Association of a Medicare Outpatient Payment Reform With Hospital-Primary Care Integration: Heterogeneity Across Markets and Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-physician integration increased rapidly in the past decade, threatening the affordability of care with minimal gains in quality. Medicare recently reformed its facility fee payments to hospitals for office consultations delivered by hospital-integrated physicians. This policy reform, affecting 200 million office visits annually, may have inadvertently encouraged hospitals to integrate with certain primary care physicians. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether the policy reform was associated with hospital-primary care integration. RESEARCH DESIGN: I used a large sample of primary care physicians (n=98,884) drawn from Medicare claims data. I estimated cross-sectional multivariable linear probability models to measure whether the change in physicians' value-to-hospitals was associated with integration. RESULTS: The reform created heterogenous results: some physicians' value-to-hospitals decreased, while others increased (first percentile to 99th percentile, -$16,000 to $47,000). This change in value had a small association with integration: for every $10,000 increase, a physician was about 0.34 percentage points (95% confidence interval: 0.16-0.52) more likely to become integrated. Among high-volume physicians, the reform had larger effects: physicians whose value-to-hospitals grew by $20,000 or more were nearly 3 percentage points more likely to become integrated. Changes in value had no effect in concentrated hospital markets and rural areas. CONCLUSIONS: Effects of Medicare's site-based payments on hospital-primary care integration were concentrated among a small subset of physicians. Reforms to Medicare payment policy could influence integration among this group.

Payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Changes to the method of payment for healthcare providers, including pay-for-performance schemes, are increasingly being used by governments, health insurers, and employers to help align financial incentives with health system goals. In this review we focused on changes to the method and level of payment for all types of healthcare providers in outpatient healthcare settings. Outpatient healthcare settings, broadly defined as 'out of hospital' care including primary care, are important for health systems in reducing the use of more expensive hospital services. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of different payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings on the quantity and quality of health service provision, patient outcomes, healthcare provider outcomes, cost of service provision, and adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase (searched 5 March 2019), and several other databases. In addition, we searched clinical trials platforms, grey literature, screened reference lists of included studies, did a cited reference search for included studies, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We screened records from an updated search in August 2020, with any potentially relevant studies categorised as awaiting classification. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies that compared different payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient care settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We conducted a structured synthesis. We first categorised the payment methods comparisons and outcomes, and then described the effects of different types of payment methods on different outcome categories. Where feasible, we used meta-analysis to synthesise the effects of payment interventions under the same category. Where it was not possible to perform meta-analysis, we have reported means/medians and full ranges of the available point estimates. We have reported the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the relative difference (as per cent change or mean difference (MD)) for continuous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 studies in the review: 12 randomised trials, 13 controlled before-and-after studies, one interrupted time series, and one repeated measure study. Most healthcare providers were primary care physicians. Most of the payment methods were implemented by health insurance schemes in high-income countries, with only one study from a low- or middle-income country. The included studies were categorised into four groups based on comparisons of different payment methods. (1) Pay for performance (P4P) plus existing payment methods compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings P4P incentives probably improve child immunisation status (RR 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.36; 3760 patients; moderate-certainty evidence) and may slightly increase the number of patients who are asked more detailed questions on their disease by their pharmacist (MD 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.54; 454 patients; low-certainty evidence). P4P may slightly improve primary care physicians' prescribing of guideline-recommended antihypertensive medicines compared with an existing payment method (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.12; 362 patients; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effects of extra P4P incentives on mean blood pressure reduction for patients and costs for providing services compared with an existing payment method (very low-certainty evidence). Outcomes related to workload or other health professional outcomes were not reported in the included studies. One randomised trial found that compared to the control group, the performance of incentivised professionals was not sustained after the P4P intervention had ended. (2) Fee for service (FFS) compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings We are uncertain about the effect of FFS on the quantity of health services delivered (outpatient visits and hospitalisations), patient health outcomes, and total drugs cost compared to an existing payment method due to very low-certainty evidence. The quality of service provision and health professional outcomes were not reported in the included studies. One randomised trial reported that physicians paid via FFS may see more well patients than salaried physicians (low-certainty evidence), possibly implying that more unnecessary services were delivered through FFS. (3) FFS mixed with existing payment methods compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings FFS mixed payment method may increase the quantity of health services provided compared with an existing payment method (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.76; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of FFS mixed payment on quality of services provided, patient health outcomes, and health professional outcomes compared with an existing payment method due to very low-certainty evidence. Cost outcomes and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies. (4) Enhanced FFS compared with FFS for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings Enhanced FFS (higher FFS payment) probably increases child immunisation rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether higher FFS payment results in more primary care visits and about the effect of enhanced FFS on the net expenditure per year on covered children with regular FFS (very low-certainty evidence). Quality of service provision, patient outcomes, health professional outcomes, and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings, P4P or an increase in FFS payment level probably increases the quantity of health service provision (moderate-certainty evidence), and P4P may slightly improve the quality of service provision for targeted conditions (low-certainty evidence). The effects of changes in payment methods on health outcomes is uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence. Information to explore the influence of specific payment method design features, such as the size of incentives and type of performance measures, was insufficient. Furthermore, due to limited and very low-certainty evidence, it is uncertain if changing payment models without including additional funding for professionals would have similar effects. There is a need for further well-conducted research on payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings in low- and middle-income countries; more studies comparing the impacts of different designs of the same payment method; and studies that consider the unintended consequences of payment interventions.

