Incorporating Medicare Advantage Admissions Into the CMS Hospital-Wide Readmission Measure.

Importance: Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment is rapidly expanding, yet Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) claims-based hospital outcome measures, including readmission rates, have historically included only fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries. Objective: To assess the outcomes of incorporating MA data into the CMS claims-based FFS Hospital-Wide All-Cause Unplanned Readmission (HWR) measure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assessed differences in 30-day unadjusted readmission rates and demographic and risk adjustment variables for MA vs FFS admissions. Inpatient FFS and MA administrative claims data were extracted from the Integrated Data Repository for all admissions for Medicare beneficiaries from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019. Measure reliability and risk-standardized readmission rates were calculated for the FFS and MA cohort vs the FFS-only cohort, overall and within specialty subgroups (cardiorespiratory, cardiovascular, medicine, surgery, neurology), then changes in hospital performance quintiles were assessed after adding MA admissions. Main Outcome and Measure: Risk-standardized readmission rates. Results: The cohort included 11 029 470 admissions (4 077 633 [37.0%] MA; 6 044 060 [54.8%] female; mean [SD] age, 77.7 [8.2] years). Unadjusted readmission rates were slightly higher for MA vs FFS admissions (15.7% vs 15.4%), yet comorbidities were generally lower among MA beneficiaries. Test-retest reliability for the FFS and MA cohort was higher than for the FFS-only cohort (0.78 vs 0.73) and signal-to-noise reliability increased in each specialty subgroup. Mean hospital risk-standardized readmission rates were similar for the FFS and MA cohort and FFS-only cohorts (15.5% vs 15.3%); this trend was consistent across the 5 specialty subgroups. After adding MA admissions to the FFS-only HWR measure, 1489 hospitals (33.1%) had their performance quintile ranking changed. As their proportion of MA admissions increased, more hospitals experienced a change in their performance quintile ranking (147 hospitals [16.3%] in the lowest quintile of percentage MA admissions; 408 [45.3%] in the highest). The combined cohort added 63 hospitals eligible for public reporting and more than 4 million admissions to the measure. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, adding MA admissions to the HWR measure was associated with improved measure reliability and precision and enabled the inclusion of more hospitals and beneficiaries. After MA admissions were included, 1 in 3 hospitals had their performance quintile changed, with the greatest shifts among hospitals with a high percentage of MA admissions.

Artificial intelligence in Medicare: utilization, spending, and access to AI-enabled clinical software.

OBJECTIVES: In 2018, CMS established reimbursement for the first Medicare-covered artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled clinical software: CT fractional flow reserve (FFRCT) to assist in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. This study quantified Medicare utilization of and spending on FFRCT from 2018 through 2022 and characterized adopting hospitals, clinicians, and patients. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis, using 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims data, of the hospitals, clinicians, and patients who performed or received coronary CT angiography with or without FFRCT. METHODS: We measured annual trends in utilization of and spending on FFRCT among hospitals and clinicians from 2018 through 2022. Characteristics of FFRCT-adopting and nonadopting hospitals and clinicians were compared, as well as the characteristics of patients who received FFRCT vs those who did not. RESULTS: From 2018 to 2022, FFRCT billing volume in Medicare increased more than 11-fold (from 1083 to 12,363 claims). Compared with nonbilling hospitals, FFRCT-billing hospitals were more likely to be larger, part of a health system, nonprofit, and financially profitable. FFRCT-billing clinicians worked in larger group practices and were more likely to be cardiac specialists. FFRCT-receiving patients were more likely to be male and White and less likely to be dually enrolled in Medicaid or receiving disability benefits. CONCLUSIONS: In the initial 5 years of Medicare reimbursement for FFRCT, growth was concentrated among well-resourced hospitals and clinicians. As Medicare begins to reimburse clinicians for the use of AI-enabled clinical software such as FFRCT, it is crucial to monitor the diffusion of these services to ensure equal access.

