Association between physician-hospital integration and inpatient care delivery in accountable care organizations: An instrumental variable analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between physician-hospital integration within accountable care organizations (ACOs) and inpatient care utilization and expenditure. DATA SOURCES: The primary data were Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database (2009-2013). STUDY SETTING: Fifteen provider organizations that entered a commercial ACO contract with a major private payer in Massachusetts between 2009 and 2013. STUDY DESIGN: Using an instrumental variable approach, the study compared inpatient care delivery between patients of ACOs demonstrating high versus low integration. We measured physician-hospital integration within ACOs by the proportion of primary care physicians in an ACO who billed for outpatient services with a place-of-service code indicating employment or practice ownership by a hospital. The study sample comprised non-elderly adults who had continuous insurance coverage and were attributed to one of the 15 ACOs. Outcomes of interest included total medical expenditure during an episode of inpatient care, length of stay (LOS) of the index hospitalization, and 30-day readmission. An inpatient episode was defined as 30, 45, and 60 days from the admission date. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Not applicable. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The study examined 33,535 admissions from patients served by the 15 ACOs. Average medical expenditure within 30 days of admission was $24,601, within 45 days was $26,447, and within 60 days was $28,043. Average LOS was 3.5 days, and 5.4% of patients were readmitted within 30 days. Physician-hospital integration was associated with a 10.6% reduction in 30-day expenditure (95% CI, -15.1% to -5.9%). Corresponding estimates for 45 and 60 days were - 9.7% (95%CI, -14.2% to -4.9%) and - 9.6% (95%CI, -14.3% to -4.7%). Integration was associated with a 15.7% decrease in LOS (95%CI, -22.6% to -8.2%) but unrelated to 30-day readmission rate. CONCLUSIONS: Our instrumental variable analysis shows physician-hospital integration with ACOs was associated with reduced inpatient spending and LOS, with no evidence of elevated readmission rates.

Disparities in Access to Outpatient Surgery Related to Removal of Procedures from Medicare's Inpatient Only List.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the shift from inpatient to outpatient surgical care related to changes to the Inpatient Only List in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The extent to which procedures shift from the inpatient to outpatient setting following removal from Medicare's Inpatient Only List is unknown. Many health systems also encouraged a shift from inpatient to outpatient surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessing the relative change in outpatient surgical utilization for procedures removed from the Inpatient Only List during COVID-19 would provide empirical data on whether reimbursement policy changes or inpatient capacity needs during the pandemic were more likely to shift care from the inpatient to outpatient setting. METHODS: We used administrative data from the PINC AI Healthcare Database across 723 hospitals to determine the within-facility relative change in outpatient vs inpatient procedural volume in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019 using a multivariable conditional fixed-effects Poisson regression model. We also assessed whether outpatient surgical utilization varied by race and ethnicity. Using a multivariable linear probability model, we assessed the absolute change in risk-adjusted 30-day complication, readmission, and mortality rates for inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures. RESULTS: In 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019 respectively, there was a 5.3% (95% CI, 1.4% to 9.5%) and 41.3% (95% CI 33.1% to 50.0%) relative increase in outpatient elective procedural volume. Outpatient procedural volume increased most significantly for hip replacement which was removed from the Inpatient Only List in 2020 (increase in outpatient surgical utilization of 589.3% (95% CI, 524.9% to 660.3%)). The shift to outpatient hip replacement procedures was concentrated among White patients; in 2021, hip replacement procedural volume increased by 271.1% (95% CI, 241.2% and 303.7%) for White patients and 29.5% (95% CI, 24.4% and 34.9%) for Black patients compared to 2019 levels. There were no consistent or large changes in 30-day complication, readmission, or mortality risk in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019. CONCLUSION: There was a modest increase in elective outpatient surgeries and a pronounced increase in outpatient orthopedic surgeries which were removed from the Inpatient Only List during the COVID-19 pandemic. Utilization of outpatient surgical procedures was concentrated among White patients.

Potential inequities in access to in-person SHIP counseling services.