Assessing the downstream value of first-line cardiac positron emission tomography (PET) imaging using real world Medicare fee-for-service claims data.

BACKGROUND: Higher imaging quality makes cardiac positron emission tomography (PET) desirable for evaluation of suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). High cost of PET imaging may be offset by reduced utilization and/or improved outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective observational study utilized Medicare fee-for-service dataset. Study participants had no CAD diagnosis within 1 year prior to initial imaging. The PET group (PET imaging) and propensity score matched comparison group (single photon emission computed tomography or stress echocardiography) underwent index imaging between January 2014 and December 2016. Outcomes were analyzed using generalized linear models. RESULTS: Among 144,503 study subjects, 4619 (3.2%) had PET and 139,884 (96.8%) had conventional imaging. After matching, each group had 4619 patients (mean age 74 years, 59% female). The PET group had lower radiation exposure (3.8 milliSievert less per year, 95% CI - 3.96 to - 3.64, P < .0001) and unstable coronary syndrome (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.94, P = .008). The PET group experienced more hospital admissions (IRR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06-1.15, P < .0001), more use of percutaneous coronary intervention (IRR 1.24, 95% CI 1.02-1.50, P = 0.03), while similar mortality rate (hazard ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.78-1.14, P = 0.55). The PET group had higher medical spending ($2358.2 vs $1774.3, difference = $583.9 per patient per month, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: First-line PET imaging was not associated with reduced levels of utilization and spending. Clinical outcomes were mostly similar.

Association of Neurosurgical Work Relative Value Units with Objective Markers of Operative Complexity.

OBJECTIVE: Relative value units (RVUs) form the backbone of health care service reimbursement calculation in the United States. However, it remains unclear how well RVUs align with objective measures of procedural complexity within neurosurgery. METHODS: The 2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for neurosurgical procedures with >50 patients, using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Length of stay (LOS), operative time, mortality, and readmission and reoperation rates were collected for each code and a univariate correlation analysis was performed, with significant predictors entered into a multivariate logistic regression model, which generated predicted work RVUs, which were compared with actual RVUs to identify undervalued and overvalued procedures. RESULTS: Among 64 CPT codes, LOS, operative time, mortality, readmission, and reoperation were significant independent predictors of work RVUs and together explained 76% of RVU variance in a multivariate model (R2 = 0.76). Using a difference of >1.5 standard deviations from the mean, procedures associated with greater than predicted RVU included surgery for intracranial carotid circulation aneurysms (CPTs 61697 and 61700; residual RVU = 12.94 and 15.07, respectively), and infratemporal preauricular approaches to middle cranial fossa (CPT 61590; residual RVU = 15.39). Conversely, laminectomy/foraminotomy for decompression of additional spinal cord, cauda equina, and/or nerve root segments (CPT 63048; residual RVU = -21.30), transtemporal craniotomy for cerebellopontine angle tumor resection (CPT 61526; residual RVU = -9.95), and brachial plexus neuroplasty (CPT 64713; residual RVU = -11.29) were associated with lower than predicted RVU. CONCLUSIONS: Work RVUs for neurosurgical procedures are largely predictive of objective measures of surgical complexity, with few notable exceptions.