Receipt of Diabetes Specialty Care and Management Services by Older Adults With Diabetes in the U.S., 2015-2019: An Analysis of Medicare Fee-for-Service Claims.

OBJECTIVE: We characterized the receipt of diabetes specialty care and management services among older adults with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using a 20% random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years, we analyzed cohorts of type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) with history of severe hypoglycemia (HoH), and all other T2D annually from 2015 to 2019. Outcomes were receipt of office-based endocrinology care, diabetes education, outpatient diabetes health services, excluding those provided in primary care, and any of the aforementioned services. RESULTS: In the T1D cohort, receipt of endocrinology care and any service increased from 25.9% and 29.2% in 2015 to 32.7% and 37.4% in 2019, respectively. In the T2D with HoH cohort, receipt of endocrinology care and any service was 13.9% and 16.4% in 2015, with minimal increases. Age, race/ethnicity, residential setting, and income were associated with receiving care. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that many older adults may not receive specialty diabetes care and underscore health disparities.

Is Electronic Information Exchange Associated With Lower 30-Day Readmission Charges Among Medicare Beneficiaries?

OBJECTIVE: Fragmented readmissions, when admission and readmission occur at different hospitals, are associated with increased charges compared with nonfragmented readmissions. We assessed if hospital participation in health information exchange (HIE) was associated with differences in total charges in fragmented readmissions. DATA SOURCE: Medicare Fee-for-Service Data, 2018. STUDY DESIGN: We used generalized linear models with hospital referral region and readmission month fixed effects to assess relationships between information sharing (same HIE, different HIEs, and no HIE available) and total charges of 30-day readmissions among fragmented readmissions; analyses were adjusted for patient-level clinical/demographic characteristics and hospital-level characteristics. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: We included beneficiaries with a hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, syncope, urinary tract infection, dehydration, or behavioral issues with a 30-day readmission for any reason. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In all, 279,729 admission-readmission pairs were included, 27% of which were fragmented (n=75,438); average charges of fragmented readmissions were $64,897-$71,606. Compared with fragmented readmissions where no HIE was available, the average marginal effects of same-HIE and different-HIE admission-readmission pairs were -$2329.55 (95% CI: -7333.73, 2674.62) and -$3905.20 (95% CI: -7592.85, -307.54), respectively. While the average marginal effects of different-HIE pairs were lower than those for no-HIE fragmented readmissions, the average marginal effects of same-HIE and different-HIE pairs were not significantly different from each other. CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistical differences in charges between fragmented readmissions to hospitals that share an HIE or that do not share an HIE compared with hospitals with no HIE available.

Telehealth Expansion and Medicare Beneficiaries' Care Quality and Access.

Importance: Understanding the association of telehealth use with health care outcomes is fundamental to determining whether telehealth waivers implemented during the COVID-19 public health emergency should be made permanent. The current literature has yielded inconclusive findings owing to its focus on select states, practices, or health care systems. Objective: To estimate the association of telehealth use with outcomes for all Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries by comparing hospital service areas (HSAs) with different levels of telehealth use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This US population-based, retrospective cohort study was conducted from July 2022 to April 2023. Participants included Medicare claims of beneficiaries attributed to HSAs with FFS enrollment in Parts A and B. Exposures: Low, medium, or high tercile of telehealth use created by ranking HSAs according to the number of telehealth visits per 1000 beneficiaries. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were quality (ambulatory care-sensitive [ACS] hospitalizations and emergency department [ED] visits per 1000 FFS beneficiaries), access to care (clinician encounters per FFS beneficiary), and cost (total cost of care for Part A and/or B services per FFS Medicare beneficiary) determined with a difference-in-difference analysis. Results: In this cohort study of claims from approximately 30 million Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age in 2019, 71.04 [1.67] years; mean [SD] percentage female in 2019, 53.83% [2.14%]) within 3436 HSAs, between the second half of 2019 and the second half of 2021, mean ACS hospitalizations and ED visits declined sharply, mean clinician encounters per beneficiary declined slightly, and mean total cost of care per beneficiary per semester increased slightly. Compared with the low group, the high group had more ACS hospitalizations (1.63 additional hospitalizations per 1000 beneficiaries; 95% CI, 1.03-2.22 hospitalizations), more clinician encounters (0.30 additional encounters per beneficiary per semester; 95% CI, 0.23-0.38 encounters), and higher total cost of care ($164.99 higher cost per beneficiary per semester; 95% CI, $101.03-$228.96). There was no statistically significant difference in ACS ED visits between the low and high groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries across all 3436 HSAs, high levels of telehealth use were associated with more clinician encounters, more ACS hospitalizations, and higher total health care costs. COVID-19 cases were still high during the period of study, which suggests that these findings partially reflect a higher capacity for providing health services in HSAs with higher telehealth intensity than other HSAs.

