The effects of vertically integrated care on health care use and outcomes in inpatient rehabilitation facilities.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the effects of receiving vertically integrated care in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) on health care use and outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Medicare enrollment, claims, and IRF patient assessment data from 2012 to 2014. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated within-IRF differences in health care use and outcomes between IRF patients admitted from hospitals vertically integrated with the IRF (parent hospital) vs patients admitted from other hospitals. For hospital-based IRFs, the parent hospital was defined as the hospital that owned the IRF and co-located with the IRF. For freestanding IRFs, the parent hospital(s) was defined as the hospital(s) that was in the same health system. We estimated models for freestanding and hospital-based IRFs and for fee-for-service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA) patients. Dependent variables included hospital and IRF length of stay, functional status, discharged to home, and hospital readmissions. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries discharged from a hospital to IRF. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In adjusted models with hospital fixed effects, our results indicate that FFS patients in hospital-based IRFs discharged from the parent hospital had shorter hospital (-0.7 days, 95% CI: -0.9 to -0.6) and IRF (-0.7 days, 95% CI: -0.9 to -0.6) length of stay were less likely to be readmitted (-1.6%, 95% CI: -2.7% to -0.5%) and more likely to be discharged to home care (1.4%, 95% CI: 0.7% to 2.0%), without worse patient clinical outcomes, compared to patients discharged from other hospitals and treated in the same IRFs. We found similar results for MA patients. However, for patients in freestanding IRFs, we found little differences in health care use or patient outcomes between patients discharged from a parent hospital compared to patients from other hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that receiving vertically integrated care in hospital-based IRFs shortens institutional length of stay while maintaining or improving health outcomes.

Skilled Nursing Facility Participation in Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative: A Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate differences in facility characteristics, patient characteristics, and outcomes between skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) that participated in Medicare's voluntary Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative and nonparticipants, prior to BPCI. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional comparison of BPCI participants and nonparticipants. SETTING: SNFs. PARTICIPANTS: All Medicare-certified SNFs (N=15,172) and their 2011-2012 episodes of care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, femur and hip/pelvis fracture, hip and femur procedures, lower extremity joint replacement, and pneumonia (N=873,739). INTERVENTIONS: Participation in a bundled payment program that included taking financial responsibility for care within a 90-day episode. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: This study investigates the characteristics of bundled payment participants and their patient characteristics and outcomes relative to nonparticipants prior to BPCI, to understand the implications of a broader implementation of bundled payments. RESULTS: SNFs participating in BPCI were more likely to be in urban areas (80.8%-98.4% vs 69.5%) and belong to a chain or system (73.8%-85.5% vs 55%), and were less likely to be located in the south (13.1%-20.2% vs 35.4%). Quality performance was similar or higher in most cases for SNFs participating in BPCI relative to nonparticipants. In addition, BPCI participants admitted higher socioeconomic status patients with similar clinical characteristics. Initial SNF length of stay was shorter and hospital readmission rates were lower for BPCI patients compared to nonparticipant patients. CONCLUSIONS: We found that SNFs participating in the second financial risk-bearing phase of BPCI represented a diversity of SNF types, regions, and levels of quality and the results may provide insight into a broader adoption of bundled payment for postacute providers.

Do Skilled Nursing Facilities Selected to Participate in Preferred Provider Networks Have Higher Quality and Lower Costs?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) chosen by health systems to participate in preferred provider networks exhibited differences in quality, costs, and patient outcomes relative to other SNFs after accounting for differences in case mix. DATA SOURCES: Medicare provider and claims data, 2012 and 2013. STUDY DESIGN: We compared SNFs included in preferred networks relative to other SNFs in the same market, prior to the establishment of preferred provider networks. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: We linked the SNFs in our sample to facility characteristics and quality data. We identified SNF admissions and hospitalizations in claims data and limited the analysis to patients discharged from the hospitals in our sample. We obtained patient characteristics from Medicare summary files and the preceding hospital stay. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Preferred SNFs exhibited better performance across publicly reported quality measures. Patients admitted to preferred SNFs exhibited shorter stays, lower Medicare payments, and lower probability of SNF readmission relative to nonpreferred SNFs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results imply that health systems selected SNFs with lower resource use and better performance on quality measures. Thus, the trend toward preferred provider networks could have implications for Medicare spending and patient health.