Quality of Diabetes Care in Blended Fee-for-Service and Blended Capitation Payment Systems.

OBJECTIVES: In the middle to late 2000s, many family physicians switched from a Family Health Group (FHG; a blended fee-for-service model) to a Family Health Organization (FHO; a blended capitation model) in Ontario, Canada. The evidence on the link between physician remuneration schemes and quality of diabetes care is mixed in the literature. We examined whether physicians who switched from the FHG to FHO model provided better care for individuals living with diabetes relative to those who remained in the FHG model. METHODS: Using longitudinal health administrative data from 2006 to 2016, we investigated the impact of physicians switching from FHG to FHO on 8 quality indicators related to diabetes care. Because FHO physicians are likely to be systematically different from FHGs, we employed propensity-score-based inverse probability-weighted fixed-effects regression models. All analyses were conducted at the physician level. RESULTS: We found that FHO physicians were more likely to provide glycated hemoglobin testing by 2.75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.89% to 3.60%), lipid assessment by 2.76% (CI, 1.95% to 3.57%), nephropathy screening by 1.08% (95% CI, 0.51% to 1.66%) and statin prescription by 1.08% (95% CI, 0.51% to 1.66%). Patients under FHOs had a lower estimated risk of mortality by 0.0124% (95% CI, 0.0123% to 0.0126%) per physician per year. However, FHG and FHO physicians were similar for annual eye examination, prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (or angiotensin II receptor blockers) and patients' risk of avoidable diabetes-related hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with blended fee-for-service, blended capitation payment is associated with a small, but statistically significant, improvement in some aspects of diabetes care.

Advancing the Culture of Patient Safety and Quality Improvement.

The American health care system has many great successes, but there continue to be opportunities for improving quality, access, and cost. The fee-for-service health care paradigm is shifting toward value-based care and will require accountability around quality assurance and cost reduction. As a result, many health care entities are rallying health care providers, administrators, regulators, and patients around a national imperative to create a culture of safety and develop systems of care to improve health care quality. However, the culture of patient safety and quality requires rigorous assessment of outcomes, and while numerous data collection and decision support tools are available to assist in quality assessment and performance improvement, the public reporting of this data can be confusing to patients and physicians alike and result in unintended negative consequences. This review explores the aims of health care reform, the national efforts to create a culture of quality and safety, the principles of quality improvement, and how these principles can be applied to patient care and medical practice.

Association of Outpatient Practice-Level Socioeconomic Disadvantage With Quality of Care and Outcomes Among Older Adults With Coronary Artery Disease: Implications for Value-Based Payment.