Long-term outcomes after rehabilitation in Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Financial incentives in capitated Medicare Advantage (MA) plans may lead to inadequate rehabilitation. We therefore investigated if MA enrollees had worse long-term physical performance and functional outcomes after rehabilitation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries in the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study. We compared MA and fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries reporting rehabilitation between 2014 and 2017 by change in (1) Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and (2) NHATS-derived Functional Independence Measure (FIM) from the previous year, using t-tests incorporating inverse-probability weighting and complex survey design. Secondary outcomes were self-reported: (1) improved function during rehabilitation, (2) worse function since rehabilitation ended, (3) meeting rehabilitation goals, and (4) meeting insurance limits. RESULTS: Among 738 MA and 1488 FFS participants, weighted mean age was 76 years (SD 7.0), 59% were female, and 9% had probable dementia. MA beneficiaries were more likely to be Black (9% vs. 6%) or Hispanic/other race (15% vs. 10%), be on Medicaid (14% vs. 10%), have lower income (median $35,000 vs. $48,000), and receive <1 month of rehabilitation (30% vs. 23%). MA beneficiaries had a similar decline in SPPB (-0.46 [SD 1.8] vs. -0.21 [SD 2.7], p-value 0.069) and adapted FIM (-1.05 [SD 3.7] vs. -1.13 [SD 5.45], p-value 0.764) compared to FFS. MA beneficiaries were less likely to report improved function during rehabilitation (61% [95% CI 56-67] vs. 70% [95% CI 67-74], p-value 0.006). Other outcomes and analyses restricted to inpatient rehabilitation participants were non-significant. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: MA enrollment was associated with lower likelihood of self-reported functional improvement during rehabilitation but no clinically or statistically significant differences in annual changes of physical performance or function. As MA expands, future studies must monitor implications on rehabilitation coverage and older adults' independence.

Trends in the Characteristics and Outcomes of Older Medicare Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury Treated in Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities: 2013 to 2018.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics and outcomes of older (65+) Medicare beneficiaries with traumatic brain injury (TBI) treated in inpatient rehabilitation facilities between 2013 and 2018. DESIGN: Descriptive study using IRF Patient Assessment Instrument (IRF-PAI) data reporting trends of the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and outcomes of inpatient rehabilitation facilities Medicare patients with TBI. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation facilities in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 99,804 older Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage patients with TBI (N=99,804). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Length of stay, self-care, and mobility functional outcomes, discharge destination. RESULTS: The number of older Medicare beneficiaries with TBI treated in inpatient rehabilitation facilities increased from 14,657 in 2013 to 18,791 in 2018, an increase of 28.2%. In addition to this overall increase in patients, we also found the percentage of men increased slightly (52.9% to 54.8%), there was a higher percentage of patients with tier 3 comorbidities, there was a decrease in the variability of length of stay, there was slightly more self-care and mobility improvement and a slightly higher percentage of patients discharged to the community (67.8% in 2013 and 71.6% in 2018). Newer standardized data showed that prior to the injury, more than one-third used a walker and more than three-quarters had a history of recent falls. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2013 and 2018, the number of Medicare beneficiaries with TBI treated in IRFs increased by approximately 28%. The characteristics of IRF older patients with TBI changed between 2013 and 2018 toward a slightly higher proportion of men, more comorbidities, and a higher percentage being discharged home after inpatient rehabilitation.

