Forecasting the Economic Burden of Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in the United States Through 2050: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying the economic burden of cardiovascular disease and stroke over the coming decades may inform policy, health system, and community-level interventions for prevention and treatment. METHODS: We used nationally representative health, economic, and demographic data to project health care costs attributable to key cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia) and conditions (coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation) through 2050. The human capital approach was used to estimate productivity losses from morbidity and premature mortality due to cardiovascular conditions. RESULTS: One in 3 US adults received care for a cardiovascular risk factor or condition in 2020. Annual inflation-adjusted (2022 US dollars) health care costs of cardiovascular risk factors are projected to triple between 2020 and 2050, from $400 billion to $1344 billion. For cardiovascular conditions, annual health care costs are projected to almost quadruple, from $393 billion to $1490 billion, and productivity losses are projected to increase by 54%, from $234 billion to $361 billion. Stroke is projected to account for the largest absolute increase in costs. Large relative increases among the Asian American population (497%) and Hispanic American population (489%) reflect the projected increases in the size of these populations. CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden of cardiovascular risk factors and overt cardiovascular disease in the United States is projected to increase substantially in the coming decades. Development and deployment of cost-effective programs and policies to promote cardiovascular health are urgently needed to rein in costs and to equitably enhance population health.

Forecasting the Burden of Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in the United States Through 2050-Prevalence of Risk Factors and Disease: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease and stroke are common and costly, and their prevalence is rising. Forecasts on the prevalence of risk factors and clinical events are crucial. METHODS: Using the 2015 to March 2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and 2015 to 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we estimated trends in prevalence for cardiovascular risk factors based on adverse levels of Life's Essential 8 and clinical cardiovascular disease and stroke. We projected through 2050, overall and by age and race and ethnicity, accounting for changes in disease prevalence and demographics. RESULTS: We estimate that among adults, prevalence of hypertension will increase from 51.2% in 2020 to 61.0% in 2050. Diabetes (16.3% to 26.8%) and obesity (43.1% to 60.6%) will increase, whereas hypercholesterolemia will decline (45.8% to 24.0%). The prevalences of poor diet, inadequate physical activity, and smoking are estimated to improve over time, whereas inadequate sleep will worsen. Prevalences of coronary disease (7.8% to 9.2%), heart failure (2.7% to 3.8%), stroke (3.9% to 6.4%), atrial fibrillation (1.7% to 2.4%), and total cardiovascular disease (11.3% to 15.0%) will rise. Clinical CVD will affect 45 million adults, and CVD including hypertension will affect more than 184 million adults by 2050 (>61%). Similar trends are projected in children. Most adverse trends are projected to be worse among people identifying as American Indian/Alaska Native or multiracial, Black, or Hispanic. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of many cardiovascular risk factors and most established diseases will increase over the next 30 years. Clinical and public health interventions are needed to effectively manage, stem, and even reverse these adverse trends.

Changes in Cardiovascular Spending, Care Utilization, and Clinical Outcomes Associated With Participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement - Advanced.

BACKGROUND: Bundled Payments for Care Improvement - Advanced (BPCI-A) is a Medicare initiative that aims to incentivize reductions in spending for episodes of care that start with a hospitalization and end 90 days after discharge. Cardiovascular disease, an important driver of Medicare spending, is one of the areas of focus BPCI-A. It is unknown whether BPCI-A is associated with spending reductions or quality improvements for the 3 cardiovascular medical events or 5 cardiovascular procedures in the model. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we conducted difference-in-differences analyses using Medicare claims for patients discharged between January 1, 2017, and September 30, 2019, to assess differences between BPCI-A hospitals and matched nonparticipating control hospitals. Our primary outcomes were the differential changes in spending, before versus after implementation of BPCI-A, for cardiac medical and procedural conditions at BPCI-A hospitals compared with controls. Secondary outcomes included changes in patient complexity, care utilization, healthy days at home, readmissions, and mortality. RESULTS: Baseline spending for cardiac medical episodes at BPCI-A hospitals was $25 606. The differential change in spending for cardiac medical episodes at BPCI-A versus control hospitals was $16 (95% CI, -$228 to $261; P=0.90). Baseline spending for cardiac procedural episodes at BPCI-A hospitals was $37 961. The differential change in spending for cardiac procedural episodes was $171 (95% CI, -$429 to $772; P=0.58). There were minimal differential changes in physicians' care patterns such as the complexity of treated patients or in their care utilization. At BPCI-A versus control hospitals, there were no significant differential changes in rates of 90-day readmissions (differential change, 0.27% [95% CI, -0.25% to 0.80%] for medical episodes; differential change, 0.31% [95% CI, -0.98% to 1.60%] for procedural episodes) or mortality (differential change, -0.14% [95% CI, -0.50% to 0.23%] for medical episodes; differential change, -0.36% [95% CI, -1.25% to 0.54%] for procedural episodes). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in BPCI-A was not associated with spending reductions, changes in care utilization, or quality improvements for the cardiovascular medical events or procedures offered in the model.

