The health effects of nursing home specialization in post-acute care.

Nursing homes serve both long-term care and post-acute care (PAC) patients, two groups with distinct financing mechanisms and requirements for care. We examine empirically the effect of nursing home specialization in PAC using 2011-2018 data for Medicare patients admitted to nursing homes following a hospital stay. To address patient selection into specialized nursing homes, we use an instrumental variables approach that exploits variation over time in the distance from the patient's residential ZIP code to the closest nursing home with different levels of PAC specialization. We find that patients admitted to nursing homes more specialized in PAC have lower hospital readmissions and mortality, longer nursing home stays, and higher Medicare spending for the episode of care, suggesting that specialization improves patient outcomes but at higher costs.

Pneumonia is not just pneumonia: Differences in utilization and costs with common comorbidities.

We sought to explore the heterogeneity among patients hospitalized with pneumonia, a condition targeted in payment reform. In a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for pneumonia, we compared postacute care utilization and costs of 90-day episodes of care among patients with and without comorbidities of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and/or heart failure. Of the 1,926,674 discharges, 28.1% had COPD, 14.3% had heart failure, and 14.6% carried both diagnoses. Patients with pneumonia were more likely to be discharged to a facility than those with pneumonia and COPD with or without heart failure, though less likely than those with pneumonia and heart failure only. Compared to patients with pneumonia only, patients with COPD and/or heart failure had higher episode payments. Acute conditions such as pneumonia may hold promise for episode-based care payment reform; however, the heterogeneity within this diagnosis indicates the need to consider other patient characteristics in interventions to improve value-based care.

Variation in Risk-Standardized Acute Admission Rates Among Patients With Heart Failure in Accountable Care Organizations: Implications for Quality Measurement.

Background Accountable care organizations (ACOs) aim to improve health care quality and reduce costs, including among patients with heart failure (HF). However, variation across ACOs in admission rates for patients with HF and associated factors are not well described. Methods and Results We identified Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with HF who were assigned to a Medicare Shared Savings Program ACO in 2017 and survived ≥30 days into 2018. We calculated risk-standardized acute admission rates across ACOs, assigned ACOs to 1 of 3 performance categories, and examined associations between ACO characteristics and performance categories. Among 1 232 222 beneficiaries with HF, 283 795 (mean age, 81 years; 54% women; 86% White; 78% urban) were assigned to 1 of 467 Medicare Shared Savings Program ACOs. Across ACOs, the median risk-standardized acute admission rate was 87 admissions per 100 people, ranging from 61 (minimum) to 109 (maximum) admissions per 100 beneficiaries. Compared to the overall average, 13% of ACOs performed better on risk-standardized acute admission rates, 72% were no different, and 14% performed worse. Most ACOs with better performance had fewer Black beneficiaries and were not hospital affiliated. Most ACOs that performed worse than average were large, located in the Northeast, had a hospital affiliation, and had a lower proportion of primary care providers. Conclusions Admissions are common among beneficiaries with HF in ACOs, and there is variation in risk-standardized acute admission rates across ACOs. ACO performance was associated with certain ACO characteristics. Future studies should attempt to elucidate the relationship between ACO structure and characteristics and admission risk.

The Home Care Workforce Has Not Kept Pace With Growth In Home And Community-Based Services.

Home and community-based services (HCBS) are the predominant approach to delivering long-term services and supports in the US, but there are growing numbers of reports of worker shortages in this industry. Medicaid, the primary payer for long-term services and supports, has expanded HCBS coverage, resulting in a shift in the services' provision out of institutions and into homes. Yet it is unknown whether home care workforce growth has kept up with the increased use of these services. Using data from the American Community Survey and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, we compared trends in the size of the home care workforce with data on Medicaid HCBS participation between 2008 and 2020. The home care workforce grew from approximately 840,000 to 1.22 million workers between 2008 and 2013. After 2013, growth slowed, ultimately reaching 1.42 million workers in 2019. In contrast, the number of Medicaid HCBS participants grew continuously from 2008 to 2020, with accelerated growth between 2013 and 2020. As a consequence, the number of home care workers per 100 HCBS participants declined by 11.6 percent between 2013 and 2019, with preliminary estimates suggesting that further declines occurred in 2020. Improving access to HCBS will require not just expanded insurance coverage but also new workforce investments.