OBJECTIVES: Counseling and education on Medicare coverage options are available through the federal State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP), but little is known about the population that SHIP reaches. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Using a novel data source on SHIP counseling site locations, we characterized the availability of in-person SHIP counseling by zip code tabulation area (ZCTA) and used linear regression and t tests to evaluate whether SHIP counseling sites are disproportionately located in higher-income communities. RESULTS: Our sample included 1511 SHIP counseling sites. More than half (63%) of the localities in our sample have a SHIP site within the ZCTA or county. Twenty-four percent do not have a SHIP site within the county but have one in an adjacent county. The remaining 13% do not have a nearby SHIP site. There is a disproportionate number of individuals eligible for Medicare in localities without a SHIP site. Moreover, the population living in areas without in-person SHIP sites is more likely to have low income and fewer years of education than the population living in areas with a SHIP site. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that there are areas where in-person SHIP service expansion or other additional navigation support may be warranted.

Measuring restrictiveness of Medicare Advantage networks: A claims-based approach.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a measure of provider network restrictiveness in the Medicare Advantage (MA) population. DATA SOURCES: Prescription drug event data and beneficiary information for Part D enrollees from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, along with prescriber identifiers; geographic variables from the Area Health Resources Files. STUDY DESIGN: A prediction model was used to predict the unique number of primary care providers that would have been seen by MA beneficiaries absent network restrictions. The model was trained and validated on Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries. A pseudo-Poisson and a random forest model were evaluated. An observed-to-expected (O/E) ratio was calculated as the number of unique providers seen by MA beneficiaries divided by the number expected based the TM prediction model. Multivariable linear models were used to assess the relationship between network restrictiveness and plan and market factors. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Prescription drug event data were obtained for a 20% random sample of beneficiaries enrolled in prescription drug coverage from 2011 to 2017. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Health Maintenance Organization plans were more restrictive (O/E = 55.5%; 95% CI 55.3%-55.7%) than Health Maintenance Organization-Point of Service plans (67.2%; 95% CI 66.7%-67.8%) or Preferred Provider Organization plans (74.7%; 95% CI 74.3%-75.1%), and rural areas had more restrictive networks (31.6%; 95% CI 29.0%-34.2%) than metropolitan areas (61.5%; 95% CI 61.3%-61.7%). Multivariable results confirmed these findings, and also indicated that increased provider supply was associated with less restrictive networks. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a means of estimating provider network restrictiveness in MA from claims data. Our results validate the approach, providing confidence for wider application (e.g., for other markets and specialties) and use for regulation.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-impact after 2 years of a ketogenic diet and virtual coaching intervention for patients with diabetes.

AIM: We previously evaluated the impacts at 5 months of a digitally delivered coaching intervention in which participants are instructed to adhere to a very low carbohydrate, ketogenic diet. With extended follow-up (24 months), we assessed the longer-term effects of this intervention on changes in clinical outcomes, health care utilization and costs associated with outpatient, inpatient and emergency department use in the Veterans Health Administration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We employed a difference-in-differences model with a waiting list control group to estimate the 24-month change in glycated haemoglobin, body mass index, blood pressure, prescription medication use, health care utilization rates and associated costs. The analysis included 550 people with type 2 diabetes who were overweight or obese and enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration for health care. Data were obtained from electronic health records from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: The virtual coaching and ketogenic diet intervention was associated with significant reductions in body mass index [-1.56 (SE 0.390)] and total monthly diabetes medication usage [-0.35 (SE 0.054)]. No statistically significant differences in glycated haemoglobin, blood pressure, outpatient visits, inpatient visits, or emergency department visits were observed. The intervention was associated with reductions in per-patient, per-month outpatient spending [-USD286.80 (SE 97.175)] and prescription drug costs (-USD105.40 (SE 30.332)]. CONCLUSIONS: A virtual coaching intervention with a ketogenic diet component offered modest effects on clinical and cost parameters in people with type 2 diabetes and with obesity or overweight. Health care systems should develop methods to assess participant progress and engagement over time if they adopt such interventions, to ensure continued patient engagement and goal achievement.