BACKGROUND: Medicare patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) have been a significant focus of value-based payment programs for outpatient practices. Physicians and policymakers, however, have voiced concern that value-based payment programs may penalize practices that serve vulnerable populations. This study evaluated whether outpatient practices that serve socioeconomically disadvantaged populations have worse CAD outcomes, and if this reflects the delivery of lower-quality care or rather, patient and community factors beyond the care provided by physician practices. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service patients ≥65 years with CAD at outpatient practices participating in the the Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence registry from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2015. Outpatient practices were stratified into quintiles by the proportion of most disadvantaged patients-defined by an area deprivation score in the highest 20% nationally-served at each practice site. Prescription of guideline recommended therapies for CAD as well as clinical outcomes (emergency department presentation for chest pain, hospital admission for unstable angina or acute myocardial infarction [AMI], 30-day readmission after AMI, and 30-day mortality after AMI) were evaluated by practice-level socioeconomic disadvantage with hierarchical logistic regression models, using practices serving the fewest socioeconomically disadvantaged patients as a reference. The study included 453 783 Medicare fee-for-service patients ≥65 years of age with CAD (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [7.7] years; 39.7% female) cared for at 271 outpatient practices. At practices serving the highest proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients (group 5), compared with practices serving the lowest proportion (group 1), there was no significant difference in the likelihood of prescription of antiplatelet therapy (odds ratio [OR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.69-1.27]), ß-blocker therapy if prior myocardial infarction or left ventricular ejection fraction <40% (OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.69-1.35]), ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker if left ventricular ejection fraction <40% and/or diabetes mellitus (OR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.74-1.19]), statin therapy (OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.68-1.14]), or cardiac rehabilitation (OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.20-1.00]). Patients cared for at the most disadvantaged-serving practices (group 5) were more likely to be admitted for unstable angina (adjusted OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.04-2.05]). There was no significant difference in the likelihood of emergency department presentation for chest pain or hospital admission for AMI between practices. Thirty day mortality rates after AMI were higher among patients at the most disadvantaged-serving practices (aOR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.02-1.68]), but 30-day readmission rates did not differ. All associations were attenuated after additional adjustment for patient-level area deprivation index. CONCLUSIONS: Physician outpatient practices that serve the most socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with CAD perform worse on some clinical outcomes, despite providing similar guideline-recommended care as other practices, and consequently could fare poorly under value-based payment programs. Social factors beyond care provided by outpatient practices may partly explain worse outcomes. Policymakers should consider accounting for socioeconomic disadvantage in value-based payment programs initiatives that target outpatient practices.

Effects of Integrating Care for Medicare-Medicaid Dually Eligible Seniors in Minnesota.

Individuals dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid often receive fragmented and inefficient care. Using Minnesota fee-for-service claims, managed care encounters, and enrollment data for 2010-2012, we estimated the likely impact of Minnesota Senior Health Option (MSHO)-seen as the first statewide fully integrated Medicare-Medicaid model-on health care and long-term services and supports use, relative to Minnesota Senior Care Plus (MSC+), a Medicaid-only managed care plan with Medicare fee for service. Estimates suggest that MSHO enrollees had significantly higher use of primary care and, potentially, of community-based services, combined with lower use of hospital-based care than similar MSC+ enrollees. Adopting fully integrated care models like MSHO may have merit in other states.

Usability of encounter data for Medicaid comprehensive managed care vs traditional Medicaid fee-for-service claims among pregnant women.

BACKGROUND: The completeness of medical encounters capture among Medicaid enrollees in comprehensive managed care (CMC) has been shown to vary across states and years. CMC penetration has grown, and CMC encounter capture specific to pregnancy care is understudied. OBJECTIVES: To compare the completeness of encounter data for pregnant beneficiaries in CMC versus traditional fee-for-service (FFS) in Texas and Florida between 2007 and 2010. METHODS: Using Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) data linked to Florida and Texas birth certificate records, for each state and study year, we compared proportions using seven themes: (a) delivery; (b) prenatal visits; (c) dispensed prescriptions during pregnancy; (d) gestational diabetes and blood glucose testing; (e) antidiabetics and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus; (f) antibiotics for urinary tract infection and outpatient encounter; and (g) bacterial vaginosis and dispensing for metronidazole or clindamycin. We considered CMC data to be acceptable if proportions were no less than 10% below the corresponding (2007 to 2010) FFS control values. RESULTS: Pregnancy-related characteristics of FFS vs CMC denominators were comparable. Proportions for the seven measures among FFS controls ranged from 26% to 98%. In Texas, CMC encounter data met the thresholds for all measures between 2007 and 2010. Florida had usable CMC encounter data starting from 2009 with incomplete medical and pharmacy records in 2007 and 2008. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of CMC encounter data in MAX files for pregnant women varied in Florida and Texas and improved over time. Use of pregnancy-specific measures can aid researchers in selecting states and years with acceptable encounter data quality.