The Medicare Care Choices Model was associated with reductions in disparities in the use of hospice care for Medicare beneficiaries with terminal illness.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of the Medicare Care Choices Model (MCCM) on disparities in hospice use and quality of end-of-life care for Medicare beneficiaries from underserved groups-those from racial and ethnic minority groups, dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, or living in rural areas. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Medicare enrollment and claims data from 2013 to 2021 for terminally ill Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries nationwide. STUDY DESIGN: Through MCCM, terminally ill enrolled Medicare beneficiaries received supportive and palliative care services from hospice providers concurrently with curative treatments. Using a matched comparison group, we estimated subgroup-specific effects on hospice use, days at home, and aggressive treatment and multiple emergency department visits in the last 30 days of life. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The sample included decedent Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in MCCM and a matched comparison group from the same geographic areas who met model eligibility criteria at time of enrollment: having a diagnosis of cancer, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or HIV/AIDS; living in the community; not enrolled in the Medicare hospice benefit in the previous 30 days; and having at least one hospital stay and three office visits in the previous 12 months. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Eligible beneficiaries from underserved groups were underrepresented in MCCM. MCCM increased enrollees' hospice use and the number of days at home and reduced aggressive treatment among all subgroups analyzed. MCCM also reduced disparities in hospice use by race and ethnicity and dual eligibility by 4.1 (90% credible interval [CI]: 1.3-6.1) and 2.4 (90% CI: 0.6-4.4) percentage points, respectively. It also reduced disparities in having multiple emergency department visits for rural enrollees by 1.3 (90% CI: 0.1-2.7) percentage points. CONCLUSIONS: MCCM increased hospice use and quality of end-of-life care for model enrollees from underserved groups and reduced disparities in hospice use and having multiple emergency department visits.

Trends of Surgery, Patient, and Surgeon Characteristics for Corneal Transplants in the Medicare Population From 2011 to 2020.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe recent trends in corneal transplants and patient and surgeon characteristics for corneal transplants that occurred in the Medicare population. METHODS: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study using Current Procedural Terminology codes. We identified Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) claims for different types of corneal transplant procedures performed on Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older from 2011 to 2020. Number and types of corneal transplants performed each year and patient and surgeon demographics and characteristics were analyzed. RESULTS: We analyzed 148,981 corneal transplants performed by 2972 surgeons within the study period. Most corneal transplants performed were endothelial keratoplasties (70.1%). Most patients were women (60.3%) and White (85.8%). 18.2% of patients lived in a rural area, whereas only 3.5% of transplants occurred in a rural area and 5% of surgeons practiced in a rural area. Male surgeons represented 77.8% of all surgeons and performed 84.9% of all corneal transplants in the study period. The proportion of corneal transplants performed by female surgeons gradually increased over time, from 12.1% in 2011 to 19.0% in 2020. The proportion of female surgeons also increased from 16.2% in 2011 to 23.8% in 2020. Most surgeons (67%) performed <6 corneal transplants per year. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of female corneal transplant surgeons has increased over time, women remain underrepresented in the surgical workforce. Further investigation should be conducted to identify the underlying reason and address the identified disparities within the landscape of corneal transplantation.

