Neighborhood Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Acute Care Utilization in Washington State Medicaid: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Neighborhood disadvantage has been associated with potentially preventable acute care utilization among Medicare beneficiaries, but this association has not been studied in a Medicaid population, which is important for informing more equitable care and policies for this population. OBJECTIVE: To describe the association between Area Deprivation Index (ADI) and acute care utilization (including potentially preventable utilization) among Medicaid beneficiaries in Washington State. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of 100% Medicaid claims. Mixed effects logistic regression was applied to estimate the association between state-level ADI decile and acute care utilization, adjusting for age, sex, self-identified race and ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index, primary spoken language, individual Federal Poverty Level, homelessness, and rurality. Standard errors were clustered at the Census block group level. PARTICIPANTS: 1.5 million unique adult Medicaid beneficiaries enrolled for at least 11 months of a calendar year during the period 2017-2021. MAIN MEASURES: Binary measures denoting receipt of ED visits, low-acuity ED visits, hospitalizations in a calendar year. KEY RESULTS: Increasing levels of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (by ADI decile) were associated with greater odds of any ED visits (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-1.07), low-acuity ED visits (aOR 1.08, CI 1.08-1.08), and any hospitalizations (aOR 1.02, CI 1.02-1.02). CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicaid beneficiaries, greater neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with increased acute care utilization, including potentially preventable utilization. These findings signal potential barriers to outpatient care access that could be amenable to future intervention by health systems and payers.

Differential Hospital Participation in Bundled Payments in Communities with Higher Shares of Marginalized Populations.

BACKGROUND: Medicare's voluntary bundled payment programs have demonstrated generally favorable results. However, it remains unknown whether uneven hospital participation in these programs in communities with greater shares of minorities and patients of low socioeconomic status results in disparate access to practice redesign innovations. OBJECTIVE: Examine whether communities with higher proportions of marginalized individuals were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-Advanced). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using ordinary least squares regression controlling for patient and community factors. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service patients enrolled from 2015-2017 (pre-BPCI-Advanced) and residing in 2,058 local communities nationwide defined by Hospital Service Areas (HSAs). Each community's share of marginalized patients was calculated separately for each of the share of beneficiaries of Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, or dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid. MAIN MEASURES: Dichotomous variable indicating whether a given community had at least one hospital that ever participated in BPCI-Advanced from 2018-2022. KEY RESULTS: Communities with higher shares of dual-eligible individuals were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced than communities with the lowest quartile of dual-eligible individuals (Q4: -15.1 percentage points [pp] lower than Q1, 95% CI: -21.0 to -9.1, p < 0.001). There was no consistent significant relationship between community proportion of Black beneficiaries and likelihood of having a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced. Communities with higher shares of Hispanic beneficiaries were more likely to have a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced than those in the lowest quartile (Q4: 19.2 pp higher than Q1, 95% CI: 13.4 to 24.9, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Communities with greater shares of dual-eligible beneficiaries, but not racial or ethnic minorities, were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced Policymakers should consider approaches to incentivize more socioeconomically uniform participation in voluntary bundled payments.

Verbal Descriptions of the Probability of Treatment Complications Lead to High Variability in Risk Perceptions: A Survey Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether different methods for communicating the probability of treatment complications for operative and nonoperative appendicitis treatments result in differences in risk perception. BACKGROUND: Surgeons must communicate the probability of treatment complications to patients, and how risks are communicated may impact the accuracy and variability in patient risk perceptions and ultimately their decision making. METHODS: A series of online surveys of American adults communicated the probability of complications associated with surgical or antibiotic treatment of acute appendicitis. Probability was communicated with verbal descriptors (eg, "uncommon"), point estimates (eg, "3% risk"), or risk ranges (eg, "1% to 5%"). Respondents then estimated the probability of a complication for a "typical patient with appendicitis." The Fligner-Killeen test of homogeneity of variance was used to compare the variability in respondent risk estimates based on the method of probability communication. RESULTS: Among 296 respondents, variance in probability estimates was significantly higher when verbal descriptions were used compared to point estimates ( P < 0.001) or risk ranges ( P < 0.001). Identical verbal descriptors produced meaningfully different risk estimates depending on the complication being described. For example, "common" was perceived as a 45.6% for surgical site infection but 61.7% for antibiotic-associated diarrhea. CONCLUSION: Verbal probability descriptors are associated with widely varying and inaccurate perceptions about treatment risks. Surgeons should consider alternative ways to communicate probability during informed consent and shared decision-making discussions.

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.

