Disparities in Use of Novel Diabetes Medications by Insurance: A Nationally Representative Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Minority racial and ethnic populations have the highest prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus but lower use of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1ra), novel medications that reduce morbidity and mortality. Observed disparities may be due to differences in insurance coverage, which have variable cost-sharing, prior authorization, and formulary restrictions that influence medication access. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether racial/ethnic differences in SGLT2i and GLP1ra use differ by payer. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of 2018 and 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data. PARTICIPANTS: Adults ≥ 18 years old with diabetes. MAIN MEASURES: We defined insurance as private, Medicare, or Medicaid using ≥ 7 months of coverage in the calendar year. We defined race/ethnicity as White (non-Hispanic) vs non-White (including Hispanic). The primary outcome was use of ≥ 1 SGLT2i or GLP1ra medication. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the interaction between payer and race/ethnicity adjusted for cardiovascular, socioeconomic, and healthcare access factors. KEY RESULTS: We included 4997 adults, representing 24.8 million US adults annually with diabetes (mean age 63.6 years, 48.8% female, 38.8% non-White; 33.5% private insurance, 56.8% Medicare, 9.8% Medicaid). In our fully adjusted model, White individuals with private insurance had significantly more medication use versus non-White individuals (16.1% vs 8.3%, p < 0.001), which was similar for Medicare beneficiaries but more attenuated (14.7% vs 11.0%, p = 0.04). Medication rates were similar among Medicaid beneficiaries (10.0% vs 9.0%, p = 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Racial/ethnic disparities in novel diabetes medications were the largest among those with private insurance. There was no disparity among Medicaid enrollees, but overall prescription rates were the lowest. Given that disparities vary considerably by payer, differences in insurance coverage may account for the observed disparities in SGLT2i and GLP1ra use. Future studies are needed to assess racial/ethnic differences in novel diabetes use by insurance formulary restrictions and out-of-pocket cost-sharing.

Survival, Function, and Cognition After Hospitalization in Long-Term Acute Care Hospitals.

Importance: More than 70 000 Medicare beneficiaries receive care in long-term acute care hospitals (LTCHs) annually for prolonged acute illness. However, little is known about long-term functional and cognitive outcomes of middle-aged and older adults after hospitalization in an LTCH. Objective: To describe survival, functional, and cognitive status after LTCH hospitalization and to identify factors associated with an adverse outcome. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included middle-aged and older adults enrolled in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) with linked fee-for-service Medicare claims. Included participants were aged 50 years or older with an LTCH admission between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2016, with HRS interviews available before admission. Data were analyzed between November 1, 2021, and June 30, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Function and cognition were ascertained from HRS interviews conducted every 2 years. The primary outcome was death or severe impairment in the 2.5 years after LTCH hospitalization, defined as dependencies in 2 or more activities of daily living (ADLs) or dementia. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate associations with a priori selected risk factors including pre-LTCH survival prognosis (Lee index score), pre-LTCH impairment status, and illness severity characterized by receipt of mechanical ventilation and prolonged intensive care unit stay of 3 days or longer. Results: This study included 396 participants, with a median age of 75 (IQR, 68-82) years. Of the participants, 201 (51%) were women, 125 (28%) had severe impairment, and 318 (80%) died or survived with severe impairment (functional, cognitive, or both) within 2.5 years of LTCH hospitalization. After accounting for acute illness characteristics, prehospitalization survival prognosis as determined by the Lee index score and severe baseline impairment (functional, cognitive, or both) were associated with an increased likelihood of death or severe impairment in the 2.5 years after LTCH hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 3.2 [95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0] for a 5-point increase in Lee index score; and AOR, 4.5 [95% CI, 1.3 to 15.4] for severe vs no impairment). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, 4 of 5 middle-aged and older adults died or survived with severe impairment within 2.5 years of LTCH hospitalization. Better preadmission survival prognosis and functional and cognitive status were associated with lower risk of an adverse outcome, and these findings should inform decision-making for older adults with prolonged acute illness.

