreasing proportion of the workforce (68.1% in 2013; 65.5% in 2019), and advanced practice providers made up an increasing proportion of the workforce (20.9% in 2013; 26.1% in 2019). Annually, 5.9% to 6.8% (2,186 to 2,407) of emergency physicians newly entered and 0.8% to 1.4% (264 to 515) re-entered the workforce, whereas 3.8% to 4.9% (1,241 to 1,793) permanently left and 0.8% to 1.6% (276 to 521) temporarily left. Additionally, the total proportion of clinicians practicing in rural designations decreased, and advanced practice providers separately made up a substantially increasing proportion of the rural workforce (23.0% in 2013; 32.7% in 2019). Substantial state-level variation existed in the supply and demand of emergency clinician densities per 100,000 population. CONCLUSION: The annual rate of emergency physician attrition was collectively more than 5%, well above the 3% assumed in a recently publicized projection, suggesting a potential overestimation of the anticipated future clinician surplus. Notably, the attrition of emergency physicians has disproportionately affected vulnerable rural areas. This work can inform emergency medicine workforce decisions regarding residency training, advanced practice provider utilization, and clinician employment.

The 2018 Merit-based Incentive Payment System: Participation, Performance, and Payment Across Specialties.

BACKGROUND: The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) incorporates financial incentives and penalties intended to drive clinicians towards value-based purchasing, including alternative payment models (APMs). Newly available Medicare-approved qualified clinical data registries (QCDRs) offer specialty-specific quality measures for clinician reporting, yet their impact on clinician performance and payment adjustments remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: We sought to characterize clinician participation, performance, and payment adjustments in the MIPS program across specialties, with a focus on clinician use of QCDRs. RESEARCH DESIGN: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the 2018 MIPS program. RESULTS: During the 2018 performance year, 558,296 clinicians participated in the MIPS program across the 35 specialties assessed. Clinicians reporting as individuals had lower overall MIPS performance scores (median [interquartile range (IQR)], 80.0 [39.4-98.4] points) than those reporting as groups (median [IQR], 96.3 [76.9-100.0] points), who in turn had lower adjustments than clinicians reporting within MIPS APMs (median [IQR], 100.0 [100.0-100.0] points) (P<0.001). Clinicians reporting as individuals had lower payment adjustments (median [IQR], +0.7% [0.1%-1.6%]) than those reporting as groups (median [IQR], +1.5% [0.6%-1.7%]), who in turn had lower adjustments than clinicians reporting within MIPS APMs (median [IQR], +1.7% [1.7%-1.7%]) (P<0.001). Within a subpopulation of 202,685 clinicians across 12 specialties commonly using QCDRs, clinicians had overall MIPS performance scores and payment adjustments that were significantly greater if reporting at least 1 QCDR measure compared with those not reporting any QCDR measures. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, these findings highlight that performance score and payment adjustments varied by reporting affiliation and QCDR use in the 2018 MIPS.

Emergency clinician participation and performance in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System.

BACKGROUND: The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the largest national pay-for-performance program and the first to afford emergency clinicians unique financial incentives for quality measurement and improvement. With little known regarding its impact on emergency clinicians, we sought to describe participation in the MIPS and examine differences in performance scores and payment adjustments based on reporting affiliation and reporting strategy. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2018 Quality Payment Program (QPP) Experience Report data set. We categorized emergency clinicians by their reporting affiliation (individual, group, MIPS alternative payment model [APM]), MIPS performance scores, and Medicare Part B payment adjustments. We calculated performance scores for common quality measures contributing to the quality category score if reported through qualified clinical data registries (QCDRs) or claims-based reporting strategies. RESULTS: In 2018, a total of 59,828 emergency clinicians participated in the MIPS-1,246 (2.1%) reported as individuals, 43,404 (72.5%) reported as groups, and 15,178 (25.4%) reported within MIPS APMs. Clinicians reporting as individuals earned lower overall MIPS scores (median [interquartile range {IQR}] = 30.8 [15.0-48.2] points) than those reporting within groups (median [IQR] = 88.4 [49.3-100.0]) and MIPS APMs (median [IQR] = 100.0 [100.0-100.0]; p < 0.001) and more frequently incurred penalties with a negative payment adjustment. Emergency clinicians had higher measure scores if reporting QCDR or QPP non-emergency medicine specialty set measures. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency clinician participation in national value-based programs is common, with one in four participating through MIPS APMs. Those employing specific strategies such as QCDR and group reporting received the highest MIPS scores and payment adjustments, emphasizing the role that reporting strategy and affiliation play in the quality of care.

