Assessing Hospital Quality Scores By Proportion Of Patients Dually Eligible For Medicare And Medicaid.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has been reporting hospital star ratings since 2016. Some stakeholders have criticized the star ratings methodology for not adjusting for social risk factors. We examined the relationship between 2021 star rating scores and hospitals' proportion of Medicare patients dually eligible for Medicaid. We found that, on average, hospitals caring for a greater proportion of dually eligible patients had lower star ratings, but there was significant overlap in performance among hospitals when we stratified them by quintile of dually eligible patients. Hospitals in the highest quintile (those with the greatest proportion of dually eligible patients) had the best mean mortality scores (0.28) but the worst readmission (-0.44) and patient experience (-0.78) scores. We assigned star ratings after stratifying the readmission measure group by proportion of dually eligible patients and found that a total of 142 hospitals gained a star and 161 hospitals lost a star, of which 126 (89 percent) and 1 (<1 percent) were in the highest quintile, respectively. Adjusting public reporting tools such as star ratings for social risk factors is ultimately a policy decision, and views on the appropriateness of accounting for factors such as proportion of dually eligible patients are mixed, depending on the organization and stakeholder.

A Decade of ACOs in Medicare: Have They Delivered on Their Promise?

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) were envisioned as a way to address both health care cost growth and uneven quality in US health care. They emerged in the early 2000s, with the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) establishing a Medicare ACO program. In the decade since their launch, ACOs have grown into one of Medicare's flagship payment reform programs, with millions of beneficiaries receiving care from hundreds of ACOs. While great expectations surrounded ACOs' introduction into Medicare, their impacts to date have been modest. ACOs have achieved some savings and improvements in measured quality, but disagreement persists over the meaning of those results: Do ACOs represent important, incremental steps forward on the path toward a more efficient, high-quality health care system? Or do their modest achievements signal a failure of large-scale progress despite the substantial investments of resources? ACOs have proven to be politically resilient, largely sidestepping the controversies and partisan polarization that have led to the demise of other ACA provisions. But the same features that have enabled ACOs to evade backlash have constrained their impacts and effectiveness. After a decade, ACOs' long-term influence on Medicare and the US health care system remains uncertain.

The Association of Readmission Reduction Activities with Primary Care Practice Readmission Rates.

BACKGROUND: A great deal of research has focused on how hospitals influence readmission rates. While hospitals play a vital role in reducing readmissions, a significant portion of the work also falls to primary care practices. Despite this critical role of primary care, little empirical evidence has shown what primary care characteristics or activities are associated with reductions in hospital admissions. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between practices' readmission reduction activities and their readmission rates. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective study of 1,788 practices who responded to the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (fielded 2017-2018) and 415,663 hospital admissions for Medicare beneficiaries attributed to those practices from 2016 100% Medicare claims data. We constructed mixed-effects logistic regression models to estimate practice-level readmission rates and a linear regression model to evaluate the association between practices' readmission rates with their number of readmission reduction activities. INTERVENTIONS: Standardized composite score, ranging from 0 to 1, representing the number of a practice's readmission reduction capabilities. The composite score was composed of 12 unique capabilities identified in the literature as being significantly associated with lower readmission rates (e.g., presence of care manager, medication reconciliation, shared-decision making, etc.). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Practices' readmission rates for attributed Medicare beneficiaries. KEY RESULTS: Routinely engaging in more readmission reduction activities was significantly associated (P < .05) with lower readmission rates. On average, practices experienced a 0.05 percentage point decrease in readmission rates for each additional activity. Average risk-standardized readmission rates for practices performing 10 or more of the 12 activities in our composite measure were a full percentage point lower than risk-standardized readmission rates for practices engaging in none of the activities. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practices that engaged in more readmission reduction activities had lower readmission rates. These findings add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that engaging in multiple activities, rather than any single activity, is associated with decreased readmissions.

Avoiding Medicaid: Characteristics Of Primary Care Practices With No Medicaid Revenue.

