Payment Innovation in Emergency Care: A Case for Global Clinician Budgets.

The fee-for-service funding model for US emergency department (ED) clinician groups is increasingly fragile. Traditional fee-for-service payment systems offer no financial incentives to improve quality, address population health, or make value-based clinical decisions. Fee-for-service also does not support maintaining ED capacity to handle peak demand periods. In fee-for-service, clinicians rely heavily on cross-subsidization, where high reimbursement from commercial payors offsets low reimbursement from government payors and the uninsured. Although fee-for-service survived decades of steady cuts in government reimbursement rates, it is increasingly strained because of visit volatility and the effects of the No Surprises Act, which is driving down commercial reimbursement. Financial pressures on ED clinician groups and higher hospital boarding and clinical workloads are increasing workforce attrition. Here, we propose an alternative model to address some of these fundamental issues: an all-payer-funded, voluntary global budget for ED clinician services. If designed and implemented effectively, the model could support robust clinician staffing over the long term, ensure stability in clinical workload, and potentially improve equity in payments. The model could also be combined with population health programs (eg, pre-ED and post-ED telehealth, frequent ED use programs, and other innovations), offering significant payer returns and addressing quality and value. A linked program could also change hospital incentives that contribute to boarding. Strategies exist to test and refine ED clinician global budgets through existing government programs in Maryland and potentially through state-level legislation as a precursor to broader adoption.

Calculation of Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings With and Without Inclusion of the Peer Grouping Step.

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Overall Star Rating is widely used by patients and consumers, and there is continued stakeholder curiosity surrounding the inclusion of a peer grouping step, implemented to the 2021 Overall Star Rating methods. Objective: To calculate hospital star rating scores with and without the peer grouping step, with the former approach stratifying hospitals into 3-, 4-, and 5-measure group peer groups based on the number of measure groups with at least 3 reported measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used Care Compare website data from January 2023 for 3076 hospitals that received a star rating in 2023. Data were analyzed from April 2023 to December 2023. Exposure: Peer grouping vs no peer grouping. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the distribution of star ratings, with 1 star being the lowest-performing hospitals and 5 stars, the highest. Analyses additionally identified the number of hospitals with a higher, lower, or identical star rating with the use of the peer grouping step compared with its nonuse, stratified by certain hospital characteristics. Results: Among 3076 hospitals that received a star rating in 2023, most were nonspecialty (1994 hospitals [64.8%]), nonteaching (1807 hospitals [58.7%]), non-safety net (2326 hospitals [75.6%]), non-critical access (2826 hospitals [91.9%]) hospitals with fewer than 200 beds (1822 hospitals [59.2%]) and located in an urban geographic designations (1935 hospitals [62.9%]). The presence of the peer grouping step resulted in 585 hospitals (19.0%) being assigned a different star rating than if the peer grouping step was absent, including considerably more hospitals receiving a higher star rating (517 hospitals) rather than a lower (68 hospitals) star rating. Hospital characteristics associated with a higher star rating included urbanicity (351 hospitals [67.9%]), non-safety net status (414 hospitals [80.1%]), and fewer than 200 beds (287 hospitals [55.6%]). Collectively, the presence of the peer grouping step supports a like-to-like comparison among hospitals and supports the ability of patients to assess overall hospital quality. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, inclusion of the peer grouping in the CMS star rating method resulted in modest changes in hospital star ratings compared with application of the method without peer grouping. Given improvement in face validity and the close association between the current peer grouping approach and stakeholder needs for peer-comparison, the current CMS Overall Star Rating method allows for durable comparisons in hospital performance.

Estimating the size and scope of the academic emergency physician workforce.

