Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Post-acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in New York: an EHR-Based Cohort Study from the RECOVER Program.

BACKGROUND: Compared to white individuals, Black and Hispanic individuals have higher rates of COVID-19 hospitalization and death. Less is known about racial/ethnic differences in post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). OBJECTIVE: Examine racial/ethnic differences in potential PASC symptoms and conditions among hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using data from electronic health records. PARTICIPANTS: 62,339 patients with COVID-19 and 247,881 patients without COVID-19 in New York City between March 2020 and October 2021. MAIN MEASURES: New symptoms and conditions 31-180 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. KEY RESULTS: The final study population included 29,331 white patients (47.1%), 12,638 Black patients (20.3%), and 20,370 Hispanic patients (32.7%) diagnosed with COVID-19. After adjusting for confounders, significant racial/ethnic differences in incident symptoms and conditions existed among both hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. For example, 31-180 days after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, hospitalized Black patients had higher odds of being diagnosed with diabetes (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50-2.56, q<0.001) and headaches (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.11-2.08, q=0.02), compared to hospitalized white patients. Hospitalized Hispanic patients had higher odds of headaches (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.21-2.17, q=0.003) and dyspnea (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.05-1.42, q=0.02), compared to hospitalized white patients. Among non-hospitalized patients, Black patients had higher odds of being diagnosed with pulmonary embolism (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.20-2.36, q=0.009) and diabetes (OR: 2.13, 95% CI: 1.75-2.58, q<0.001), but lower odds of encephalopathy (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.45-0.75, q<0.001), compared to white patients. Hispanic patients had higher odds of being diagnosed with headaches (OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.24-1.60, q<0.001) and chest pain (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.35-1.67, q < 0.001), but lower odds of encephalopathy (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.51-0.80, q<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to white patients, patients from racial/ethnic minority groups had significantly different odds of developing potential PASC symptoms and conditions. Future research should examine the reasons for these differences.

Association Between Individual Primary Care Physician Merit-based Incentive Payment System Score and Measures of Process and Patient Outcomes.

Importance: The Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) influences reimbursement for hundreds of thousands of US physicians, but little is known about whether program performance accurately captures the quality of care they provide. Objective: To examine whether primary care physicians' MIPS scores are associated with performance on process and outcome measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of 80 246 US primary care physicians participating in the MIPS program in 2019. Exposures: MIPS score. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association between physician MIPS scores and performance on 5 unadjusted process measures, 6 adjusted outcome measures, and a composite outcome measure. Results: The study population included 3.4 million patients attributed to 80 246 primary care physicians, including 4773 physicians with low MIPS scores (≤30), 6151 physicians with medium MIPS scores (>30-75), and 69 322 physicians with high MIPS scores (>75). Compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly worse mean performance on 3 of 5 process measures: diabetic eye examinations (56.1% vs 63.2%; difference, -7.1 percentage points [95% CI, -8.0 to -6.2]; P < .001), diabetic HbA1c screening (84.6% vs 89.4%; difference, -4.8 percentage points [95% CI, -5.4 to -4.2]; P < .001), and mammography screening (58.2% vs 70.4%; difference, -12.2 percentage points [95% CI, -13.1 to -11.4]; P < .001) but significantly better mean performance on rates of influenza vaccination (78.0% vs 76.8%; difference, 1.2 percentage points [95% CI, 0.0 to 2.5]; P = .045] and tobacco screening (95.0% vs 94.1%; difference, 0.9 percentage points [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5]; P = .001). MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with risk-adjusted patient outcomes: compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly better mean performance on 1 outcome (307.6 vs 316.4 emergency department visits per 1000 patients; difference, -8.9 [95% CI, -13.7 to -4.1]; P < .001), worse performance on 1 outcome (255.4 vs 225.2 all-cause hospitalizations per 1000 patients; difference, 30.2 [95% CI, 24.8 to 35.7]; P < .001), and did not have significantly different performance on 4 ambulatory care-sensitive admission outcomes. Nineteen percent of physicians with low MIPS scores had composite outcomes performance in the top quintile, while 21% of physicians with high MIPS scores had outcomes in the bottom quintile. Physicians with low MIPS scores but superior outcomes cared for more medically complex and socially vulnerable patients, compared with physicians with low MIPS scores and poor outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among US primary care physicians in 2019, MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with performance on process and outcome measures. These findings suggest that the MIPS program may be ineffective at measuring and incentivizing quality improvement among US physicians.

