Integrating Social Drivers of Health into Hospital Ratings with Application to the 100 Top Hospitals Study.

The objective was to investigate the relationship between social drivers of health (SDOH) and hospital performance within the 100 Top Hospitals study, exploring methods to recognize hospitals serving marginalized communities. Publicly available data sourced from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the 2023 100 Top Hospitals study was used. The study employed multivariable hierarchical generalized linear regression models to assess the association between an SDOH composite variable derived using principal component analysis and overall hospital performance measures within the 100 Top Hospitals study. The analysis revealed a statistically significant association between SDOH factors and study ranking results. The SDOH composite variable is a significant predictor of performance within the 100 Top Hospitals study. Accounting for SDOH is essential to recognize high-performing hospitals serving marginalized communities. The findings suggest a need for broader considerations of SDOH in hospital ranking methodologies across various industry programs.

Controlled CMS Data Demonstrates a Cost and Clinical Advantage for Hyperbaric Oxygen for Radiation Cystitis.

Introduction: Increasing cancer survivorship, in part due to new radiation treatments, has created a larger population at risk for delayed complications of treatment. Radiation cystitis continues to occur despite targeted radiation techniques. Materials and Methods: To investigate value-based care applying hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) to treat delayed radiation cystitis, we reviewed public-access Medicare data from 3,309 patients from Oct 1, 2014, through Dec 31, 2019. Using novel statistical modeling, we compared cost and clinical effectiveness in a hyperbaric oxygen group to a control group receiving conventional therapies. Results: Treatment in the hyperbaric group provided a 36% reduction in urinary bleeding, a 78% reduced frequency of blood transfusion for hematuria, a 31% reduction in endoscopic procedures, and fewer hospitalizations when study patients were compared to control. There was a 53% reduction in mortality and reduced unadjusted Medicare costs of $5,059 per patient within the first year after completion of HBO2 treatment per patient. When at least 40 treatments were provided, cost savings per patient increased to $11,548 for the HBO2 study group compared to the control group. This represents a 37% reduction in Medicare spending for the HBO2-treated group. We also validate a dose-response curve effect with a complete course of 40 or more HBO2 treatments having better clinical outcomes than those treated with fewer treatments. Conclusion: These data support previous studies that demonstrate clinical benefits now with cost- effectiveness when adjunctive HBO2 treatments are added to routine interventions. The methodology provides a comparative group selected without bias. It also provides validation of statistical modeling techniques that may be valuable in future analysis, complementary to more traditional methods.

Business and Corporate Models for Interventional Radiology in the Office Based Lab and Ambulatory Surgical Center Setting.

The landscape of healthcare is shifting towards outpatient settings such as Office-Based Labs (OBLs) and Ambulatory Surgery Centers (ASCs). This transition, driven by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), presents various business and corporate models for interventional radiologists seeking to practice outside traditional hospital environments. The role of private equity and management services in facilitating these transitions is highlighted, offering opportunities for growth, efficiency, and enhanced control over practice operations. The document also discusses the financial aspects of establishing an OBL or ASC, the benefits of outpatient procedures, and the adaptability of private equity deals to the specific needs of medical practices. It concludes by emphasizing the potential for long-term wealth creation and the adaptability of these models to individual physician needs.

Practical Applications and Observational Implications of Time-Based Coding for Workers' Compensation Clinical Encounters-A Follow-up to Best Practices in Documenting and Coding High-Value Care in Workers' Compensation Encounters-ACOEM Guidance Statement.

ABSTRACT: Clinical practices that provide workers' compensation care and other services related to managing work-related illnesses and injuries have long been challenged in receiving appropriate payment for their professional work. The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) has provided excellent guidelines for coding and billing via its various documents that have been provided over the years. However, despite these guidelines, payors have been slow to adopt occupational specific coding guidelines to justify higher professional payment. With the move to a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)-sponsored time-based coding option in 2011, the occupational and environmental medicine (OEM) clinics have been able to finally not only document but recoup the value of those services that go beyond the simple patient interface, being able to capture those activities that truly provide high value in the management of workers' medical issues.

Scaling the CMS Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Model.

This Viewpoint discusses the potential benefits of expanding the Million Hearts Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Model of the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

Incorporating Medicare Advantage Admissions Into the CMS Hospital-Wide Readmission Measure.

Importance: Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment is rapidly expanding, yet Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) claims-based hospital outcome measures, including readmission rates, have historically included only fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries. Objective: To assess the outcomes of incorporating MA data into the CMS claims-based FFS Hospital-Wide All-Cause Unplanned Readmission (HWR) measure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assessed differences in 30-day unadjusted readmission rates and demographic and risk adjustment variables for MA vs FFS admissions. Inpatient FFS and MA administrative claims data were extracted from the Integrated Data Repository for all admissions for Medicare beneficiaries from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019. Measure reliability and risk-standardized readmission rates were calculated for the FFS and MA cohort vs the FFS-only cohort, overall and within specialty subgroups (cardiorespiratory, cardiovascular, medicine, surgery, neurology), then changes in hospital performance quintiles were assessed after adding MA admissions. Main Outcome and Measure: Risk-standardized readmission rates. Results: The cohort included 11 029 470 admissions (4 077 633 [37.0%] MA; 6 044 060 [54.8%] female; mean [SD] age, 77.7 [8.2] years). Unadjusted readmission rates were slightly higher for MA vs FFS admissions (15.7% vs 15.4%), yet comorbidities were generally lower among MA beneficiaries. Test-retest reliability for the FFS and MA cohort was higher than for the FFS-only cohort (0.78 vs 0.73) and signal-to-noise reliability increased in each specialty subgroup. Mean hospital risk-standardized readmission rates were similar for the FFS and MA cohort and FFS-only cohorts (15.5% vs 15.3%); this trend was consistent across the 5 specialty subgroups. After adding MA admissions to the FFS-only HWR measure, 1489 hospitals (33.1%) had their performance quintile ranking changed. As their proportion of MA admissions increased, more hospitals experienced a change in their performance quintile ranking (147 hospitals [16.3%] in the lowest quintile of percentage MA admissions; 408 [45.3%] in the highest). The combined cohort added 63 hospitals eligible for public reporting and more than 4 million admissions to the measure. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, adding MA admissions to the HWR measure was associated with improved measure reliability and precision and enabled the inclusion of more hospitals and beneficiaries. After MA admissions were included, 1 in 3 hospitals had their performance quintile changed, with the greatest shifts among hospitals with a high percentage of MA admissions.