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.

Racial and ethnic disparities in access to and enrollment in high-quality Medicare Advantage plans.

OBJECTIVE: Racial and ethnic minority enrollees in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans tend to be in lower-quality plans, measured by a 5-star quality rating system. We examine whether differential access to high-rated plans was associated with this differential enrollment in high-rated plans by race and ethnicity among MA enrollees. DATA SOURCES: The Medicare Master Beneficiary Summary File and MA Landscape File for 2016. STUDY DESIGN: We first examined county-level MA plan offerings by race and ethnicity. We then examined the association of racial and ethnic differences in enrollment by star rating by controlling for the following different sets of covariates: (1) individual-level characteristics only, and (2) individual-level characteristics and county-level MA plan offerings. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Not applicable PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Racial and ethnic minority enrollees had, on average, more MA plans available in their counties of residence compared to White enrollees (16.1, 20.8, 20.2, vs. 15.1 for Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and White enrollees), but had fewer number of high-rated plans (4-star plans or higher) and/or more number of low-rated plans (3.5-star plans or lower). While racial and ethnic minority enrollees had lower enrollment in 4-4.5 star plans than White enrollees, this difference substantially decreased after accounting for county-level MA plan offerings (-9.1 to -0.5 percentage points for Black enrollees, -15.9 to -5.0 percentage points for Asian/Pacific Islander enrollees, and -12.7 to 0.6 percentage points for Hispanic enrollees). Results for Black enrollees were notable as the racial difference reversed when we limited the analysis to those who live in counties that offer a 5-star plan. After accounting for county-level MA plan offerings, Black enrollees had 3.2 percentage points higher enrollment in 5-star plans than White enrollees. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in enrollment in high-rated MA plans by race and ethnicity may be explained by limited access and not by individual characteristics or enrollment decisions.

Association of Medicare Advantage Star Ratings With Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Hospitalizations for Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Enrollment in high-quality Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, measured by a 5-star quality rating system, was lower among racial and ethnic minority enrollees than White enrollees partly due to fewer high-quality plans available in their counties of residence. This may contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in ambulatory care sensitive condition (ACSC) hospitalizations. OBJECTIVE: We examined whether there were racial and ethnic disparities in ACSC hospitalizations among MA enrollees overall and by star rating. METHODS: Using the Medicare enrollment and claims data for 2016, we identified White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander enrollees in MA plans. We estimated racial and ethnic disparities in ACSC hospitalizations (per 10,000 enrollees) overall and by star rating. RESULTS: We found that the adjusted rates of ACSC hospitalizations were significantly higher among Black enrollees than White enrollees overall [39.4 (95% confidence interval: 36.3-42.5)]. However, no significant disparities were found among Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander enrollees. The adjusted rates of ACSC hospitalizations were higher in lower-rated plans than higher-rated plans in all racial and ethnic groups. The significant disparities in ACSC hospitalizations by star rating were the most pronounced between White and Black enrollees. We found suggestive evidence that enrollment in lower-rated plans was associated with higher disparities in ACSC hospitalizations between White and Black enrollees. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial disparities in ACSC hospitalizations exist between White and Black enrollees in MA plans, especially for lower-rated plans. Policies aimed at reducing racial disparities in ACSC hospitalizations could include improving access to high-rated plans.

Association of Extreme Heat With All-Cause Mortality in the Contiguous US, 2008-2017.