Factors associated with patient trust in their clinicians: Results from the Healthy Work Place Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient trust in their clinicians is an important aspect of health care quality, but little evidence exists on what contributes to patient trust. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine workplace, clinician, and patient correlates of patient trust in their clinician. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The sample used baseline data from the Healthy Work Place trial, a randomized trial of 34 Midwest and East Coast primary care practices to explore factors associated with patient trust in their clinicians. A multivariate "best subset" regression modeling approach was used, starting with an item pool of 45 potential variables. Over 7 million models were tested, with a best subset of correlates determined using standard methods for scale optimization. Skewed variables were transformed to the fifth power using a Box-Cox algorithm. RESULTS: The final model of nine variables explained 38% of variance in patient trust at the patient level and 49% at the clinician level. Trust was related mainly to several aspects of care variables (including satisfaction with explanations, overall satisfaction with provider, and learning about their medical conditions and their clinician's personal manner), with lesser association with patient characteristics and clinician work conditions. CONCLUSION: Trust appears to be primarily related to what happens between clinicians and patients in the examination room. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: System changes such as patient-centered medical homes may have difficulty succeeding if the primacy of physician-patient interactions in inspiring patient trust and satisfaction is not recognized.

Physician Practice Leaders' Perceptions of Medicare's Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS).

BACKGROUND: Medicare's Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is a major value-based purchasing program. Little is known about how physician practice leaders view the program and its benefits and challenges. OBJECTIVE: To understand practice leaders' perceptions of MIPS. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Interviews were conducted from December 12, 2019, to June 23, 2020, with leaders of 30 physician practices of various sizes and specialties across the USA. Practices were randomly selected using the Medical Group Management Association's membership database. Practices included small primary care and general surgery practices (1-9 physicians); medium primary care and general surgery practices (10-25 physicians); and large multispecialty practices (50 or more physicians). Participants were asked about their perceptions of MIPS measures; the program's effect on patient care; administrative burden; and rationale for participation. MAIN MEASURES: Major themes related to practice participation in MIPS. KEY RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 30 practices representing all US census regions. Six major themes emerged: (1) MIPS is understood as a continuation of previous value-based payment programs and a precursor to future programs; (2) measures are more relevant to primary care practices than other specialties; (3) leaders are conflicted on whether the program improves patient care; (4) MIPS creates a substantial administrative burden, exacerbated by annual programmatic changes; (5) incentives are small relative to the effort needed to participate; and (6) external support for participation can be helpful. Many participants indicated that their practice only participated in MIPS to avoid financial penalties; some reported that physicians cared for fewer patients due to the program's administrative burden. CONCLUSIONS: Practice leaders reported several challenges related to MIPS, including irrelevant measures, administrative burden, frequent programmatic changes, and small incentives. They held mixed views on whether the program improves patient care. These findings may be useful to policymakers hoping to improve MIPS.

Where Trust Flourishes: Perceptions of Clinicians Who Trust Their Organizations and Are Trusted by Their Patients.