Hospice enrollment among cancer patients in Texas covered by Medicare managed care and traditional fee-for-service plans: a statewide population-based study.

PURPOSE: Although rates of hospice use have increased over time, insurance plan- and racial/ethnic-based disparities in rates have been reported in the USA. We hypothesized that increased rates of hospice use would reduce or eliminate insurance plan-based disparities and that racial/ethnic disparities would be eliminated in managed care (MC) insurance plans. METHODS: We studied the use of hospice care in the final 30 days of life among 40,184 elderly Texas Medicare beneficiaries who died from primary breast, colorectal, lung, pancreas, or prostate cancer between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2013, using statewide Medicare claims linked to cancer registry data. Rates of hospice use were computed by race/ethnicity and insurance plan (MC or fee-for-service (FFS)). We used logistic regression to account for the impact of confounding factors. RESULTS: Rates of hospice use increased significantly over time, from 68.9% in 2007 to 76.1% in 2013. By 2013, differences in hospice use rates between MC and FFS plans had been reduced from 10% to < 5%. However, after accounting for insurance plan and confounding factors, racial/ethnic minority beneficiaries' hospice use was significantly lower than non-Hispanic white beneficiaries' (p < 0.0001). This disparity was observed among both FFS and MC beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: Hospice use in the final 30 days of life has increased among elderly cancer patients in Texas, virtually eliminating the difference between FFS and MC insurance plans. Despite these positive trends, racial/ethnic-based disparities persist. These disparities are not explained by confounding factors. Future research should address social and behavioral influences on end-of-life decisions.

Managed care for long-stay nursing home residents: an evaluation of Institutional Special Needs Plans.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the patterns of clinical service use for long-term nursing home residents enrolled in UnitedHealthcare's Medicare Advantage Institutional Special Needs Plans (I-SNPs), which provide on-site direct coordinated care for beneficiaries through the use of advanced practice clinicians. STUDY DESIGN: Observational analysis of 8052 I-SNP members and 12,982 Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) long-term nursing home residents across 13 states. METHODS: Multivariate analyses were performed to compare rates of emergency department (ED), inpatient, and skilled nursing facility (SNF) use between I-SNP members and Medicare FFS long-term nursing home residents. RESULTS: In comparison with FFS institutionalized Medicare beneficiaries, I-SNP members had 51% lower ED use, 38% fewer hospitalizations, and 45% fewer readmissions, whereas their SNF use was 112% higher. CONCLUSIONS: "At-risk" models, administered through specialized Medicare Advantage plans, that invest in clinical management in the nursing home setting have the potential to allow individuals to receive care on-site and avoid costly inpatient transfers.

Optimizing the Role of Community Pharmacists in Managing the Health of Populations: Barriers, Facilitators, and Policy Recommendations.

The shift to a value-based health care system has incentivized providers to implement strategies that improve population health outcomes while minimizing downstream costs. Given their accessibility and expanded clinical care models, community pharmacists are well positioned to join interdisciplinary care teams to advance efforts in effectively managing the health of populations. In this Viewpoints article, we discuss the expanded role of community pharmacists and potential barriers limiting the uptake of these services. We then explore strategies to integrate, leverage, and sustain these services in a value-based economy. Although community pharmacists have great potential to improve population health outcomes because of their accessibility and clinical interventions that have demonstrated improved outcomes, pharmacists are not recognized as merit-based incentive eligible providers and, as a result, may be underutilized in this role. Additional barriers include lack of formal billing codes, which limits patient access to services such as hormonal contraception; fragmentation of Medicare, which prevents alignment of medical and pharmaceutical costs; and continued fee-for-service payment models, which do not incentivize quality. Despite these barriers, there are several opportunities for continued pharmacist involvement in new care models such as patient-centered medical homes (PCMH), accountable care organizations, and other value-based payment models. Community pharmacists integrated within PCMHs have demonstrated improved hemoglobin A1c, blood pressure control, and immunization rates. Likewise, other integrated, value-based models that used community pharmacists to provide medication therapy management services have reported a positive return on investment in overall health care costs. To uphold these efforts and effectively leverage community pharmacist services, we recommend the following: (a) recognition of pharmacists as providers to facilitate full participation in performance-based models, (b) increased integration of pharmacists in emerging delivery and payment models with rapid cycle testing to further clarify the role and value of pharmacists, and (c) enhanced collaborative relationships between pharmacists and other providers to improve interdisciplinary care. DISCLOSURES: This article was funded by the National Association of Chain Drug Stores. The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to report.