Differences in adverse outcomes across race and ethnicity among Veterans with similar predicted risks of an overdose or suicide-related event.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the degree to which differences in incidence of mortality and serious adverse events exist across patient race and ethnicity among Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients receiving outpatient opioid prescriptions and who have similar predicted risks of adverse outcomes. Patients were assigned scores via the VHA Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM), a model used to predict the risk of experiencing overdose- or suicide-related health care events or death. Individuals with the highest STORM risk scores are targeted for case review. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of high-risk veterans who received an outpatient prescription opioid between 4/2018-3/2019. SETTING: All VHA medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 84 473 patients whose estimated risk scores were between 0.0420 and 0.0609, the risk scores associated with the top 5%-10% of risk in the STORM development sample. METHODS: We examined the expected probability of mortality and serious adverse events (SAEs; overdose or suicide-related events) given a patient's risk score and race. RESULTS: Given a similar risk score, Black patients were less likely than White patients to have a recorded SAE within 6 months of risk score calculation. Black, Hispanic, and Asian patients were less likely than White patients with similar risk scores to die within 6 months of risk score calculation. Some of the mortality differences were driven by age differences in the composition of racial and ethnic groups in our sample. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that relying on the STORM model to identify patients who may benefit from an interdisciplinary case review may identify patients with clinically meaningful differences in outcome risk across race and ethnicity.

Impact of Mandated Case Review Policy on Opioid Discontinuation and Mortality Among High-Risk Long-Term Opioid Therapy Patients: The STORM Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) has its own risks, opioid discontinuation could pose harm for high-risk Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients receiving LTOT. There is limited information on the impact of a mandate requiring providers to perform case reviews on high-risk patients with an active opioid prescription (ie, mandated case review policy) on opioid discontinuation and mortality. METHODS: Our study is a secondary data analysis of a 23-month stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial between April 2018 and March 2020. The study included 10 685 LTOT patients with a predicted risk of a serious adverse event between the top 1% to 5% nationally who entered the risk range between 4/18/2018 and 11/9/2019. We examined whether the mandated case review policy had an impact on opioid discontinuation and mortality for the patients. RESULTS: Among 10 685 LTOT patients (88.2% male; mean [SD] age, 61.1 [11.7] years), 29.1% experienced discontinuation and the mortality rate was 9.5%. Patients under mandated case review had a decreased risk of opioid discontinuation (average marginal effect [AME], -11.16 [95% CI, -15.30 to -7.01] percentage points) and all-cause mortality (AME, -3.31 [95% CI, -5.63 to -1.00] percentage points), relative to patients who were not under the mandate. CONCLUSIONS: The VHA mandated case review policy was associated with lower probability of discontinuation and all-cause mortality for high-risk patients receiving LTOT. Interventions that maintain care engagement while optimizing pain management for high-risk patients may be beneficial for minimizing mortality and other risks associated with discontinuation.

Rapid Enrollment Growth In 'Look-Alike' Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans: A Threat To Integrated Care.

Policy makers are increasingly investing in efforts to better integrate Medicare and Medicaid services for people who are eligible for both programs, including expanding Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs). In recent years, however, a potential threat to integration has emerged in the form of D-SNP "look-alike" plans, which are conventional Medicare Advantage plans that are marketed toward and primarily enroll dual eligibles but are not subject to federal regulations requiring integrated Medicaid services. To date, limited evidence exists documenting national enrollment trends in look-alike plans or the characteristics of dual eligibles in these plans. We found that look-alike plans experienced rapid enrollment growth among dual eligibles during the period 2013-20, increasing from 20,900 dual eligibles across four states to 220,860 dual eligibles across seventeen states, for an elevenfold increase. Nearly one-third of dual eligibles in look-alike plans were previously in integrated care programs. Compared with D-SNPs, look-alike plans were more likely to enroll dual eligibles who were older, Hispanic, and from disadvantaged communities. Our findings suggest that look-alike plans have the potential to compromise national efforts to integrate care delivery for dual eligibles, including vulnerable subgroups who may benefit the most from integrated coverage.

Use of High-Risk Medications Among Older Adults Enrolled in Medicare Advantage Plans vs Traditional Medicare.