Importance: The number of extreme heat events is increasing because of climate change. Previous studies showing an association between extreme heat and higher mortality rates generally have been limited to urban areas, and whether there is heterogeneity across different populations is not well studied; understanding whether this association varies across different communities, particularly minoritized racial and ethnic groups, may allow for more targeted mitigation efforts. Objective: To the assess the association between extreme heat and all-cause mortality rates in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study involved a longitudinal analysis of the association between the number of extreme heat days in summer months from 2008 to 2017 (obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Environmental Public Health Tracking Program) and county-level all-cause mortality rates (obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics), using a linear fixed-effects model across all counties in the contiguous US among adults aged 20 years and older. Data analysis was performed from September 2021 to March 2022. Exposures: The number of extreme heat days per month. Extreme heat was identified if the maximum heat index was greater than or equal to 90 °F (32.2 °C) and in the 99th percentile of the maximum heat index in the baseline period (1979 to 2007). Main Outcomes and Measures: County-level, age-adjusted, all-cause mortality rates. Results: There were 219 495 240 adults aged 20 years and older residing in the contiguous US in 2008, of whom 113 294 043 (51.6%) were female and 38 542 838 (17.6%) were older than 65 years. From 2008 to 2017, the median (IQR) number of extreme heat days during summer months in all 3108 counties in the contiguous US was 89 (61-122) days. After accounting for time-invariant confounding, secular time trends, and time-varying environmental and economic measures, each additional extreme heat day in a month was associated with 0.07 additional death per 100 000 adults (95% CI, 0.03-0.10 death per 100 000 adults; P = .001). In subgroup analyses, greater increases in mortality rates were found for older vs younger adults (0.19 death per 100 000 individuals; 95% CI, 0.04-0.34 death per 100 000 individuals), male vs female adults (0.12 death per 100 000 individuals; 95% CI, 0.05-0.18 death per 100 000 individuals), and non-Hispanic Black vs non-Hispanic White adults (0.11 death per 100 000 individuals; 95% CI, 0.02-0.20 death per 100 000 individuals). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that from 2008 to 2017, extreme heat was associated with higher all-cause mortality in the contiguous US, with a greater increase noted among older adults, men, and non-Hispanic Black individuals. Without mitigation, the projected increase in extreme heat due to climate change may widen health disparities between groups.

Reimagining Financing and Payment of Long-Term Care.

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed fundamental problems with the structure of long-term care financing and payment in the United States. The piecemeal system that exists suffers from several key problems, including underfunding, fragmentation across types and sites of care, and substantial variation in payment across states and populations. These problems result in inefficient allocation of resources, limited access to care, substandard quality, and inequities in both access and quality. We propose a new federal benefit for long-term care, most likely as part of the Medicare program. Essential features of this benefit include taxpayer subsidies, along the lines of other Medicare benefits, and coverage across the range of long-term care services, including both residential and home- and community-based care. A new federal benefit has the most potential to break down administrative barriers and improve resource allocation, to ensure adequate payment rates across all states, to expand access to care by spreading risk across the entire Medicare population, and to improve equity by extending coverage to all Medicare beneficiaries who want it. A new federal benefit is politically challenging, requiring bold action by Congress, and entails the risks of administrative challenges and unintended consequences. However, in this case, retaining the status quo remains the far greater risk.

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.

Medicaid Expansion Alone Not Associated With Improved Finances, Staffing, Or Quality At Critical Access Hospitals.

Critical access hospitals are important providers of care for rural and other underserved communities, but they face staffing and quality challenges while operating with low margins. Medicaid expansion has been found to improve hospital finances broadly and therefore may have permitted sustained investments in staffing and quality improvement at these vulnerable hospitals. In this difference-in-differences analysis, we found that critical access hospitals in Medicaid expansion states did not have statistically significant postexpansion increases in operating margins relative to hospitals in nonexpansion states. Nor did we see evidence of statistically significant differential improvement at critical access hospitals in expansion versus nonexpansion states on either staffing measures (physicians and registered nurses per 1,000 patient days) or quality measures (percentage-point changes in readmissions and mortality within thirty days of admission for pneumonia or heart failure). These findings suggest that critical access hospitals may need to take additional measures to bolster finances to provide continued support for the delivery of high-quality care to rural and other underserved communities.

Trends in Post-Acute Care in US Nursing Homes: 2001-2017.