BACKGROUND: Academic emergency medicine (EM) is foundational to the EM specialty through the development of new knowledge and clinical training of resident physicians. Despite recent increased attention to the future of the EM workforce, no evaluations have specifically characterized the U.S. academic EM workforce. We sought to estimate the national proportion of emergency physicians (EPs) identified as academic and the proportion of emergency department (ED) visits that take place at academic sites. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of EPs and EDs using data from the American Hospital Association, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and Doximity's Residency Navigator. EPs were identified as "academic" if they were affiliated with at least one facility determined to be academic, defined as EDs officially designated by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) as clinical training sites at accredited EM residency programs. Our primary outcomes were to estimate the national proportion of EPs identified as academic and the proportion of ED visits performed at academic sites. RESULTS: Our analytic sample included 26,937 EPs practicing clinically across 4920 EDs and providing care during 130,471,386 ED visits. Among EPs, 11,720 (43.5%) were identified as academic, and among EDs, 635 (12.9%) were identified as academic sites, including 585 adult/general sites, 45 pediatric-specific sites, and 10 sites affiliated with the Department of Veterans Affairs. In 2021, academic EDs provided care for 42,794,106 ED visits or 32.8% of all ED visits nationally. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately four in 10 EPs practice in at least one clinical training site affiliated with an ACGME-accredited EM residency program, and approximately one in three ED visits nationally occur in these academic EDs. We encourage further work using alternative definitions of an academic EPs and EDs, along with longitudinal research to identify trends in the workforce's composition.

Reliability of a Measure of Admission Intensity for Emergency Physicians.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We assess the stability of a measure of emergency department (ED) admission intensity for value-based care programs designed to reduce variation in ED admission rates. Measure stability is important to accurately assess admission rates across sites and among physicians. METHODS: We sampled data from 358 EDs in 41 states (January 2018 to December 2021), separate from sites where the measure was derived. The measure is the ED admission rate per 100 ED visits for 16 clinical conditions and 535 included International Classification of Disease 10 diagnosis codes. We used descriptive plots and multilevel linear probability models to assess stability over time across EDs and among physicians. RESULTS: Across included 3,571 ED-quarters, the average admission rate was 27.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 26.0% to 28.2%). The between-facility standard deviation was 9.7% (95% CI 9.0% to 10.6%), and the within-facility standard deviation was 3.0% (95% CI 2.95% to 3.10%), with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.91. At the physician-quarter level, the average admission rate was 28.3% (95% CI 28.0% to 28.5%) among 7,002 physicians. Relative to their site's mean in each quarter, the between-physician standard deviation was 6.7% (95% CI 6.6% to 6.8%), and the within-physician standard deviation was 5.5% (95% CI 5.5% to 5.6%), with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.59. Moreover, 2.9% of physicians were high-admitting in 80%+ of their practice quarters relative to their peers in the same ED and in the same quarter, whereas 3.9% were low-admitting. CONCLUSION: The measure exhibits stability in characterizing ED-level admission rates and reliably identifies high- and low-admitting physicians.

Geriatric Emergency Medication Safety Recommendations (GEMS-Rx): Modified Delphi Development of a High-Risk Prescription List for Older Emergency Department Patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Half of emergency department (ED) patients aged 65 years and older are discharged with new prescriptions. Potentially inappropriate prescriptions contribute to adverse drug events. Our objective was to develop an evidence- and consensus-based list of high-risk prescriptions to avoid among older ED patients. METHODS: We performed a modified, 3-round Delphi process that included 10 ED physician experts in geriatrics or quality measurement and 1 pharmacist. Consensus members reviewed all 35 medication categories from the 2019 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria and ranked each on a 5-point Likert scale (5=highest) for overall priority for avoidance (Round 1), risk of short-term adverse events and avoidability (Round 2), and reasonable medical indications for high-risk medication use (Round 3). RESULTS: For each round, questionnaire response rates were 91%, 82%, and 64%, respectively. After Round 1, benzodiazepines (mean, 4.60 [SD, 0.70]), skeletal muscle relaxants (4.60 [0.70]), barbiturates (4.30 [1.06]), first-generation antipsychotics (4.20 [0.63]) and first-generation antihistamines (3.70 [1.49]) were prioritized for avoidance. In Rounds 2 and 3, hypnotic "Z" drugs (4.29 [1.11]), metoclopramide (3.89 [0.93]), and sulfonylureas (4.14 [1.07]) were prioritized for avoidability, despite lower concern for short-term adverse events. All 8 medication classes were included in the final list. Reasonable indications for prescribing high-risk medications included seizure disorders, benzodiazepine/ethanol withdrawal, end of life, severe generalized anxiety, allergic reactions, gastroparesis, and prescription refill. CONCLUSION: We present the first expert consensus-based list of high-risk prescriptions for older ED patients (GEMS-Rx) to improve safety among older ED patients.

