Nurse Practitioner Care, Scope of Practice, and End-of-Life Outcomes for Nursing Home Residents With Dementia.

Importance: Nursing home residents with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) often receive burdensome care at the end of life. Nurse practitioners (NPs) provide an increasing share of primary care in nursing homes, but how NP care is associated with end-of-life outcomes for this population is unknown. Objectives: To examine the association of NP care with end-of-life outcomes for nursing home residents with ADRD and assess whether these associations differ according to state-level NP scope of practice regulations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study using fee-for-service Medicare claims included 334 618 US nursing home residents with ADRD who died between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Data were analyzed from April 6, 2015, to December 31, 2018. Exposures: Share of nursing home primary care visits by NPs, classified as minimal (<10% of visits), moderate (10%-50% of visits), and extensive (>50% of visits). State NP scope of practice regulations were classified as full vs restrictive in 2 domains: practice authority (authorization to practice and prescribe independently) and do-not-resuscitate (DNR) authority (authorization to sign DNR orders). Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitalization within the last 30 days of life and death with hospice. Linear probability models with hospital referral region fixed effects controlling for resident characteristics, visit volume, and geographic factors were used to estimate whether the associations between NP care and outcomes varied across states with different scope of practice regulations. Results: Among 334 618 nursing home decedents (mean [SD] age at death, 86.6 [8.2] years; 69.3% female), 40.5% received minimal NP care, 21.4% received moderate NP care, and 38.0% received extensive NP care. Adjusted hospitalization rates were lower for residents with extensive NP care (31.6% [95% CI, 31.4%-31.9%]) vs minimal NP care (32.3% [95% CI, 32.1%-32.6%]), whereas adjusted hospice rates were higher for residents with extensive (55.6% [95% CI, 55.3%-55.9%]) vs minimal (53.6% [95% CI, 53.3%-53.8%]) NP care. However, there was significant variation by state scope of practice. For example, in full practice authority states, adjusted hospice rates were 2.88 percentage points higher (95% CI, 1.99-3.77; P < .001) for residents with extensive vs minimal NP care, but the difference between these same groups was 1.77 percentage points (95% CI, 1.32-2.23; P < .001) in restricted practice states. Hospitalization rates were 1.76 percentage points lower (95% CI, -2.52 to -1.00; P < .001) for decedents with extensive vs minimal NP care in full practice authority states, but the difference between these same groups in restricted practice states was only 0.43 percentage points (95% CI, -0.84 to -0.01; P < .04). Similar patterns were observed in analyses focused on DNR authority. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that NPs appear to be important care providers during the end-of-life period for many nursing home residents with ADRD and that regulations governing NP scope of practice may have implications for end-of-life hospitalizations and hospice use in this population.

Medicare Advantage Health Risk Assessments Contribute Up To $12 Billion Per Year To Risk-Adjusted Payments.

With Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment surpassing 50 percent of Medicare beneficiaries, accurate risk-adjusted plan payment rates are essential. However, artificially exaggerated coding intensity, where plans seek to enhance measured health risk through the addition or inflation of diagnoses, may threaten payment rate integrity. One factor that may play a role in escalating coding intensity is health risk assessments (HRAs)-typically in-home reviews of enrollees' health status-that enable plans to capture information about their enrollees. In this study, we evaluated the impact of HRAs on Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCC) risk scores, variation in this impact across contracts, and the aggregate payment impact of HRAs, using 2019 MA encounter data. We found that 44.4 percent of MA beneficiaries had at least one HRA. Among those with at least one HRA, HCC scores increased by 12.8 percent, on average, as a result of HRAs. More than one in five enrollees had at least one additional HRA-captured diagnosis, which raised their HCC score. Potential scenarios restricting the risk-score impact of HRAs correspond with $4.5-$12.3 billion in reduced Medicare spending in 2020. Addressing increased coding intensity due to HRAs will improve the value of Medicare spending and ensure appropriate payment in the MA program.

Evacuation and Health Care Outcomes Among Assisted Living Residents After Hurricane Irma.