PURPOSE: Trust is an essential component of health care. Clinicians need to trust organizational leaders to provide a safe and effective work environment, and patients need to trust their clinicians to deliver high-quality care while addressing their health care needs. We sought to determine perceived characteristics of clinics by clinicians who trust their organizations and whose patients have trust in them. METHODS: We used baseline data from the Healthy Work Place trial, a randomized trial of interventions to improve work life in 34 Midwest and East Coast primary care clinics, to identify clinic characteristics associated with high clinician and patient trust. RESULTS: The study included 165 clinicians with 1,132 patients. High trust by clinicians with patients who trusted them was found for 34% of 162 clinicians with sufficient data for modeling. High clinician-high patient trust occurred when clinicians perceived their organizational cultures to have (1) an emphasis on quality (odds ratio [OR] 4.95; 95% CI, 2.02-12.15; P <.001), (2) an emphasis on communication and information (OR 3.21; 95% CI, 1.33-7.78; P = .01), (3) cohesiveness among clinicians (OR 2.29; 95% CI, 1.25-4.20; P = .008), and (4) values alignment between clinicians and leaders (OR 1.86; 95% CI, 1.23-2.81; P = .003). CONCLUSION: Addressing organizational culture might improve the trust of clinicians whose patients have high trust in them.

Challenges for immigrant health in the USA-the road to crisis.

The USA is home to more immigrants than any other country-about 46 million, just less than a fifth of the world's immigrants. Immigrant health and access to health care in the USA varies widely by ethnicity, citizenship, and legal status. In recent decades, several policy and regulatory changes have worsened health-care quality and access for immigrant populations. These changes include restrictions on access to public health insurance programmes, rhetoric discouraging the use of social services, aggressive immigration enforcement activities, intimidation within health-care settings, decreased caps on the number of admitted refugees, and rescission of protections from deportation. A receding of ethical norms has created an environment favourable for moral and public health crises, as evident in the separation of children from their parents at the southern US border. Given the polarising immigration rhetoric at the national level, individual states rather than the country as a whole might be better positioned to address the barriers to improved health and health care for immigrants in the USA.

Association Between Residential Neighborhood Social Conditions and Health Care Utilization and Costs.

BACKGROUND: Social factors are important drivers of health. However, it is unclear to what extent neighborhood social conditions are associated with total and preventable health care utilization and costs. OBJECTIVES: To examine the association of neighborhood social conditions with total annual and potentially preventable Medicare costs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Retrospective cohort study. Medicare claims data from 2013 to 2014 linked with neighborhood social conditions at the US census block group level of 2013 for 93,429 Medicare fee-for-service and dually eligible patients. MEASURES: Neighborhood social conditions were measured by Area Deprivation Index at the census block group level, categorized into quintiles. Outcomes included total annual and potentially preventable utilization and costs. RESULTS: After adjustment for demographics and comorbidities, patients with the least disadvantaged social conditions had higher total annual Medicare costs [$427; 95% confidence interval (CI), $200-$655] and similar potentially preventable costs (-$23; 95% CI, -$56 to $10) as compared with patients with the intermediate level social conditions. Patients with the most disadvantaged social conditions had similar total Medicare costs (-$22; 95% CI, -$342 to $298) but higher potentially preventable costs ($53; 95% CI, $1-$104) than patients with the intermediate level social conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Disadvantaged neighborhood conditions are associated with lower total annual Medicare costs but higher potentially preventable costs after controlling for demographic, medical, and other patient characteristics. Socioeconomic barriers may limit access and use of primary care and disease management services, resulting in a higher proportion of their health care costs going to potentially preventable care.

Potentially Preventable Spending Among High-Cost Medicare Patients: Implications for Healthcare Delivery.

BACKGROUND: High-cost patients account for a disproportionate share of healthcare spending. The proportion and distribution of potentially preventable spending among subgroups of high-cost patients are largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine the distribution of potentially preventable spending among high-cost Medicare patients overall and potentially preventable spending associated with each high-cost category. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. We merged Medicare claims and social determinants of health data to group patients into high-cost categories and quantify potentially preventable spending. PATIENTS: A total of 556,053 Medicare fee-for-service and dual-eligible beneficiaries with at least one healthcare encounter in the New York metropolitan area in 2014. MAIN MEASURES: High-cost patients were mapped into 10 non-mutually exclusive categories. The primary outcome was episodic spending associated with preventable ED visits, preventable hospitalizations, and unplanned 30-day readmissions. KEY RESULTS: Overall, potentially preventable spending accounted for 10.4% of overall spending in 2014. Preventable spending accounted for 13.3% of total spending among high-cost patients and 4.9% among non-high-cost patients (P < 0.001). Among high-cost patients, 44.0% experienced at least one potentially preventable encounter compared with 11.4% of non-high-cost patients (P < 0.001), and high-cost patients accounted for 71.5% of total preventable spending. High-cost patients had on average $11,502 in potentially preventable spending-more than 20 times more than non-high-cost patients ($510). High-cost patients in the seriously ill, frail, or serious mental illness categories accounted for the highest proportion of potentially preventable spending overall, while end-stage renal disease, serious illness, and opioid use disorder were associated with the highest preventable spending per patient. CONCLUSION: Potentially preventable spending was concentrated among high-cost patients who were seriously ill, frail, or had a serious mental illness. Interventions targeting these subgroups may be helpful for reducing preventable utilization.