Value-Based Payment for Clinicians Treating Cardiovascular Disease: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association.

Clinician payment is transitioning from fee-for-service to value-based payment, with reimbursement tied to health care quality and cost. However, the overarching goals of value-based payment-to improve health care quality, lower costs, or both-have been largely unmet. This policy statement reviews the current state of value-based payment and provides recommended best practices for future design and implementation. The policy statement is divided into sections that detail different aspects of value-based payment: (1) key program design features (patient population, quality measurement, cost measurement, and risk adjustment), (2) the role of equity during design and evaluation, (3) adjustment of payment, and (4) program implementation and evaluation. Each section introduces the topic, describes important considerations, and lists examples from existing programs. Each section includes recommended best practices for future program design. The policy statement highlights 4 key themes for successful value-based payment. First, programs should carefully weigh the incentives between lowering cost and improving quality of care and ensure that there is adequate focus on quality of care. Second, the expansion of value-based payment should be a tool for improving equity, which is central to quality of care and should be a focal point of program design and evaluation. Third, value-based payment should continue to move away from fee for service toward more flexible funding that allows clinicians to focus resources on the interventions that best help patients. Last, successful programs should find ways to channel clinicians' intrinsic motivation to improve their performance and the care for their patients. These principles should guide the future development of clinician value-based payment models.

Year 1 of the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement-Advanced Model.

BACKGROUND: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation launched the Medicare Bundled Payments for Care Improvement-Advanced (BPCI-A) program for hospitals in October 2018. Information is needed about the effects of the program on health care utilization and Medicare payments. METHODS: We conducted a modified segmented regression analysis using Medicare claims and including patients with discharge dates from January 2017 through September 2019 to assess differences between BPCI-A participants and two control groups: hospitals that never joined the BPCI-A program (nonjoining hospitals) and hospitals that joined the BPCI-A program in January 2020, after the conclusion of the intervention period (late-joining hospitals). The primary outcomes were the differences in changes in quarterly trends in 90-day per-episode Medicare payments and the percentage of patients with readmission within 90 days after discharge. Secondary outcomes were mortality, volume, and case mix. RESULTS: A total of 826 BPCI-A participant hospitals were compared with 2016 nonjoining hospitals and 334 late-joining hospitals. Among BPCI-A hospitals, the mean baseline 90-day per-episode Medicare payment was $27,315; the change in the quarterly trends in the intervention period as compared with baseline was -$78 per quarter. Among nonjoining hospitals, the mean baseline 90-day per-episode Medicare payment was $25,994; the change in quarterly trends as compared with baseline was -$26 per quarter (difference between nonjoining hospitals and BPCI-A hospitals, $52 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 34 to 70] per quarter; P<0.001; 0.2% of the baseline payment). Among late-joining hospitals, the mean baseline 90-day per-episode Medicare payment was $26,807; the change in the quarterly trends as compared with baseline was $4 per quarter (difference between late-joining hospitals and BPCI-A hospitals, $82 [95% CI, 41 to 122] per quarter; P<0.001; 0.3% of the baseline payment). There were no meaningful differences in the changes with regard to readmission, mortality, volume, or case mix. CONCLUSIONS: The BPCI-A program was associated with small reductions in Medicare payments among participating hospitals as compared with control hospitals. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.).

Insurance-based Disparities in Outcomes and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Utilization for Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to examine insurance-based disparities in mortality, nonhome discharges, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation utilization in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: Using a national database of U.S. academic medical centers and their affiliated hospitals, the risk-adjusted association between mortality, nonhome discharge, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation utilization and (1) the type of insurance coverage (private insurance, Medicare, dual enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid, and no insurance) and (2) the weekly hospital COVID-19 burden (0 to 5.0%; 5.1 to 10%, 10.1 to 20%, 20.1 to 30%, and 30.1% and greater) was evaluated. Modeling was expanded to include an interaction between payer status and the weekly hospital COVID-19 burden to examine whether the lack of private insurance was associated with increases in disparities as the COVID-19 burden increased. RESULTS: Among 760,846 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 214,992 had private insurance, 318,624 had Medicare, 96,192 were dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, 107,548 had Medicaid, and 23,560 had no insurance. Overall, 76,250 died, 211,702 had nonhome discharges, 75,703 were mechanically ventilated, and 2,642 underwent extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The adjusted odds of death were higher in patients with Medicare (adjusted odds ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.35]; P < 0.0005), dually enrolled (adjusted odds ratio, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.30 to 1.50]; P < 0.0005), Medicaid (adjusted odds ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.20 to 1.36]; P < 0.0005), and no insurance (adjusted odds ratio, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.26 to 1.62]; P < 0.0005) compared to patients with private insurance. Patients with Medicare (adjusted odds ratio, 0.47; [95% CI, 0.39 to 0.58]; P < 0.0005), dually enrolled (adjusted odds ratio, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.24 to 0.43]; P < 0.0005), Medicaid (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.79]; P < 0.0005), and no insurance (adjusted odds ratio, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.29 to 0.56]; P < 0.001) were less likely to be placed on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation than patients with private insurance. Mortality, nonhome discharges, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation utilization did not change significantly more in patients with private insurance compared to patients without private insurance as the COVID-19 burden increased. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with COVID-19, insurance-based disparities in mortality, nonhome discharges, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation utilization were substantial, but these disparities did not increase as the hospital COVID-19 burden increased.