Importance: Evacuation has been found to be associated with adverse outcomes among nursing home residents during hurricanes, but the outcomes for assisted living (AL) residents remain unknown. Objective: To examine the association between evacuation and health care outcomes (ie, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, mortality, and nursing home visits) among Florida AL residents exposed to Hurricane Irma. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study using 2017 Medicare claims data. Participants were a cohort of Florida AL residents who were aged 65 years or older, enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service, and resided in 9-digit zip codes corresponding to US assisted living communities with 25 or more beds on September 10, 2017, the day of Hurricane Irma's landfall. Propensity score matching was used to match evacuated residents to those that sheltered-in-place based on resident and AL characteristics. Data were analyzed from September 2022 to February 2024. Exposure: Whether the AL community evacuated or sheltered-in-place before Hurricane Irma made landfall. Main Outcomes and Measures: Thirty- and 90-day emergency department visits, hospitalizations, mortality, and nursing home admissions. Results: The study cohort included 25 130 Florida AL residents (mean [SD] age 81 [9] years); 3402 (13.5%) evacuated and 21 728 (86.5%) did not evacuate. The evacuated group had 2223 women (65.3%), and the group that sheltered-in-place had 14 556 women (67.0%). In the evacuated group, 42 residents (1.2%) were Black, 93 (2.7%) were Hispanic, and 3225 (94.8%) were White. In the group that sheltered in place, 490 residents (2.3%) were Black, 707 (3.3%) were Hispanic, and 20 212 (93.0%) were White. After 1:4 propensity score matching, when compared with sheltering-in-place, evacuation was associated with a 16% greater odds of emergency department visits (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.33; P = .04) and 51% greater odds of nursing home visits (AOR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.14-2.00; P = .01) within 30 days of Hurricane Irma's landfall. Hospitalization and mortality did not vary significantly by evacuation status within 30 or 90 days after the landfall date. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of Florida AL residents, there was an increased risk of nursing home and emergency department visits within 30 days of Hurricane Irma's landfall among residents from communities that evacuated before the storm when compared with residents from communities that sheltered-in-place. The stress and disruption caused by evacuation may yield poorer immediate health outcomes after a major storm for AL residents. Therefore, the potential benefits and harms of evacuating vs sheltering-in-place must be carefully considered when developing emergency planning and response.

Risk of Discharge to Lower-Quality Nursing Homes Among Hospitalized Older Adults With Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias.

Importance: Individuals with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) frequently require skilled nursing facility (SNF) care following hospitalization. Despite lower SNF incentives to care for the ADRD population, knowledge on how the quality of SNF care differs for those with vs without ADRD is limited. Objective: To examine whether persons with ADRD are systematically admitted to lower-quality SNFs. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional analysis of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019, was conducted. Data analysis was performed from January 15 to May 30, 2022. Participants were discharged to a Medicare-certified SNF from a general acute hospital. Patients younger than 65 years, enrolled in Medicare Advantage, and with prior SNF or long-term nursing home use within 1 year of hospitalization were excluded. Exposures: The quality level of all SNFs available at the patient's discharge, measured using publicly reported 5-star staffing ratings. The 5-star ratings were grouped into 3 levels (1-2 stars [reference category, low-quality], 3 stars [average-quality], and 4-5 stars [high-quality]). Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcome was the SNF a patient entered among the possible SNF destinations available at discharge. Differences in the association between SNF quality and SNF entry for patients with and without ADRD were assessed using a conditional logit model, which simultaneously controls for differences in discharging hospital, residential neighborhood, and the other characteristics (eg, postacute care specialization) of all SNFs available at discharge. Results: The sample included 2 619 464 patients (mean [SD] age, 81.3 [8.6] years; 61% women; 87% were White; 8% were Black; 22% with ADRD). The probability of discharge to higher quality SNFs was lower for patients with ADRD. If the star rating of an SNF was high instead of low, the log-odds of being discharged to it increased by 0.31 for patients with ADRD and by 0.47 for those without ADRD (difference, -0.16; P < .001). The weaker association between quality and entry for patients with ADRD indicates that they are less likely to be discharged to high-quality SNFs. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that patients with ADRD are more likely to be discharged to lower-quality SNFs. Targeted reforms, such as ADRD-specific compensation adjustments, may be needed to improve access to better SNFs for patients with ADRD.

Socioeconomic Disparities in Community Mobility Reduction and COVID-19 Growth.