Pre-COVID-19 hospital quality and hospital response to COVID-19: examining associations between risk-adjusted mortality for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 hospital quality.

OBJECTIVES: The extent to which care quality influenced outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. Our objective was to determine if prepandemic hospital quality is associated with mortality among Medicare patients hospitalised with COVID-19. DESIGN: This is a retrospective observational study. We calculated hospital-level risk-standardised in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates (risk-standardised mortality rates, RSMRs) for patients hospitalised with COVID-19, and correlation coefficients between RSMRs and pre-COVID-19 hospital quality, overall and stratified by hospital characteristics. SETTING: Short-term acute care hospitals and critical access hospitals in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalised Medicare beneficiaries (Fee-For-Service and Medicare Advantage) age 65 and older hospitalised with COVID-19, discharged between 1 April 2020 and 30 September 2021. INTERVENTION/EXPOSURE: Pre-COVID-19 hospital quality. OUTCOMES: Risk-standardised COVID-19 in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates (RSMRs). RESULTS: In-hospital (n=4256) RSMRs for Medicare patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (April 2020-September 2021) ranged from 4.5% to 59.9% (median 18.2%; IQR 14.7%-23.7%); 30-day RSMRs ranged from 12.9% to 56.2% (IQR 24.6%-30.6%). COVID-19 RSMRs were negatively correlated with star rating summary scores (in-hospital correlation coefficient -0.41, p<0.0001; 30 days -0.38, p<0.0001). Correlations with in-hospital RSMRs were strongest for patient experience (-0.39, p<0.0001) and timely and effective care (-0.30, p<0.0001) group scores; 30-day RSMRs were strongest for patient experience (-0.34, p<0.0001) and mortality (-0.33, p<0.0001) groups. Patients admitted to 1-star hospitals had higher odds of mortality (in-hospital OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.83 to 1.91; 30-day OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.48) compared with 5-star hospitals. If all hospitals performed like an average 5-star hospital, we estimate 38 000 fewer COVID-19-related deaths would have occurred between April 2020 and September 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals with better prepandemic quality may have care structures and processes that allowed for better care delivery and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the relationship between pre-COVID-19 hospital quality and COVID-19 outcomes will allow policy-makers and hospitals better prepare for future public health emergencies.

Patient-reported outcome measure use among older adults after emergency department care: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are gaining favor in clinical and research settings given their ability to capture a patient's symptom burden, functional status, and quality of life. Our objective in this systematic review was to summarize studies including PROMs assessed among older adults (age ≥ 65 years) after seeking emergency care. METHODS: With the assistance of a medical librarian, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science-Core Collection, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through June 2023 for studies in which older adult ED patients had PROMs assessed in the post-emergency care time period. Independent reviewers performed title/abstract review, full-text screening, data extraction, study characteristic summarization, and risk-of-bias (RoB) assessments. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 5153 studies of which 56 met study inclusion criteria. Within included studies, 304 unique PROM assessments were performed at varying time points after the ED visit, including 61 unique PROMs. The most commonly measured domain was physical function, assessed within the majority of studies (47/56; 84%), with measures including PROMs such as Katz activities of daily living (ADLs), instrumental ADLs, and the Barthel Index. PROMs were most frequently assessed at 1-3 months after an ED visit (113/304; 37%), greater than 6 months (91/304; 30%), and 4-6 months (88/304; 29%), with very few PROMs assessed within 1 month of the ED visit (12/304; 4%). Of the 16 interventional studies, two were determined to have a low RoB, four had moderate RoB, nine had high RoB, and one had insufficient information. Of the 40 observational studies, 10 were determined to be of good quality, 20 of moderate quality, and 10 of poor quality. CONCLUSIONS: PROM assessments among older adults following an ED visit frequently measured physical function, with very few assessments occurring within the first 1 month after an ED visit.