Cardiovascular Health of Middle-Aged U.S. Adults by Income Level, 1999 to March 2020 : A Serial Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Although cardiovascular mortality has increased among middle-aged U.S. adults since 2011, how the burden of cardiovascular risk factors has changed for this population by income level over the past 2 decades is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate trends in the prevalence, treatment, and control of cardiovascular risk factors among low-income and higher-income middle-aged adults and how social determinants contribute to recent associations between income and cardiovascular health. DESIGN: Serial cross-sectional study. SETTING: NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey), 1999 to March 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Middle-aged adults (aged 40 to 64 years). MEASUREMENTS: Age-standardized prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and cigarette use; treatment rates for hypertension, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia; and rates of blood pressure, glycemic, and cholesterol control. RESULTS: The study population included 20 761 middle-aged adults. The prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and cigarette use was consistently higher among low-income adults between 1999 and March 2020. Low-income adults had an increase in hypertension over the study period (37.2% [95% CI, 33.5% to 40.9%] to 44.7% [CI, 39.8% to 49.5%]) but no changes in diabetes or obesity. In contrast, higher-income adults did not have a change in hypertension but had increases in diabetes (7.8% [CI, 5.0% to 10.6%] to 14.9% [CI, 12.4% to 17.3%]) and obesity (33.0% [CI, 26.7% to 39.4%] to 44.0% [CI, 40.2% to 47.7%]). Cigarette use was high and stagnant among low-income adults (33.2% [CI, 28.4% to 38.0%] to 33.9% [CI, 29.6% to 38.3%]) but decreased among their higher-income counterparts (18.6% [CI, 13.5% to 23.7%] to 11.5% [CI, 8.7% to 14.3%]). Treatment and control rates for hypertension were unchanged in both groups (>80%), whereas diabetes treatment rates improved only among the higher-income group (58.4% [CI, 44.4% to 72.5%] to 77.4% [CI, 67.6% to 87.1%]). Income-based disparities in hypertension, diabetes, and cigarette use persisted in more recent years even after adjustment for insurance coverage, health care access, and food insecurity. LIMITATION: Sample size limitations could preclude detection of small changes in treatment and control rates. CONCLUSION: Over 2 decades in the United States, hypertension increased in low-income middle-aged adults, whereas diabetes and obesity increased in their higher-income counterparts. Income-based disparities in hypertension, diabetes, and smoking persisted even after adjustment for other social determinants of health. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Health Equity Adjustment and Hospital Performance in the Medicare Value-Based Purchasing Program.

Importance: Medicare's Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program will provide a health equity adjustment (HEA) to hospitals that have greater proportions of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and that offer high-quality care beginning in fiscal year 2026. However, which hospitals will benefit most from this policy change and to what extent are unknown. Objective: To estimate potential changes in hospital performance after HEA and examine hospital patient mix, structural, and geographic characteristics associated with receipt of increased payments. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed all 2676 hospitals participating in the HVBP program in fiscal year 2021. Publicly available data on program performance and hospital characteristics were linked to Medicare claims data on all inpatient stays for dual-eligible beneficiaries at each hospital to calculate HEA points and HVBP payment adjustments. Exposures: Hospital Value-Based Purchasing program HEA. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reclassification of HVBP bonus or penalty status and changes in payment adjustments across hospital characteristics. Results: Of 2676 hospitals participating in the HVBP program in fiscal year 2021, 1470 (54.9%) received bonuses and 1206 (45.1%) received penalties. After HEA, 102 hospitals (6.9%) were reclassified from bonus to penalty status, whereas 119 (9.9%) were reclassified from penalty to bonus status. At the hospital level, mean (SD) HVBP payment adjustments decreased by $4534 ($90 033) after HEA, ranging from a maximum reduction of $1 014 276 to a maximum increase of $1 523 765. At the aggregate level, net-positive changes in payment adjustments were largest among safety net hospitals ($28 971 708) and those caring for a higher proportion of Black patients ($15 468 445). The likelihood of experiencing increases in payment adjustments was significantly higher among safety net compared with non-safety net hospitals (574 of 683 [84.0%] vs 709 of 1993 [35.6%]; adjusted rate ratio [ARR], 2.04 [95% CI, 1.89-2.20]) and high-proportion Black hospitals compared with non-high-proportion Black hospitals (396 of 523 [75.7%] vs 887 of 2153 [41.2%]; ARR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.29-1.51]). Rural hospitals (374 of 612 [61.1%] vs 909 of 2064 [44.0%]; ARR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.30-1.58]), as well as those located in the South (598 of 1040 [57.5%] vs 192 of 439 [43.7%]; ARR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.10-1.42]) and in Medicaid expansion states (801 of 1651 [48.5%] vs 482 of 1025 [47.0%]; ARR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.06-1.28]), were also more likely to experience increased payment adjustments after HEA compared with their urban, Northeastern, and Medicaid nonexpansion state counterparts, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Medicare's implementation of HEA in the HVBP program will significantly reclassify hospital performance and redistribute program payments, with safety net and high-proportion Black hospitals benefiting most from this policy change. These findings suggest that HEA is an important strategy to ensure that value-based payment programs are more equitable.