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in community mobility reduction and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outcomes across counties with differing levels of socioeconomic disadvantage. METHODS: The sample included counties in the United States with at least one SARS-CoV-2 case between April 1 and May 15, 2020. Outcomes were growth in SARS-CoV-2 cases, SARS-CoV-2-related deaths, and mobility reduction across three settings: retail/recreation, grocery/pharmacy, and workplace. The main explanatory variable was the social deprivation index (SDI), a composite socioeconomic disadvantage measure. RESULTS: Adjusted differences in outcomes between low-, medium-, and high-SDI counties (defined by tertile) were calculated using linear regression with state-fixed effects. Workplace mobility reduction was 1.75 (95% CI, -2.36 to -1.14; P<.001) and 3.48 percentage points (95% CI, -4.21 to -2.75; P<.001) lower for medium- and high-SDI counties relative to low-SDI counties, respectively. Mobility reductions in the other settings were also significantly lower for higher-SDI counties. In analyses adjusted for SARS-CoV-2 prevalence on April 1, medium- and high-SDI counties had 1.39 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.93; P<.001) and 2.56 (95% CI, 1.77 to 3.34; P<.001) more SARS-CoV-2 cases/1000 population on May 15 compared with low-SDI counties, respectively. Deaths per capita were also significantly higher for higher-SDI counties. CONCLUSION: Counties with higher social deprivation scores experienced greater growth in SARS-CoV-2 cases and deaths, but reduced mobility at lower rates. These findings are consistent with evidence demonstrating that economically disadvantaged communities have been disproportionately impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Efforts to socially distance may be more burdensome for these communities, potentially exacerbating disparities in SARS-CoV-2-related outcomes.

Comparing Receipt of Prescribed Post-acute Home Health Care Between Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries: an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Medicare Advantage (MA) covers more than 1/3rd of all Medicare beneficiaries. MA plans are required to provide the same benefits as Traditional Medicare (TM), but can impose utilization management tools to control costs. OBJECTIVE: To assess differences between TM and MA enrollees in the probability of receiving prescribed post-acute home health (HH) care and to describe MA plan characteristics associated with HH receipt. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of claims data, HH patient assessment data, and MA plan data from 2011 to 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 and older with an incident hospitalization for joint replacement, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, urinary tract infection, septicemia, acute renal failure, or congestive heart failure. MAIN MEASURES: Receipt of prescribed HH as indicated by a HH discharge code and corresponding HH patient assessment within 14 days of hospital discharge. KEY RESULTS: There were 2,723,245 beneficiaries prescribed HH at discharge (68% TM, 32% MA). About 75% of TM enrollees and 62% of MA enrollees received prescribed post-acute HH. In adjusted analyses, MA enrollees had an -11.7 percentage point (pp) (95% confidence interval (CI): -16.8, -6.5) lower probability of receiving HH compared with TM enrollees. In adjusted analyses, HMO enrollees in plans with cost sharing (- 8.4 pp; 95% CI: - 14.3, - 2.5), referrals (- 3.7 pp; 95% CI: - 6.1, - 1.2), and pre-authorization (- 5.1 pp; 95% CI: - 8.3, - 2.0) were less likely to receive prescribed HH. In adjusted analyses, PPO enrollees in plans with cost sharing were -7.0 pp (95% CI: - 12.7, - 1.4) less likely to receive HH, but there was no difference for those with referrals (1.1 pp; 95% CI, - 1.5, 3.7) or pre-authorization (1.6 pp; 95% CI: - 0.6, - 3.9). CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare beneficiaries, MA enrollees were less likely to receive prescribed post-acute HH compared with TM. As enrollment in MA continues to grow, it is important to examine how differences in utilization relate to outcomes.

Trends In Hospitals And Skilled Nursing Facilities Sharing Medical Providers, 2008-16.

Hospitals and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) face increasing pressure to improve care coordination and reduce unnecessary readmissions. One strategy to accomplish this is to share physicians and advanced practice clinicians, so that the same providers see patients in both settings. Using 2008-16 Medicare claims, we found that as SNFs moved increasingly toward using SNF specialists, there was a steady decline in the number of facilities sharing medical providers and in the proportion of SNF primary care delivered by provider practices with both hospital and SNF clinicians (hospital-SNF practices). In SNF fixed effects analyses, we found that SNFs that increased primary care visits by hospital-SNF practices had slightly fewer readmissions, shorter lengths-of-stay, and increased successful community discharges. These findings suggest that SNFs that share medical providers with hospitals may see some benefit from that linkage, although the magnitude of the benefit may be small.

Association of Diagnosis Coding With Differences in Risk-Adjusted Short-term Mortality Between Critical Access and Non-Critical Access Hospitals.