Measuring Equity in Readmission as a Distinct Assessment of Hospital Performance.

Importance: Equity is an essential domain of health care quality. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) developed 2 Disparity Methods that together assess equity in clinical outcomes. Objectives: To define a measure of equitable readmissions; identify hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance (dual eligible vs non-dual eligible) or patient race (Black vs White); and compare hospitals with and without equitable readmissions by hospital characteristics and performance on accountability measures (quality, cost, and value). Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of US hospitals eligible for the CMS Hospital-Wide Readmission measure using Medicare data from July 2018 through June 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: We created a definition of equitable readmissions using CMS Disparity Methods, which evaluate hospitals on 2 methods: outcomes for populations at risk for disparities (across-hospital method); and disparities in care within hospitals' patient populations (within-a-single-hospital method). Exposures: Hospital patient demographics; hospital characteristics; and 3 measures of hospital performance-quality, cost, and value (quality relative to cost). Results: Of 4638 hospitals, 74% served a sufficient number of dual-eligible patients, and 42% served a sufficient number of Black patients to apply CMS Disparity Methods by insurance and race. Of eligible hospitals, 17% had equitable readmission rates by insurance and 30% by race. Hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance or race cared for a lower percentage of Black patients (insurance, 1.9% [IQR, 0.2%-8.8%] vs 3.3% [IQR, 0.7%-10.8%], P < .01; race, 7.6% [IQR, 3.2%-16.6%] vs 9.3% [IQR, 4.0%-19.0%], P = .01), and differed from nonequitable hospitals in multiple domains (teaching status, geography, size; P < .01). In examining equity by insurance, hospitals with low costs were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.38-1.77), and there was no relationship between quality and value, and equity. In examining equity by race, hospitals with high overall quality were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.26]), and there was no relationship between cost and value, and equity. Conclusion and Relevance: A minority of hospitals achieved equitable readmissions. Notably, hospitals with equitable readmissions were characteristically different from those without. For example, hospitals with equitable readmissions served fewer Black patients, reinforcing the role of structural racism in hospital-level inequities. Implementation of an equitable readmission measure must consider unequal distribution of at-risk patients among hospitals.

The Clinical Emergency Data Registry: Structure, Use, and Limitations for Research.

The Clinical Emergency Data Registry (CEDR) is a qualified clinical data registry that collects data from participating emergency departments (EDs) in the United States for quality measurement, improvement, and reporting purposes. This article aims to provide an overview of the data collection and validation process, describe the existing data structure and elements, and explain the potential opportunities and limitations for ongoing and future research use. CEDR data are primarily collected for quality reporting purposes and are obtained from diverse sources, including electronic health records and billing data that are de-identified and stored in a secure, centralized database. The CEDR data structure is organized around clinical episodes, which contain multiple data elements that are standardized using common data elements and are mapped to established terminologies to enable interoperability and data sharing. The data elements include patient demographics, clinical characteristics, diagnostic and treatment procedures, and outcomes. Key limitations include the limited generalizability due to the selective nature of participating EDs and the limited validation and completeness of data elements not currently used for quality reporting purposes, including demographic data. Nonetheless, CEDR holds great potential for ongoing and future research in emergency medicine due to its large-volume, longitudinal, near real-time, clinical data. In 2021, the American College of Emergency Physicians authorized the transition from CEDR to the Emergency Medicine Data Institute, which will catalyze investments in improved data quality and completeness for research to advance emergency care.

Cost-Effectiveness of CT, CTA, MRI, and Specialized MRI for Evaluation of Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Dizziness.