OBJECTIVE: To describe recent trends in post-acute care provision within nursing homes, focusing specifically on nursing homes' degree of specialization in post-acute care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All US nursing homes between 2001 and 2017 and all fee-for-service Medicare admissions to nursing homes for post-acute care during that time. METHODS: We measured post-acute care specialization as annual Medicare admissions per bed for each nursing home and examined changes in the distribution of specialization across nursing homes over the study period. We described the characteristics of nursing homes and the patients they serve based on degree of specialization. RESULTS: The average number of Medicare admissions per bed increased from 1.2 in 2001 to 1.6 in 2017, a relative increase of 41%. This upward trend in the number of Medicare admissions per bed was largest among new nursing homes (those established after 2001), increasing 68% from 2001 to 2017. In contrast, nursing homes that eventually closed during the study period experienced no meaningful growth in the number of admissions per bed. Over time, the number of Medicare admissions per bed increased among highly specialized nursing homes. The number of Medicare admissions per bed grew by 66% at the 95th percentile and by 25% at the 99th percentile. Nursing homes delivering the most post-acute care were more likely to be for-profit or part of a chain, had higher staffing levels, and were less likely to admit patients who were Black, Hispanic, or dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Over the last 2 decades, post-acute care has become increasingly concentrated in a subset of nursing homes, which tend to be for-profit, part of a chain, and less likely to serve racial and ethnic minorities and persons on Medicaid. Although these nursing homes may benefit financially from higher Medicare payment, it may come at the expense of equitable access and patient care.

Changes in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Policies and Diabetes Prevalence: Analysis of Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Data From 2004 to 2014.

OBJECTIVE: Food insecurity is associated with diabetes. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest U.S. government food assistance program. Whether such programs impact diabetes trends is unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between changes in state-level policies affecting SNAP participation and county-level diabetes prevalence. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We evaluated the association between change in county-level diabetes prevalence and changes in the U.S. Department of Agriculture SNAP policy index-a measure of adoption of state-level policies associated with increased SNAP participation (higher value indicating adoption of more policies associated with increased SNAP participation; range 1-10)-from 2004 to 2014 using g-computation, a robust causal inference methodology. The study included all U.S. counties with diabetes prevalence data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's U.S. Diabetes Surveillance System. RESULTS: The study included 3,135 of 3,143 U.S. counties. Mean diabetes prevalence increased from 7.3% (SD 1.3) in 2004 to 9.1% (SD 1.8) in 2014. The mean SNAP policy index increased from 6.4 (SD 0.9) to 8.2 (SD 0.6) in 2014. After accounting for changes in demographic-, economic-, and health care-related variables and the baseline SNAP policy index, a 1-point absolute increase in the SNAP policy index between 2004 and 2014 was associated with a 0.050 (95% CI 0.042-0.057) percentage point lower diabetes prevalence per year. CONCLUSIONS: State policies aimed at increasing SNAP participation were independently associated with a lower rise in diabetes prevalence between 2004 and 2014.

Trends in Post-Acute Care Utilization During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on post-acute care utilization and spending. DESIGN: We used a large national multipayer claims data set from January 2019 through October 2020 to examine trends in posthospital discharge location and spending. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified and included 975,179 hospital discharges who were aged ≥65 years. METHODS: We summarized postdischarge utilization and spending in each month of the study: (1) the percentage of patients discharged from the hospital to home for self-care and to the 3 common post-acute care locations: home with home health, skilled nursing facility (SNF), and inpatient rehabilitation; (2) the rate of discharge to each location per 100,000 insured members in our cohort; (3) the total amount spent per month in each post-acute care location; and (4) the percentage of spending in each post-acute care location out of the total spending across the 3 post-acute care settings. RESULTS: The percentage of patients discharged from the hospital to home or to inpatient rehabilitation did not meaningfully change during the pandemic whereas the percentage discharged to SNF declined from 19% of discharges in 2019 to 14% by October 2020. Total monthly spending declined in each of the 3 post-acute care locations, with the largest relative decline in SNFs of 55%, from an average of $42 million per month in 2019 to $19 million in October 2020. Declines in total monthly spending were smaller in home health (a 41% decline) and inpatient rehabilitation (a 32% decline). As a percentage of all post-acute care spending, spending on SNFs declined from 39% to 31%, whereas the percentage of post-acute care spending on home health and inpatient rehabilitation both increased. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Changes in posthospital discharge location of care represent a significant shift in post-acute care utilization, which persisted 9 months into the pandemic. These shifts could have profound implications on the future of post-acute care.

Differences in Cancer Care Expenditures and Utilization for Surgery by Hospital Type Among Patients With Private Insurance.