Importance: Limiting the use of high-risk medications (HRMs) among older adults is a national priority to provide a high quality of care for older beneficiaries of both Medicare Advantage and traditional fee-for-service Medicare Part D plans. Objective: To evaluate the differences in the rate of HRM prescription fills among beneficiaries of traditional Medicare vs Medicare Advantage Part D plans and to examine the extent to which these differences change over time and the patient-level factors associated with higher rates of HRMs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used a 20% sample of Medicare Part D data on filled drug prescriptions from 2013 to 2017 and a 40% sample from 2018. The sample comprised Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years or older who were enrolled in Medicare Advantage or traditional Medicare Part D plans. Data were analyzed between April 1, 2022, and April 15, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of unique HRMs prescribed to older Medicare beneficiaries per 1000 beneficiaries. Linear regression models were used to model the primary outcome, adjusting for patient characteristics and county characteristics and including hospital referral region fixed effects. Results: The sample included 5 595 361 unique Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who were propensity score-matched on a year-by-year basis to 6 578 126 unique traditional Medicare beneficiaries between 2013 and 2018, resulting in 13 704 348 matched pairs of beneficiary-years. The traditional Medicare vs Medicare Advantage cohorts were similar in age (mean [SD] age, 75.65 [7.53] years vs 75.60 [7.38] years), proportion of males (8 127 261 [59.3%] vs 8 137 834 [59.4%]; standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.002), and predominant race and ethnicity (77.1% vs 77.4% non-Hispanic White; SMD = 0.05). On average in 2013, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries filled 135.1 (95% CI, 128.4-142.6) unique HRMs per 1000 beneficiaries compared with 165.6 (95% CI, 158.1-172.3) HRMs per 1000 beneficiaries for traditional Medicare. In 2018, the rate of HRMs had decreased to 41.5 (95% CI, 38.2-44.2) HRMs per 1000 beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage and to 56.9 (95% CI, 54.1-60.1) HRMs per 1000 beneficiaries in traditional Medicare. Across the study period, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries received 24.3 (95% CI, 20.2-28.3) fewer HRMs per 1000 beneficiaries per year compared with traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Female, American Indian or Alaska Native, and White populations were more likely to receive HRMs than other groups. Conclusion and Relevance: Results of this study showed that HRM rates were consistently lower among Medicare Advantage than traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Higher use of HRMs among female, American Indian or Alaska Native, and White populations is a concerning disparity that requires further attention.

Evaluation of Potentially Avoidable Acute Care Utilization Among Patients Insured by Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare.

Importance: Medicare Advantage plans have strong incentives to reduce potentially wasteful health care, including costly acute care visits for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSCs). However, it remains unknown whether Medicare Advantage plans lower acute care use compared with traditional Medicare, or if it shifts patients from hospitalization to observation stays and emergency department (ED) direct discharges. Objective: To determine whether Medicare Advantage is associated with differential utilization of hospitalizations, observations, and ED direct discharges for ACSCs compared with traditional Medicare. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of US Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare beneficiaries from January 1 to December 31, 2018. Poisson regression models were used to compare risk-adjusted rates of Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare, controlling for patient demographic characteristics and clinical risk and including county fixed-effects. Data were analyzed between April 2021 and November 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitalizations, observation stays, and ED direct discharges for ACSCs. Results: The study sample comprised 2 665 340 Medicare Advantage patients (mean [SD] age, 72.7 [9.8] years; 1 504 519 [56.4%] women; 1 859 067 [69.7%] White individuals) and 7 981 547 traditional Medicare patients (mean [SD] age, 71.2 [11.8] years; 4 232 201 [53.0%] women; 6 176 239 [77.4%] White individuals). Medicare Advantage patients had lower risk of hospitalization for ACSCs compared with traditional Medicare patients (relative risk [RR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.93-0.95), primarily owing to fewer hospitalizations for acute conditions (eg, pneumonia). Medicare Advantage patients had a higher risk of ED direct discharges (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.43-1.45) and observation stays (RR, 2.38; 95% CI, 2.34-2.41) for ACSCs vs traditional Medicare patients. Overall, Medicare Advantage patients were at higher risk of needing care for an ACSC (hospitalization, ED direct discharge, or observation stay) than traditional Medicare patients (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.30-1.31). Within the Medicare Advantage population, patients in health maintenance organizations (HMOs) were at lower risk of ACSC-related hospitalization compared with patients in its preferred provider organizations (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98); however, those in the HMOs had a higher risk of ED direct discharge (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.07-1.09) and observation stay (overall RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.12). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study of Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare patients with ACSCs indicate that apparent gains in lowering rates of potentially avoidable acute care have been associated with shifting inpatient care to settings such as ED direct discharges and observation stays.

Effect of a Veterans Health Administration mandate to case review patients with opioid prescriptions on mortality among patients with opioid use disorder: a secondary analysis of the STORM randomized control trial.