Disparities in Cardiovascular Mortality Between Black and White Adults in the United States, 1999 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Black adults experience a disproportionately higher burden of cardiovascular risk factors and disease in comparison with White adults in the United States. Less is known about how sex-based disparities in cardiovascular mortality between these groups have changed on a national scale over the past 20 years, particularly across geographic determinants of health and residential racial segregation. METHODS: We used CDC WONDER (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research) to identify Black and White adults age ≥25 years in the United States from 1999 to 2019. We calculated annual age-adjusted cardiovascular mortality rates (per 100 000) for Black and White women and men, as well as absolute rate differences and rate ratios to compare the mortality gap between these groups. We also examined patterns by US census region, rural versus urban residence, and degree of neighborhood segregation. RESULTS: From 1999 to 2019, age-adjusted mortality rates declined overall for both Black and White adults. There was a decline in age-adjusted cardiovascular mortality among Black (602.1 to 351.8 per 100 000 population) and White women (447.0 to 267.5), and the absolute rate difference (ARD) between these groups decreased over time (1999: ARD, 155.1 [95% CI, 149.9-160.3]; 2019: ARD, 84.3 [95% CI, 81.2-87.4]). These patterns were similar for Black (824.1 to 526.3 per 100 000) and White men (637.5 to 396.0; 1999: ARD, 186.6 [95% CI, 178.6-194.6]; 2019: ARD, 130.3 [95% CI, 125.6-135.0]). Despite this progress, cardiovascular mortality in 2019 was higher for Black women (rate ratio, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.30-1.33])- especially in the younger (age <65 years) subgroup (rate ratio, 2.28 [95% CI, 2.23-2.32])-as well as for Black men (rate ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.32-1.34]), compared with their respective White counterparts. There was regional variation in cardiovascular mortality patterns, and the Black-White gap differed across rural and urban areas. Cardiovascular mortality rates among Black women and men were consistently higher in communities with high levels of racial segregation compared with those with low to moderate levels. CONCLUSIONS: During the past 2 decades, age-adjusted cardiovascular mortality declined significantly for Black and White adults in the United States, as did the absolute difference in death rates between these groups. Despite this progress, Black women and men continue to experience higher cardiovascular mortality rates than their White counterparts.

The Relationship Between Hospital Capability and Mortality in Sepsis: Development of a Sepsis-Related Hospital Capability Index.

OBJECTIVES: Regionalized sepsis care could improve sepsis outcomes by facilitating the interhospital transfer of patients to higher-capability hospitals. There are no measures of sepsis capability to guide the identification of such hospitals, although hospital case volume of sepsis has been used as a proxy. We evaluated the performance of a novel hospital sepsis-related capability (SRC) index as compared with sepsis case volume. DESIGN: Principal component analysis (PCA) and retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A total of 182 New York (derivation) and 274 Florida and Massachusetts (validation) nonfederal hospitals, 2018. PATIENTS: A total of 89,069 and 139,977 adult patients (≥ 18 yr) with sepsis were directly admitted into the derivation and validation cohort hospitals, respectively. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We derived SRC scores by PCA of six hospital resource use characteristics (bed capacity, annual volumes of sepsis, major diagnostic procedures, renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilation, and major therapeutic procedures) and classified hospitals into capability score tertiles: high, intermediate, and low. High-capability hospitals were mostly urban teaching hospitals. Compared with sepsis volume, the SRC score explained more variation in hospital-level sepsis mortality in the derivation (unadjusted coefficient of determination [ R2 ]: 0.25 vs 0.12, p < 0.001 for both) and validation (0.18 vs 0.05, p < 0.001 for both) cohorts; and demonstrated stronger correlation with outward transfer rates for sepsis in the derivation (Spearman coefficient [ r ]: 0.60 vs 0.50) and validation (0.51 vs 0.45) cohorts. Compared with low-capability hospitals, patients with sepsis directly admitted into high-capability hospitals had a greater number of acute organ dysfunctions, a higher proportion of surgical hospitalizations, and higher adjusted mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.55; 95% CI, 1.25-1.92). In stratified analysis, worse mortality associated with higher hospital capability was only evident among patients with three or more organ dysfunctions (OR, 1.88 [1.50-2.34]). CONCLUSIONS: The SRC score has face validity for capability-based groupings of hospitals. Sepsis care may already be de facto regionalized at high-capability hospitals. Low-capability hospitals may have become more adept at treating less complicated sepsis.

