Outcomes and costs of remote patient monitoring among patients with implanted cardiac defibrillators: An economic model based on the PREDICT RM database.

BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators has been associated with reduced rates of all-cause rehospitalizations and mortality among device recipients, but long-term economic benefits have not been studied. METHODS AND RESULTS: An economic model was developed using the PREDICT RM database comparing outcomes with and without remote monitoring. The database included patients ages 65 to 89 who received a Boston Scientific device from 2006 to 2010. Parametric survival equations were derived for rehospitalization and mortality to predict outcomes over a maximum time horizon of 25 years. The analysis assessed rehospitalization, mortality, and the cost-effectiveness (expressed as the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year) of remote monitoring versus no remote monitoring. Remote monitoring was associated with reduced mortality; average life expectancy and average quality-adjusted life years increased by 0.77 years and 0.64, respectively (6.85 life years and 5.65 quality-adjusted life years). When expressed per patient-year, remote monitoring patients had fewer subsequent rehospitalizations (by 0.08 per patient-year) and lower hospitalization costs (by $554 per patient year). With longer life expectancies, remote monitoring patients experienced an average of 0.64 additional subsequent rehospitalizations with increased average lifetime hospitalization costs of $2784. Total costs of outpatient and physician claims were higher with remote monitoring ($47 515 vs $42 792), but average per patient-year costs were lower ($6232 vs $6244). The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $10 752 per quality-adjusted life year, making remote monitoring high-value care. CONCLUSION: Remote monitoring is a cost-effective approach for the lifetime management of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Association of in-hospital resource utilization with post-acute spending in Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to decrease hospitalization costs could increase post-acute care costs. This effect could undermine initiatives to reduce overall episode costs and have implications for the design of health care under alternative payment models. METHODS: Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged ≥65 years hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) between July 2010 and June 2013 in the Premier Healthcare Database, we studied the association of in-hospital and post-acute care resource utilization and outcomes by in-hospital cost tertiles. RESULTS: Among patients with AMI at 326 hospitals, the median (range) of each hospital's mean per-patient in-hospital risk-standardized cost (RSC) for the low, medium, and high cost tertiles were $16,257 ($13,097-$17,648), $18,544 ($17,663-$19,875), and $21,831 ($19,923-$31,296), respectively. There was no difference in the median (IQR) of risk-standardized post-acute payments across cost-tertiles: $5014 (4295-6051), $4980 (4349-5931) and $4922 (4056-5457) for the low (n = 90), medium (n = 98), and high (n = 86) in-hospital RSC tertiles (p = 0.21), respectively. In-hospital and 30-day mortality rates did not differ significantly across the in-hospital RSC tertiles; however, 30-day readmission rates were higher at hospitals with higher in-hospital RSCs: median = 17.5, 17.8, and 18.0% at low, medium, and high in-hospital RSC tertiles, respectively (p = 0.005 for test of trend across tertiles). CONCLUSIONS: In our study of patients hospitalized with AMI, greater resource utilization during the hospitalization was not associated with meaningful differences in costs or mortality during the post-acute period. These findings suggest that it may be possible for higher cost hospitals to improve efficiency in care without increasing post-acute care utilization or worsening outcomes.

Variation in and Hospital Characteristics Associated With the Value of Care for Medicare Beneficiaries With Acute Myocardial Infarction, Heart Failure, and Pneumonia.