Importance: Critical access hospitals (CAHs) provide care to rural communities. Increasing mortality rates have been reported for CAHs relative to non-CAHs. Because Medicare reimburses CAHs at cost, CAHs may report fewer diagnoses than non-CAHs, which may affect risk-adjusted comparisons of outcomes. Objective: To assess serial differences in risk-adjusted mortality rates between CAHs and non-CAHs after accounting for differences in diagnosis coding. Design, Setting, and Participants: Serial cross-sectional study of rural Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries admitted to US CAHs and non-CAHs for pneumonia, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, arrhythmia, urinary tract infection, septicemia, and stroke from 2007 to 2017. The final date of follow-up was December 31, 2017. Exposure: Admission to a CAH vs non-CAH. Main Outcomes and Measures: Discharge diagnosis count including trends from 2010 to 2011 when Medicare expanded the allowable number of billing codes for hospitalizations, and combined in-hospital and 30-day postdischarge mortality adjusted for demographics, primary diagnosis, preexisting conditions, and with vs without further adjustment for Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) score to understand the contribution of in-hospital secondary diagnoses. Results: There were 4 094 720 hospitalizations (17% CAH) for 2 850 194 unique Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 76.3 [11.7] years; 55.5% women). Patients in CAHs were older (median age, 80.1 vs 76.8 years) and more likely to be female (58% vs 55%). In 2010, the adjusted mean discharge diagnosis count was 7.52 for CAHs vs 8.53 for non-CAHs (difference, -0.99 [95% CI, -1.08 to -0.90]; P < .001). In 2011, the CAH vs non-CAH difference in diagnoses coded increased (P < .001 for interaction between CAH and year) to 9.27 vs 12.23 (difference, -2.96 [95% CI, -3.19 to -2.73]; P < .001). Adjusted mortality rates from the model with HCC were 13.52% for CAHs vs 11.44% for non-CAHs (percentage point difference, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.74 to 2.42]; P < .001) in 2007 and increased to 15.97% vs 12.46% (difference, 3.52 [95% CI, 3.09 to 3.94]; P < .001) in 2017 (P < .001 for interaction). Adjusted mortality rates from the model without HCC were not significantly different between CAHs and non-CAHs in all years except 2007 (12.19% vs 11.74%; difference, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.79]; P = .008) and 2010 (12.71% vs 12.28%; difference, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.77]; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: For rural Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized from 2007 to 2017, CAHs submitted significantly fewer hospital diagnosis codes than non-CAHs, and short-term mortality rates adjusted for preexisting conditions but not in-hospital comorbidity measures were not significantly different by hospital type in most years. The findings suggest that short-term mortality outcomes at CAHs may not differ from those of non-CAHs after accounting for different coding practices for in-hospital comorbidities.

Variation in SARS-CoV-2 Prevalence in U.S. Skilled Nursing Facilities.

OBJECTIVE: To identify county and facility factors associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreaks in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study linking county SARS-CoV-2 prevalence data, administrative data, state reports of SNF outbreaks, and data from Genesis HealthCare, a large multistate provider of post-acute and long-term care. State data are reported as of April 21, 2020; Genesis data are reported as of May 4, 2020. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The Genesis sample consisted of 341 SNFs in 25 states, including a subset of 64 SNFs that underwent universal testing of all residents. The non-Genesis sample included all other SNFs (n = 3,016) in the 12 states where Genesis operates that released the names of SNFs with outbreaks. MEASUREMENTS: For Genesis and non-Genesis SNFs: any outbreak (one or more residents testing positive for SARS-CoV-2). For Genesis SNFs only: number of confirmed cases, SNF case fatality rate, and prevalence after universal testing. RESULTS: One hundred eighteen (34.6%) Genesis SNFs and 640 (21.2%) non-Genesis SNFs had outbreaks. A difference in county prevalence of 1,000 cases per 100,000 (1%) was associated with a 33.6 percentage point (95% confidence interval (CI) = 9.6-57.7 percentage point; P = .008) difference in the probability of an outbreak for Genesis and non-Genesis SNFs combined, and a difference of 12.5 cases per facility (95% CI = 4.4-20.8 cases; P = .003) for Genesis SNFs. A 10-bed difference in facility size was associated with a 0.9 percentage point (95% CI = 0.6-1.2 percentage point; P < .001) difference in the probability of outbreak. We found no consistent relationship between Nursing Home Compare Five-Star ratings or past infection control deficiency citations and probability or severity of outbreak. CONCLUSIONS: Larger SNFs and SNFs in areas of high SARS-CoV-2 prevalence are at high risk for outbreaks and must have access to universal testing to detect cases, implement mitigation strategies, and prevent further potentially avoidable cases and related complications. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:2167-2173, 2020.