AIMS: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) to reduce the risk of serious adverse events (SAE) among patients with opioid analgesic prescriptions. VHA facilities were mandated to case review patients identified as high risk by STORM. The aim of this study was to measure the effect of this mandate on all-cause mortality and SAEs among VHA patients newly diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD). DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a stepped-wedged cluster randomized controlled trial conducted at all 140 VHA facilities, with facility as the unit of randomization, from 2018 to 2020. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: United States VHA facilities were randomized to case review the top 1 or 5% of high-risk patients prescribed opioid analgesics identified by STORM. A total of 28 251 patients were diagnosed with OUD during the trial and were considered control or treatment depending on the status of the facility where they received their OUD diagnosis. Post-hoc analyses among patients who had at least one opioid analgesic prescription in the 90 days prior to diagnosis were conducted and were then stratified by receipt of a prescription in the 90 days following diagnosis to assess the sensitivity of results to opioid discontinuation. MEASUREMENTS: All-cause mortality and opioid-related, drug-related, suicide-related and other SAEs within 90 days of OUD diagnosis. FINDINGS: Mandated case review increased the odds of 90-day mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.06, 2.87], but did not significantly change the odds of SAEs. Among patients who received an opioid prescription prior to but not after OUD diagnosis, the odds of all-cause mortality within 90 days was 5.87 (95% CI = 1.85, 18.58) relative to control patients. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans Health Administration patients newly diagnosed with opioid use disorder experienced increased all-cause mortality following expansion of a case review mandate for high-risk patients prescribed opioids.

Effect of a Predictive Analytics-Targeted Program in Patients on Opioids: a Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Risk of overdose, suicide, and other adverse outcomes are elevated among sub-populations prescribed opioid analgesics. To address this, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM)-a provider-facing dashboard that utilizes predictive analytics to stratify patients prescribed opioids based on risk for overdose/suicide. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the case review mandate on serious adverse events (SAEs) and all-cause mortality among high-risk Veterans. DESIGN: A 23-month stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial in all 140 VHA medical centers between 2018 and 2020. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 44,042 patients actively prescribed opioid analgesics with high STORM risk scores (i.e., percentiles 1% to 5%) for an overdose or suicide-related event. INTERVENTION: A mandate requiring providers to perform case reviews on opioid analgesic-prescribed patients at high risk of overdose/suicide. MAIN MEASURES: Nine serious adverse events (SAEs), case review completion, number of risk mitigation strategies, and all-cause mortality. KEY RESULTS: Mandated review inclusion was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality within 4 months of inclusion (OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.65-0.94). There was no detectable effect on SAEs. Stepped-wedge analyses found that mandated review patients were five times more likely to receive a case review than non-mandated patients with similar risk (OR: 5.1; 95% CI: 3.64-7.23) and received more risk mitigation strategies than non-mandated patients (0.498; CI: 0.39-0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Among VHA patients prescribed opioid analgesics, identifying high risk patients and mandating they receive an interdisciplinary case review was associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality. Results suggest that providers can leverage predictive analytic-targeted population health approaches and interdisciplinary collaboration to improve patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16012111.

Frequency Of Indirect Billing To Medicare For Nurse Practitioner And Physician Assistant Office Visits.

Nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) represent a growing share of the health care workforce, but much of the care they provide cannot be observed in claims data because of indirect (or "incident to") billing, a practice in which visits provided by an NP or PA are billed by a supervising physician. If NPs and PAs bill directly for a visit, Medicare and many private payers pay 85 percent of what is paid to a physician for the same service. Some policy makers have proposed eliminating indirect billing, but the possible impact of such a change is unknown. Using a novel approach that relies on prescriptions to identify indirectly billed visits, we estimated that the number of all NP or PA visits in fee-for-service Medicare data billed indirectly was 10.9 million in 2010 and 30.6 million in 2018. Indirect billing was more common in states with laws restricting NPs' scope of practice. Eliminating indirect billing would have saved Medicare roughly $194 million in 2018, with the greatest decrease in revenue seen among smaller primary care practices, which are more likely to use this form of billing.

Randomized Policy Evaluation of the Veterans Health Administration Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM).