Effects of the Million Hearts Model on Myocardial Infarctions, Strokes, and Medicare Spending: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The Million Hearts Model paid health care organizations to assess and reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Model effects on long-term outcomes are unknown. Objective: To estimate model effects on first-time myocardial infarctions (MIs) and strokes and Medicare spending over a period up to 5 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic cluster-randomized trial ran from 2017 to 2021, with organizations assigned to a model intervention group or standard care control group. Randomized organizations included 516 US-based primary care and specialty practices, health centers, and hospital-based outpatient clinics participating voluntarily. Of these organizations, 342 entered patients into the study population, which included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 40 to 79 years with no previous MI or stroke and with high or medium CVD risk (a 10-year predicted probability of MI or stroke [ie, CVD risk score] ≥15%) in 2017-2018. Intervention: Organizations agreed to perform guideline-concordant care, including routine CVD risk assessment and cardiovascular care management for high-risk patients. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services paid organizations to calculate CVD risk scores for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. CMS further rewarded organizations for reducing risk among high-risk beneficiaries (CVD risk score ≥30%). Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included first-time CVD events (MIs, strokes, and transient ischemic attacks) identified in Medicare claims, combined first-time CVD events from claims and CVD deaths (coronary heart disease or cerebrovascular disease deaths) identified using the National Death Index, and Medicare Parts A and B spending for CVD events and overall. Outcomes were measured through 2021. Results: High- and medium-risk model intervention beneficiaries (n = 130 578) and standard care control beneficiaries (n = 88 286) were similar in age (median age, 72-73 y), sex (58%-59% men), race (7%-8% Black), and baseline CVD risk score (median, 24%). The probability of a first-time CVD event within 5 years was 0.3 percentage points lower for intervention beneficiaries than control beneficiaries (3.3% relative effect; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 [90% CI, 0.93-1.00]; P = .09). The 5-year probability of combined first-time CVD events and CVD deaths was 0.4 percentage points lower in the intervention group (4.2% relative effect; HR, 0.96 [90% CI, 0.93-0.99]; P = .02). Medicare spending for CVD events was similar between the groups (effect estimate, -$1.83 per beneficiary per month [90% CI, -$3.97 to -$0.30]; P = .16), as was overall Medicare spending including model payments (effect estimate, $2.11 per beneficiary per month [90% CI, -$16.66 to $20.89]; P = .85). Conclusions and Relevance: The Million Hearts Model, which encouraged and paid for CVD risk assessment and reduction, reduced first-time MIs and strokes. Results support guidelines to use risk scores for CVD primary prevention. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04047147.

Prescription Drug Spending in Fee-for-Service Medicare, 2008-2019.

Importance: Prescription drug spending is a topic of increased interest to the public and policymakers. However, prior assessments have been limited by focusing on retail spending (Part D-covered drugs), omitting clinician-administered (Part B-covered) drug spending, or focusing on all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of their enrollment into prescription drug coverage. Objective: To estimate the proportion of health care spending contributed by prescription drugs and to assess spending for retail and clinician-administered prescriptions. Design, Setting, and Participants: Descriptive, serial, cross-sectional analysis of a 20% random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States from 2008 to 2019 who were continuously enrolled in Parts A (hospital), B (medical), and D (prescription drug) benefits, and not in Medicare Advantage. Exposure: Calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Net spending on retail (Part D-covered) and clinician-administered (Part B-covered) prescription drugs; prescription drug spending (spending on Part B-covered and Part D-covered drugs) as a percentage of total per-capita health care spending. Measures were adjusted for inflation and for postsale rebates (for Part D-covered drugs). Results: There were 3 201 284 beneficiaries enrolled in Parts A, B, and D in 2008 and 4 502 718 in 2019. In 2019, beneficiaries had a mean (SD) age of 71.7 (12.0) years, documented sex was female for 57.7%, and 69.5% had no low-income subsidies. Total per-capita spending was $16 345 in 2008 and $20 117 in 2019. Comparing 2008 with 2019, per-capita Part A spending was $7106 (95% CI, $7084-$7128) vs $7120 (95% CI, $7098-$7141), Part B drug spending was $720 (95% CI, $713-$728) vs $1641 (95% CI, $1629-$1653), Part B nondrug spending was $5113 (95% CI, $5105-$5122) vs $6702 (95% CI, $6692-$6712), and Part D net spending was $3122 (95% CI, $3117-$3127) vs $3477 (95% CI, $3466-$3489). The proportion of total annual spending attributed to prescription drugs increased from 24.0% in 2008 to 27.2% in 2019, net of estimated rebates and discounts. Conclusions and Relevance: In 2019, spending on prescription drugs represented approximately 27% of total spending among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part D, even after accounting for postsale rebates.