Importance: Payers and policy makers have advocated for transitioning toward value-based payment models. However, little is known about what is the extent of hospital variation in the value of care and whether there are any hospital characteristics associated with high-value care. Objectives: To investigate the association between hospital-level 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) and 30-day risk-standardized payments (RSPs) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia (PNA); to characterize patterns of value in care; and to identify hospital characteristics associated with high-value care (defined by having lower than median RSMRs and RSPs). Design, Setting, and Participants: This national cross-sectional study applied weighted linear correlation to investigate the association between hospital RSMRs and RSPs for AMI, HF, and PNA between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2014, among all hospitals; examined correlations in subgroups of hospitals based on key characteristics; and assessed the proportion and characteristics of hospitals delivering high-value care. The data analysis was completed in October 2017. The setting was acute care hospitals. Participants were Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged with AMI, HF, or PNA. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital-level 30-day RSMRs and RSPs for AMI, HF, and PNA. Results: The AMI sample consisted of 4339 hospitals with 487 141 hospitalizations for mortality and 462 905 hospitalizations for payment. The HF sample included 4641 hospitals with 960 960 hospitalizations for mortality and 903 721 hospitalizations for payment. The PNA sample contained 4685 hospitals with 952 022 hospitalizations for mortality and 901 764 hospitalizations for payment. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) RSMRs and RSPs, respectively, was 14.3% (IQR, 13.8%-14.8%) and $21 620 (IQR, $20 966-$22 567) for AMI, 11.7% (IQR, 11.0%-12.5%) and $15 139 (IQR, $14 310-$16 118) for HF, and 11.5% (IQR, 10.6%-12.6%) and $14 220 (IQR, $13 342-$15 097) for PNA. There were statistically significant but weak inverse correlations between the RSMRs and RSPs of -0.08 (95% CI, -0.11 to -0.05) for AMI, -0.21 (95% CI, -0.24 to -0.18) for HF, and -0.07 (95% CI, -0.09 to -0.04) for PNA. The largest shared variance between the RSMRs and RSPs was only 4.4% (for HF). The correlations between the RSMRs and RSPs did not differ significantly across teaching status, safety-net status, urban/rural status, or the proportion of patients with low socioeconomic status. Approximately 1 in 4 hospitals (20.9% for AMI, 23.0% for HF, and 23.9% for PNA) had both lower than median RSMRs and RSPs. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that there is significant potential for improvement in the value of AMI, HF, and PNA care and also suggest that high-value care for these conditions is attainable across most hospital types.

Practice-Level Variation in Outpatient Cardiac Care and Association With Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Utilization of cardiac services varies across regions and hospitals, yet little is known regarding variation in the intensity of outpatient cardiac care across cardiology physician practices or the association with clinical endpoints, an area of potential importance to promote efficient care. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 7 160 732 Medicare beneficiaries who received services from 5635 cardiology practices in 2012. Beneficiaries were assigned to practices providing the plurality of office visits, and practices were ranked and assigned to quartiles using the ratio of observed to predicted annual payments per beneficiary for common cardiac services (outpatient intensity index). The median (interquartile range) outpatient intensity index was 1.00 (0.81-1.24). Mean payments for beneficiaries attributed to practices in the highest (Q4) and lowest (Q1) quartile of outpatient intensity were: all cardiac payments (Q4 $1272 vs Q1 $581; ratio, 2.2); cardiac catheterization (Q4 $215 vs Q1 $64; ratio, 3.4); myocardial perfusion imaging (Q4 $253 vs Q1 $83; ratio, 3.0); and electrophysiology device procedures (Q4 $353 vs Q1 $142; ratio, 2.5). The adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) for 1 incremental quartile of outpatient intensity for each outcome was: cardiac surgical/procedural hospitalization (1.09 [1.09, 1.10]); cardiac medical hospitalization (1.00 [0.99, 1.00]); noncardiac hospitalization (0.99 [0.99, 0.99]); and death at 1 year (1.00 [0.99, 1.00]). CONCLUSION: Substantial variation in the intensity of outpatient care exists at the cardiology practice level, and higher intensity is not associated with reduced mortality or hospitalizations. Outpatient cardiac care is a potentially important target for efforts to improve efficiency in the Medicare population.

An administrative claims measure of payments made for Medicare patients for a 30-day episode of care for acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Understanding both cost and quality across institutions is a critical first step to illuminating the value of care purchased by Medicare. Under contract with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, we developed a method for profiling hospitals by 30-day episode-of-care costs (payments for Medicare beneficiaries) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: We developed a hierarchical generalized linear regression model to calculate hospital risk-standardized payment (RSP) for a 30-day episode for AMI. Using 2008 Medicare claims, we identified hospitalizations for patients 65 years of age or older with a discharge diagnosis of ICD-9 codes 410.xx. We defined an AMI episode as the date of admission plus 30 days. To reflect clinical care, we omitted or averaged payment adjustments for geographic factors and policy initiatives. We risk-adjusted for clinical variables identified in the 12 months preceding and including the AMI hospitalization. Using combined 2008-2009 data, we assessed measure reliability using an intraclass correlation coefficient and calculated the final RSP. RESULTS: The final model included 30 variables and resulted in predictive ratios (average predicted payment/average total payment) close to 1. The intraclass correlation coefficient score was 0.79. Across 2382 hospitals with ≥ 25 hospitalizations, the unadjusted mean payment was $20,324 ranging from $11,089 to $41,897. The mean RSP was $21,125 ranging from $13,909 to $28,979. CONCLUSIONS: This study introduces a claims-based measure of RSP for an AMI 30-day episode of care. The RSP varies among hospitals, with a 2-fold range in payments. When combined with quality measures, this payment measure will help profile high-value care.