BACKGROUND. Underlying stroke is often misdiagnosed in patients presenting with dizziness. Although such patients are usually ineligible for acute stroke treatment, accurate diagnosis may still improve outcomes through selection of patients for secondary prevention measures. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of differing neuroimaging approaches in the evaluation of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with dizziness who are not candidates for acute intervention. METHODS. A Markov decision-analytic model was constructed from a health care system perspective for the evaluation of a patient presenting to the ED with dizziness. Four diagnostic strategies were compared: noncontrast head CT, head and neck CTA, conventional brain MRI, and specialized brain MRI (including multiplanar high-resolution DWI). Differing long-term costs and outcomes related to stroke detection and secondary prevention measures were compared. Cost-effectiveness was calculated in terms of lifetime expenditures in 2022 U.S. dollars for each quality-adjusted life year (QALY); deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS. Specialized MRI resulted in the highest QALYs and was the most cost-effective strategy with US$13,477 greater cost and 0.48 greater QALYs compared with noncontrast head CT. Conventional MRI had the next-highest health benefit, although was dominated by extension with incremental cost of US$6757 and 0.25 QALY; CTA was also dominated by extension, with incremental cost of US$3952 for 0.13 QALY. Non-contrast CT alone had the lowest utility among the four imaging choices. In the deterministic sensitivity analyses, specialized MRI remained the most cost-effective strategy. Conventional MRI was more cost-effective than CTA across a wide range of model parameters, with incremental cost-effectiveness remaining less than US$30,000/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis yielded similar results as found in the base-case analysis, with specialized MRI being more cost-effective than conventional MRI, which in turn was more cost-effective than CTA. CONCLUSION. The use of MRI in patients presenting to the ED with dizziness improves stroke detection and selection for subsequent preventive measures. MRI-based evaluation leads to lower long-term costs and higher cumulative QALYs. CLINICAL IMPACT. MRI, incorporating specialized protocols when available, is the preferred approach for evaluation of patients presenting to the ED with dizziness, to establish a stroke diagnosis and to select patients for secondary prevention measures.

Deferral of Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Testing Before Contrast-Enhanced CT in Low-Risk Emergency Department Patients: Assessment of Safety and Impact on Throughput.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and utility of deferring estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) testing before contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) in low-risk emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: A new question was added to CECT order screens, allowing ordering ED providers to defer eGFR testing in patients deemed low risk for contrast-induced acute kidney injury (AKI). Low risk was defined as no known chronic kidney disease (CKD) or risk factors for AKI or CKD. Patients on chronic dialysis were deemed low risk. The project included three phases: baseline, pilot (optional order question), and full implementation (required order question). Outcomes were operational throughput metrics of CECT order to protocol (O to P) and order to begin (O to B) times. As a balancing safety measure, the proportion of patients deemed to be "low risk" and subsequently found to have eGFR value less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 was reported. RESULTS: A total of 16,446 CECT studies were included from four EDs. In the pilot phase, provider engagement rates with the question were low (5%-14%). After full implementation, median O to P time improved from 23.93 min at baseline to 13.02 (P < .0001) and median O to B time improved from 80.34 min to 76.48 (P = .0002). In 0.3% (2 of 646) studies, CECT was completed in patients categorized as low risk by the ED provider with subsequently resulted eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2. DISCUSSION: Upfront clinical risk assessment for AKI and CKD by ED providers can be used to safely defer eGFR testing and improve operational performance for patients requiring CECT.

Leveraging a Learning Collaborative Model to Develop and Pilot Quality Measures to Improve Opioid Prescribing in the Emergency Department.

The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Emergency Medicine Quality Network (E-QUAL) Opioid Initiative was launched in 2018 to advance the dissemination of evidence-based resources to promote the care of emergency department (ED) patients with opioid use disorder. This virtual platform-based national learning collaborative includes a low-burden, structured quality improvement project, data benchmarking, tailored educational content, and resources designed to support a nationwide network of EDs with limited administrative and research infrastructure. As a part of this collaboration, we convened a group of experts to identify and design a set of measures to improve opioid prescribing practices to provide safe analgesia while reducing opioid-related harms. We present those measures here, alongside initial performance data on those measures from a sample of 370 nationwide community EDs participating in the 2019 E-QUAL collaborative. Measures include proportion of opioid administration in the ED, proportion of alternatives to opioids as first-line treatment, proportion of opioid prescription, opioid pill count per prescription, and patient medication safety education among ED visits for atraumatic back pain, dental pain, or headache. The proportion of benzodiazepine and opioid coprescribing for ED visits for atraumatic back pain was also evaluated. This project developed and effectively implemented a collection of 6 potential measures to evaluate opioid analgesic prescribing across a national sample of community EDs, representing the first feasibility assessment of opioid prescribing-related measures from rural and community EDs.

