Health Equity Adjustment and Hospital Performance in the Medicare Value-Based Purchasing Program.

Importance: Medicare's Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program will provide a health equity adjustment (HEA) to hospitals that have greater proportions of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and that offer high-quality care beginning in fiscal year 2026. However, which hospitals will benefit most from this policy change and to what extent are unknown. Objective: To estimate potential changes in hospital performance after HEA and examine hospital patient mix, structural, and geographic characteristics associated with receipt of increased payments. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed all 2676 hospitals participating in the HVBP program in fiscal year 2021. Publicly available data on program performance and hospital characteristics were linked to Medicare claims data on all inpatient stays for dual-eligible beneficiaries at each hospital to calculate HEA points and HVBP payment adjustments. Exposures: Hospital Value-Based Purchasing program HEA. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reclassification of HVBP bonus or penalty status and changes in payment adjustments across hospital characteristics. Results: Of 2676 hospitals participating in the HVBP program in fiscal year 2021, 1470 (54.9%) received bonuses and 1206 (45.1%) received penalties. After HEA, 102 hospitals (6.9%) were reclassified from bonus to penalty status, whereas 119 (9.9%) were reclassified from penalty to bonus status. At the hospital level, mean (SD) HVBP payment adjustments decreased by $4534 ($90 033) after HEA, ranging from a maximum reduction of $1 014 276 to a maximum increase of $1 523 765. At the aggregate level, net-positive changes in payment adjustments were largest among safety net hospitals ($28 971 708) and those caring for a higher proportion of Black patients ($15 468 445). The likelihood of experiencing increases in payment adjustments was significantly higher among safety net compared with non-safety net hospitals (574 of 683 [84.0%] vs 709 of 1993 [35.6%]; adjusted rate ratio [ARR], 2.04 [95% CI, 1.89-2.20]) and high-proportion Black hospitals compared with non-high-proportion Black hospitals (396 of 523 [75.7%] vs 887 of 2153 [41.2%]; ARR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.29-1.51]). Rural hospitals (374 of 612 [61.1%] vs 909 of 2064 [44.0%]; ARR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.30-1.58]), as well as those located in the South (598 of 1040 [57.5%] vs 192 of 439 [43.7%]; ARR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.10-1.42]) and in Medicaid expansion states (801 of 1651 [48.5%] vs 482 of 1025 [47.0%]; ARR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.06-1.28]), were also more likely to experience increased payment adjustments after HEA compared with their urban, Northeastern, and Medicaid nonexpansion state counterparts, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Medicare's implementation of HEA in the HVBP program will significantly reclassify hospital performance and redistribute program payments, with safety net and high-proportion Black hospitals benefiting most from this policy change. These findings suggest that HEA is an important strategy to ensure that value-based payment programs are more equitable.

Regional Economic Conditions and Preventable Hospitalization Among Older Patients With Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to explore the relationship between changes in regional economic conditions and quality of care-preventable hospitalization or death among older patients with diabetes at Veterans Health Administration (VHA), safety-net system for veterans. SUBJECTS: VHA patients aged 65 years and older with a diabetes diagnosis between July 2012 and June 2014, who had at least 1 primary care visit in the past year. MEASURES: County-level and state-level public data were used to characterize regional health insurance coverage and affluence surrounding the VHA facilities. Each patient was associated with a VHA facility and its corresponding regional market variables, and followed up to 48 months or until they experienced diabetes-related Prevention Quality Indicators or death. RESULTS: Discrete-time Cox proportional hazards models estimated that changes in regional market variables characterizing regional health insurance coverage and affluence were significant factors associated with preventable hospitalization or death. All regional market variables were combined into a demand index, where 1 SD decrease in the demand index was associated with a 2.0-point increase in predicted survival for an average patient at an average VHA facility. For comparison, a 1 SD increase in primary care capacity was associated with 4.7-point increase. CONCLUSIONS: Downturns in regional economic conditions could increase demand for VHA care and raise the risk of diabetes-related preventable hospitalization or death among older VHA patients diagnosed with diabetes. Safety-net hospitals may be unfairly penalized for lower quality of care when experiencing higher demand for care because of an economic downturn.

Thematic Analysis of Challenges of Care Coordination for Underinsured and Uninsured Cancer Survivors With Chronic Conditions.