Patient characteristics associated with enrolment under voluntary programs implemented within fee-for-service systems in British Columbia and Quebec: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information on patient characteristics associated with enrolment under voluntary programs (e.g. incentive payments) implemented within fee-for-service systems. We explored patient characteristics associated with enrolment under these programs in British Columbia and Quebec. METHODS: We used linked administrative data and a cross-sectional design to compare people aged 40 years or more enrolled under voluntary programs to those who were eligible but not enrolled. We examined 2 programs in Quebec (enrolment of vulnerable patients with qualifying conditions [implemented in 2003] and enrolment of the general population [2009]) and 3 in BC (Chronic disease incentive [2003], Complex care incentive [2007] and enrolment of the general population [A GP for Me, 2013]). We used logistic regression to estimate the odds of enrolment by neighbourhood income, rural versus urban residence, previous treatment for mental illness, previous treatment for substance use disorder and use of health care services before program implementation, controlling for characteristics linked to program eligibility. RESULTS: In Quebec, we identified 1 569 010 people eligible for the vulnerable enrolment program (of whom 505 869 [32.2%] were enrolled within the first 2 yr of program implementation) and 2 394 923 for the general enrolment program (of whom 352 380 [14.7%] were enrolled within the first 2 yr). In BC, we identified 133 589 people eligible for the Chronic disease incentive, 47 619 for the Complex care incentive and 1 349 428 for A GP for Me; of these, 60 764 (45.5%), 28 273 (59.4%) and 1 066 714 (79.0%), respectively, were enrolled within the first 2 years. The odds of enrolment were higher in higher-income neighbourhoods for programs without enrolment criteria (adjusted odds ratio [OR] comparing highest to lowest quintiles 1.21 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-1.23] in Quebec and 1.67 [95% CI 1.64-1.69] in BC) but were similar across neighbourhood income quintiles for programs with health-related eligibility criteria. The odds of enrolment by urban versus rural location varied by program. People treated for substance use disorders had lower odds of enrolment in all programs (adjusted OR 0.60-0.72). Compared to people eligible but not enrolled, those enrolled had similar or higher numbers of primary care visits and longitudinal continuity of care in the year before enrolment. INTERPRETATION: People living in lower-income neighbourhoods and those treated for substance use disorders were less likely than people in higher-income neighbourhoods and those not treated for such disorders to be enrolled in programs without health-related eligibility criteria. Other strategies are needed to promote equitable access to primary care.

Trends in US Ambulatory Care Patterns During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2019-2021.

