Administrator Perspectives on the Impact of COVID-19 on the Administration of the Patient Driven Payment Model in U.S. Skilled Nursing Facilities.

The Patient Driven Payment Model (PDPM) was implemented in U.S. skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) in October 2019, shortly before COVID-19. This new payment model aimed to reimburse SNFs for patients' nursing needs rather than the previous model which reimbursed based on the volume of therapy received. Through 156 semi-structured interviews with 40 SNF administrators from July 2020 to December 2021, this qualitative study clarifies the impact of COVID-19 on the administration of PDPM at SNFs. Interview data were analyzed using modified grounded theory and thematic analysis. Our findings show that SNF administrators shifted focus from management of the PDPM to COVID-19-related delivery of care adaptations, staff shortfalls, and decreased admissions. As the pandemic abated, administrators re-focused their attention to PDPM. Policy makers should consider the continued impacts of the pandemic at SNFs, particularly on delivery of care, admissions, and staffing, on the ability of SNF administrators to administer a new payment model.

Implementing the Patient Driven Payment Model-Perspectives from Skilled Nursing Facility Administrators.

Objective: To explore skilled nursing facility (SNF) administrator retrospective perspectives on their preparation for and initial implementation of the Patient Driven Payment Model (PDPM), the new Medicare payment system for SNFs enacted on October 1, 2019. Methods: 156 interviews at 40 SNFs in eight U.S. markets were conducted and qualitatively analyzed. Results: Administrators retrospectively expressed feeling well-prepared for the PDPM implementation. Advance preparation focused on training staff regarding patient assessment and documentation. Administrators also recognized increased incentives for admitting patients with more complex needs and prepared accordingly. Therapy staffing reductions were concentrated in contract employees, while SNF-employed therapists were less affected. Conclusion: Policy makers and industry experts should consider the long-term impact of changing financial incentives through payment reform, and ensure that reimbursement best reflects the cost of providing services while prioritizing high-quality care. PDPM's effect on care quality and access to care should continue to be monitored.

Machine-Based Expert Recommendations And Insurance Choices Among Medicare Part D Enrollees.

Choosing a health insurance plan is difficult for many people, and patient-centered decision support may help consumers make these choices. We tested whether providing a patient-centered decision-support tool-with or without machine-based, personalized expert recommendations-influenced decision outcomes for Medicare Part D enrollees. We found that providing an online patient-centered decision-support tool increased older adults' satisfaction with the process of choosing a prescription drug plan and the amount of time they spent choosing a plan. Providing personalized expert recommendations as well increased rates of plan switching. Many people who could have accessed the tool chose not to, and the characteristics of people who used the tool differed from those who did not. We conclude that a patient-centered decision-support tool providing personalized expert recommendations can help people choose a plan, but different approaches may be necessary to encourage more people to periodically reevaluate their options.

Enhancing Shared Decision Making Through Carefully Designed Interventions That Target Patient And Provider Behavior.

Patient-provider communication and shared decision making are essential for primary care delivery and are vital contributors to patient experience and health outcomes. To alleviate communication shortfalls, we designed a novel, multidimensional intervention aimed at nudging both patients and primary care providers to communicate more openly. The intervention was tested against an existing intervention, which focused mainly on changing patients' behaviors, in four primary care clinics involving 26 primary care providers and 300 patients. Study results suggest that compared to usual care, both the novel and existing interventions were associated with better patient reports of how well primary care providers engaged them in shared decision making. Future research should build on the work in this pilot to rigorously examine the comparative effectiveness and scalability of these interventions to improve shared decision making at the point of care.

Using Unlicensed Health Coaches to Improve Care for Insured Patients with Diabetes and Hypertension: Patient and Physician Perspectives on Recruitment and Uptake.

Health coach programs using low-cost unlicensed providers have largely targeted uninsured or underserved populations, raising questions about uptake and effectiveness for insured patients. This observational study evaluated the referral process, uptake, and effectiveness of a health coach program for patients with diabetes and/or hypertension at a multispecialty clinic. Data included appointment observations; interviews with patients, physicians, and health coaches; patient and physician characteristics; and measures of utilization and clinical outcomes. Out of 1313 eligible patients, 308 (23.5%) were referred over a 12-month period and 169 (54.9%) had at least 1 health coach appointment. Although the health coach program did not change patients' biometrics, physicians and patients reported improved care processes and reduced physician workload. Barriers to enrollment included variability in physician referral practices, patient willingness, and scheduling difficulties. Modifications to physician and health coach workflow are needed to determine the program's true effectiveness.

Differences between emergency contraception users in the United States and the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: to characterize emergency contraception (EC) users and clinical trial participants in the United States and the United Kingdom, comparing previous EC use and awareness, contraceptive history, and experience with EC. METHODS: We collected data from all EC seekers (n=5383) at 1 US and 2 UK clinics (9/97-8/98). We also collected detailed information from women (n=2157) enrolling in an EC trial at the first 3 clinics and 2 additional UK sites (9/97-2/00). RESULTS: More US (16%) than UK (4%) women reported additional acts (other than in the last 5 days) of unprotected sex during the cycle in which they sought EC. Fifty-eight percent of UK trial participants had used EC previously compared to 18% in the United States. Most participants in both groups used contraception regularly and reported needing EC because of condom breaks (67% and 56%). More UK than US participants used an ongoing method of contraception (38% v 28%). US women reported more side effects at follow-up than UK women did (76% v 59%), although similar proportions would take EC again or recommend it. CONCLUSIONS: US and UK women in our trial experienced different side effects. Researchers should use caution when presenting aggregate results from international multicenter trials. In addition, readers should be aware that such aggregate results might mask important geographical differences. More research on experience with EC and barriers to contraceptive use in the United States is needed.