One-Year Recovery Among Survivors of Prolonged Severe COVID-19: A National Multicenter Cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Understanding the long-term effects of severe COVID-19 illness on survivors is essential for effective pandemic recovery planning. Therefore, we investigated impairments among hospitalized adults discharged to long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) for prolonged severe COVID-19 illness who survived 1 year. DESIGN: The Recovery After Transfer to an LTACH for COVID-19 (RAFT COVID) study was a national, multicenter, prospective longitudinal cohort study. SETTING AND PATIENTS: We included hospitalized English-speaking adults transferred to one of nine LTACHs in the United States between March 2020 and February 2021 and completed a survey. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Validated instruments for impairments and free response questions about recovering. Among 282 potentially eligible participants who provided permission to be contacted, 156 (55.3%) participated (median age, 65; 38.5% female; 61.3% in good prior health; median length of stay of 57 d; 77% mechanically ventilated for a median of 26 d; 42% had a tracheostomy). Approximately two-thirds (64%) had a persistent impairment, including physical (57%), respiratory (49%; 19% on supplemental oxygen), psychiatric (24%), and cognitive impairments (15%). Nearly half (47%) had two or more impairment types. Participants also experienced persistent debility from hospital-acquired complications, including mononeuropathies and pressure ulcers. Participants described protracted recovery, attributing improvements to exercise/rehabilitation, support, and time. While considered life-altering with 78.7% not returning to their usual health, participants expressed gratitude for recovering; 99% returned home and 60% of previously employed individuals returned to work. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly two-thirds of survivors of among the most prolonged severe COVID-19 illness had persistent impairments at 1 year that resembled post-intensive care syndrome after critical illness plus debility from hospital-acquired complications.

Characterizing patients hospitalized without an acute care indication: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations by patients who do not meet acute inpatient criteria are common and overburden healthcare systems. Studies have characterized these alternate levels of care (ALC) but have not delineated prolonged (pALC) versus short ALC (sALC) stays. OBJECTIVE: To descriptively compare pALC and sALC hospitalizations-groups we hypothesize have unique needs. DESIGNS, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective study of hospitalizations from March-April 2018 at an academic safety-net hospital. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Levels of care for pALC (>3 days) and sALC (1-3 days) were determined using InterQual©, an industry standard utilization review tool for determining the clinical appropriateness of hospitalization. We examined sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of 2365 hospitalizations, 215 (9.1%) were pALC, 277 (11.7%) were sALC, and 1873 (79.2%) had no ALC days. There were 17,683 hospital days included, and 28.3% (n = 5006) were considered ALC. Compared to patients with sALC, those with pALC were older and more likely to be publicly insured, experience homelessness, and have substance use or psychiatric comorbidities. Patients with pALC were more likely to be admitted for care meeting inpatient criteria (89.3% vs. 66.8%, p < .001), had significantly more ALC days (median 8 vs. 1 day, p < .001), and were less likely to be discharged to the community (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prolonged ALC stays were more likely to be admitted for acute care, had greater psychosocial complexity, significantly longer lengths of stay, and unique discharge needs. Given the complexity and needs for hospitalizations with pALC days, intensive interdisciplinary coordination and resource mobilization are necessary.

The effectiveness and value of AMX0035 and oral edaravone for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A summary from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, California Healthcare Foundation, The Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation, Arnold Ventures, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, AbbVie, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy Solutions, Express Scripts, Genentech/ Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health First, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer. Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, Sun Life Financial, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Mr Nikitin, Ms McKenna, Ms Richardson, and Drs Rind and Pearson are employed by ICER. Through their affiliated institutions, Drs Makam, Carlson, and Suh received funding from ICER for the work described in this summary.

Establishing Medicaid incentives for liberating nursing home patients from ventilators.

BACKGROUND: Chronic ventilator use in Tennessee nursing homes surged following 2010 increases in respiratory care payment rates. Tennessee's Medicaid program implemented multiple policies between 2014 and 2017 to promote ventilator liberation in 11 nursing homes, including quality reporting, on-site monitoring, and pay-for-performance incentives. METHODS: Using repeated cross-sectional analysis of Medicare and Medicaid nursing home claims (2011-2017), hospital discharge records (2010-2017), and nursing home quality reports (2015-2017), we examined how service use changed as Tennessee implemented policies designed to promote ventilator liberation in nursing homes. We measured the annual number of nursing home patients with ventilator-related service use; discharge destination of ventilated inpatients and percent of nursing home patients liberated from ventilators. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2014, the number of Medicare SNF and Medicaid nursing home patients with ventilator use increased more than sixfold. Among inpatients with prolonged mechanical ventilation, discharges to home decreased as discharges to nursing homes increased. As Tennessee implemented policy changes, ventilator-related service use moderately declined in nursing homes from a peak of 198 ventilated Medicare SNF patients in 2014 to 125 in 2017 and from 182 Medicaid patients with chronic ventilator use in 2014 to 145 patients in 2017. Nursing home weaning rates peaked at 49%-52% in 2015 and 2016, but declined to 26% by late 2017. Median number of days from admission to wean declined from 81 to 37 days. CONCLUSIONS: This value-based approach demonstrates the importance of designing payment models that target key patient outcomes like ventilator liberation.

National Prevalence of Alcohol and Other Substance Use Disorders Among Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalizations: NHAMCS 2014-2018.