Assessment of Rural-Urban Differences in Postacute Care Utilization and Outcomes Among Older US Adults.

Importance: Although people living in rural areas of the United States are disproportionately older and more likely to die of conditions that require postacute care than those living in urban areas, rural-urban differences in postacute care utilization and outcomes have been understudied. Objective: To describe rural-urban differences in postacute care utilization and postdischarge outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from Medicare beneficiaries 66 years and older admitted to 4738 US acute care hospitals for stroke, hip fracture, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, or pneumonia between January 1, 2011, and September 30, 2015. Participants were tracked for 180 days after discharge. Data analyses were conducted between October 1, 2018, and May 30, 2019. Exposures: County of residence was classified as urban or rural using the US Department of Agriculture Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. Rural counties were divided into those adjacent and not adjacent to urban counties. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were discharge to community vs a formal postacute care setting (ie, skilled nursing facility, home health care, or inpatient rehabilitation facility) and readmission and mortality within 30, 90, and 180 days of hospital discharge. Results: Among 2 044 231 hospitalizations from 2011 to 2015, 1 538 888 (75.2%; mean [SD] age, 80.4 [8.3] years; 866 540 [56.3%] women) were among patients from urban counties, 322 360 (15.8%; mean [SD] age, 79.6 [8.1] years; 175 806 [54.5%] women) were among patients from urban-adjacent rural counties, and 182 983 (9.0%; mean [SD] age, 79.8 [8.1] years; 98 775 [54.0%] women) were among patients from urban-nonadjacent rural counties. The probability of discharge to community without postacute care did not differ by rurality. However, compared with patients from urban counties, patients from the most rural counties were more frequently discharged to a skilled nursing facility (adjusted difference, 3.5 [95% CI, 2.8-4.3] percentage points), while discharge to an inpatient rehabilitation facility was less common among patients from rural counties than among those from urban counties (urban vs urban-adjacent rural: adjusted difference, -1.9 [95% CI, -2.4 to -1.4] percentage points; urban vs urban-nonadjacent rural: adjusted difference, -1.8 [95% CI, -2.4 to -1.2] percentage points) as was discharge to home health care (urban vs urban-adjacent rural: adjusted difference, -1.7 [95% CI, -2.3 to -1.2] percentage points; urban vs urban-nonadjacent rural: adjusted difference, -2.4 [95% CI, -3.0 to -1.8]). For patients from the most rural counties, adjusted 30-day readmission rates were 0.4 (95% CI, 0.2-0.6) percentage points higher than those of patients from urban counties among those who were discharged to the community but 0.3 (95% CI, -0.6 to -0.1) percentage points lower among patients receiving postacute care. Adjusted 30-day mortality rates were 0.4 (95% CI, 0.3-0.5) percentage points higher for patients from the most rural counties discharged to the community and 2.0 (95% CI, -1.7 to 2.3) percentage points higher among those receiving postacute care. Rural-urban differences in 90-day and 180-day outcomes were similar. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that rates of discharge to the community and postacute care settings were similar among patients from rural and urban counties. Rural-urban differences in mortality following discharge were much larger for patients receiving postacute care compared with patients discharged to the community setting. Improving postacute care in rural areas may reduce rural-urban disparities in patient outcomes.

Association of Mandatory Bundled Payments for Joint Replacement With Use of Postacute Care Among Medicare Advantage Enrollees.