Development and Feasibility Testing of a Decision Aid for Acute Appendicitis.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis will be increasingly asked to choose between surgery and antibiotic management. We developed a novel decision aid for patients in the emergency department (ED) with acute appendicitis who are facing this choice. We describe the development of the decision aid and an initial feasibility study of its implementation in a busy tertiary care ED. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prepost survey analysis comparing patients before and after standardized implementation of the decision aid. Patients were surveyed about their experience making treatment decisions after discharge from the hospital. The primary outcome measure was the total score on the decisional conflict scale (; 0-100; lower scores better). RESULTS: The study included 24 participants (12 in the predecision aid period; 12 in the post period). Only 33% of participants in each group knew antibiotics were a treatment option prior to arriving at the ED. Prior to implementing the use of decision aid, only 75% of patients reported being told antibiotics were a treatment option, while this increased to 100% after implementation of the decision aid. The mean total decisional conflict scalescores were similar in the pre and post periods (mean difference = 0.13, 95% CI: -13 - 13, P > 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: This novel appendicitis decision aid was effectively integrated into clinical practice and helped toinform patients about multiple treatment options. These data support further large-scale testing of the decision aid as part of standardized pathways for the management of patients with acute appendicitis.

Association Between a Population Health Intervention and Hypertension Control.

INTRODUCTION: As part of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Practice Transformation Network, an integrated healthcare system implemented a multimodal, population health-based hypertension clinical pathway program (HCPP) focused on hypertension management. AIM: To determine whether the HCPP was associated with changes in hypertension control or process-of-care measures and whether associations varied for sites serving higher versus lower proportions of historically underserved patients. SETTING: An integrated academic health system encompassing 5 clinic networks and 85 primary and specialty care sites. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The HCPP was implemented at some sites (adopters) but not others (non-adopters) and had four components: (1) stakeholder engagement; (2) clinical staff retraining; (3) electronic health record-based prompts; and (4) performance monitoring and feedback. Program goals were to encourage clinical teams to increase the frequency of follow up visits and adopt standardized approaches to blood pressure (BP) measurements and antihypertensive medication regimen advancement defined as adding or titrating existing medication. PROGRAM EVALUATION: This quasi-experimental study used 2017-2019 data from 63,497 patients with hypertension and multivariable difference-in-differences analyses to evaluate changes in outcomes at 19 adopter versus 39 non-adopter sites before and after HCPP implementation. Adoption was associated with 3.5 times differentially greater odds of a BP reassessment (OR 3.5, 95% CI 3.3-3.8), 11% differentially greater odds of BP control (BP<140/90 mmHg) (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.07-1.15), and 12% differentially greater odds of having non-severely elevated BP (systolic BP < 155 mmHg) (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05-1.19). HCPP adoption was not associated with differential changes in 90-day follow-up BP measurement. Adoption was associated with 23% differentially greater odds of appropriate medication advancement (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.04-1.46). A similar pattern was observed when limiting comparisons to sites caring for a higher proportion of historically underserved populations. DISCUSSION: A multimodal population health approach to transforming hypertension care was associated with improved BP outcomes.

Applying Behavioral Nudges in a Dietary Comparator for Surgical Trials: Developing the MediDiet.

INTRODUCTION: Dietary interventions are increasingly being proposed as alternatives to surgery for common gastrointestinal conditions. Integrating aspects of cognitive psychology (e.g., behavioral nudges) into dietary interventions is becoming popular, but evidence is lacking on their effectiveness and unintended effects. We assessed the effects of including nudges in the development of a dietary intervention based on the Mediterranean diet. METHODS: We conducted two-arm randomized surveys of United States adults. After a validated dietary questionnaire, participants received feedback about dietary consistency with a Mediterranean diet with (A) no nudge versus (B) one of several nudges: peer comparison, positive affect induction + peer comparison, or defaults. Participants rated their negative and positive emotions, motivation for dietary change, and interest in recipes. Responses were analyzed using baseline covariate-adjusted regression. RESULTS: Among 1709 participants, 56% were men and the median age was 36 y. Nudges as a class did not significantly affect the extent of negative or positive emotions, motivation, or interest. However, specific nudges had different effects: compared to no nudge, peer comparison blunted negative emotions and increased motivation, although decreased interest in recipes, while defaults increased interest in recipes but reduced motivation. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot, behavioral nudges as a class of strategies did not improve participants' reactions to dietary feedback nor did they promote negative reactions. However, specific nudges may be better considered separately in their effects. Future testing should explore whether specific nudges including peer comparison and defaults improve dietary intervention effectiveness, especially in people with the specific gastrointestinal conditions of interest.

Spillover Effects of Medicare's Voluntary Bundled Payments for Joint Replacement Surgery to Patients Insured by Commercial Health Plans.