A Cross-Sectional Analysis of High-Acuity Professional Services Performed by Urban and Rural Emergency Care Physicians Across the United States.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We seek to examine differences in the provision of high-acuity professional services between rural and urban physicians receiving reimbursement for emergency care evaluation and management services from Medicare fee-for-service Part B. METHODS: Using the 2017 Medicare Public Use Files, we performed a cross-sectional analysis and defined the primary outcome, the proportion of high-acuity charts (PHAC), at the physician level as the proportion of services provided as 99285 and 99291 emergency care evaluation and management service codes relative to all such codes. After accounting for unique clinician-level characteristics, we categorized individual physicians by PHAC quintiles and conducted ordered logistic regression analyses reporting adjusted marginal probabilities to examine associations with rurality. RESULTS: A total of 34,256 physicians providing emergency care had a median PHAC of 66.8% (interquartile range 55.6% to 75.7%), with 89.2% practicing in an urban setting. Urban and rural physicians had respective median PHACs of 67.6% (interquartile range 57.1% to 76.2%) and 57.9% (interquartile range 42.7% to 69.4%). Urban and rural physicians had respective adjusted marginal probabilities of 15.2% and 11.8% of being in the highest PHAC quintile, and respective adjusted marginal probabilities of 14.3% and 18.2% of being in the lowest PHAC quintile. CONCLUSION: In comparison with rural physicians, urban physicians providing emergency care received reimbursements for a greater PHAC when caring for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Policymakers must consider these differences in the design and implementation of new emergency care payment policies.

Career Development Considerations for Academic Physician Mentees and Mentors in the Time of COVID-19: Jump in or Just Dip a Toe?

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted medical research, pushing mentors and mentees to decide if COVID-19 research would be germane to the early career investigator's developing research portfolio. With COVID-19 halting hundreds of federal trials involving non-COVID-19 research, mentors and mentees must also consider the broader moral calling of contributing to COVID-19 research. At the time of writing, the National Institutes of Health had responded to the pandemic with significant funding for COVID-19 research. However, because this pandemic is a new phenomenon, few mentors have expertise in the disease and relevant established resources. As a result, many mentors are unable to provide insight on COVID-19 research to early career investigators considering a pivot toward research related to this disease. The authors suggest 4 ways for mentees and mentors to respond to the changes the pandemic has brought to research funding and opportunities: (1) include COVID-19 research in existing portfolios to diversify intellectual opportunities and reduce funding risks; (2) negotiate the mentor-mentee relationship and roles and expectations early in project discussions-considering, as relevant, the disproportionate burden of home responsibilities often borne by early career faculty members who are women and/or from a minority group; (3) address any mentor limitations in content expertise; and (4) if the decision is to pivot to COVID-19 research, select projects with implications generalizable beyond this pandemic to other infectious outbreaks or to the redesign of health care delivery. Mentors and mentees must weigh the relevance of COVID-19 research projects to the postpandemic world and the amount of available funding against the developing interests of early career investigators. Academic medical centers nationwide must enable seasoned and early career researchers to contribute meaningfully to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 research.

Where Skilled Nursing Facility Residents Get Acute Care: Is the Emergency Department the Medical Home?