Importance: In 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services introduced mandatory bundled payments for knee and hip replacement surgical procedures among traditional Medicare (TM) patients in randomly selected areas. The association of bundled payments with outcomes among patients enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) is not known. Objective: To determine the association of bundled payments for joint replacement surgical procedures with the use of postacute care (PAC) services among MA patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used difference-in-differences analysis to evaluate changes in PAC use among patients enrolled in Medicare who underwent joint replacement operations before and after the introduction of bundled payments (ie, from January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2017). A total of 75 metropolitan statistical areas were randomized to participate in the bundled payment program, with 121 areas serving as controls. Data were analyzed between September 15, 2018, and October 1, 2019. Exposure: Bundled payments for hip and knee joint replacement operations, in which hospitals received a single payment to cover all costs associated with a joint replacement and associated care for the 90 days after surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were discharge to any institutional PAC setting and days spent in institutional PAC within 90 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included discharge and days spent in specific PAC settings (ie, home health, skilled nursing facility, inpatient rehabilitation). Results: Of 1 536 387 individuals who underwent hip and knee join replacement surgery, 493 977 (32.2%) were enrolled in MA (mean [SD] age, 73.3 [8.4] years; 386 699 [63.5%] women; 55 078 [6.4%] black) and 1 042 410 (67.8%) were enrolled in TM (mean [SD] age, 73.3 [8.7] years, 829 014 [65.2%] women; 82 890 [9.4%] black). Among MA patients, bundled payments were associated with a reduction of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.0-2.0) percentage points in discharge to an institutional PAC setting (P < .001) and an estimated reduction of 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2-0.5) days spent in an institutional PAC setting (P < .001), a 5.6% relative reduction. Among TM patients, bundled payments were associated with a reduction of 2.6 (95% CI, 2.2-2.9) percentage points in institutional PAC discharge (P < .001) and a reduction of 0.8 (95% CI, 0.7-0.9) days spent in an institutional PAC setting (P < .001), a 2.5% relative reduction. These changes were larger in hospitals with greater proportions of TM patients. In hospitals with low concentrations of MA patients, time spent in institutional PAC settings decreased by 0.9 days among TM patients and 0.8 days among MA patients; in hospitals with high MA concentrations, time spent in institutional PAC settings decreased by 0.6 days for TM patients and 0.2 days for MA patients. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the first 18 months of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services bundled payment program for joint replacement surgery were associated with reductions in the use of institutional PAC among MA patients. Past evaluations of bundled payments that focused on TM patients may not have measured the full consequences of this alternative payment model.

Quality of Home Health Agencies Serving Traditional Medicare vs Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries.

Importance: Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment is increasing, with one-third of Medicare beneficiaries currently selecting MA. Despite this growth, it is difficult to assess the quality of the health care professionals and organizations that serve MA beneficiaries or to compare them with health care professionals and organizations serving traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries. Elderly individuals served by home health agencies (HHAs) may be particularly susceptible to the negative outcomes associated with low-quality care. Objective: To compare the quality of HHAs that serve TM and MA beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, admission-level analysis used data from 4 391 980 home health admissions identified using the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (most commonly known as OASIS) admission assessments of Medicare beneficiaries in 2015 from Medicare-certified HHAs. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to assess whether an association existed between the Medicare plan type and HHA quality. The model was adjusted for patient demographics, acuity, and characteristics of the zip codes. Sensitivity analyses controlled for zip code fixed effects. The present analysis was conducted between October 2018 and March 2019. Exposures: Home health users were classified as TM or MA beneficiaries using the Master Beneficiary Summary File. The MA beneficiaries were further classified as enrolled in a high- or low-quality MA plan on the basis of publicly reported MA star ratings. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality of HHA derived from the publicly reported patient care star ratings: low quality (1.0-2.5 stars), average quality (3.0-3.5 stars), or high quality (≥4.0 stars). Results: Of 4 391 980 admissions, most (75.5%) were for TM beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 76.1 [12.2] years), with 16.6% of beneficiaries enrolled in high-quality MA plans (mean [SD] age, 77.8 [10.0] years) and 7.9% in low-quality MA plans (mean [SD] age, 74.4 [11.4] years). Individuals enrolled in low-rated MA plans were most likely to be nonwhite (percentages of nonwhite individuals in TM, 14.3%; in high-quality MA, 19.8%; and in low-quality MA, 36.5%) and dual Medicare-Medicaid eligible (percentages for dual eligible in TM, 30.5%; in high-quality MA, 19.5%; and in low-quality MA, 43.3%). Among TM beneficiaries, 30.4% received care from high-quality HHAs, whereas 17.0% received care from low-quality HHAs. Compared with TM beneficiaries, those in a low-quality MA plan were 3.0 percentage points (95% CI, 2.6%-3.4%) more likely to be treated by a low-quality HHA and 4.9 percentage points (95% CI, -5.4% to -4.3%) less likely to be treated by a high-quality HHA. The MA beneficiaries in high-quality plans were also less likely to receive care from high-quality vs low-quality HHAs (-2.8% [95% CI, -3.1% to -2.2%] vs 1.0% [95% CI, 0.7%-1.3%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with TM beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries residing in the same zip code enrolled in either high- or low-quality MA plans may receive treatment from lower-quality HHAs. Policy makers may consider incentivizing MA plans to include higher-quality HHAs in their networks and improving patient education regarding HHA quality.