BACKGROUND: Acute healthcare utilization attributed to alcohol use disorders (AUD) and other substance use disorders (SUD) is rising. OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence and characteristics of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations made by adults with AUD or SUD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational study with retrospective analysis of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2014 to 2018), a nationally representative survey of acute care visits with information on the presence of AUD or SUD abstracted from the medical chart. MAIN MEASURES: Outcome measured as the presence of AUD or SUD. KEY RESULTS: From 2014 to 2018, the annual average prevalence of AUD or SUD was 9.4% of ED visits (9.3 million visits) and 11.9% hospitalizations (1.4 million hospitalizations). Both estimates increased over time (30% and 57% relative increase for ED visits and hospitalizations, respectively, from 2014 to 2018). ED visits and hospitalizations from individuals with AUD or SUD, compared to individuals with neither AUD nor SUD, had higher percentages of Medicaid insurance (ED visits: AUD: 33.1%, SUD: 35.0%, neither: 24.4%; hospitalizations: AUD: 30.7%, SUD: 36.3%, neither: 14.8%); homelessness (ED visits: AUD: 6.2%, SUD 4.4%, neither 0.4%; hospitalizations: AUD: 5.9%, SUD 7.3%, neither: 0.4%); coexisting depression (ED visits: AUD: 26.3%, SUD 24.7%, neither 10.5%; hospitalizations: AUD: 33.5%, SUD 35.3%, neither: 13.9%); and injury/trauma (ED visits: AUD: 51.3%, SUD 36.3%, neither: 26.4%; hospitalizations: AUD: 31.8%, SUD: 23.8%, neither: 15.0%). CONCLUSIONS: In this nationally representative study, 1 in 11 ED visits and 1 in 9 hospitalizations were made by adults with AUD or SUD, and both increased over time. These estimates are higher or similar than previous national estimates using claims data. This highlights the importance of identifying opportunities to address AUD and SUD in acute care settings in tandem with other medical concerns, particularly among visits presenting with injury, trauma, or coexisting depression.

Availability of Palliative Care in Long-Term Acute Care Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the availability of palliative care programs in long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis using the 2016 American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: LTACHs in the United States. METHOD: We used descriptive analyses to compare the prevalence of palliative care programs in LTACHs across the United States in 2016. For LTACHs without a program, we also examined palliative care physician capacity in regions where those LTACHs resided to evaluate if expertise existed in those regions. RESULTS: One-third (36.5%) of 405 LTACHs (50.6% response rate) self-reported having a palliative care program. Among LTACHs without palliative care, 42.4% were in regions with the highest palliative care physician capacity nationwide. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: LTACHs care for patients with serious and prolonged illnesses, many of whom would benefit from palliative care. Despite this, our study finds that specialty palliative care is limited in LTACHs. The limited palliative care availability in LTACHs is mismatched with the needs of this seriously ill population. Greater focus on increasing palliative care in LTACHs is essential and may be feasible as 40% of LTACHs without a palliative care program were located in regions with the highest palliative care physician capacity.

Policy in Clinical Practice: Choosing Post-Acute Care in the New Decade.

Nearly half of hospitalized Medicare patients in 2018 were discharged to post-acute care (PAC), accounting for approximately $60 billion in annual spending. There are four PAC settings, and these vary in the intensity and complexity of medical, skilled nursing, and rehabilitative services provided; each setting uses a separate payment system. Due to considerable variation in PAC use, with concerns that similar patients can be treated in different PAC settings, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently introduced several major policy changes. For home health agencies (HHAs) and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), CMS implemented new payment models to better align payment with patients' care needs rather than the provision of rehabilitation. For long-term acute care hospitals, CMS will now decrease payment for less medically ill patients. To choose PAC wisely, hospitalists and hospital leaders must understand how these new policies will change where patients can be discharged and the services these patients receive at these PAC settings.

Appropriateness of Long-Term Acute Care Hospital Transfer: A Multicenter Study of Medicare ACO Beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVES: There is wide variation in long-term acute care hospital (LTACH) use nationwide, the most intensive and expensive post-acute care setting, although appropriateness of use is uncertain. Therefore, we examined the appropriateness and reasons for transfer in a high-use region, and how Medicare criteria for LTACH payment identifies appropriate transfers. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective observational cohort. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries transferred to an LTACH from 2017 to 2018 from an accountable care organization in Texas. METHODS: The primary outcome was clinical appropriateness of transfer ascertained by 2 physician reviewers. We abstracted patients' characteristics and primary reasons for transfer. We examined the positive predictive value (PPV) of meeting Medicare criteria for full LTACH payment [preceding intensive care unit (ICU) stay ≥3 days or prolonged mechanical ventilation] for identifying appropriate transfers, and how this differed if Medicare adopted an 8-day minimum ICU stay criterion recommended by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). RESULTS: Of 105 LTACH transfers, 33 (31.4%) were clinically appropriate. The most common reason among appropriate transfers was respiratory care (58%), but 42% had other indications. Inappropriate transfers most commonly were for wound care (28%), intravenous medication infusions (28%), or patient (17%) and physician preference (26%). The PPV for meeting Medicare LTACH payment criteria was 55%. The PPV improved to 77% if Medicare adopted the 8-day minimum ICU stay criterion, with only a modest absolute increase in appropriate transfers not meeting the more stringent criteria (12% to 17%). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Two-thirds of LTACH transfers in a high-LTACH-use region are clinically inappropriate, and are most commonly transferred for wound care, intravenous infusions, or patient and physician preference. Medicare payment criteria modestly distinguished between appropriate and inappropriate transfers. Adoption of MedPAC's recommended 8-day minimum ICU stay criterion could safely reduce inappropriate transfers, although generalizability to low LTACH-use regions is uncertain.

