Improving Transitions in Care for Patients and Family Caregivers Living in Rural and Underserved Areas: The Caregiver Advise, Record, Enable (CARE) Act.

In this Perspective, we contend bold action is needed to improve transitions from hospitals to home for aging patients and their family caregivers living in rural and underserved areas. The Caregiver Advise, Record, Enable (CARE) Act, passed in over 40 US states, is intended to provide family caregivers of hospitalized patients with the knowledge and skills needed for safe and efficient transitions. It has broken important ground for family caregivers who assist with transitions in patient care. It may fall short, however, in addressing the unique needs of family caregivers living in rural and underserved areas. We contend that to realize the intended safety, cost, and care quality benefits of the CARE Act, especially for those living in rural and underserved areas, states need to expand the Act's scope. We provide three recommendations: 1) modify hospital information systems to support the care provided by family caregivers; 2) require assessments of family caregivers that reflect the challenges of family caregiving in rural and underserved areas; and 3) identify local resources to improve discharge planning. We describe the rationale for each recommendation and the potential ways that an expanded CARE Act could reduce the risks associated with transitions in care for aging patients.

Key Points:1. Recent state laws aim to support family caregivers of hospitalized patients.2. These laws do not account for the unique needs of rural caregivers.3. Expanding laws to address rural caregiver needs may improve patient outcomes.

Implementation Costs of Technology-Enhanced Transitional Palliative Care for Rural Caregivers.

OBJECTIVES: Compared to urban family caregivers (FCG), rural FCG experience greater burdens accessing coordinated care for their loved ones during and after hospitalization. The impact of technology-enhanced transitional palliative care (TPC) on caregiver outcomes is currently being evaluated in a randomized control trial. This study evaluates resource use and health system costs of this FCG-focused TPC intervention and potential Medicare reimbursement mechanisms. METHODS: Rural caregivers of hospitalized patients were randomized into an 8-week intervention consisting of video visits conducted by a registered nurse certified in palliative care, supplemented with phone calls and texts (n = 215), or attentional control. Labor costs were estimated for a registered nurse and compared to scenario analyses using a nurse practitioner or social worker wages. Medicare reimbursement scenarios included Transitional Care Management (TCM) and Chronic Care Management (CCM) CPT codes. RESULTS: In the base case, TPC cost was $395 per FCG facilitated by a registered nurse, compared to $337 and $585 if facilitated by a social worker or nurse practitioner, respectively. Mean Medicare reimbursement in the TCM-only scenario was $322 and $260 for high or moderate complexity patients, respectively. Reimbursement in the CCM only scenario was $348 and $274 for complex and non-complex patients, respectively. Reimbursement in the TCM+CCM scenario was $496 and $397, for high/complex and moderate/non-complex patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: TPC is a feasible, low cost and sustainable strategy to enhance FCG support in rural areas. Potential reimbursement mechanisms are available to offset the costs to the health system for providing transitional palliative care to caregivers of patients recently hospitalized.

Healthcare use and out-of-pocket costs for rural family caregivers and care recipients in a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Rural family caregivers (FCGs) in the United States often experience high economic costs. This randomized controlled trial compared a transitional palliative care intervention (TPC) to support FCGs of seriously ill care recipients (CRs) to an attention control condition. We evaluated the TPC's effect on healthcare use and out-of-pocket spending for both FCGs and CRs. METHODS: TPC FCGs received teaching, guidance, and counseling via video calls for 8 weeks following CR discharge from the hospital. After discharge, a research assistant called all FCGs once a month for up to 6 months or CR death to collect self-reported healthcare utilization (e.g., outpatient, emergency department, and hospital), out-of-pocket healthcare spending (e.g., deductibles and coinsurance), and health-related travel costs (e.g., transportation, lodging, food) for FCGs and CRs. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated using negative binomial regressions. RESULTS: The study included 282 FCG-CR dyads across three U.S. states. Follow-up over the 6-month period was shortened by high CR mortality rates across both arms (29%), but was similar across arms. TPC reduced nights in the hospital for CR (IRR = 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.56-0. 99). Total out-of-pocket spending was not significantly different for TPC versus control. Across both groups, mean out-of-pocket spending for dyads was $1401.85, with healthcare payments contributing $1048.58 and transportation expenses contributing $136.79. TPC dyads reported lower lodging costs (IRR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.56-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to evidence that palliative care interventions reduce the number of nights in the hospital for seriously ill patients. Yet, overall rural FCGs and seriously ill CRs experience substantial out-of-pocket economic costs in the 6 months following hospitalization. Transitional care intervention design should consider impacts on patient and caregiver spending. CLINICALTRIALS: gov # is NCT03339271.