Higher Level of Obesity Is Associated with Intensive Personal Care Assistance in the Nursing Home.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether higher obesity level was associated with extensive staffing assistance (from 2 or more persons) for completing activities of daily living (ADL) among older nursing home residents. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: US government-certified nursing homes. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries residing in a nursing home on April 1, 2015. Exclusion criteria were age less than 65 years and body mass index (BMI) below 18.5 (underweight). MEASURES: Residents were divided by obesity level according to established BMI cutoffs, as follows: nonobese (BMI = 18.5-29.9) or mild (BMI = 30.0-34.9), moderate (BMI = 35.0-39.9), or severe (BMI ≥40) obesity. Level of staffing assistance for completing each of 10 ADL (bed mobility, transfer, walking in room, walking in corridor, on- and off-unit locomotion, dressing, eating, toileting, and personal hygiene) was dichotomized as below 2 and 2 or more. Robust Poisson regression was used to test whether obesity conferred excess risk for needing 2 or more staff to complete each ADL. Adjusted models included individual-level covariates and nursing home fixed effects. RESULTS: A total of 1,063,383 nursing home residents were identified, including 309,263 (29.0%) with obesity. Adjusted relative risks (95% confidence intervals) for 2-person assistance with bed mobility associated with mild, moderate, and severe obesity were 1.17 (1.15, 1.18), 1.28 (1.25, 1.31), and 1.40 (1.36, 1.43), respectively. Adjusted relative risks for 2-person assistance with transferring associated with mild, moderate, and severe obesity were 1.15 (1.13, 1.17), 1.24 (1.22, 1.27), and 1.36 (1.33, 1.39), respectively. Obesity was associated with 2-person assistance for all other ADL except for eating. CONCLUSIONS: Higher obesity level was significantly associated with assistance from 2 or more staff for completing 9 of 10 ADL. Given increasing obesity rates in nursing homes, payment mechanisms that do not adjust for obesity or comprehensively account for excess ADL assistance may need revision to prevent adverse impacts on the long-term care system.

Effect of Obesity on Postacute Outcomes of Skilled Nursing Facility Residents with Hip Fracture.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of obesity (body mass index (BMI)≥30.0 kg/m2 ) on outcomes of older adults admitted to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) for hip fracture postacute care (PAC). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: U.S. Medicare- and Medicaid-certified SNFs from 2008 to 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged to a SNF after hospitalization for hip fracture (N=586,683; n=82,768 (14.1%) meeting obesity criteria). Exclusion criteria were aged younger than 65, being underweight (BMI<18.5 kg/m2 ), and SNF use in the year prior to index hospitalization. MEASUREMENTS: Residents were divided into 4 BMI categories according to cutoffs that the World Health Organization has established: not obese (BMI 18.5-29.9 kg/m2 ), mild obesity (BMI 30.0-34.9 kg/m2 ), moderate obesity (BMI 35.0-39.9 kg/m2 ), and severe obesity (BMI≥40.0 kg/m2 ). Robust Poisson regression was used to compare differences in average nursing facility length of stay (LOS) and rates of 30-day hospital readmission, successful discharge to community, and becoming a long-stay resident (LOS>100) according to obesity level. Models were adjusted for individual-level covariates and facility fixed effects. RESULTS: Residents with mild (adjusted relative risk (aRR)=1.16, 95% CI=1.12-1.19), moderate (aRR=1.27, 95% CI=1.20-1.35), and severe (aRR=1.67, 95% CI=1.54-1.82) obesity were more likely to be readmitted within 30 days than those who were not obese. The average difference in LOS between residents without obesity and those with mild obesity was 2.6 days (95% CI=2.2-2.9 days); moderate obesity, 4.2 days (95% CI=3.7-5.1 days); and severe obesity, 7.0 days (95% CI=5.9-8.2 days). Residents with obesity were less likely to be successfully discharged and more likely to become long-stay nursing home residents. CONCLUSION: Obesity was associated with worse outcomes in postacute SNF residents with hip fracture. Efforts to provide targeted care to residents with obesity may be essential to improve outcomes. Obesity may be an overlooked risk adjuster in quality-of-care measures and in payment reforms related to PAC for individuals with hip fracture.

