Impact of hospital-acquired pneumonia on the Medicare program.

OBJECTIVE: Patient safety organizations and researchers describe hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) as a largely preventable hospital-acquired infection that affects patient safety and quality of care. We provide evidence regarding the consequences of HAP among 2019 Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. PATIENTS: Calendar year 2019 Medicare beneficiaries with HAP during an initial hospitalization, defined by International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) coding on inpatient claims (n = 2,457). Beneficiaries with HAP were matched using diagnosis-related group (DRG) codes with beneficiaries who did not experience HAP (n = 2,457). METHODS: The 2019 calendar year Medicare 5% Standard Analytic Files (SAF), for inpatient, outpatient, physician, and all postacute hospital settings. The case group (HAP) and control group (non-HAP) were matched on disease severity, age, sex, and race and were compared for hospital length of stay, costs, and mortality during the initial hospitalization and across settings for 30, 60, and 90 days after discharge. The 2019 fiscal year MedPAR Claims data were used to determine Medicare costs. RESULTS: Medicare beneficiaries with HAP were 2.8 times more likely to die within 90 days compared with matched beneficiaries who did not develop HAP. Among those who survived, beneficiaries with HAP spent 6.6 more days in the hospital (69%) and cost the Medicare program an average of $14,487 (24%) more per episode of care across initial inpatient and postdischarge services. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of higher mortality and cost among Medicare beneficiaries who develop HAP suggest that HAP prevention should be prioritized as a patient safety and quality initiative for the Medicare program.

Socioeconomic Status of Counties Where Dialysis Clinics Are Located Is an Important Factor in Comparing Dialysis Providers.

This study assessed the hypothesis that the clinic site of service socioeconomic status (SES) represents an unmeasured confounder for clinical outcome comparisons between dialysis clinics and provider types, using data from the federal pay-for-performance program for end-stage renal disease. A total of 6506 dialysis facilities were categorized by clinic SES status (rurality and poverty status). Clinics were then grouped by provider type (chain size and tax status). Lastly, performance penalties were determined by each of these classifications. Findings were that 7.4% of dialysis clinics could be classified as being in rural locations, and 20.6% could be classified as being in high-poverty locations. Large dialysis organizations served more rural (65%) and high-poverty areas (metropolitan, 69%; micropolitan, 75%; rural, 75%) compared to other providers (medium, small, hospital/university). For-profit providers accounted for a majority of dialysis clinics in rural areas (78%) and high poverty areas (metropolitan, 84%; micropolitan, 85%; rural, 90%). This study found that dialysis clinic performance penalties did vary by SES, with poorer outcomes observed for clinic locations with lower SES. This finding, along with the nonrandom distribution of provider types by SES status, suggests that clinic and provider location SES may need to be considered when comparing providers.

Orals in the bundle: a policy framework.

Oral prescription drugs for treatment of bone and mineral disorders (phosphate binders and calcimimetics) in patients undergoing dialysis (i.e., those with ESRD) will be integrated into the Medicare Part B ESRD bundled payment system in 2016. Payment will be denied under Medicare Part D. Integrating Part D drugs into Part B payment at this level of scale lacks any policy precedent. Providers and patients have serious concerns about the potential for inadequate funding, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has been silent about the methods and other critical policy used to guide its decisions. We believe an adequate policy framework to support valuation of the targeted oral drugs depends on use of the most recent available Medicare Part D data, measurement of mean utilization for all target drugs based on a minimum of 6 months of complete data for prescriptions and dialysis treatments, use of appropriate price proxies to monetize drug volume to dialysis provider acquisition cost, adjustment to account for change in adherence due to change in patient out-of-pocket expenses, inclusion of valuation for dispensing and administrative cost, and a mechanism for adjusting payment to future changes in adherence.