Importance: With rising expenditures on cancer care outpacing other sectors of the US health system, national attention has focused on insurer spending, particularly for patients with private insurance, for whom price transparency has historically been lacking. The type of hospital at which cancer care is delivered may be an important factor associated with insurer spending for patients with private insurance. Objective: To examine differences in spending and utilization for patients with private insurance undergoing common cancer surgery at National Cancer Institute (NCI) centers vs community hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study included adult patients with an incident diagnosis of breast, colon, or lung cancer who underwent cancer-directed surgery from 2011 to 2014. Mean risk-adjusted spending and utilization outcomes were examined for each hospital type using multilevel generalized linear mixed-effects models, adjusting for patient, hospital, and region characteristics. Data were collected from the Health Care Cost Institute's national multipayer commercial claims data set, which encompasses claims paid by 3 of the 5 largest commercial health insurers in the United States (ie, Aetna, Humana, and UnitedHealthcare). Data analyses were conducted from February 2018 to February 2019. Exposures: Hospital type at which cancer surgery was performed: NCI, non-NCI academic, or community. Main Outcomes and Measures: Spending outcomes were surgery-specific insurer prices paid and 90-day postdischarge payments. Utilization outcomes were length of stay (LOS), emergency department (ED) use, and hospital readmission within 90 days of discharge. Results: The study included 66 878 patients (51 569 [77.1%] women; 31 585 [47.2%] aged ≥65 years) with incident breast (35 788 [53.5%]), colon (21 378 [32.0%]), or lung (9712 [14.5%]) cancer undergoing cancer surgery at 2995 hospitals (5522 [8.3%] at NCI centers; 10 917 [16.3%] at non-NCI academic hospitals; 50 439 [75.4%] at community hospitals). Treatment at NCI centers was associated with higher surgery-specific insurer prices paid compared with community hospitals ($18 526 [95% CI, $16 650-$20 403] vs $14 772 [95% CI, $14 339-$15 204]; difference, $3755 [95% CI, $1661-$5849]; P < .001) and 90-day postdischarge payments ($47 035 [95% CI, $43 289-$50 781] vs $41 291 [95% CI, $40 350-$42 231]; difference, $5744 [95% CI, $1659-9829]; P = .006). There were no significant differences in LOS, ED use, or hospital readmission within 90 days of discharge. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, surgery at NCI centers vs community hospitals was associated with higher insurer spending for a surgical episode without differences in care utilization among patients with private insurance undergoing cancer surgery. A better understanding of the factors associated with prices and spending at NCI cancer centers is needed.

Gender Disparity in Citations in High-Impact Journal Articles.

Importance: Women are less likely to be promoted and hold leadership positions in academic medicine. How often academic articles are cited is a key measure of scholarly impact and frequently assessed for professional advancement; however, it is unknown whether peer-reviewed articles written by men and women are cited differently. Objective: To evaluate whether academic articles from high-impact medical journals written by men and women are cited differently. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study of all original research and commentary articles from 5 high-impact medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, JAMA, JAMA Internal Medicine, and The New England Journal of Medicine) from 2015 to 2018, the gender of the primary and senior authors of each article were identified using an online database, and the number of times each article has been cited was identified using Web of Science. The number of citations by primary and senior author gender were then compared. Data were analyzed from July 2020 to April 2021. Exposures: Primary and senior authors' genders. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of citations per article. Results: Among 5554 articles, women wrote 1975 (35.6%) as primary author and 1273 of 4940 (25.8%) as senior author. Original research articles written by women as primary authors had fewer median (interquartile range) citations than articles written by men as primary authors (36 [17-82] citations vs 54 [22-141] citations; P < .001) and senior authors (37 [17-93] citations vs 51 [20-128] citations; P < .001). Articles written by women as both primary and senior authors had approximately half as many median (interquartile range) citations as those authored by men as both primary and senior authors (33 [15-68] citations vs 59 [23-149] citations; P < .001). Differences in citations remained in each year of the study and were less pronounced among commentary articles. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, articles written by women in high-impact medical journals had fewer citations than those written by men, particularly when women wrote together as primary and senior authors. These differences may have important consequences for the professional success of women and achieving gender equity in academic medicine.