Hospital Performance Under Alternative Readmission Measures Incorporating Observation Stays.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which counting observation stays changes hospital performance on 30-day readmission measures. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of inpatient admissions and observation stays among fee-for-service Medicare enrollees in 2017. We generated 3 specifications of 30-day risk-standardized readmissions measures: the hospital-wide readmission (HWR) measure utilized by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which captures inpatient readmissions within 30 days of inpatient discharge; an expanded HWR measure, which captures any unplanned hospitalization (inpatient admission or observation stay) within 30 days of inpatient discharge; an all-hospitalization readmission (AHR) measure, which captures any unplanned hospitalization following any hospital discharge (observation stays are included in both the numerator and denominator of the measure). Estimated excess readmissions for hospitals were compared across the 3 measures. High performers were defined as those with a lower-than-expected number of readmissions whereas low performers had higher-than-expected or excess readmissions. Multivariable logistic regression identified hospital characteristics associated with worse performance under the measures that included observation stays. RESULTS: Our sample had 2586 hospitals with 5,749,779 hospitalizations. Observation stays ranged from 0% to 41.7% of total hospitalizations. Mean (SD) readmission rates were 16.6% (5.4) for the HWR, 18.5% (5.7) for the expanded HWR, and 17.9% (5.7) in the all-hospitalization readmission measure. Approximately 1 in 7 hospitals (14.9%) would switch from being classified as a high performer to a low performer or vice-versa if observation stays were fully included in the calculation of readmission rates. Safety-net hospitals and those with a higher propensity to use observation would perform significantly worse. CONCLUSIONS: Fully incorporating observation stays in readmission measures would substantially change performance in value-based programs for safety-net hospitals and hospitals with high rates of observation stays.

Risk Selection and Care Fragmentation at Medicare Accountable Care Organizations for Patients With Dementia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with dementia are a growing and vulnerable population within Medicare. Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are becoming Medicare's dominant care model, but ACO enrollment and care patterns for patients with dementia are unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare differences in ACO enrollment for patients with versus without dementia, and in risk profiles and ambulatory care among patients with dementia by ACO enrollment status. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cohort study assessing the relationships between patient dementia, following-year ACO enrollment, and ambulatory care patterns. SUBJECTS: A total of 13,362 (weighted: 45, 499,049) person-years for patients [2761 (weighted: 6,312,304) for dementia patients] ages 65 years and above in the 2015-2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. MEASURES: We assessed differences in ACO enrollment rates for patients with versus without dementia, and in dementia-relevant ambulatory care visit rates and validated care fragmentation indices among patients with dementia by ACO enrollment status. RESULTS: Patients with versus without dementia were less likely to be enrolled in (38.3% vs. 44.6%, P<0.001), and more likely to exit (21.1% vs. 13.7%, P<0.01) ACOs. Among patients with dementia, those enrolled versus not enrolled in ACOs had a more favorable social and health risk profile on 6 of 16 measures (P<0.05). There were no differences in rates of dementia-relevant, primary, or specialty care visits. ACO enrollment was associated with 45.7% higher wellness visit rates (P<0.001), and 13.4% more fragmented primary care (P<0.01) spread across 8.7% more distinct physicians (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Medicare ACOs are less likely to enroll and retain patients with dementia than other patients and provide more fragmented primary care without providing additional dementia-relevant ambulatory care visits.

Association of Skilled Nursing Facility Participation in Voluntary Bundled Payments With Postacute Care Outcomes for Joint Replacement.