Identifying Patients with Persistent Preventable Utilization Offers an Opportunity to Reduce Unnecessary Spending.

BACKGROUND: Improving care for high-cost patients is increasingly important for improving the value of healthcare. Most prior research has focused on identifying patients with high costs, but the extent to which these costs are potentially preventable remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To identify patients with persistent preventable utilization and compare their characteristics with high-cost patients. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis using Medicare claims data from 2013 to 2014. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service and dual-eligible beneficiaries (N = 515,689) from the New York metropolitan area who were continuously enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B in 2013 and 2014. MAIN MEASURES: The primary analysis focuses on patients with persistent preventable utilization (at least one preventable emergency department visit, hospitalization, or 30-day readmission in both 2013 and 2014) and high-cost patients in 2014 (top 10% of total annual spending). We compared demographic, medical, behavioral, and social characteristics and total and preventable healthcare utilization between these two groups. KEY RESULTS: Patients with persistent preventable utilization accounted for 4.8% of the overall patient population, 13.4% of overall costs, but 46.2% of preventable costs among all Medicare patients. Compared with high-cost patients, patients with persistent preventable utilization had lower median healthcare costs ($33,383 vs. $56,552), but their median potentially preventable costs were seven times higher ($7151 vs. $928). We also found that 1.9% of patients could be categorized in both the persistent preventable utilization group and the high-cost group. This subset of patients had the highest median Medicare costs and preventable costs and represented over 30% of total preventable spending and 9.4% of overall costs among all Medicare patients. CONCLUSION: Designing and targeting interventions for patients with persistent preventable utilization may offer an important opportunity to reduce unnecessary utilization and promote high-value care.

Association Between Patient Social Risk and Physician Performance Scores in the First Year of the Merit-based Incentive Payment System.

Importance: The US Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is a major Medicare value-based payment program aimed at improving quality and reducing costs. Little is known about how physicians' performance varies by social risk of their patients. Objective: To determine the relationship between patient social risk and physicians' scores in the first year of MIPS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of physicians participating in MIPS in 2017. Exposures: Physicians in the highest quintile of proportion of dually eligible patients served; physicians in the 3 middle quintiles; and physicians in the lowest quintile. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the 2017 composite MIPS score (range, 0-100; higher scores indicate better performance). Payment rates were adjusted -4% to 4% based on scores. Results: The final sample included 284 544 physicians (76.1% men, 60.1% with ≥20 years in practice, 11.9% in rural location, 26.8% hospital-based, and 24.6% in primary care). The mean composite MIPS score was 73.3. Physicians in the highest risk quintile cared for 52.0% of dually eligible patients; those in the 3 middle risk quintiles, 21.8%; and those in the lowest risk quintile, 6.6%. After adjusting for medical complexity, the mean MIPS score for physicians in the highest risk quintile (64.7) was lower relative to scores for physicians in the middle 3 (75.4) and lowest (75.9) risk quintiles (difference for highest vs middle 3, -10.7 [95% CI, -11.0 to -10.4]; highest vs lowest, -11.2 [95% CI, -11.6 to -10.8]; P < .001). This relationship was found across specialties except psychiatry. Compared with physicians in the lowest risk quintile, physicians in the highest risk quintile were more likely to work in rural areas (12.7% vs 6.4%; difference, 6.3 percentage points [95% CI, 6.0 to 6.7]; P < .001) but less likely to care for more than 1000 Medicare beneficiaries (9.4% vs 17.8%; difference, -8.3 percentage points [95% CI, -8.7 to -8.0]; P < .001) or to have more than 20 years in practice (56.7% vs 70.6%; difference, -13.9 percentage points [95% CI, -14.4 to -13.3]; P < .001). For physicians in the highest risk quintile, several characteristics were associated with higher MIPS scores, including practicing in a larger group (mean score, 82.4 for more than 50 physicians vs 46.1 for 1-5 physicians; difference, 36.2 [95% CI, 35.3 to 37.2]; P < .001) and reporting through an alternative payment model (mean score, 79.5 for alternative payment model vs 59.9 for reporting as individual; difference, 19.7 [95% CI, 18.9 to 20.4]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional analysis of physicians who participated in the first year of the Medicare MIPS program, physicians with the highest proportion of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid had significantly lower MIPS scores compared with other physicians. Further research is needed to understand the reasons underlying the differences in physician MIPS scores by levels of patient social risk.