Differences in Management of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Fee-for-Service Medicare Among Cardiology Practices.

Importance: One-third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicare's private plan option. Medicare Advantage incentivizes performance on evidence-based care, but limited information exists using reliable clinical data to determine whether this translates into better quality for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) enrolled in MA compared with those enrolled in traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare. Objective: To determine differences in evidence-based secondary prevention treatments and intermediate outcomes among patients with CAD enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this observational, retrospective, cohort study, deidentified data from patients 18 years or older diagnosed as having CAD between January 1, 2013, and May 1, 2014, at cardiology practices participating in the Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence (PINNACLE) registry were studied, including 35 563 patients enrolled in MA and 172 732 enrolled in FFS Medicare. Data were analyzed from March to July 2018. Exposures: Medicare Advantage enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Medication prescription patterns among eligible patients and intermediate outcomes, including blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Results: Of the 35 563 patients with CAD enrolled in MA, 20 193 (56.8%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 76.7 (7.6) years; of the 172 732 patients with CAD enrolled in FFS Medicare, 100 025 (57.9%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 77.5 (8.0) years. Patients enrolled in MA were younger, less likely to be white, and more likely to be female and to have heart failure, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease compared with those enrolled in FFS Medicare. Compared with FFS Medicare beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries were more likely to receive secondary prevention treatments, including ß-blockers (80.6% vs 78.8%; P < .001), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (70.7% vs 65.1%; P < .001), and statins (68.4% vs 64.5%; P < .001). Patients enrolled in MA were also more likely to receive all 3 medications when eligible (48.9% vs 40.4%; P < .001). After adjustment, MA beneficiaries had higher odds of receiving guideline-recommended therapy compared with FFS Medicare beneficiaries for ß-blockers (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.17; P = .002), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.19; P < .001), and all 3 medications (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.001-1.50; P = .047). There were no significant differences in intermediate outcomes between those enrolled in MA and FFS Medicare, including systolic and diastolic blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with CAD in the PINNACLE registry, MA beneficiaries had more comorbidities than FFS Medicare beneficiaries and were more likely to receive secondary prevention treatments. However, this did not translate into differences in intermediate outcomes. These findings suggest that MA plans may drive improvements in process-based quality measures for Medicare beneficiaries, although this may have a limited effect on improving patient outcomes over FFS Medicare.

Patient Experiences with Chronic Care Management Services and Fees: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: As of 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) pays for chronic care management (CCM) services for Medicare beneficiaries with two or more chronic conditions. CMS requires eligible providers to first obtain patients' verbal (and, prior to 2017, written) consent, to ensure that patients who participate in CCM services understand their rights and agree to any applicable cost sharing. CCM providers must also enhance patients' access to continuous and coordinated care, including ongoing care management. OBJECTIVE: To understand patients' perceptions of the consent process, their reasons for choosing to participate, and their experiences receiving CCM services. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with Medicare beneficiaries who had two or more CCM claims submitted by an eligible provider. Beneficiaries were selected from a sampling frame of Medicare claims submitted between January and September 2015. KEY RESULTS: Most patients reported no concerns about being asked to participate in CCM. The majority of patients had secondary insurance (or Medicaid) that covered any coinsurance for CCM and therefore could not say with certainty whether they would participate if they had to pay for CCM services out-of-pocket. Reasons for participating included having insurance that covered the copay and peace of mind about having access to the CCM team. Patients reported multiple benefits of participating in CCM services, including better access to their primary care team, improved continuity of care, and improved care coordination. Most patients reported no downside to participating in CCM services, although some felt they were relatively healthy and questioned whether they needed CCM services. CONCLUSIONS: These findings on patients' experiences participating in CCM services during the first 9 months of the policy's implementation can help providers and policymakers understand their perceived benefits and unintended consequences. Our findings also have implications for providers when approaching patients about CCM services.