Importance: Although a majority of underinsured and uninsured patients with cancer have multiple comorbidities, many lack consistent connections with a primary care team to manage chronic conditions during and after cancer treatment. This presents a major challenge to delivering high-quality comprehensive and coordinated care. Objective: To describe challenges and opportunities for coordinating care in an integrated safety-net system for patients with both cancer and other chronic conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multimodal qualitative study was conducted from May 2016 to July 2019 at a county-funded, vertically integrated safety-net health system including ambulatory oncology, urgent care, primary care, and specialty care. Participants were 93 health system stakeholders (clinicians, leaders, clinical, and administrative staff) strategically and snowball sampled for semistructured interviews and observation during meetings and daily processes of care. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively using a grounded theory approach, followed by systematic thematic analysis to organize data, review, and interpret comprehensive findings. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multilevel factors associated with experiences of coordinating care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions among oncology and primary care stakeholders. Results: Among interviews and observation of 93 health system stakeholders, system-level factors identified as being associated with care coordination included challenges to accessing primary care, lack of communication between oncology and primary care clinicians, and leadership awareness of care coordination challenges. Clinician-level factors included unclear role delineation and lack of clinician knowledge and preparedness to manage the effects of cancer and chronic conditions. Conclusions and Relevance: Primary care may play a critical role in delivering coordinated care for patients with cancer and chronic diseases. This study's findings suggest a need for care delivery strategies that bridge oncology and primary care by enhancing communication, better delineating roles and responsibilities across care teams, and improving clinician knowledge and preparedness to care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions. Expanding timely access to primary care is also key, albeit challenging in resource-limited safety-net settings.

Patient Factors Limit Colon Cancer Survival at Safety-Net Hospitals: A National Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Safety-net hospitals serve a vital role in society by providing care for vulnerable populations. Existing data regarding oncologic outcomes of patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals are limited and variable. The objective of this study was to delineate disparities in treatment and outcomes for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified 802,304 adult patients with colon adenocarcinoma from the National Cancer Database between 2004-2016. Patients were stratified according to safety-net burden of the treating hospital as previously described. Patient, tumor, facility, and treatment characteristics were compared between groups as were operative and short-term outcomes. Cox proportional hazards regression was utilized to compare overall survival between patients treated at high, medium, and low burden hospitals. RESULTS: Patients treated at safety-net hospitals were demographically distinct and presented with more advanced disease. They were also less likely to receive surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, negative resection margins, adequate lymphadenectomy, or a minimally invasive operative approach. On multivariate analysis adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, survival was inferior for patients at safety-net hospitals, even for those with stage 0 (in situ) disease. CONCLUSION: This analysis revealed inferior survival for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals, including those without invasive cancer. These findings suggest that unmeasured population differences may confound analyses and affect survival more than provider or treatment disparities.

Outcomes and Resource Use Associated With Acute Respiratory Failure in Safety Net Hospitals Across the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite the frequency and cost of hospitalizations for acute respiratory failure (ARF), the literature regarding the impact of hospital safety net burden on outcomes of these hospitalizations is sparse. RESEARCH QUESTION: How does safety net burden impact outcomes of ARF hospitalizations such as mortality, tracheostomy, and resource use? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample 2007-2017. All patients hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of ARF were tabulated using the International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th Revision codes, and safety net burden was calculated using previously published methodology. High- and low-burden hospitals were generated from proportions of Medicaid and uninsured patients. Trends were analyzed using a nonparametric rank-based test, whereas multivariate logistic and linear regression models were used to establish associations of safety net burden with key clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Of an estimated 8,941,334 hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of ARF, 33.9% were categorized as occurring at low-burden hospitals (LBHs) and 31.6% were categorized as occurring at high-burden hospitals (HBHs). In-hospital mortality significantly decreased at HBHs (22.8%-12.6%; nonparametric trend [nptrend] < .001) and LBHs (22.0%-10.9%; nptrend < .001) over the study period, as did tracheostomy placement (HBH, 5.6%-1.3%; LBH, 3.5%-0.8%; all nptrend <.001). After adjustment for patient and hospital factors, an HBH was associated with increased odds of mortality (adjusted OR [AOR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.10-1.12) and tracheostomy use (AOR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.29-1.37), as well as greater hospitalization costs (ß coefficient, +$1,083; 95% CI, $882-$1,294) and longer lengths of stay (ß coefficient, +3.3 days; 95% CI, 3.2-3.3 days). INTERPRETATION: After accounting for differences between patient cohorts, high safety net burden was associated independently with inferior clinical outcomes and increased costs after ARF hospitalizations. These findings emphasize the need for health care reform to ameliorate disparities within these safety net centers, which treat our most vulnerable populations.