IMPORTANCE: The Medicare Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) model 3 of 2013 holds participating skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) responsible for all episode costs. There is limited evidence regarding SNF-specific outcomes associated with BPCI. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between SNF BPCI participation and patient outcomes and across-facility differences in these outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational difference-in-differences (DID) study of 2013-2017 for 330 unique persistent-participating SNFs, 146 unique dropout SNFs, and 14,028 unique eligible nonparticipating SNFs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rehospitalization within 30 and 90 days after SNF admission, and rate of successful discharge from the SNF to the community. RESULTS: Total 636,355 SNF admissions after LEJR procedures were identified for 582,766 Medicare patients [mean (SD) age, 76.81 (9.26) y; 424,076 (72.77%) women]. The DID analysis showed that for persistent-enrollment SNFs, no BPCI-related changes were found in readmission and successful community discharge rates overall, but were found for their subgroups. Specifically, under BPCI, the 30-day readmission rate decreased by 2.19 percentage-points for White-serving SNFs in the persistent-participating group relative to those in the nonparticipating group, and by 1.75 percentage-points for non-Medicaid-dependent SNFs in the persistent-participating group relative to those in the nonparticipating group; and the rate of successful community discharge increased by 4.44 percentage-points for White-serving SNFs in the persistent-participating group relative to those in the nonparticipating group, whereas such relationship was not detected among non-White-serving SNFs, leading to increased between-facility differences (differential DID=-7.62). BPCI was not associated with readmission or successful community discharge rates for dropout SNFs, overall, or in subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare patients receiving LEJR, BPCI was associated with improved outcomes for White-serving/non-Medicaid-dependent SNFs but not for other SNFs, which did not help reduce or could even worsen the between-facility differences.

Care Disruption During COVID-19: a National Survey of Hospital Leaders.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused massive disruption in usual care delivery patterns in hospitals across the USA, and highlighted long-standing inequities in health care delivery and outcomes. Its effect on hospital operations, and whether the magnitude of the effect differed for hospitals serving historically marginalized populations, is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the perspectives of hospital leaders on the effects of COVID-19 on their facilities' operations and patient outcomes. METHODS: A survey was administered via print and electronic means to hospital leaders at 588 randomly sampled acute-care hospitals participating in Medicare's Inpatient Prospective Payment System, fielded from November 2020 to June 2021. Summary statistics were tabulated, and responses were adjusted for sampling strategy and non-response. RESULTS: There were 203 responses to the survey (41.6%), with 20.7% of respondents representing safety-net hospitals and 19.7% representing high-minority hospitals. Over three-quarters of hospitals reported COVID testing shortages, about two-thirds reported staffing shortages, and 78.8% repurposed hospital spaces to intensive care units, with a slightly higher proportion of high-minority hospitals reporting these effects. About half of respondents felt that non-COVID inpatients received worsened quality or outcomes during peak COVID surges, and almost two-thirds reported worsened quality or outcomes for outpatient non-COVID patients as well, with few differences by hospital safety-net or minority status. Over 80% of hospitals participated in alternative payment models prior to COVID, and a third of these reported decreasing these efforts due to the pandemic, with no differences between safety-net and high-minority hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 significantly disrupted the operations of hospitals across the USA, with hospitals serving patients in poverty and racial and ethnic minorities reporting relatively similar care disruption as non-safety-net and lower-minority hospitals.

Real-World Safety Analysis of Paclitaxel Devices Used for the Treatment of Peripheral Artery Disease.

PURPOSE: To investigate the real-world safety of paclitaxel (PTX)-coated devices for treating lower extremity peripheral artery disease using a commercial claims database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from FAIR Health, the largest commercial claims data warehouse in the United States, were used for this study. The study consisted of patients who underwent femoropopliteal revascularization procedures between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019, with PTX and non-PTX devices. The primary outcome was 4-year survival following treatment. The secondary outcomes included 2-year survival, 2- and 4-year freedom from amputation, and repeat revascularization. Propensity score matching was used to minimize confounding, and the Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate survival. RESULTS: A total of 10,832 procedures were included in the analysis, including 4,962 involving PTX devices and 5,870 involving non-PTX devices. PTX devices were associated with a reduced hazard of death following treatment at 2 and 4 years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.69-0.79]; P <.05, and HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.77-1.02]; log-rank P =.018, respectively). The risk of amputation was also lower following treatment with PTX devices than with non-PTX devices at 2 and 4 years (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.76-0.87]; P =.02, and HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67-0.89]; log-rank P =.01, respectively). In addition, the odds of repeat revascularization were similar with PTX and non-PTX devices at 2 and 4 years. CONCLUSIONS: In the real-world commercial claims database, no short- or long-term signal for increased mortality or amputations was observed following treatment with PTX devices.

Cardiovascular Risk Factor Prevalence, Treatment, and Control in US Adults Aged 20 to 44 Years, 2009 to March 2020.