Primary care access for Medicaid patients is an ongoing area of concern. Most studies of providers' participation in Medicaid have focused on factors associated with the Medicaid program, such as reimbursement rates. Few studies have examined the characteristics of primary care practices associated with Medicaid participation. We used a nationally representative survey of primary care practices to compare practices with no, low, and high Medicaid revenue. Seventeen percent of practices received no Medicaid revenue; 38 percent and 45 percent were categorized as receiving low and high Medicaid revenue, respectively. Practices with no Medicaid revenue were more often small, independent, and located in urban areas with higher household income. These practices also have lower population health capabilities.

No Permanent Fix: MACRA, MIPS, and the Politics of Physician Payment Reform.

Organized medicine long yearned for the demise of Medicare's Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula for updating physician fees. Congress finally obliged in 2015, repealing the SGR as part of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). MACRA established value-based metrics for physician payment and financial incentives for doctors to join alternative delivery models like patient-centered medical homes. Throughout the law's initial implementation, the politics of accommodation prevailed, with federal officials crafting final rules that made MACRA more favorable for physicians. However, the era of accommodation could be short-lived. The discretion that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had during the first two years of implementation is ending. Additionally, euphoria over the SGR's repeal has given way to concerns over the new program's value-based purchasing arrangements and uncertainty over their sustainability. MACRA eliminated the SGR, but not the politics of physician payment.

An administrative claims measure of payments made for Medicare patients for a 30-day episode of care for acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Understanding both cost and quality across institutions is a critical first step to illuminating the value of care purchased by Medicare. Under contract with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, we developed a method for profiling hospitals by 30-day episode-of-care costs (payments for Medicare beneficiaries) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: We developed a hierarchical generalized linear regression model to calculate hospital risk-standardized payment (RSP) for a 30-day episode for AMI. Using 2008 Medicare claims, we identified hospitalizations for patients 65 years of age or older with a discharge diagnosis of ICD-9 codes 410.xx. We defined an AMI episode as the date of admission plus 30 days. To reflect clinical care, we omitted or averaged payment adjustments for geographic factors and policy initiatives. We risk-adjusted for clinical variables identified in the 12 months preceding and including the AMI hospitalization. Using combined 2008-2009 data, we assessed measure reliability using an intraclass correlation coefficient and calculated the final RSP. RESULTS: The final model included 30 variables and resulted in predictive ratios (average predicted payment/average total payment) close to 1. The intraclass correlation coefficient score was 0.79. Across 2382 hospitals with ≥ 25 hospitalizations, the unadjusted mean payment was $20,324 ranging from $11,089 to $41,897. The mean RSP was $21,125 ranging from $13,909 to $28,979. CONCLUSIONS: This study introduces a claims-based measure of RSP for an AMI 30-day episode of care. The RSP varies among hospitals, with a 2-fold range in payments. When combined with quality measures, this payment measure will help profile high-value care.

Payments for acute myocardial infarction episodes-of-care initiated at hospitals with and without interventional capabilities.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether hospitals with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) capability provide costlier care than hospitals without PCI capability for patients with acute myocardial infarction. The growing number of PCI hospitals and higher rate of PCI use may result in higher costs for episodes-of-care initiated at PCI hospitals. However, higher rates of transfers and postacute care procedures may result in higher costs for episodes-of-care initiated at non-PCI hospitals. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified all 2008 acute myocardial infarction admissions among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries by principal discharge diagnosis and classified hospitals as PCI- or non-PCI-capable on the basis of hospitals' 2007 PCI performance. We added all payments from admission through 30 days postadmission, including payments to hospitals other than the admitting hospital. We calculated and compared risk-standardized payment for PCI and non-PCI hospitals using 2-level hierarchical generalized linear models, adjusting for patient demographics and clinical characteristics. PCI hospitals had a higher mean 30-day risk-standardized payment than non-PCI hospitals (PCI, $20 340; non-PCI, $19 713; P<0.001). Patients presenting to PCI hospitals had higher PCI rates (39.2% versus 13.2%; P<0.001) and higher coronary artery bypass graft rates (9.5% versus 4.4%; P<0.001) during index admissions, lower transfer rates (2.2% versus 25.4%; P<0.001), and lower revascularization rates within 30 days (0.15% versus 0.27%; P<0.0001) than those presenting to non-PCI hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher PCI and coronary artery bypass graft rates for Medicare patients initially presenting to PCI hospitals, PCI hospitals were only $627 costlier than non-PCI hospitals for the treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction in 2008.