Social Media and Medical Misinformation: Confronting New Variants of an Old Problem.

This Viewpoint describes several proposals to mitigate the role of social media in medical misinformation from the ABIM Foundation's 2022 Forum, including algorithmic adjustment, misinformation research and surveillance, and medical professional training and community engagement.

Association Between Teaching Status and Mortality in US Hospitals.

IMPORTANCE: Few studies have analyzed contemporary data on outcomes at US teaching hospitals vs nonteaching hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To examine risk-adjusted outcomes for patients admitted to teaching vs nonteaching hospitals across a broad range of medical and surgical conditions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Use of national Medicare data to compare mortality rates in US teaching and nonteaching hospitals for all hospitalizations and for common medical and surgical conditions among Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older. EXPOSURES: Hospital teaching status: major teaching hospitals (members of the Council of Teaching Hospitals), minor teaching hospitals (other hospitals with medical school affiliation), and nonteaching hospitals (remaining hospitals). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome was 30-day mortality rate for all hospitalizations and for 15 common medical and 6 surgical conditions. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality stratified by hospital size and 7-day mortality and 90-day mortality for all hospitalizations as well as for individual medical and surgical conditions. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 21 451 824 total hospitalizations at 4483 hospitals, of which 250 (5.6%) were major teaching, 894 (19.9%) were minor teaching, and 3339 (74.3%) were nonteaching hospitals. Unadjusted 30-day mortality was 8.1% at major teaching hospitals, 9.2% at minor teaching hospitals, and 9.6% at nonteaching hospitals, with a 1.5% (95% CI, 1.3%-1.7%; P < .001) mortality difference between major teaching hospitals and nonteaching hospitals. After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, the same pattern persisted (8.3% mortality at major teaching vs 9.2% at minor teaching and 9.5% at nonteaching), but the difference in mortality between major and nonteaching hospitals was smaller (1.2% [95% CI, 1.0%-1.4%]; P < .001). After stratifying by hospital size, 187 large (≥400 beds) major teaching hospitals had lower adjusted overall 30-day mortality relative to 76 large nonteaching hospitals (8.1% vs 9.4%; 1.2% difference [95% CI, 0.9%-1.5%]; P < .001). This same pattern of lower overall 30-day mortality at teaching hospitals was observed for medium-sized (100-399 beds) hospitals (8.6% vs 9.3% and 9.4%; 0.8% difference between 61 major and 1207 nonteaching hospitals [95% CI, 0.4%-1.3%]; P = .003). Among small (≤99 beds) hospitals, 187 minor teaching hospitals had lower overall 30-day mortality relative to 2056 nonteaching hospitals (9.5% vs 9.9%; 0.4% difference [95% CI, 0.1%-0.7%]; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among hospitalizations for US Medicare beneficiaries, major teaching hospital status was associated with lower mortality rates for common conditions compared with nonteaching hospitals. Further study is needed to understand the reasons for these differences.