Association of a Medicare Advantage Posthospitalization Home Meal Delivery Benefit With Rehospitalization and Death.

Importance: The 2018 Chronic Care Act allowed Medicare Advantage plans to have greater flexibility in offering supplemental benefits, such as meals and services, to address unmet needs of beneficiaries with certain chronic conditions. Based on earlier studies of community-based nutritional support, such programs may result in reduced use. Objective: To evaluate the association of a 4-week posthospitalization home-delivered meals benefit with 30-day all-cause rehospitalization and mortality in patients admitted for heart failure (HF) and other acute medical conditions (non-HF). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, patients who received meals (the meals group) were compared with 2 controls: (1) no meals in the 2019 historical cohort who would have been eligible for the benefit (the no meals-2019 group) and (2) no meals in the 2021 and 2022 concurrent cohort who were referred but did not receive the meals due to unsuccessful contacts and active declines (the no meals-2021/2022 group). This study took place in a large integrated health care system in southern California among Medicare Advantage members with a hospitalization for HF or other acute medical conditions at 15 Kaiser Permanente hospitals discharged to home. Exposure: The exposure was receipt of at least 1 and up to 4 shipments of home-delivered meals (total of 56 to 84 meals) after hospital discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were 30-day all-cause composite rehospitalization and death. Results: A total of 4032 adults with admission to the hospital for HF (mean [SD] age, 79 [9] years; 1951 [48%] White; 2001 [50%] female) and 7944 with non-HF admissions (mean [SD] age, 78 [8] years; 3890 [49%] White; 4149 [52%] female) were included in the analyses. Unadjusted rates of 30-day death and rehospitalization for the meals, no meals-2019, and no meals-2021/2022 cohorts were as follows: HF: 23.3%, 30.1%, and 38.5%; non-HF: 16.5%, 22.4%, and 32.9%, respectively. For HF, exposure to meals was significantly associated with lower odds of 30-day death and rehospitalization compared with the no meals-2021/2022 cohort (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.43-0.71; P < .001) but was not significant compared with the no meals-2019 cohort (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72-1.04; P = .12). For non-HF, exposure to meals was associated with significantly lower odds of 30-day death and rehospitalization when compared with the no meals-2019 (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.79; P < .001) and the no meals-2021/2022 (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.62; P < .001) cohorts. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, exposure to posthospitalization home-delivered meals was associated with lower 30-day rehospitalization and mortality; randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Association between post-hospital clinic and telephone follow-up provider visits with 30-day readmission risk in an integrated health system.

BACKGROUND: Follow-up visits with clinic providers after hospital discharge may not be feasible for some patients due to functional limitations, transportation challenges, need for physical distancing, or fear of exposure especially during the current COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The aim of the study was to determine the effects of post-hospital clinic (POSH) and telephone (TPOSH) follow-up provider visits versus no visit on 30-day readmission. We used a retrospective cohort design based on data from 1/1/2017 to 12/31/2019 on adult patients (n = 213,513) discharged home from 15 Kaiser Permanente Southern California hospitals. Completion of POSH or TPOSH provider visits within 7 days of discharge was the exposure and all-cause 30-day inpatient and observation stay readmission was the primary outcome. We used matching weights to balance the groups and Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model to assess for readmission risk. RESULTS: Unweighted all-cause 30-day readmission rate was highest for patients who completed a TPOSH (17.3%) followed by no visit (14.2%), non-POSH (evaluation and management visits that were not focused on the hospitalization: 13.6%) and POSH (12.6%) visits. The matching weighted models showed that the effects of POSH and TPOSH visits varied across patient subgroups. For high risk (LACE 11+) medicine patients, both POSH (HR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.71, 0.85, P < .001) and TPOSH (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.99, P = .03) were associated with 23 and 9% lower risk of 30-day readmission, respectively, compared to no visit. For medium to low risk medicine patients (LACE< 11) and all surgical patients regardless of LACE score or age, there were no significant associations for either visit type with risk of 30-day readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Post-hospital telephone follow-up provider visits had only modest effects on 30-day readmission in high-risk medicine patients compared to clinic visits. It remains to be determined if greater use and comfort with virtual visits by providers and patients as a result of the pandemic might improve the effectiveness of these encounters.