BACKGROUND: Under the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program, bundled paymtents for lower-extremity joint replacement (LEJR) are associated with 2% to 4% cost savings with stable quality among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. However, BPCI may prompt practice changes that benefit all patients, not just fee-for-service beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between hospital participation in BPCI and LEJR outcomes for patients with commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage (MA). DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study using Health Care Cost Institute claims from 2011 to 2016. SETTING: LEJR at 281 BPCI hospitals and 562 non-BPCI hospitals. PATIENTS: 184 922 patients with MA or commercial insurance. MEASUREMENTS: Differential changes in LEJR outcomes at BPCI hospitals versus at non-BPCI hospitals matched on propensity score were evaluated using a difference-in-differences (DID) method. Secondary analyses evaluated associations by patient MA status and hospital characteristics. Primary outcomes were changes in 90-day total spending on LEJR episodes and 90-day readmissions; secondary outcomes were postacute spending and discharge to postacute care providers. RESULTS: Average episode spending decreased more at BPCI versus non-BPCI hospitals (change, -2.2% [95% CI, -3.6% to -0.71%]; P = 0.004), but differences in changes in 90-day readmissions were not significant (adjusted DID, -0.47 percentage point [CI, -1.0 to 0.06 percentage point]; P = 0.084). Participation in BPCI was also associated with differences in decreases in postacute spending and discharge to institutional postacute care providers. Decreases in episode spending were larger for hospitals with high baseline spending but did not vary by MA status. LIMITATION: Nonrandomized studies are subject to residual confounding and selection. CONCLUSION: Participation in BPCI was associated with modest spillovers in episode savings. Bundled payments may prompt hospitals to implement broad care redesign that produces benefits regardless of insurance coverage. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at the University of Pennsylvania.

Overlap Between Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Program and Accountable Care Organizations.

BACKGROUND: Overlap between Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model and accountable care organizations (ACOs) may result in positive or negative synergies. In this study, we describe the overlap between the programs at the beneficiary and hospital levels. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patient and hospital characteristics using data from 2016 Medicare claims, the US Census Bureau, the American Hospital Association annual survey, Hospital Compare, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation file. On the beneficiary level, we conducted 2 comparisons: (1) among patients who received joint replacement at CJR hospitals, ACO patients (overlap) vs not (CJR-only) and 2) among patients who received joint replacement elsewhere, ACO patients (ACO-only) vs not (neither). On the hospital level, we compared hospitals in the top quartile of overlap rate (high overlap) vs those in the bottom 3 (low overlap). RESULTS: We studied 14,519 overlap, 38,972 CJR-only, 26,872 ACO-only, and 68,945 neither beneficiaries. Compared with CJR-only patients, the overlap group was less likely to be older than 85, of black race, of low socioeconomic status, and burdened with clinical complications. Similar results were observed when the ACO-only group was compared with the neither group. Compared with low overlap hospitals, high overlap ones were more likely to be of nonprofit and less likely to be of safety net. CONCLUSION: CJR-ACO overlap is associated with differences in beneficiary and hospital characteristics, which raises key issues for providers and policymakers.

The Impact of Medicare's Alternative Payment Models on the Value of Care.

Over the past decade, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have led the nationwide shift toward value-based payment. A major strategy for achieving this goal has been to implement alternative payment models (APMs) that encourage high-value care by holding providers financially accountable for both the quality and the costs of care. In particular, the CMS has implemented and scaled up two types of APMs: population-based models that emphasize accountability for overall quality and costs for defined patient populations, and episode-based payment models that emphasize accountability for quality and costs for discrete care. Both APM types have been associated with modest reductions in Medicare spending without apparent compromises in quality. However, concerns about the unintended consequences of these APMs remain, and more work is needed in several important areas. Nonetheless, both APM types represent steps to build on along the path toward a higher-value national health care system.

Use of Chronic Care Management Among Primary Care Clinicians.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicade Services (CMS) initiated chronic care management (CCM) codes to reimburse clinicians for coordination activities, but little is known about uptake over time. We find that primary care clinicians drove increasing use over 4 years-a trend that may reflect either new coordination activities or new reimbursements for existing activities. That 5% of chronic care management was denied by Medicare underscores the need for future work evaluating facilitators and barriers to use. Such insight is especially vital given the large number of eligible beneficiaries that have not received chronic care management to date, as well as the limited number of clinicians who currently deliver these services.

Early Postoperative Aortic Root Thrombus After Heartmate 3.