Importance: Declines in cardiovascular mortality have stagnated in the US over the past decade, in part related to worsening risk factor control in older adults. Little is known about how the prevalence, treatment, and control of cardiovascular risk factors have changed among young adults aged 20 to 44 years. Objective: To determine if the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and tobacco use), treatment rates, and control changed among adults aged 20 to 44 years from 2009 through March 2020, overall and by sex and race and ethnicity. Design, Setting, and Participants: Serial cross-sectional analysis of adults aged 20 to 44 years in the US participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2009-2010 to 2017-March 2020). Main Outcomes and Measures: National trends in the prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and smoking history; treatment rates for hypertension and diabetes; and blood pressure and glycemic control in those receiving treatment. Results: Among 12 924 US adults aged 20 to 44 years (mean age, 31.8 years; 50.6% women), the prevalence of hypertension was 9.3% (95% CI, 8.1%-10.5%) in 2009-2010 and 11.5% (95% CI, 9.6%-13.4%) in 2017-2020. The prevalence of diabetes (from 3.0% [95% CI, 2.2%-3.7%] to 4.1% [95% CI, 3.5%-4.7%]) and obesity (from 32.7% [95% CI, 30.1%-35.3%] to 40.9% [95% CI, 37.5%-44.3%]) increased from 2009-2010 to 2017-2020, while the prevalence of hyperlipidemia decreased (from 40.5% [95% CI, 38.6%-42.3%] to 36.1% [95% CI, 33.5%-38.7%]). Black adults had high rates of hypertension across the study period (2009-2010: 16.2% [95% CI, 14.0%-18.4%]; 2017-2020: 20.1% [95% CI, 16.8%-23.3%]), and significant increases in hypertension were observed among Mexican American adults (from 6.5% [95% CI, 5.0%-8.0%] to 9.5% [95% CI, 7.3%-11.7%]) and other Hispanic adults (from 4.4% [95% CI, 2.1%-6.8%] to 10.5% [95% CI, 6.8%-14.3%]), while Mexican American adults had a significant rise in diabetes (from 4.3% [95% CI, 2.3%-6.2%] to 7.5% [95% CI, 5.4%-9.6%]). The percentage of young adults treated for hypertension who achieved blood pressure control did not significantly change (from 65.0% [95% CI, 55.8%-74.2%] in 2009-2010 to 74.8% [95% CI, 67.5%-82.1%] in 2017-2020], while glycemic control among young adults receiving treatment for diabetes remained suboptimal throughout the study period (2009-2010: 45.5% [95% CI, 27.7%-63.3%]) to 2017-2020: 56.6% [95% CI, 39.2%-73.9%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In the US, diabetes and obesity increased among young adults from 2009 to March 2020, while hypertension did not change and hyperlipidemia declined. There was variation in trends by race and ethnicity.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Heart and Cerebrovascular Disease Deaths During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular deaths increased during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. However, it is unclear whether diverse racial/ethnic populations have experienced a disproportionate rise in heart disease and cerebrovascular disease deaths. METHODS: We used the National Center for Health Statistics to identify heart disease and cerebrovascular disease deaths for non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian, and Hispanic individuals from March to August 2020 (pandemic period), as well as for the corresponding months in 2019 (historical control). We determined the age- and sex-standardized deaths per million by race/ethnicity for each year. We then fit a modified Poisson model with robust SEs to compare change in deaths by race/ethnicity for each condition in 2020 versus 2019. RESULTS: There were a total of 339 076 heart disease and 76 767 cerebrovascular disease deaths from March through August 2020, compared with 321 218 and 72 190 deaths during the same months in 2019. Heart disease deaths increased during the pandemic in 2020, compared with the corresponding period in 2019, for non-Hispanic White (age-sex standardized deaths per million, 1234.2 versus 1208.7; risk ratio for death [RR], 1.02 [95% CI, 1.02-1.03]), non-Hispanic Black (1783.7 versus 1503.8; RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.17-1.20]), non-Hispanic Asian (685.7 versus 577.4; RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.15-1.22]), and Hispanic (968.5 versus 820.4; RR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.16-1.20]) populations. Cerebrovascular disease deaths also increased for non-Hispanic White (268.7 versus 258.2; RR, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.03-1.05]), non-Hispanic Black (430.7 versus 379.7; RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.10-1.17]), non-Hispanic Asian (236.5 versus 207.4; RR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.09-1.21]), and Hispanic (264.4 versus 235.9; RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.08-1.16]) populations. For both heart disease and cerebrovascular disease deaths, Black, Asian, and Hispanic populations experienced a larger relative increase in deaths than the non-Hispanic White population (interaction term, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, Black, Hispanic, and Asian populations experienced a disproportionate rise in deaths caused by heart disease and cerebrovascular disease, suggesting that these groups have been most impacted by the indirect effects of the pandemic. Public health and policy strategies are needed to mitigate the short- and long-term adverse effects of the pandemic on the cardiovascular health of diverse populations.

Reducing Nontraumatic Lower-Extremity Amputations by 20% by 2030: Time to Get to Our Feet: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association.