The implementation cost of a safety-net hospital program addressing social needs in Atlanta.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the cost of integrating social needs activities into a health care program that works toward health equity by addressing socioeconomic barriers. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Costs for a heart failure health care program based in a safety-net hospital were reported by program staff for the program year May 2018-April 2019. Additional data sources included hospital records, invoices, and staff survey. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional, case study of a program that includes health education, outpatient care, financial counseling and free medication; transportation and home services for those most in need; and connections to other social services. Program costs were summarized overall and for mutually exclusive categories: health care program (fixed and variable) and social needs activities. DATA COLLECTION: Program cost data were collected using a activity-based, micro-costing approach. In addition, we conducted a survey that was completed by key staff to understand time allocation. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Program costs were approximately $1.33 million, and the annual per patient cost was $1455. Thirty percent of the program costs was for social needs activities: 18% for 30-day supply of medications and addressing socioeconomic barriers to medication adherence, 18% for mobile health services (outpatient home visits), 53% for navigating services through a financial counselor and community health worker, and 12% for transportation to visits and addressing transportation barriers. Most of the program costs were for personnel: 92% of the health care program fixed, 95% of the health care program variable, and 78% of social needs activities. DISCUSSION: Historically, social and health care services are funded by different systems and have not been integrated. We estimate the cost of implementing social needs activities into a health care program. This work can inform implementation for hospitals attempting to address social determinants of health and social needs in their patient population.

Simple Nephrectomy in a Tertiary Care Safety Net Hospital-Patient Characteristics, Causes, Cost, and Renal Function Implications.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate factors associated with simple nephrectomy at a safety net hospital with a diverse patient population and large catchment area. Simple nephrectomy is an underreported surgery. Performance of simple nephrectomy may represent a failure of management of underlying causes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of simple nephrectomies performed at a major urban safety net hospital from 2014 to 2019. Detailed demographic, surgical, and renal functional outcomes were abstracted. We assessed the medical and social factors leading to performance of simple nephrectomy and report contemporaneous perception of preventability of the simple nephrectomy by the surgeon. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients underwent simple nephrectomy during the study period; 55% were non-white, 77% were women, and the median age at time of surgery was 46 years. The most common medical factors contributing to simple nephrectomy were stone disease in 55.3%, followed by retained ureteral stent (30.6%) and stricture (30.6%). The most common social factors were lack of insurance (58.5%), substance abuse issues (32.3%), mental health issues (24.6%), and immigration status (18.5%). In 38.8% of cases, the provider felt the surgery was preventable if medical factors leading to simple nephrectomy were properly addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Simple nephrectomy is a common surgery in the safety net hospital setting. Both medical and sociologic factors can lead to simple nephrectomy, and awareness of these factors can lead efforts to mitigate them. This review has led to the implementation of strategies to minimize occurrences of retained stents in our patients.

Do safety-net hospitals provide equitable care after decompressive surgery for acute cauda equina syndrome?

INTRODUCTION: Safety-net hospitals provide care to a substantial share of disadvantaged patient populations. Whether disparities exist between safety-net hospitals and their counterparts in performing emergent neurosurgical procedures has not yet been examined. OBJECTIVE: We used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), a national all-payer inpatient healthcare database, to determine whether safety-net hospitals provide equitable care after decompressive surgery for acute cauda equina syndrome (CES). METHODS: The NIS from 2002 to 2011 was queried for patients with a diagnosis of acute CES who received decompressive surgery. Hospital safety-net burden was designated as low (LBH), medium (MBH), or high (HBH) based on the proportion of inpatient admissions that were billed as Medicaid, self-pay, or charity care. Etiologies of CES were classified as degenerative, neoplastic, trauma, and infectious. Significance was defined at p < 0.01. RESULTS: A total of 5607 admissions were included in this analysis. HBHs were more likely than LBHs to treat patients who were Black, Hispanic, on Medicaid, or had a traumatic CES etiology (p < 0.001). After adjusting for patient, hospital, and clinical factors treatment at an HBH was not associated with greater inpatient adverse events (p = 0.611) or LOS (p = 0.082), but was associated with greater inflation-adjusted admission cost (p = 0.001). DISCUSSION: Emergent decompressive surgery for CES performed at SNHs is associated with greater inpatient costs, but not greater inpatient adverse events or LOS. Differences in workflows at SNHs may be the drivers of these disparities in cost and warrant further investigation.

Hospital Safety-Net Burden Is Associated With Increased Inpatient Mortality and Perioperative Complications After Colectomy.

BACKGROUND: Colectomies are common yet costly, with high surgical-site infection rates. Safety-net hospitals (SNHs) carry a large proportion of uninsured or Medicaid-insured patients, which has been associated with poorer surgical outcomes. Few studies have examined the effect of safety-net burden (SNB) status on colectomy outcomes. We aimed to quantify the independent effects of hospital SNB and surgical site infection (SSI) status on colectomy outcomes, as well as the interaction effect between SSIs and SNB. METHODS: We used the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's State Inpatient Databases for California, Florida, New York, Maryland, and Kentucky. We included 459,568 colectomies (2009 to 2014) for analysis, excluding patients age <18 y and rectal cases. The primary and secondary outcomes were inpatient mortality and complications, respectively. RESULTS: Adjusting for patient, procedure, and hospital factors, colectomy patients were more likely to die in-hospital at high-burden SNHs (adjusted OR [aOR]: 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-1.51, P < 0.001), compared with low SNB hospitals and to experience perioperative complications (aOR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.04-1.20, P < 0.01). Colectomy patients with SSIs also had greater odds of in-hospital mortality (aOR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.83-2.02, P < 0.001) and complications (aOR: 3.65, 95% CI: 3.55-3.75, P < 0.001) compared with those without infections. Patients treated at SNHs who developed a SSI were even more likely to have an additional perioperative complication (aOR: 4.33, 95% CI: 3.98-4.71, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that colectomy patients at SNHs have poorer outcomes, and for patients with SSIs, this disparity was even more pronounced in the likelihood for a complication. SNB should be recognized as a significant hospital-level factor affecting colectomy outcomes, with SSIs as an important quality metric.

Disparities in inpatient costs and outcomes after elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at safety-net hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: Characterizing disparities that exist at safety-net hospitals is crucial for crafting national healthcare reform policies. Healthcare disparities in performing elective neurosurgical procedures like anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) at safety-net hospitals have not yet been examined. OBJECTIVE: We use the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), a national all-payer healthcare database of inpatient admissions, to determine whether safety-net hospitals can provide equitable care after elective ACDF. METHODS: The NIS from 2002 to 2011 was queried for patients who received ACDF in the context of degenerative spine disease. Hospital safety-net burden was designated as low (LBH), medium (MBH), or high (HBH) based on the proportion of inpatient admissions that were billed as Medicaid, self-pay, or charity care. Significance was set at p < 0.001. RESULTS: A total of 219,433 admissions were included in this analysis. HBHs were more likely than LBHs to treat patients who were Black, Hispanic, on Medicaid, or had myelopathy (p < 0.001). After adjusting for patient, hospital, and clinical factors, treatment at an HBH was associated with greater in-patient inflation-adjusted log cost (p < 0.001), but not with greater length of stay (LOS) (p = 0.04) or odds of an inpatient adverse event like death, incidental durotomy, surgical site infections, deep vein thromboses and others (OR 95 % CI = 0.86-1.42, p = 0.43) compared to LBHs. DISCUSSION: Safety net hospitals had greater inpatient costs, but no greater LOS or odds of inpatient adverse events after elective ACDF. These results demonstrate a need for policies that reduce the cost of performing ACDFs at SNHs.

Unintended Consequences of Health Care Reform: Impact of Changes in Payor Mix on Patient Safety Indicators.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion on patient safety metrics at the hospital level by expansion status, across varying levels of safety-net burden, and over time. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Medicaid expansion has raised concerns over the influx of additional medically and socially complex populations on hospital systems. Whether increases in Medicaid and uninsured payor mix impact hospital performance metrics remains largely unknown. We sought to evaluate the effects of expansion on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-endorsed Patient Safety Indicators (PSI-90). METHODS: Three hundred fifty-eight hospitals were identified using State Inpatient Databases (2012-2015) from 3 expansions (KY, MD, NJ) and 2 nonexpansion (FL, NC) states. PSI-90 scores were calculated using Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality modules. Hospital Medicaid and uninsured patients were categorized into safety-net burden (SNB) quartiles. Hospital-level, multivariate linear regression was performed to measure the effects of expansion and change in SNB on PSI-90. RESULTS: PSI-90 decreased (safety improved) over time across all hospitals (-5.2%), with comparable reductions in expansion versus nonexpansion states (-5.9% vs -4.7%, respectively; P = 0.441) and across high SNB hospitals within expansion versus nonexpansion states (-3.9% vs -5.2%, P = 0.639). Pre-ACA SNB quartile did not predict changes in PSI-90 post-ACA. However, when hospitals increased their SNB by 5%, they incurred significantly more safety events in expansion relative to nonexpansion states (+1.87% vs -14.0%, P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Despite overall improvement in patient safety, increased SNB was associated with increased safety events in expansion states. Accordingly, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services measures may unintentionally penalize hospitals with increased SNB following Medicaid expansion.