Importance: Following reductions in US ambulatory care early in the pandemic, it remains unclear whether care consistently returned to expected rates across insurance types and services. Objective: To assess whether patients with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility had significantly lower than expected return to use of ambulatory care rates than patients with commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service insurance. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study examining ambulatory care service patterns from January 1, 2019, through February 28, 2021, claims data from multiple US payers were combined using the Milliman MedInsight research database. Using a difference-in-differences design, the extent to which utilization during the pandemic differed from expected rates had the pandemic not occurred was estimated. Changes in utilization rates between January and February 2020 and each subsequent 2-month time frame during the pandemic were compared with the changes in the corresponding months from the year prior. Age- and sex-adjusted Poisson regression models of monthly utilization counts were used, offsetting for total patient-months and stratifying by service and insurance type. Exposures: Patients with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility compared with patients with commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service insurance, respectively. Main Outcomes and Measures: Utilization rates per 100 people for 6 services: emergency department, office and urgent care, behavioral health, screening colonoscopies, screening mammograms, and contraception counseling or HIV screening. Results: More than 14.5 million US adults were included (mean age, 52.7 years; 54.9% women). In the March-April 2020 time frame, the combined use of 6 ambulatory services declined to 67.0% (95% CI, 66.9%-67.1%) of expected rates, but returned to 96.7% (95% CI, 96.6%-96.8%) of expected rates by the November-December 2020 time frame. During the second COVID-19 wave in the January-February 2021 time frame, overall utilization again declined to 86.2% (95% CI, 86.1%-86.3%) of expected rates, with colonoscopy remaining at 65.0% (95% CI, 64.1%-65.9%) and mammography at 79.2% (95% CI, 78.5%-79.8%) of expected rates. By the January-February 2021 time frame, overall utilization returned to expected rates as follows: patients with Medicaid at 78.4% (95% CI, 78.2%-78.7%), Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility at 73.3% (95% CI, 72.8%-73.8%), commercial at 90.7% (95% CI, 90.5%-90.9%), Medicare Advantage at 83.2% (95% CI, 81.7%-82.2%), and Medicare fee-for-service at 82.0% (95% CI, 81.7%-82.2%; P < .001; comparing return to expected utilization rates among patients with Medicaid and Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility, respectively, with each of the other insurance types). Conclusions and Relevance: Between March 2020 and February 2021, aggregate use of 6 ambulatory care services increased after the preceding decrease in utilization that followed the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the rate of increase in use of these ambulatory care services was significantly lower for participants with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility than for those insured by commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service.

Weak correlations in health services research: Weak relationships or common error?

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the correlation between a provider's effect on one population of patients and the same provider's effect on another population is underestimated if the effects for each population are estimated separately as opposed to being jointly modeled as random effects, and to characterize how the impact of the estimation procedure varies with sample size. DATA SOURCES: Medicare claims and enrollment data on emergency department (ED) visits, including patient characteristics, the patient's hospitalization status, and identification of the doctor responsible for the decision to hospitalize the patient. STUDY DESIGN: We used a three-pronged investigation consisting of analytical derivation, simulation experiments, and analysis of administrative data to demonstrate the fallibility of stratified estimation. Under each investigation method, results are compared between the joint modeling approach to those based on stratified analyses. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We used data on ED visits from administrative claims from traditional (fee-for-service) Medicare from January 2012 through September 2015. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The simulation analysis demonstrates that the joint modeling approach is generally close to unbiased, whereas the stratified approach can be severely biased in small samples, a consequence of joint modeling benefitting from bivariate shrinkage and the stratified approach being compromised by measurement error. In the administrative data analyses, the estimated correlation of doctor admission tendencies between female and male patients was estimated to be 0.98 under the joint model but only 0.38 using stratified estimation. The analogous correlations for White and non-White patients are 0.99 and 0.28 and for Medicaid dual-eligible and non-dual-eligible patients are 0.99 and 0.31, respectively. These results are consistent with the analytical derivations. CONCLUSIONS: Joint modeling targets the parameter of primary interest. In the case of population correlations, it yields estimates that are substantially less biased and higher in magnitude than naive estimators that post-process the estimates obtained from stratified models.

Plastic Surgeon Financial Compensation-Incentivization Models in Surgical Care Delivery: The Past, Present, and Future.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons are critical for the success of any health care enterprise. However, few studies have examined the potential impact of value-based care on surgeon compensation. METHODS: This review presents value-based financial incentive models that will shape the future of surgeon compensation. The following incentivization models will be discussed: pay-for-reporting, pay-for-performance, pay-for-patient-safety, bundled payments, and pay-for-academic-productivity. Moreover, the authors suggest the application of the congruence model-a model developed to help business leaders understand the interplay of forces that shape the performance of their organizations-to determine surgeon compensation methods applicable in value-based care-centric environments. RESULTS: The application of research in organizational behavior can assist health care leaders in developing surgeon compensation models optimized for value-based care. Health care leaders can utilize the congruence model to determine total surgeon compensation, proportion of compensation that is short term versus long term, proportion of compensation that is fixed versus variable, and proportion of compensation based on seniority versus performance. CONCLUSION: This review provides a framework extensively studied by researchers in organizational behavior that can be utilized when designing surgeon financial compensation plans for any health care entity shifting toward value-based care.