Regional Variation in 30-Day Ischemic Stroke Outcomes for Medicare Beneficiaries Treated in Get With The Guidelines-Stroke Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: We explored regional variation in 30-day ischemic stroke mortality and readmission rates and the extent to which regional differences in patients, hospitals, healthcare resources, and a quality of care composite care measure explain the observed variation. METHODS AND RESULTS: This ecological analysis aggregated patient and hospital characteristics from the Get With The Guidelines-Stroke registry (2007-2011), healthcare resource data from the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care (2006), and Medicare fee-for-service data on 30-day mortality and readmissions (2007-2011) to the hospital referral region (HRR) level. We used linear regression to estimate adjusted HRR-level 30-day outcomes, to identify HRR-level characteristics associated with 30-day outcomes, and to describe which characteristics explained variation in 30-day outcomes. The mean adjusted HRR-level 30-day mortality and readmission rates were 10.3% (SD=1.1%) and 13.1% (SD=1.1%), respectively; a modest, negative correlation (r=-0.17; P=0.003) was found between one another. Demographics explained more variation in readmissions than mortality (25% versus 6%), but after accounting for demographics, comorbidities accounted for more variation in mortality compared with readmission rates (17% versus 7%). The combination of hospital characteristics and healthcare resources explained 11% and 16% of the variance in mortality and readmission rates, beyond patient characteristics. Most of the regional variation in mortality (65%) and readmission (50%) rates remained unexplained. CONCLUSIONS: Thirty-day mortality and readmission rates vary substantially across HRRs and exhibit an inverse relationship. While regional variation in 30-day outcomes were explained by patient and hospital factors differently, much of the regional variation in both outcomes remains unexplained.

Countervailing incentives in value-based payment.

Payment reform has been at the forefront of the movement toward higher-value care in the U.S. health care system. A common belief is that volume-based incentives embedded in fee-for-service need to be replaced with value-based payments. While this belief is well-intended, value-based payment also contains perverse incentives. In particular, behavioral economists have identified several features of individual decision making that reverse some of the typical recommendations for inducing desirable behavior through financial incentives. This paper discusses the countervailing incentives associated with four behavioral economic concepts: loss aversion, relative social ranking, inertia or status quo bias, and extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivation.

Comparing the Quality of Ambulatory Surgical Care for Skin Cancer in a Veterans Affairs Clinic and a Fee-For-Service Practice Using Clinical and Patient-Reported Measures.

The Institute of Medicine has identified serious deficiencies in the measurement of cancer care quality, including the effects on quality of life and patient experience. Moreover, comparisons of quality in Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VA) and other sites are timely now that many Veterans can choose where to seek care. To compare quality of ambulatory surgical care for keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) between a VA and fee-for-service (FFS) practice, we used unique clinical and patient-reported data from a comparative effectiveness study. Patients were enrolled in 1999-2000 and followed for a median of 7.2 years. The practices differed in a few process measures (e.g., median time between biopsy and treatment was 7.5 days longer at VA) but there were no substantial or consistent differences in clinical outcomes or a broad range of patient-reported outcomes. For example, 5-year tumor recurrence rates were equally low (3.6% [2.3-5.5] at VA and 3.4% [2.3-5.1] at FFS), and similar proportions of patients reported overall satisfaction at one year (78% at VA and 80% at FFS, P = 0.69). These results suggest that the quality of care for KC can be compared comprehensively in different health care systems, and suggest that quality of care for KC was similar at a VA and FFS setting.