As a bridge to heart transplantation or destination treatment, implantation of the Heartmate 3 (HM3) left ventricular assist device is a viable option for patients with end-stage congestive heart failure. The recent Momentum 3 trial has shown favorable outcomes compared with Heartmate 2. We report the first case of aortic root thrombus occurring early after HM3 implantation as a bridge to heart transplantation. Our case suggests that bridging with an Impella 5.0 preceding HM3 implantation could potentially predispose patients to aortic root thrombus after HM3 implantation, due to Impella-related injury to the aortic valve and aortic root stasis after durable LVAD support.

The Value of Outpatient Imaging-Based Cancer Screening Episodes.

In order to shift US health care towards greater value, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is exploring outpatient episode-based cost measures under the new Quality Payment Program and planning a bundled payment program that will introduce the first ever outpatient episodes of care. One novel approach to capitalize on this paradigm shift and extend bundled payment policies is to engage primary care physicians and specialists by bundling outpatient imaging studies and associated procedures-central tools in disease screening and diagnosis, but also tools that are expensive and susceptible to increasing health care costs and patient harm. For example, both breast and lung cancer screening represent target areas ripe for bundled payment given high associated costs and variation in management strategies and suboptimal care coordination between responsible clinicians. Benefits to imaging-based screening episodes include stronger alignment between providers (primary care physicians, radiologists, and other clinicians), reduction in unwarranted variation, creation of appropriateness standards, and ability to overcome barriers to cancer screening adherence. Implementation considerations include safeguarding against providers inappropriately withholding care as well as ensuring that accountability and financial risk are distributed appropriately among responsible clinicians.

Eliminating Gender-Based Bias in Academic Medicine: More Than Naming the "Elephant in the Room".

Gender-based discrimination and bias are widespread in professional settings, including academic medicine. Overt manifestations such as sexual harassment have long been identified but attention is only more recently turning towards subtler forms of bias, including inequity in promotion and compensation. Barriers to progress vary across institutions and include lack of awareness, inadequate training, poor informational transparency, and challenging power dynamics. We propose five solutions that the academic medical community can adopt to not only name, but also address, gender-based bias as the proverbial elephant in the room: definitively identify the systemic nature of the problem, prompt those with influence and power to advance a culture of equity, broadly incorporate evidence-based explicit anti-sexist training, increase transparency of information related to professional development and compensation, and use robust research methods to study the drivers and potential solutions of gender inequity within academic medicine. While implementing these proposals is no small task, doing so is an important step in helping the academic medical community become more just.

Association of Hospital Participation in a Medicare Bundled Payment Program With Volume and Case Mix of Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Episodes.

Importance: Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) surgery has been associated with a reduction in episode spending and stable-to-improved quality. However, BPCI may create unintended effects by prompting participating hospitals to increase the overall volume of episodes paid for by Medicare, which could potentially eliminate program-related savings or prompt them to shift case mix to lower-risk patients. Objective: To evaluate whether hospital BPCI participation for LEJR was associated with changes in overall volume and case mix. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational study using Medicare claims data and a difference-in-differences method to compare 131 markets (hospital referral regions) with at least 1 BPCI participant hospital (n = 322) and 175 markets with no participating hospitals (n = 1340), accounting for 580 043 Medicare beneficiaries treated before (January 2011-September 2013) and 462 161 after (October 2013-December 2015) establishing the BPCI initiative. Hospital-level case-mix changes were assessed by comparing 265 participating hospitals with a 1:1 propensity-matched set of nonparticipating hospitals from non-BPCI markets. Exposures: Hospital BPCI participation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in market-level LEJR volume in the before vs after BPCI periods and changes in hospital-level case mix based on demographic, socioeconomic, clinical, and utilization factors. Results: Among the 1 717 243 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent LEJR (mean age, 75 years; 64% women; and 95% nonblack race/ethnicity), BPCI participation was not significantly associated with a change in overall market-level volume. The mean quarterly market volume in non-BPCI markets increased 3.8% from 3.8 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries before BPCI to 3.9 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries after BPCI was launched. For BPCI markets, the mean quarterly market volume increased 4.4% from 3.6 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries before BPCI to 3.8 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries after BPCI was launched. The adjusted difference-in-differences estimate between the market types was 0.32% (95% CI, -0.06% to 0.69%; P = .10). Among 20 demographic, socioeconomic, clinical, and utilization factors, BPCI participation was associated with differential changes in hospital-level case mix for only 1 factor, prior skilled nursing facility use (adjusted difference-in-differences estimate, -0.53%; 95% CI, -0.96% to -0.10%; P = .01) in BPCI vs non-BPCI markets. Conclusions and Relevance: In this observational study of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent LEJR, hospital participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement was not associated with changes in market-level lower extremity joint replacement volume and largely was not associated with changes in hospital case mix. These findings may provide reassurance regarding 2 potential unintended effects associated with bundled payments for LEJR.