Delirium During Postacute Nursing Home Admission and Risk for Adverse Outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the rate of delirium present during admission to postacute care (PAC) in the nursing home setting and to determine whether patients with delirium had higher risk for adverse outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: US Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing homes, 2011 to 2014. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals admitted to all US nursing homes for PAC, aged ≥65 years, and without prior history of nursing home residence (n = 5,588,702). MEASUREMENTS: Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 admission assessments identified delirium based upon Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) items. Robust Poisson regression was used to calculate adjusted relative risks (aRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for death following PAC admission, and for 30-day discharge outcomes including re-hospitalization from PAC, discharge home, and functional improvement. RESULTS: Delirium was identified in 4.3% of new postacute nursing home admissions. Mortality within 30 days of PAC admission was observed in 16.3% of patients with delirium and 5.8% of patients without delirium (aRR = 2.27, CI = 2.24-2.30). The rate of 30-day readmission from PAC was 21.3% for patients with delirium compared with 15.1% among patients without delirium (aRR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.40, 1.43). 26.9% of patients with delirium were discharged home within 30 days of admission compared to 52.5% of patients without delirium (aRR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.57, 0.58). 48.9% of patients with delirium showed functional improvement at discharge compared to 59.9% of patients without delirium (aRR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.82, 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with delirium present upon PAC admission were at high risk for mortality and 30-day re-hospitalization and were less likely to have timely discharge to home or to improve in physical function at discharge. Early identification and care planning for individuals with delirium at PAC admission may be essential to improve outcomes.

Derivation and Validation of a Severity Scoring Method for the 3-Minute Diagnostic Interview for Confusion Assessment Method--Defined Delirium.

OBJECTIVES: To derive and validate a method for scoring delirium severity using a recently validated, brief, structured diagnostic interview for Confusion Assessment Method (CAM)-defined delirium (3D-CAM) and to demonstrate its agreement with the CAM Severity short form (CAM-S SF) as the reference standard. DESIGN: Derivation and validation analysis in a prospective cohort study. SETTING: Two academic medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 70 and older enrolled in the Successful Aging after Elective Surgery Study undergoing major elective noncardiac surgery (N = 566). MEASUREMENTS: The sample was randomly divided into a derivation dataset (n = 377) and an independent validation dataset (n = 189). These datasets were used to develop a severity scoring method using the 3D-CAM based on the four-item CAM-S SF (3D-CAM-S) and evaluate agreement between the 3D-CAM-S and the traditional CAM-S SF using weighted kappa statistics. RESULTS: A method for scoring severity using 3D-CAM items was developed that achieved good agreement with the CAM-S SF in the derivation dataset (κ = 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.93-0.95). The 3D-CAM-S achieved nearly identical agreement in the independent validation dataset (κ = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.92-0.95), and 100% of 3D-CAM-S scores were within 1 point of the CAM-S SF score in both datasets. The 3D-CAM-S also strongly predicts clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: A newly developed method for scoring delirium severity using the 3D-CAM (the 3D-CAM-S) has excellent agreement with the CAM-S SF. This new methodology enables clinicians and researchers using the 3D-CAM for surveillance to measure delirium severity and monitor its course simultaneously by tracking changes over time. The 3D-CAM-S expands the utility of the 3D-CAM as an important tool for delirium recognition and management.

The CAM-S: development and validation of a new scoring system for delirium severity in 2 cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying the severity of delirium is essential to advancing clinical care by improved understanding of delirium effect, prognosis, pathophysiology, and response to treatment. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a new delirium severity measure (CAM-S) based on the Confusion Assessment Method. DESIGN: Validation analysis in 2 independent cohorts. SETTING: Three academic medical centers. PATIENTS: The first cohort included 300 patients aged 70 years or older scheduled for major surgery. The second included 919 medical patients aged 70 years or older. MEASUREMENTS: A 4-item short form and a 10-item long form were developed. Association of the maximum CAM-S score during hospitalization with hospital and posthospital outcomes related to delirium was evaluated. RESULTS: Representative results included adjusted mean length of stay, which increased across levels of short-form severity from 6.5 days (95% CI, 6.2 to 6.9 days) to 12.7 days (CI, 11.2 to 14.3 days) (P for trend < 0.001) and across levels of long-form severity from 5.6 days (CI, 5.1 to 6.1 days) to 11.9 days (CI, 10.8 to 12.9 days) (P for trend < 0.001). Representative results for the composite outcome of adjusted relative risk of death or nursing home residence at 90 days increased progressively across levels of short-form severity from 1.0 (referent) to 2.5 (CI, 1.9 to 3.3) (P for trend < 0.001) and across levels of long-form severity from 1.0 (referent) to 2.5 (CI, 1.6 to 3.7) (P for trend < 0.001). LIMITATION: Data on clinical outcomes were measured in an older data set limited to patients aged 70 years or older. CONCLUSION: The CAM-S provides a new delirium severity measure with strong psychometric properties and strong associations with important clinical outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging.