Public versus Private Care in the Military Health System: Evidence From Low Back Pain Patients.

INTRODUCTION: There is a longstanding debate about whether health care is more efficiently provided by the public or private sector. The debate is particularly relevant to the Military Health System (MHS), which delivers care through a combination of publicly funded federal facilities and privately contracted providers. This study compares outcomes, treatments, and costs for MHS patients obtaining care for low back pain (LBP) from public versus private providers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was completed using TRICARE Prime claims data from April 2015 to December 2018. The cohort was identified using International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision and Tenth Revision diagnostic codes and then followed for 12 months after the index diagnosis to assess treatments, outcomes, and costs. Claims were classified as originating from either public or private providers. The primary outcome measure was resolution of LBP, defined as an absence of LBP diagnoses during the 6-to-12-month window following the index event. Instrumental variable models were used to assess the impact of care setting (i.e., private versus public), conditioning on the covariates. A regional measure of the fraction of private care was used as an instrument. RESULTS: Resolution of LBP was achieved for 79.7% of 144,866 patients in the cohort. No significant association was found between resolution of LBP and fraction of privately provided care. Higher fraction of private care was associated with a greater likelihood of opioid treatments (odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.02-1.46) and a lower likelihood of benzodiazepine (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45-0.70) and physical therapy (odds ratio 0.55; 95% CI, 0.42-0.74) treatments; manual therapy was not significantly associated with the fraction of private care. There was a significant negative association between the fraction of private care and cost (coefficient -0.27; 95% CI, -0.44, -0.10). CONCLUSION: This study found that privately provided care was associated with significantly higher opioid prescribing, less use of benzodiazepines and physical therapy, and lower costs. No systematic differences in outcomes (as measured by resolved cases) were identified. The findings suggest that publicly funded health care within the MHS context can attain quality comparable to privately provided care, although differences in treatment choices and costs point to possibilities for improved care within both systems.

A Regional Analysis of Low Back Pain Treatments in the Military Health System.

STUDY DESIGN: Claims-based analysis of cohorts of TRICARE Prime beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of utilization of 5 low back pain (LBP) treatments (physical therapy (PT), manual therapy, behavioral therapies, opioid, and benzodiazepine prescription) across catchment areas and assess their association with the resolution of LBP. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND: Guidelines support focusing on nonpharmacologic management for LBP and reducing opioid use. Little is known about patterns of care for LBP across the Military Health System. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Incident LBP diagnoses were identified data using the International Classification of Diseases ninth revision before October 2015 and 10th revision after October 2015; beneficiaries with "red flag" diagnoses and those stationed overseas, eligible for Medicare, or having other health insurance were excluded. After exclusions, there were 159,027 patients remained in the final analytic cohort across 73 catchment areas. Treatment was defined by catchment-level rates of treatment to avoid confounding by indication at the individual level; the primary outcome was the resolution of LBP defined as an absence of administrative claims for LBP during a 6 to 12-month period after the index diagnosis. RESULTS: Adjusted rates of opioid prescribing across catchment areas ranged from 15% to 28%, physical therapy from 17% to 39%, and manual therapy from 5% to 26%. Multivariate logistic regression models showed a negative and marginally significant association between opioid prescriptions and LBP resolution (odds ratio: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.93-1.00; P = 0.051) but no significant association with physical therapy, manual therapy, benzodiazepine prescription, or behavioral therapies. When the analysis was restricted to the subset of only active-duty beneficiaries, there was a stronger negative association between opioid prescription and LBP resolution (odds ratio: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial variability across catchment areas within TRICARE for the treatment of LBP. Higher rates of opioid prescription were associated with worse outcomes.

The role of comorbidities, medications, and social determinants of health in understanding urban-rural outcome differences among patients with heart failure.

PURPOSE: There is now a 20% disparity in all-cause, excess deaths between urban and rural areas, much of which is driven by disparities in cardiovascular death. We sought to explain the sources of these disparities for Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: Using a sample of Medicare Parts A, B, and D, we created a cohort of 389,528 fee-for-service beneficiaries with at least 1 heart failure hospitalization from 2008 to 2017. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality after discharge; 1-year mortality, readmissions, and return emergency room (ER) admissions were secondary outcomes. We used hierarchical, logistic regression modeling to determine the contribution of comorbidities, guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), and social determinants of health (SDOH) to outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality rates after hospital discharge were 6.3% in rural areas compared to 5.7% in urban regions (P < .001); after adjusting for patient health and GDMT receipt, the 30-day mortality odds ratio for rural residence was 1.201 (95% CI 1.164-1.239). Adding the SDOH measure reduced the odds ratio somewhat (1.140, 95% CI 1.103-1.178) but a gap remained. Readmission rates in rural areas were consistently lower for all model specifications, while ER admissions were consistently higher. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFrEF, living in a rural area is associated with an increased risk of death and return ER visits within 30 days of discharge from HF hospitalization. Differences in SDOH appear to partially explain mortality differences but the remaining gap may be the consequence of rural-urban differences in HF treatment.