Reimbursement for Female-Specific Compared With Male-Specific Procedures Over Time.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether per-procedure work relative value units (RVUs) have changed over time and to compare time-based compensation for female-specific procedures compared with male-specific procedures. METHODS: Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program files for 2015-2018, we compared operative time and RVUs for 12 pairs of sex-specific procedures. Procedures were matched to be anatomically and technically similar. Procedure-assigned RVUs in 2015 were compared with 1997. Procedure compensation was determined using median dollars per RVU provided in SullivanCotter's 2018 Physician Compensation and Productivity Survey. This was compared with specialty-specific McGraw-Hill per-RVU data from 1994. Statistical analysis was performed with chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: A total of 12,120 patients underwent 6,217 male-specific procedures and 5,903 female-specific procedures. Male-specific procedures had a median (interquartile range) RVU of 25.2 (21.4-25.2), compared with 7.5 (7.5-23.4) for female-specific procedures (P<.001). Male-specific procedures were 79 minutes longer (median [interquartile range] 136 minutes [98-186] vs 57 minutes [25-125], P<.001). Female-specific procedures were reimbursed at a higher hourly rate (10.6 RVU/hour [7.2-16.2] vs 9.7 RVU/hour [7.4-12.8], P<.001). However, male-specific procedures were better reimbursed ($599/h [$457-790] vs $555/h [$377-843], P<.001). Overall, per-procedure RVUs for male-specific surgeries have increased 13%, whereas, for female-specific surgeries, per-procedure RVUs have increased 26%. Reimbursement per RVU for male-specific procedures has decreased 8% ($67.30 to $61.65), whereas for female-specific procedures it has increased 14% ($44.50 to $52.02). CONCLUSION: Increases in RVUs and specialty-specific compensation have resulted in more equitable reimbursement for female-specific procedures. However, even with these changes, there is a lower relative value of work, driven by specialty-specific compensation rates, for procedures performed for women-only compared with equivalent men-only procedures.

Primary care physicians' perceptions of the role of alternative payment models in recruitment and retention in rural Alberta: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Despite well-documented challenges in recruiting physicians to rural practice, few Canadian studies have described the role physician payment models may play in attracting and retaining physicians to rural practice. This study examined the perspectives of rural primary care physicians on the factors that attract and retain physicians in rural locations, including the role that alternative payment models (APMs) might play. METHODS: This was a qualitative study involving in-depth, open-ended interviews with rural primary care physicians practising under fee-for-service (FFS) models and APMs in Alberta, Canada. Participants were recruited from the Rural Health Professions Action Plan member list (consisting of physicians practising in rural or remote locations in Alberta) and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta online database. Interviews were conducted April to June 2020, and data were analyzed using a thematic framework approach. RESULTS: Fourteen physicians were interviewed. There were 5 themes identified: factors that attract physicians to rural practice, barriers and challenges associated with rural practice, the potential role of APMs in recruitment and retention, factors that physicians consider in deciding to change payment models, and physician perceptions of APMs compared with FFS models. Participants expressed that APMs may have some role to play in retaining rural physicians but identified professional challenges, and family-related and personal factors as key determinants. Most FFS physicians indicated that they were interested in exploring APMs provided specific concerns were addressed (e.g., clear and adequately compensated APM contracts, and physician involvement in the development of APMs). INTERPRETATION: Primary care physicians practising in rural regions in Alberta view payment models as one consideration among many in their decision to pursue rural practice. Alternative payment model contracts designed with the input of physicians may have a role to play in attracting and retaining physicians to rural practice.