Payments for acute myocardial infarction episodes-of-care initiated at hospitals with and without interventional capabilities.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether hospitals with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) capability provide costlier care than hospitals without PCI capability for patients with acute myocardial infarction. The growing number of PCI hospitals and higher rate of PCI use may result in higher costs for episodes-of-care initiated at PCI hospitals. However, higher rates of transfers and postacute care procedures may result in higher costs for episodes-of-care initiated at non-PCI hospitals. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified all 2008 acute myocardial infarction admissions among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries by principal discharge diagnosis and classified hospitals as PCI- or non-PCI-capable on the basis of hospitals' 2007 PCI performance. We added all payments from admission through 30 days postadmission, including payments to hospitals other than the admitting hospital. We calculated and compared risk-standardized payment for PCI and non-PCI hospitals using 2-level hierarchical generalized linear models, adjusting for patient demographics and clinical characteristics. PCI hospitals had a higher mean 30-day risk-standardized payment than non-PCI hospitals (PCI, $20 340; non-PCI, $19 713; P<0.001). Patients presenting to PCI hospitals had higher PCI rates (39.2% versus 13.2%; P<0.001) and higher coronary artery bypass graft rates (9.5% versus 4.4%; P<0.001) during index admissions, lower transfer rates (2.2% versus 25.4%; P<0.001), and lower revascularization rates within 30 days (0.15% versus 0.27%; P<0.0001) than those presenting to non-PCI hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher PCI and coronary artery bypass graft rates for Medicare patients initially presenting to PCI hospitals, PCI hospitals were only $627 costlier than non-PCI hospitals for the treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction in 2008.

"Phenotyping" hospital value of care for patients with heart failure.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize hospitals based on patterns of their combined financial and clinical outcomes for heart failure hospitalizations longitudinally. DATA SOURCE: Detailed cost and administrative data on hospitalizations for heart failure from 424 hospitals in the 2005-2011 Premier database. STUDY DESIGN: Using a mixture modeling approach, we identified groups of hospitals with distinct joint trajectories of risk-standardized cost (RSC) per hospitalization and risk-standardized in-hospital mortality rate (RSMR), and assessed hospital characteristics associated with the distinct patterns using multinomial logistic regression. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: During 2005-2011, mean hospital RSC decreased from $12,003 to $10,782, while mean hospital RSMR declined from 3.9 to 3.2 percent. We identified five distinct hospital patterns: highest cost and low mortality (3.2 percent of the hospitals), high cost and low mortality (20.4 percent), medium cost and low mortality (34.6 percent), medium cost and high mortality (6.2 percent), and low cost and low mortality (35.6 percent). Longer hospital stay and greater use of intensive care unit and surgical procedures were associated with phenotypes with higher costs or greater mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals vary substantially in the joint longitudinal patterns of cost and mortality, suggesting marked difference in value of care. Understanding determinants of the variation will inform strategies for improving the value of hospital care.

Gender differences in presentation, management, and in-hospital outcomes for patients with AMI in a lower-middle income country: evidence from Egypt.

BACKGROUND: Many studies in high-income countries have investigated gender differences in the care and outcomes of patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, little evidence exists on gender differences among patients with AMI in lower-middle-income countries, where the proportion deaths stemming from cardiovascular disease is projected to increase dramatically. This study examines gender differences in patients in the lower-middle-income country of Egypt to determine if female patients with AMI have a different presentation, management, or outcome compared with men. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using registry data collected over 18 months from 5 Egyptian hospitals, we considered 1204 patients (253 females, 951 males) with a confirmed diagnosis of AMI. We examined gender differences in initial presentation, clinical management, and in-hospital outcomes using t-tests and χ(2) tests. Additionally, we explored gender differences in in-hospital death using multivariate logistic regression to adjust for age and other differences in initial presentation. We found that women were older than men, had higher BMI, and were more likely to have hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Women were less likely to receive aspirin upon admission (p<0.01) or aspirin or statins at discharge (p = 0.001 and p<0.05, respectively), although the magnitude of these differences was small. While unadjusted in-hospital mortality was significantly higher for women (OR: 2.10; 95% CI: 1.54 to 2.87), this difference did not persist in the fully adjusted model (OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.55 to 2.55). CONCLUSIONS: We found that female patients had a different profile than men at the time of presentation. Clinical management of men and women with AMI was similar, though there are small but significant differences in some areas. These gender differences did not translate into differences in in-hospital outcome, but highlight differences in quality of care and represent important opportunities for improvement.