Benefits and harms of oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation in nursing home residents with advanced dementia.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of older persons with dementia have atrial fibrillation (AF). Nearly all have stroke risks that exceed the guideline-recommended threshold for anticoagulation. Although individuals with dementia develop profound impairments and die from the disease, little evidence exists to guide anticoagulant discontinuation, and almost one-third of nursing home residents with advanced dementia and AF remain anticoagulated in the last 6 months of life. We aimed to quantify the benefits and harms of anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: Using Minimum Data Set and Medicare claims, we conducted a retrospective cohort study with 14,877 long-stay nursing home residents aged ≥66 between 2013 and 2018 who had advanced dementia and AF. We excluded individuals with venous thromboembolism and valvular heart disease. We measured anticoagulant exposure quarterly, using Medicare Part D claims. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke and serious bleeding. We performed survival analyses with multivariable adjustment and inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weighting. RESULTS: In the study sample, 72.0% were female, 82.7% were aged ≥80 years, and 13.5% were nonwhite. Mean CHA2 DS2 VASC score was 6.19 ± 1.58. In multivariable survival analysis, anticoagulation was associated with decreased risk of death (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.67-0.75) and increased bleeding risk (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02-1.29); the association with stroke risk was not significant (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.80-1.46). Results were similar in models with IPT weighting. While >50% of patients in both groups died within a year, median weighted survival was 76 days longer for anticoagulated individuals. CONCLUSION: Persons with advanced dementia and AF derive clinically modest life prolongation from anticoagulation, at the cost of elevated risk of bleeding. The relevance of this benefit is unclear in a group with high dementia-related mortality and for whom the primary goal is often comfort.

Complications and Mortality Following CRT-D Versus ICD Implants in Older Medicare Beneficiaries With Heart Failure.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the comparative effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) over implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) alone in older Medicare patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). BACKGROUND: Despite growing numbers of older patients with HFrEF, the benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in this group are largely unknown. METHODS: A cohort of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years of age with HFrEF and enrolled in Medicare Part D who underwent CRT-D or ICD implantation from January 2008 to August 2015 was identified. Beneficiaries were divided by age (65-74, 75-84, and 85+ years), and outcomes were compared between the CRT-D and ICD groups after inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: Compared with the ICD group, the CRT-D group was older and more likely to be White, be female, and have left bundle branch block. After weighting, overall complications were high across age and device groups (14%-20%). The 1-year mortality was high across all groups. In the 2 oldest age strata, the hazard of death was lower in the CRT-D group (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.86-0.95 and HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.72-0.90, respectively; P < 0.001); the hazard of heart failure hospitalization was lower for CRT-D vs ICD in the 85+ years age group (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74-0.92; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In older Medicare beneficiaries undergoing ICD with or without CRT, complications and 1-year mortality were high. Compared with ICD alone, CRT-D was associated with a lower hazard of mortality in patients ≥74 years of age and lower hazard of HF hospitalization in those ≥85 years of age. These findings support the use of CRT in eligible older patients undergoing ICD implantation.

Utilization Patterns and Outcomes of People With Diabetes and COVID-19: Evidence From United States Medicare Beneficiaries in 2020.

Objective: Determine differences in utilization patterns, disease severity, and outcomes between patients with and without diabetes mellitus diagnosed with COVID-19 in 2020. Research Design and Methods: We used an observational cohort comprised of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with a medical claim indicating a COVID-19 diagnosis. We performed inverse probability weighting between beneficiaries with and without diabetes to account for differences in socio-demographic characteristics and comorbidities. Results: In the unweighted comparison of beneficiaries, all characteristics were significantly different (P<0.001). Beneficiaries with diabetes were younger, more likely to be black, had more comorbidities, higher rates of Medicare-Medicaid dual-eligibility, and were less likely to be female. In the weighted sample, hospitalization rates for COVID-19 among beneficiaries with diabetes was higher (20.5% vs 17.1%; p < 0.001). Outcomes of hospitalizations were similarly worse among beneficiaries with diabetes: admissions to ICU during hospitalizations (7.78% vs. 6.11%; p < 0.001); in-hospital mortality (3.85% vs 2.93%; p < 0.001); and ICU mortality (2.41% vs 1.77%). Beneficiaries with diabetes had more ambulatory care visits (8.9 vs. 7.8, p < 0.001) and higher overall mortality (17.3% vs. 14.9%, p < 0.001) following COVID-19 diagnosis. Conclusion: Beneficiaries with diabetes and COVID-19 had higher rates of hospitalization, ICU use and overall mortality. While the mechanism of how diabetes impacts the severity of COVID-19 may not be fully understood, there are important clinical implications for persons with diabetes. A diagnosis of COVID-19 leads to greater financial and clinical burden than for their counterparts, persons without diabetes, including perhaps most significantly, higher death rates.