Younger Individuals Increase Their Use of Nursing Homes Following ACA Medicaid Expansion.

OBJECTIVES: This study examines the effect of Medicaid eligibility expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on the utilization of nursing home services by younger individuals and those covered by Medicaid. DESIGN: Compared the age of nursing home residents, proportion of individuals covered by Medicaid, annual nursing home admissions in those younger than 65, and nursing home length of stay in states that expanded Medicaid eligibility through the ACA to states that did not. We used data from LTCFocus (nursing home level), the Minimum Data Set (individual level), and Medicaid expansion status from the Kaiser Family Foundation. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The study included 15,005,888 nursing home admissions, 2,446,950 of which were residents younger than 65, across 14,132 nursing homes between 2009 and 2016. METHODS: A time-varying difference-in-difference model including state and year fixed effects with effect modification by pre-2014 nursing home occupancy. RESULTS: Facilities in expansion states with a pre-ACA occupancy rate of more than 70% increased the fraction of residents younger than 65 by 2.74% to 6.32%, compared with similar facilities in nonexpansion states. Medicaid admissions varied, with an increase in year 2 after expansion compared with nonexpansion states. Among residents entering from an acute care hospital, the proportion younger than 65 increased in facilities with pre-2014 occupancy rates of more than 70%, compared with similar facilities in nonexpansion states, an increase of up to 6.51%. Median nursing home length of stay for individuals younger than 65 decreased relative to nonexpansion states across all occupancy categories, ranging from 1.68 to 6.06 days after Medicaid expansion. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Medicaid expansion increased access to nursing home post-acute care for individuals younger than 65. It remains unclear if the benefit of post-acute care is the same among this group, or if the needs of younger individuals can be adequately met in this setting.

Use of Post-Acute Care by Medicare Beneficiaries With a Diagnosis of Dementia.

OBJECTIVES: Hospitalized patients with dementia transitioning to post-acute care may be particularly vulnerable to changes in post-acute care utilization driven by payment reforms; however, use of post-acute care in this population is incompletely understood. We sought to describe post-acute care utilization in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and from home health (HH) agencies among Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of dementia. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study using 100% sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2013 to 2016. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified hospitalizations and diagnoses using Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR), SNF stays using the Minimum Data Set, HH episodes using the Outcome and Assessment Information Set, and dementia diagnoses using the Medicare Beneficiary Summary File Chronic Conditions segment. METHODS: We calculated overall utilization and trends in post-acute care use over time, stratified by dementia diagnosis, type of post-acute care (SNF vs HH), and payer (fee-for-service vs Medicare Advantage). RESULTS: Of the 9,762,208 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who received post-acute care from 2013 to 2016, 3,155,560 (32.3%) carried a diagnosis of dementia. Rates of post-acute care use were similar over time. More beneficiaries with a diagnosis of dementia received post-acute care (44.2% vs 27.7%) and proportionally more SNF care (71.7% vs 49.6%). Overall use and trends were similar in the Medicare Advantage population. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: One-third of all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries receiving post-acute care have a diagnosis of dementia, and more than 7 in 10 receive this care in an SNF. These findings serve as a foundation for needed evaluations of how best to meet the post-hospital needs of older adults with dementia.

Postacute care outcomes in home health or skilled nursing facilities in patients with a diagnosis of dementia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of postacute care between home health (HH) and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) following hospitalization among Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of dementia. DATA SOURCES: 100% MedPAR data, Minimum Data Set, and Outcome and Assessment Information Set assessment data from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis using an instrumental variable design to compare outcomes (30-day readmission and mortality, 100-day mortality) of HH versus SNF following acute hospitalization. We used the differential distance between patients' home and the closest HH agency and SNF to instrument for nonrandom allocation of patients. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified hospital discharges followed by SNF and HH stays for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with dementia. We excluded beneficiaries younger than age 65, admitted to the hospital from a nursing home, or enrolled in hospice. We identified dementia using validated diagnostic codes with a 3-year look-back. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our sample included 977,946 beneficiaries with a diagnosis of dementia; 297,732 (30.4%) received HH, while 680,214 (69.6%) went to SNF. Overall, 16.8% were readmitted to the hospital and 6.1% died within 30 days, while 15.4% died within 100 days of hospital discharge. In the instrumental variable analysis, there were no differences in any outcome between the two postacute care settings. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of dementia receiving postacute care in HH or SNF experienced similar rates of readmission and mortality across settings. This finding raises important questions about current postacute care referral patterns, given 7 in 10 patients with a diagnosis of dementia in our sample were discharged to SNF.

Outcomes of post-acute care in skilled nursing facilities in Medicare beneficiaries with and without a diagnosis of dementia.

BACKGROUND: More than 600,000 Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of dementia are discharged to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) after hospitalization annually. However, it is unclear how their risks and benefits of a SNF stay compare to beneficiaries without a diagnosis of dementia. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis comparing SNF outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries with and without a diagnosis of dementia. SETTING: One hundred percent sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2015 to 2016. PARTICIPANTS: Dementia was identified using validated diagnosis codes. In beneficiaries who had an acute hospitalization followed by SNF stay, we used propensity score matching to balance demographics, comorbidities, characteristics of the index hospital stay, prior hospital and SNF utilization, and cognitive status on SNF admission. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes included unplanned hospital readmission, community discharge rate, and mortality during the SNF stay. Multivariate models were adjusted for hospital and SNF characteristics. RESULTS: Our sample included 2,418,853 Medicare beneficiaries discharged from hospital to SNF; 830,524 (34.3%) carried a diagnosis of dementia. Overall, 14.7% of the sample had a hospital readmission, 5.0% died, and 61.5% were successfully discharged to the community. In the propensity-matched cohort, beneficiaries with a diagnosis of dementia had a lower odds ratio of mortality (OR 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-0.89), similar odds of hospital readmission (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98-1.00), and reduced odds of discharge to the community (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.91-0.93). However, these findings varied by the severity of cognitive impairment on SNF admission: in beneficiaries with no impairment, those with a diagnosis of dementia had higher odds of adverse outcomes. In beneficiaries with severe impairment, beneficiaries with a diagnosis of dementia had lower odds of adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive dysfunction on SNF admission is a stronger predictor of outcomes than a diagnosis of dementia, suggesting the need to individualize decisions about the benefits and risks of SNF care in populations with cognitive impairment.

A Policy Analysis of Legally Required Supervision of Nurse Practitioners and Other Health Professionals.

The use of legally required supervision occurs across health professionals who provide similar services. Legally required supervision has the potential to disrupt the production of high-quality, cost-efficient, accessible health services across disciplines. This paper examines the effects of nurse practitioner collaborative practice agreements and similar models of health professional regulation, defined as legally required supervision, on the cost and delivery of health services. A policy analysis examines empirical, policy, and law literature between two health professionals providing a similar service. Analysis includes literature on dental hygienists, dentists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, midwives, nurse practitioners, physicians, and pharmacists. A framework for legally required supervision across health professionals is presented. Antecedents of legally required supervision include occupational licensure, reimbursement policy, and institutional policy. Legally required supervision inhibits provider entry to practice and the production of health services by supervised providers. The cost of care increases under legally required supervision. Costs are measured by wages for providers and the price of services for patients. This paper and proposed framework summarize the antecedents and consequences of legally required supervision. Discipline-specific antecedents and provider characteristics must be considered when calculating the full effect of legally required supervision on the delivery and cost of health services.