Nontraumatic lower-extremity amputation is a devastating complication of peripheral artery disease (PAD) with a high mortality and medical expenditure. There are ≈150 000 nontraumatic leg amputations every year in the United States, and most cases occur in patients with diabetes. Among patients with diabetes, after an ≈40% decline between 2000 and 2009, the amputation rate increased by 50% from 2009 to 2015. A number of evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for PAD can reduce amputation risk. However, their implementation and adherence are suboptimal. Some racial/ethnic groups have an elevated risk of PAD but less access to high-quality vascular care, leading to increased rates of amputation. To stop, and indeed reverse, the increasing trends of amputation, actionable policies that will reduce the incidence of critical limb ischemia and enhance delivery of optimal care are needed. This statement describes the impact of amputation on patients and society, summarizes medical approaches to identify PAD and prevent its progression, and proposes policy solutions to prevent limb amputation. Among the actions recommended are improving public awareness of PAD and greater use of effective PAD management strategies (eg, smoking cessation, use of statins, and foot monitoring/care in patients with diabetes). To facilitate the implementation of these recommendations, we propose several regulatory/legislative and organizational/institutional policies such as adoption of quality measures for PAD care; affordable prevention, diagnosis, and management; regulation of tobacco products; clinical decision support for PAD care; professional education; and dedicated funding opportunities to support PAD research. If these recommendations and proposed policies are implemented, we should be able to achieve the goal of reducing the rate of nontraumatic lower-extremity amputations by 20% by 2030.

Racial Inequities Across Rural Strata in Acute Stroke Care and In-Hospital Mortality: National Trends Over 6 Years.

BACKGROUND: There are glaring racial and rural-urban inequities in stroke outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine whether there were recent changes to trends in racial inequities in stroke treatment and in-hospital mortality, and whether racial inequities differed across rural strata. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of Black and White patients >18 years old admitted to US acute care hospitals with a primary discharge diagnosis of stroke (unweighted N=652 836) from the National Inpatient Sample from 2012 to 2017. Rural residence was classified by county as urban, town, or rural. The primary outcomes were intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular therapy use among patients with acute ischemic stroke, and in-hospital mortality for all stroke patients. Logistic regression models were run for each outcome adjusting for age, comorbidities, primary payer, and ZIP code median income. RESULTS: The sample was 53% female, 81% White, and 19% Black. Black patients from rural areas had the lowest odds of receiving intravenous thrombolysis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.43 [95% CI, 0.37-0.50]) and endovascular therapy (aOR, 0.60 [0.46-0.78]), compared with White urban patients. Black rural patients were the least likely to be discharged home after a stroke compared with White/urban patients (aOR, 0.79 [0.75-0.83]), this was true for Black patients across the urban-rural spectrum when compared with Whites. Black patients from urban areas had lower mortality than White patients from urban areas (aOR, 0.87 [0.84-0.91]), while White patients from rural areas (aOR, 1.14 [1.10-1.19]) had the highest mortality of all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Black patients living in rural areas represent a particularly high-risk group for poor access to advanced stroke care and impaired poststroke functional status. Rural White patients have the highest in-hospital mortality. Clinical and policy interventions are needed to improve access and reduce inequities in stroke care and outcomes.

Two-Year Evaluation of Mandatory Bundled Payments for Joint Replacement.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, Medicare implemented Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR), a national mandatory bundled-payment model for hip or knee replacement in randomly selected metropolitan statistical areas. Hospitals in such areas receive bonuses or pay penalties based on Medicare spending per hip- or knee-replacement episode (defined as the hospitalization plus 90 days after discharge). METHODS: We conducted difference-in-differences analyses using Medicare claims from 2015 through 2017, encompassing the first 2 years of bundled payments in the CJR program. We evaluated hip- or knee-replacement episodes in 75 metropolitan statistical areas randomly assigned to mandatory participation in the CJR program (bundled-payment metropolitan statistical areas, hereafter referred to as "treatment" areas) as compared with those in 121 control areas, before and after implementation of the CJR model. The primary outcomes were institutional spending per hip- or knee-replacement episode (i.e., Medicare payments to institutions, primarily to hospitals and post-acute care facilities), rates of postsurgical complications, and the percentage of "high-risk" patients (i.e., patients for whom there was an elevated risk of spending - a measure of patient selection). Analyses were adjusted for the hospital and characteristics of the patients and procedures. RESULTS: From 2015 through 2017, there were 280,161 hip- or knee-replacement procedures in 803 hospitals in treatment areas and 377,278 procedures in 962 hospitals in control areas. After the initiation of the CJR model, there were greater decreases in institutional spending per joint-replacement episode in treatment areas than in control areas (differential change [i.e., the between-group difference in the change from the period before the CJR model], -$812, or a -3.1% differential decrease relative to the treatment-group baseline; P<0.001). The differential reduction was driven largely by a 5.9% relative decrease in the percentage of episodes in which patients were discharged to post-acute care facilities. The CJR program did not have a significant differential effect on the composite rate of complications (P=0.67) or on the percentage of joint-replacement procedures performed in high-risk patients (P=0.81). CONCLUSIONS: In the first 2 years of the CJR program, there was a modest reduction in spending per hip- or knee-replacement episode, without an increase in rates of complications. (Funded by the Commonwealth Fund and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health.).