Man vs. Machine: Comparing Physician vs. Electronic Health Record-Based Model Predictions for 30-Day Hospital Readmissions.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR)-based readmission risk prediction models can be automated in real-time but have modest discrimination and may be missing important readmission risk factors. Clinician predictions of readmissions may incorporate information unavailable in the EHR, but the comparative usefulness is unknown. We sought to compare clinicians versus a validated EHR-based prediction model in predicting 30-day hospital readmissions. METHODS: We conducted a prospective survey of internal medicine clinicians in an urban safety-net hospital. Clinicians prospectively predicted patients' 30-day readmission risk on 5-point Likert scales, subsequently dichotomized into low- vs. high-risk. We compared human with machine predictions using discrimination, net reclassification, and diagnostic test characteristics. Observed readmissions were ascertained from a regional hospitalization database. We also developed and assessed a "human-plus-machine" logistic regression model incorporating both human and machine predictions. RESULTS: We included 1183 hospitalizations from 106 clinicians, with a readmission rate of 20.8%. Both clinicians and the EHR model had similar discrimination (C-statistic 0.66 vs. 0.66, p = 0.91). Clinicians had higher specificity (79.0% vs. 48.9%, p < 0.001) but lower sensitivity (43.9 vs. 75.2%, p < 0.001) than EHR model predictions. Compared with machine, human was better at reclassifying non-readmissions (non-event NRI + 30.1%) but worse at reclassifying readmissions (event NRI - 31.3%). A human-plus-machine approach best optimized discrimination (C-statistic 0.70, 95% CI 0.67-0.74), sensitivity (65.5%), and specificity (66.7%). CONCLUSION: Clinicians had similar discrimination but higher specificity and lower sensitivity than EHR model predictions. Human-plus-machine was better than either alone. Readmission risk prediction strategies should incorporate clinician assessments to optimize the accuracy of readmission predictions.

Comparative effectiveness of long-term acute care hospital versus skilled nursing facility transfer.

BACKGROUND: Long-term acute care hospital (LTACH) use varies considerably across the U.S., which may reflect uncertainty about the effectiveness of LTACHs vs. skilled nursing facilities (SNF), the principal post-acute care alternative. Given that LTACHs provide more intensive care and thus receive over triple the reimbursement of SNFs for comparable diagnoses, we sought to compare outcomes and spending between LTACH versus SNF transfer. METHODS: Using Medicare claims linked to electronic health record (EHR) data from six Texas Hospitals between 2009 and 2010, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized on a medicine service in a high-LTACH use region and discharged to either an LTACH or SNF and followed for one year. The primary outcomes included mortality, 60-day recovery without inpatient care, days at home, and healthcare spending RESULTS: Of 3503 patients, 18% were transferred to an LTACH. Patients transferred to LTACHs were younger (median 71 vs. 82 years), less likely to be female (50.5 vs 66.6%) and white (69.0 vs. 84.1%), but were sicker (24.3 vs. 14.2% for prolonged intensive care unit stay; median diagnosis resource intensity weight of 2.03 vs. 1.38). In unadjusted analyses, patients transferred to an LTACH vs. SNF were less likely to survive (59.1 vs. 65.0%) or recover (62.5 vs 66.0%), and spent fewer days at home (186 vs. 200). Adjusting for demographic and clinical confounders available in Medicare claims and EHR data, LTACH transfer was not significantly associated with differences in mortality (HR, 1.12, 95% CI, 0.94-1.33), recovery (SHR, 1.07, 0.93-1.23), and days spent at home (IRR, 0.96, 0.83-1.10), but was associated with greater Medicare spending ($16,689 for one year, 95% CI, $12,216-$21,162). CONCLUSION: LTACH transfer for Medicare beneficiaries is associated with similar clinical outcomes but with higher healthcare spending compared to SNF transfer. LTACH use should be reserved for patients who require complex inpatient care and cannot be cared for in SNFs.