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to characterize the distribution of acute care visits among Medicare beneficiaries receiving skilled nursing facility (SNF) services. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a 20% sample of continuously enrolled Medicare beneficiaries in the 2012 Chronic Condition Warehouse data set. Beneficiaries were grouped by the number of days of SNF services, and acute care visits were categorized as "before SNF," "during SNF," or "after SNF." RESULTS: Among the 10,717,786 Medicare beneficiaries analyzed, 384,312 (3.6%) had at least one SNF stay. DISCUSSION: Beneficiaries who received SNF services had a higher proportion of acute care visits made to emergency departments (EDs) than beneficiaries who did not receive SNF services. Also, a higher proportion of acute care visits were made to EDs by beneficiaries after a SNF stay in comparison to residents actively residing in a SNF. The acute care capabilities of SNFs and post-SNF transitions of care to the community setting are discussed.

Who provides what care? An analysis of clinical focus among the national emergency care workforce.

OBJECTIVE: Clinician expertise has been associated with improved patient outcomes, yet ED clinicians often work in various clinical settings beyond the ED and, therefore, may risk expertise by having less clinical focus. We sought to describe clinical focus among the emergency care workforce nationally. METHODS: Using the 2017 Medicare Public Use Files (PUF), we performed a cross-sectional analysis of clinicians receiving reimbursement for emergency care Evaluation & Management (E/M) services from Medicare fee-for-service Part B. Clinicians were categorized by type as EM physicians, non-EM physicians, and advanced practice providers (APPs). The primary outcome was the clinical focus of the individual clinician, defined as the proportion of E/M services within the ED setting relative to a clinician's total E/M services across all practice settings. RESULTS: Of 65,710 unique clinicians providing care to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in the ED setting, 39,016 (59.4%) were classified as EM physicians, 8123 (12.4%) as non-EM physicians, and 18,571 (28.5%) as APPs. The individual clinician median focus was 92.8% (interquartile range [IQR]: 87.0, 100.0) for EM physicians, 45.2% (IQR: 5.1, 97.0) for non-EM physicians, and 100.0% (IQR: 96.3, 100.0) for APPs. CONCLUSION: EM physicians have twice as much clinical focus in comparison to non-EM physicians providing emergency care to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. These findings underscore the importance of diverse training and certification programs to ensure access to clinically focused ED clinicians.

Care Transition Decisions After a Fall-related Emergency Department Visit: A Qualitative Study of Patients' and Caregivers' Experiences.

OBJECTIVE: Falls are a leading cause of injury-related emergency department (ED) visits and may serve as a sentinel event for older adults, leading to physical and psychological injury. Our primary objective was to characterize patient- and caregiver-specific perspectives about care transitions after a fall. METHODS: Using a semistructured interview guide, we conducted in-depth, qualitative interviews using grounded theory methodology. We included patients enrolled in the Geriatric Acute and Post-acute Fall Prevention Intervention (GAPcare) trial aged 65 years and older who had an ED visit for a fall and their caregivers. Patients with cognitive impairment (CI) were interviewed in patient-caregiver dyads. Domains assessed included the postfall recovery period, the skilled nursing facility (SNF) placement decision-making process, and the ease of obtaining outpatient follow-up. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded and analyzed for a priori and emergent themes. RESULTS: A total of 22 interviews were completed with 10 patients, eight caregivers, and four patient-caregiver dyads within the 6-month period after initial ED visits. Patients were on average 83 years old, nine of 14 were female, and two of 14 had CI. Six of 12 caregivers were interviewed in reference to a patient with CI. We identified four overarching themes: 1) the fall as a trigger for psychological and physiological change, 2) SNF placement decision-making process, 3) direct effect of fall on caregivers, and 4) barriers to receipt of recommended follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults presenting to the ED after a fall report physical limitations and a prominent fear of falling after their injury. Caregivers play a vital role in securing the home environment; the SNF placement decision-making process; and navigating the transition of care between the ED, SNF, and outpatient visits after a fall. Clinicians should anticipate and address feelings of isolation, changes in mobility, and fear of falling in older adults seeking ED care after a fall.