Inequities among patient placement in emergency department hallway treatment spaces.

BACKGROUND: Limited capacity in the emergency department (ED) secondary to boarding and crowding has resulted in patients receiving care in hallways to provide access to timely evaluation and treatment. However, there are concerns raised by physicians and patients regarding a decrease in patient centered care and quality resulting from hallway care. We sought to explore social risk factors associated with hallway placement and operational outcomes. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: Observational study between July 2017 and February 2020. Primary outcome was the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of patient placement in a hallway treatment space adjusting for patient demographics and ED operational factors. Secondary outcomes included left without being seen (LWBS), discharge against medical advice (AMA), elopement, 72-h ED revisit, 10-day ED revisit and escalation of care during boarding. RESULTS: Among 361,377 ED visits, 100,079 (27.7%) visits were assigned to hallway beds. Patient insurance coverage (Medicaid (aOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01,1.06) and Self-pay/Other (1.08, (1.03, 1.13))) with comparison to private insurance, and patient sex (Male (1.08, (1.06, 1.10))) with comparison to female sex are associated with higher odds of hallway placement but patient age, race, and language were not. These associations are adjusted for ED census, triage assigned severity, ED staffing, boarding level, and time effect, with social factors mutually adjusted. Additionally adjusting for patients' social factors, patients placed in hallways had higher odds of elopement (1.23 (1.07,1.41)), 72-h ED revisit (1.33 (1.08, 1.64)) and 10-day ED revisit (1.23 (1.11, 1.36)) comparing with patients placed in regular ED rooms. We did not find statistically significant associations between hallway placement and LWBS, discharge AMA, or escalation of care. CONCLUSION: While hallway usage is ad hoc, we find consistent differences in care delivery with those insured by Medicaid and self-pay or male sex being placed in hallway beds. Further work should examine how new front-end processes such as provider in triage or split flow may be associated with inequities in patient access to emergency and hospital care.

Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Performance Measures in Alternative Payment Models: Current Use, Implementation Barriers, and Principles to Succeed.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based performance measures (PRO-PMs) offer opportunities to aggregate survey data into a reliable and valid assessment of performance at the entity-level (eg, clinician, hospital, and accountable care organization). Our objective was to address the existing literature gap regarding the implementation barriers, current use, and principles for PRO-PMs to succeed. METHODS: As quality measurement experts, we first highlighted key principles of PRO-PMs and how alternative payment models (APMs) may be integral in promoting more widespread use. In May 2023, we reviewed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Measures Inventory Tool for active PRO-PM usage within CMS programs. We finally present principles to prioritize as part PRO-PMs succeeding within APMs. RESULTS: We identified 5 implementation barriers to PRO-PM use: original development of instrument, response rate sufficiency, provider burden, hesitancy regarding fairness, and attribution of desired outcomes. There existed 54 instances of active PRO-PM usage across CMS programs, including 46 unique PRO-PMs within 14 CMS programs. Five principles to prioritize as part of greater PRO-PM development and incorporation within APMs include the following: (1) clinical salience, (2) adequate sample size, (3) meaningful range of performance among measured entities and the ability to detect performance change in a reasonable time frame, (4) equity focus, and (5) appropriate risk adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Identified barriers and principles to prioritize should be considered during PRO-PM development and implementation phases to link available and novel measures to payment programs while ensuring provider and stakeholder engagement.

Race and Ethnicity and Emergency Department Discharge Against Medical Advice.

