Intensive Versus Traditional Cardiac Rehabilitation: Mortality and Cardiovascular Outcomes in a 2016-2020 Retrospective Medicare Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Traditional cardiac rehabilitation (CR) improves cardiovascular outcomes and reduces mortality, but less is known about the relative benefit of intensive CR (ICR) which incorporates greater lifestyle education through 72 sessions (versus 36 in CR). Our objective was to determine whether ICR is associated with a mortality and cardiovascular benefit compared with CR. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare Fee-For-Service beneficiaries in a 100% sample, claims data set. Qualifying events were captured from May 1, 2016 to December 31, 2019 and ICR/CR utilization captured from May 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020. Among patients attending at least 1 day of either CR or ICR, Cox proportional hazards models using a 1 to 5 propensity score match were used to compare utilization and the association of ICR versus CR participation with (1) all-cause mortality and (2) cardiovascular-related hospitalizations or nonfatal cardiac events. Dose-response was assessed by the number of days attended. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2019, 1 277 358 unique patients met at least one qualifying indication for ICR/CR from 2016 to 2019. Of these, 262 579 (20.6%) and 4452 (0.4%) attended at least one session of CR or ICR, respectively (mean [SD] age, 73.2 [7.8] years; 32.3% female). In the matched sample, including 26 659 total patients (median, 2.4-year follow-up), ICR was associated with 12% lower all-cause mortality (multivariable adjusted hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78-0.99]; P=0.036) compared with CR but no significant difference for cardiovascular-related hospitalization or nonfatal cardiac events. The mortality benefit was seen for both ICR and CR per day strata, with each modality demonstrating a clear dose-response benefit. CONCLUSIONS: ICR is associated with lower mortality than traditional CR among Medicare beneficiaries but no difference in cardiovascular-related hospitalization or nonfatal cardiac events. Moreover, ICR and CR demonstrate a dose-response relationship for mortality. Additional studies are needed to confirm these observations and to better understand the mechanisms by which ICR may lead to a reduction in mortality.

Care Disruption During COVID-19: a National Survey of Hospital Leaders.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused massive disruption in usual care delivery patterns in hospitals across the USA, and highlighted long-standing inequities in health care delivery and outcomes. Its effect on hospital operations, and whether the magnitude of the effect differed for hospitals serving historically marginalized populations, is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the perspectives of hospital leaders on the effects of COVID-19 on their facilities' operations and patient outcomes. METHODS: A survey was administered via print and electronic means to hospital leaders at 588 randomly sampled acute-care hospitals participating in Medicare's Inpatient Prospective Payment System, fielded from November 2020 to June 2021. Summary statistics were tabulated, and responses were adjusted for sampling strategy and non-response. RESULTS: There were 203 responses to the survey (41.6%), with 20.7% of respondents representing safety-net hospitals and 19.7% representing high-minority hospitals. Over three-quarters of hospitals reported COVID testing shortages, about two-thirds reported staffing shortages, and 78.8% repurposed hospital spaces to intensive care units, with a slightly higher proportion of high-minority hospitals reporting these effects. About half of respondents felt that non-COVID inpatients received worsened quality or outcomes during peak COVID surges, and almost two-thirds reported worsened quality or outcomes for outpatient non-COVID patients as well, with few differences by hospital safety-net or minority status. Over 80% of hospitals participated in alternative payment models prior to COVID, and a third of these reported decreasing these efforts due to the pandemic, with no differences between safety-net and high-minority hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 significantly disrupted the operations of hospitals across the USA, with hospitals serving patients in poverty and racial and ethnic minorities reporting relatively similar care disruption as non-safety-net and lower-minority hospitals.

Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation Is Markedly Underutilized by Medicare Beneficiaries: RESULTS FROM A 2012-2016 NATIONAL SAMPLE.

PURPOSE: Intensive cardiac rehabilitation (ICR) was developed to enhance traditional cardiac rehabilitation (CR) by adding sessions focused on nutrition, lifestyle behaviors, and stress management. Intensive CR has been Medicare-approved since 2010, yet little is known about national utilization rates of ICR in the Medicare population or characteristics associated with its use. METHODS: A 5% sample of Medicare claims data from 2012 to 2016 was used to identify beneficiaries with a qualifying indication for ICR/CR and to quantify utilization of ICR or CR within 1 yr of the qualifying diagnosis. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2015, there were 107 246 patients with a qualifying indication. Overall, only 0.1% of qualifying patients participated in ICR and 16.2% in CR from 2012 to 2016, though utilization rates of both ICR and CR increased during this period (ICR 0.06 to 0.17%, CR 14.3 to 18.2%). The number of ICR centers increased from 15 to 50 over the same period. There were no differences between ICR and CR enrollees with respect to age, sex, race, discharge location, median income, dual enrollment, or number of comorbidities. Compared with eligible beneficiaries who did not attend ICR or CR, those who attended either program were younger, more likely to be male and White, and had higher median income. CONCLUSIONS: Although ICR and CR have a class 1 indication for the treatment of cardiovascular disease and the number of ICR centers has increased, ICR is not widely available and remains markedly underutilized. Continued research is needed to understand the barriers to program development and patient participation.

Synthesis of systematic reviews of percutaneous device closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) for prevention of recurrent cryptogenic stroke: Redundant publications and methodological deficiencies.

Critical assessments of systemic reviews and meta-analyses have found them to often be redundant, lacking in novel perspectives, of poor methodological quality, and written by authors with potential conflicts of interest. We sought to investigate these issues as they relate to systemic reviews and meta-analyses of percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure for the prevention of recurrent cryptogenic stroke.

Paying for Performance Improvement in Quality and Outcomes of Cardiovascular Care: Challenges and Prospects.

Over the past two decades, Medicare and other payers have been looking at ways to base payment for cardiovascular care on the quality and outcomes of care delivered. Public reporting of hospital performance on a series of quality measures began in 2004 with basic processes of care such as aspirin use and influenza vaccination, and it expanded in later years to include outcomes such as mortality and readmission rates. Following the passage of the Affordable Care Act in March 2010, Medicare and other payers moved forward with pay-for-performance programs, more commonly referred to as value-based purchasing (VBP) programs. These programs are largely based on an underlying fee-for-service payment infrastructure and give hospitals and clinicians bonuses or penalties based on their performance. Another new payment mechanism, called alternative payment models (APMs), aims to move towards episode-based or global payments to improve quality and efficiency. The two most relevant APMs for cardiovascular care include Accountable Care Organizations and bundled payments. Both VBP programs and APMs have challenges related to program efficacy, accuracy, and equity. In fact, despite over a decade of progress in measuring and incentivizing high-quality care delivery within cardiology, major limitations remain. Many of the programs have had little benefit in terms of clinical outcomes yet have led to marked administrative burden for participants. However, there are several encouraging prospects to aid the successful implementation of value-based high-quality cardiovascular care, such as more sophisticated data science to improve risk adjustment and flexible electronic health records to decrease administrative burden. Furthermore, payment models designed specifically for cardiovascular care could incentivize innovative care delivery models that could improve quality and outcomes for patients. This review provides an overview of current efforts, largely at the federal level, to pay for high-quality cardiovascular care and discusses the challenges and prospects related to doing so.