Integration Activities Between Hospitals and Skilled Nursing Facilities: A National Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Increasing recognition of the adverse events older adults experience in post-acute care in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) has led to multiple efforts to improve care integration between hospitals and SNFs. We sought to measure current care integration activities between hospitals and SNFs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 500 randomly selected Medicare-certified SNFs in the United States in 2019. The survey inquired about 12 care integration activities with the 2 highest volume referring hospitals for each SNF. METHODS: We collapsed survey responses into 5 categories of integration based on high correlations between the individual measures. These were: (1) formal integration (co-location or co-ownership); (2) informal integration (eg, formal affiliation, participation in SNF collaborative, shared pay for performance, or clinical leadership meetings between hospital and SNF); (3) shared quality/safety activities (eg, initiatives to improve medication safety or reduce hospital admission); (4) shared care coordinators; and/or (5) shared supervising clinicians. We then conducted multivariate regressions to examine associations between different care integration activities and hospital/SNF characteristics. RESULTS: Our overall response rate was 53.0%, including 265 SNFs that represented 487 SNF-hospital pairs. Informal integration was most common (in 53.3% of pairs), whereas shared clinicians (43.0%), care coordinators (36.5%), shared quality/safety activities (35.1%), and formal integration (7.4%) were present in a minority. Hospital-SNF pairs had lower odds of being formally integrated if the SNF was for-profit compared with not-for-profit [odds ratio (OR) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03-0.42, adjusted P = .04)] and higher odds of sharing quality improvement activities in metropolitan rather than rural areas (OR 4.06, 95% CI 1.80-9.17, adjusted P = .02) and in the Midwest compared with West (OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.44-6.06, adjusted P = .049). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: These findings raise important questions about what is driving variability in hospital-SNF integration activities, and which activities may be most effective for improving transitional care outcomes.

Patient and Hospital Factors Associated With Differences in Mortality Rates Among Black and White US Medicare Beneficiaries Hospitalized With COVID-19 Infection.

Importance: Black patients hospitalized with COVID-19 may have worse outcomes than White patients because of excess individual risk or because Black patients are disproportionately cared for in hospitals with worse outcomes for all. Objectives: To examine differences in COVID-19 hospital mortality rates between Black and White patients and to assess whether the mortality rates reflect differences in patient characteristics by race or by the hospitals to which Black and White patients are admitted. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assessed Medicare beneficiaries admitted with a diagnosis of COVID-19 to 1188 US hospitals from January 1, 2020, through September 21, 2020. Exposure: Hospital admission for a diagnosis of COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary composite outcome was inpatient death or discharge to hospice within 30 days of admission. We estimated the association of patient-level characteristics (including age, sex, zip code-level income, comorbidities, admission from a nursing facility, and days since January 1, 2020) with differences in mortality or discharge to hospice among Black and White patients. To examine the association with the hospital itself, we adjusted for the specific hospitals to which patients were admitted. We used simulation modeling to estimate the mortality among Black patients had they instead been admitted to the hospitals where White patients were admitted. Results: Of the 44 217 Medicare beneficiaries included in the study, 24 281 (55%) were women; mean (SD) age was 76.3 (10.5) years; 33 459 participants (76%) were White, and 10 758 (24%) were Black. Overall, 2634 (8%) White patients and 1100 (10%) Black patients died as inpatients, and 1670 (5%) White patients and 350 (3%) Black patients were discharged to hospice within 30 days of hospitalization, for a total mortality-equivalent rate of 12.86% for White patients and 13.48% for Black patients. Black patients had similar odds of dying or being discharged to hospice (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.99-1.12) in an unadjusted comparison with White patients. After adjustment for clinical and sociodemographic patient characteristics, Black patients were more likely to die or be discharged to hospice (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19). This difference became indistinguishable when adjustment was made for the hospitals where care was delivered (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94-1.10). In simulations, if Black patients in this sample were instead admitted to the same hospitals as White patients in the same distribution, their rate of mortality or discharge to hospice would decline from the observed rate of 13.48% to the simulated rate of 12.23% (95% CI for difference, 1.20%-1.30%). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that Black patients hospitalized with COVID-19 had higher rates of hospital mortality or discharge to hospice than White patients after adjustment for the personal characteristics of those patients. However, those differences were explained by differences in the hospitals to which Black and White patients were admitted.