Importance: Although discharges against medical advice (DAMA) are associated with greater morbidity and mortality, little is known about current racial and ethnic disparities in DAMA from the emergency department (ED) nationally. Objective: To characterize current patterns of racial and ethnic disparities in rates of ED DAMA. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample on all hospital ED visits made between January to December 2019 in the US. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was odds of ED DAMA for Black and Hispanic patients compared with White patients nationally and in analysis adjusted for sociodemographic factors. Secondary analysis examined hospital-level variation in DAMA rates for Black, Hispanic, and White patients. Results: The study sample included 33 147 251 visits to 989 hospitals, representing the estimated 143 million ED visits in 2019. The median age of patients was 40 years (IQR, 22-61 years). Overall, 1.6% of ED visits resulted in DAMA. DAMA rates were higher for Black patients (2.1%) compared with Hispanic (1.6%) and White (1.4%) patients, males (1.7%) compared with females (1.5%), those with no insurance (2.8%), those with lower income (<$27 999; 1.9%), and those aged 35 to 49 years (2.2%). DAMA visits were highest at metropolitan teaching hospitals (1.8%) and hospitals that served greater proportions of racial and ethnic minoritized patients (serving ≥57.9%; 2.1%). Odds of DAMA were greater for Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; 95% CI, 1.31-1.57) and Hispanic patients (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.29) compared with White patients. After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, income, and insurance status), the adjusted OR (AOR) for DAMA was lower for Black patients compared with the unadjusted OR (AOR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.09-1.28) and there was no difference in odds for Hispanic patients (AOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.92-1.15) compared with White patients. After additional adjustment for hospital random intercepts, DAMA disparities reversed, with Black and Hispanic patients having lower odds of DAMA compared with White patients (Black patients: AOR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.90-0.98]; Hispanic patients: AOR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.63-0.72]). The intraclass correlation in this secondary analysis model was 0.118 (95% CI, 0.104-0.133). Conclusions and Relevance: This national cross-sectional study found that Black and Hispanic patients had greater odds of ED DAMA than White patients in unadjusted analysis. Disparities were reversed after patient-level and hospital-level risk adjustment, and greater between-hospital than within-hospital variation in DAMA was observed, suggesting that Black and Hispanic patients are more likely to receive care in hospitals with higher DAMA rates. Structural racism may contribute to ED DAMA disparities via unequal allocation of health care resources in hospitals that disproportionately treat racial and ethnic minoritized groups. Monitoring variation in DAMA by race and ethnicity and hospital suggests an opportunity to improve equitable access to health care.

Mystery Shopper Study of State Medicaid Coverage for Out-of-State Abortion Care.

This cross-sectional study uses a mystery shopper survey to examine variation in state Medicaid agency responses to coverage questions on out-of-state abortion care.

Unfilled in emergency medicine: An analysis of the 2022 and 2023 Match by program accreditation, ownership, and geography.

Background: The two most recent National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Match cycles saw a high number of initially unfilled emergency medicine (EM) residency positions. We sought to identify the risk of EM residency program characteristics including accreditation duration, primary clinical site ownership status, and geography pertaining to not initially filling all positions. Methods: We performed a repeated cross-sectional observational study of EM residency programs participating in the 2022 and 2023 NRMP Match cycles and used publicly available data from the NRMP, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Our primary outcome was the proportion of EM residency programs that did not initially fill positions, with analyses stratified by accreditation duration (>5 or ≤5 years), primary clinical site ownership status, and geographic core-based statistical areas (CBSAs). Results: A total of 219 of 2921 (7.5%) positions in the 2022 Match and 554 of 3010 (18.4%) positions in the 2023 Match were initially unfilled. Over the 2-year period, EM residency programs accredited within the past 5 years had more than double the risk (relative risk [RR] 2.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.69-2.57, chi-square p < 0.001) of not filling all positions compared to those accredited more than 5 years previously. EM residency programs with a primary clinical site under for-profit ownership had a 50% greater risk of not filling all positions when compared to those under nonprofit or governmental ownership (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.14-1.98, chi-square p = 0.009). In 2023, several CBSAs had a high number of both offered and unfilled positions. Conclusions: EM residency programs accredited within the past 5 years or those with a primary clinical site under for-profit ownership had a greater risk of not filling all positions within the past two Match cycles.