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed a dashboard Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STROM) to guide clinical practice interventions. VHA released a policy mandating that high-risk patients of an adverse event based on the STORM dashboard are to be reviewed by an interdisciplinary team of clinicians. AIM: Randomized program evaluation to evaluate if patients in the oversight arm had a lower risk of opioid-related serious adverse events (SAEs) or death compared to those in the non-oversight arm. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: One-hundred and forty VHA facilities (aka medical centers) were randomly assigned to two groups: oversight and non-oversight arms. VHA patients who were prescribed opioids between April 18, 2018, and November 8, 2019, were included in the cohort. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: We hypothesized that patients cared for by VHA facilities that received the policy with the oversight accountability language would achieve lower opioid-related SAEs or death. PROGRAM EVALUATION: We did not observe a relationship between the oversight arm and opioid-related SAEs or death. Patients in the non-oversight arm had a significantly higher chance of receiving a case review compared to those in the oversight arm. DISCUSSION: Even though our findings were unexpected, the STORM policy overall was likely successful in focusing the provider's attention on very high-risk patients.

Fewer potentially avoidable health care events in rural veterans with self-directed care versus other personal care services.

BACKGROUND: Rural residents face more barriers to healthcare access, including challenges in receiving home- and community-based long-term services, compared to urban residents. Self-directed services provide flexibility and choice in care options and may be particularly well suited to help older adults with multiple chronic conditions and functional limitations who reside in rural areas remain independent and live in the community. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study to understand whether differences in health outcomes between Veteran-Directed Care (VDC), a self-directed Veterans Health Administration (VHA)-paid care program, and other VHA-paid home- and community-based personal care services vary in rural/urban location. The sample included 37,395 veterans receiving VHA-paid home- and community-based long-term care services in FY17. Our primary outcomes were changes in monthly incidence of VHA or VHA-paid community acute care admissions, nursing home admissions, and emergency department (ED) visits. We used fixed effects logistic regression models on unmatched and coarsened exact matched cohorts, stratified by rural/urban location. RESULTS: Both urban and rural VDC recipients were significantly less likely to be admitted to VHA-paid nursing homes, compared to those receiving other VHA-paid personal care services (rural: incremental effect = -0.22, [-0.30, -0.14]; urban: incremental effect = -0.14, [-0.20, -0.07]). Rural, but not urban, VDC enrollees had significantly fewer VHA-paid acute care admissions and ED visits, relative to recipients of other VHA-paid personal care services (acute care, rural: incremental effect = -0.07, 95% CI = [-0.14, -0.01], urban: incremental effect = -0.01, [-0.06, 0.03]; ED, rural: incremental effect = -0.08, [-0.14, -0.02], urban: incremental effect = 0.01, [-0.03, 0.05]). CONCLUSIONS: VDC recipients had fewer incidents of potentially avoidable VHA-paid health care use, compared to similar veterans receiving other VHA-paid personal care services. These differences were more pronounced among rural VDC recipients than urban VDC recipients.

Patient administrative burden in the US health care system.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of patient administrative tasks and whether they are associated with delayed and/or foregone care. DATA SOURCE: March 2019 Health Reform Monitoring Survey. STUDY DESIGN: We assess the prevalence of five common patient administrative tasks-scheduling, obtaining information, prior authorizations, resolving billing issues, and resolving premium problems-and associated administrative burden, defined as delayed and/or foregone care. Using multivariate logistic models, we examined the association of demographic characteristics with odds of doing tasks and experiencing burdens. Our outcome variables were five common types of administrative tasks as well as composite measures of any task, any delayed care, any foregone care, and any burden (combined delayed/foregone), respectively. DATA COLLECTION: We developed and administered survey questions to a nationally representative sample of insured, nonelderly adults (n = 4155). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The survey completion rate was 62%. Seventy-three percent of respondents reported performing at least one administrative task in the past year. About one in three task-doers, or 24.4% of respondents overall, reported delayed or foregone care due to an administrative task: Adjusted for demographics, disability status had the strongest association with administrative tasks (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.91, p < 0.001) and burden (adjusted OR 1.66, p < 0.001). Being a woman was associated with doing administrative tasks (adjusted OR 2.19, p < 0.001). Being a college graduate was associated with performing an administrative task (adjusted OR 2.79, p < 0.001), while higher income was associated with fewer subsequent burdens (adjusted OR 0.55, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients frequently do administrative tasks that can create burdens resulting in delayed/foregone care. The prevalence of delayed/foregone care due to administrative tasks is comparable to similar estimates of cost-related barriers to care. Demographic disparities in burden warrant further attention. Enhancing measurement of patient administrative work and associated burdens may identify opportunities for assessing quality, value, and patient experience.