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

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

The association of vertically integrated care with health care use and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether vertically integrated hospital and skilled nursing facility (SNF) care is associated with more efficient use of postdischarge care and better outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Medicare provider, beneficiary, and claims data from 2012 to 2014. STUDY DESIGN: We compared facility characteristics, quality of care, and health care use for hospital-based SNFs and "virtually integrated" SNFs (defined as freestanding SNFs with close referral relationships with a single hospital) relative to nonintegrated freestanding SNFs. Among patients admitted to integrated SNFs, we estimated differences in health care use and outcomes for patients originating from the parent hospital (ie, receiving vertically integrated care) versus other hospitals using linear regressions that included SNF fixed effects. We estimated bounds for our main estimates that incorporated potential omitted variables bias. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified hospital-based SNFs based on provider data. We defined virtually integrated SNFs based on patient flows between hospitals and SNFs. We identified SNF episodes, preceding hospital stays, patient characteristics, health care use, and patient outcomes using Medicare data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Consistent with prior research, integrated SNFs performed better on quality measures and health care use relative to nonintegrated SNFs (eg, hospital-based SNFs had 11-day shorter stays compared with nonintegrated SNFs adjusting for patient characteristics, P < .001). Stroke patients admitted to hospital-based SNFs from the parent hospital had shorter preceding hospital stays (adjusted difference: -1.2 days, P = .001) and shorter initial SNF stays (adjusted difference: -2.7 days, P = .049); estimates were attenuated but still robust accounting for potential omitted variables bias. For stroke patients, associations between vertically integrated care and other outcomes were either statistically insignificant or not robust to accounting for potential omitted variables bias. CONCLUSIONS: Vertically integrated hospital and SNF care was associated with shorter hospital and SNF stays. However, there were few beneficial associations with other outcomes, suggesting limited coordination benefits from vertical integration.

Home Health Use In Medicare Advantage Compared To Use In Traditional Medicare.

Medicare covers home health benefits for homebound beneficiaries who need intermittent skilled care. While home health care can help prevent costlier institutional care, some studies have suggested that traditional Medicare beneficiaries may overuse home health care. This study compared home health use in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare, as well as within Medicare Advantage by beneficiary cost sharing, prior authorization requirement, and plan type. In 2016 Medicare Advantage enrollees were less likely to use home health care than traditional Medicare enrollees were, had 7.1 fewer days per home health spell, and were less likely to be admitted to the hospital during their spell. Among Medicare Advantage plans, those that imposed beneficiary cost sharing or prior authorization requirements had lower rates of home health use. Qualitative interviews suggested that Medicare Advantage payment and contracting approaches influenced home health care use. Therefore, changes in traditional Medicare home health payment policies implemented in 2020 may reduce these disparities in home health use and spell length.

Home Health And Postacute Care Use In Medicare Advantage And Traditional Medicare.

This article compares patterns of postacute care-including care provided by skilled nursing facilities, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and home health agencies-under Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. Overall, Medicare Advantage enrollees received less postacute care, both institutional and home health, than traditional Medicare enrollees did for three common conditions.

Diabetes management for low-income patients in Los Angeles: two strategies improved disease control in the short term.

Health care providers serving vulnerable patients in Los Angeles have developed programs intended to increase diabetes control through more-intensive patient education and engagement. We examined two programs, the first using a short-term intensive intervention by a care team including nurses and a specialist, and the second integrating case management and clinical pharmacy programs into primary care in a community clinic. We show evidence that both models improved short-term disease control, as measured by reductions in HbA1c and low-density lipoprotein (sometimes referred to as "bad" cholesterol). However, integrating case management and clinical pharmacy programs into a primary care setting was less labor-intensive and potentially less expensive than the care team intervention. The challenge is to understand the essential aspects of these interventions; refine their design so that they are more cost-effective and fiscally feasible; and identify long-term health and cost effects.