Discordance in Published 30-Day Readmission Rates Following Primary Total Hip and Total Knee Arthroplasty: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Versus the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP).

Background: 30-day readmission is an important quality metric evaluated following primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) that has implications for hospital performance and reimbursement. Differences in how 30-day readmissions are defined between Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and other quality improvement programs (i.e., National Surgical Quality Improvement Program [NSQIP]) may create discordance in published 30-day readmission rates. The purpose of this study was to evaluate 30-day readmission rates following primary TJA using two different temporal definitions. Methods: Patients undergoing primary total hip and primary total knee arthroplasty at a single academic institution from 2015-2020 were identified via common procedural terminology (CPT) codes in the electronic medical record (EMR) and institutional NSQIP data. Readmissions that occurred within 30 days of surgery (consistent with definition of 30-day readmission in NSQIP) and readmissions that occurred within 30 days of hospital discharge (consistent with definition of 30-day readmission from CMS) were identified. Rates of 30-day readmission and the prevalence of readmission during immortal time were calculated. Results: In total, 4,202 primary TJA were included. The mean hospital length of stay (LOS) was 1.79 days. 91% of patients were discharged to home. 30-day readmission rate using the CMS definition was 3.1% (130/4,202). 30-day readmission rate using the NSQIP definition was 2.7% (113/4,202). Eight readmissions captured by the CMS definition (6.1%) occurred during immortal time. Conclusion: Differences in temporal definitions of 30-day readmission following primary TJA between CMS and NSQIP results in discordant rates of 30-day readmission. Level of Evidence: III.

Quantifying Industry Spending on Promotional Events Using Open Payments Data.

Importance: Sponsorship of promotional events for health professionals is a key facet of marketing campaigns for pharmaceuticals and medical devices; however, there appears to be limited transparency regarding the scope and scale of this spending. Objective: To develop a novel method for describing the scope and quantifying the spending by US pharmaceutical and medical companies on industry-sponsored promotional events for particular products. Design and Setting: This was a cross-sectional study using records from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid's Open Payments database on payments made to prescribing clinicians from January 1 to December 21, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: An event-centric approach was used to define sponsored events as groupings of payment records with matching variables. Events were characterized by value (coffee, lunch, dinner, or banquet) and number of attendees (small vs large). To test the method, the number of and total spending for each type of event across professional groups were calculated and used to identify the top 10 products related to dinner events. To validate the method, we extracted all event details advertised on the websites of 4 state-level nurse practitioner associations that regularly hosted industry-sponsored dinner events during 2022 and compared these with events identified in the Open Payments database. Results: A total of 1 154 806 events sponsored by pharmaceutical and medical device companies were identified for 2022. Of these, 1 151 351 (99.7%) had fewer than 20 attendees, and 922 214 (80.0%) were considered to be a lunch ($10-$30 per person). Seven companies sponsored 16 031 dinners for the top 10 products. Of the 227 sponsored in-person dinner events hosted by the 4 state-level nurse practitioner associations, 168 (74.0%) matched events constructed from the Open Payments dataset. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings indicate that an event-centric analysis of Open Payments data is a valid method to understand the scope and quantify spending by pharmaceutical and medical device companies on industry-sponsored promotional events attended by prescribers. Expanding and enforcing the reporting requirements to cover all payments to all registered health professionals would improve the accuracy of estimates of the true extent of all sponsored events and their impact on clinical practice.

Price benchmarks of drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation and their therapeutic alternatives.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are currently negotiating prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers for the first 10 Part D drugs selected for Medicare drug price negotiation. Non-publicly available data, including the net prices of selected drugs and their therapeutic alternatives, will play a central role in the determination of the maximum fair prices (MFPs). OBJECTIVE: To estimate price benchmarks involved in the derivation of the starting point of the CMS initial price offer for the 10 drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation. METHODS: For the 10 drugs selected for negotiation, we reported (1) the list price, (2) the net price after manufacturer discounts, (3) the maximum negotiated price based on the minimum statutory discount, and (4) the ceiling of the MFP, estimated as the lowest of the latter 2. We also estimated net prices for therapeutic alternatives to the selected drugs. Net prices were estimated using peer-reviewed methodology that isolates commercial discounts negotiated between payers and manufacturers from mandatory discounts under government programs. All price benchmarks were estimated at the product level, for 30-day equivalent dosing, using 2021 data. RESULTS: 6 products (apixaban, rivaroxaban, empagliflozin, sacubitril/valsartan, etanercept, and insulin aspart) had therapeutic alternatives with lower net prices, which will be integrated with clinical benefit data in the derivation of initial price offers. The other 4 products (ustekinumab, ibrutinib, sitagliptin, and dapagliflozin) had therapeutic alternatives with higher net prices than the drugs selected for negotiation. For ibrutinib and ustekinumab, prices based on the minimum discounts were considerably lower than the estimated net prices and will likely set the starting point of the initial price offer. For dapagliflozin and sitagliptin, the starting point of the initial price offer will likely resemble their existing net prices. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses identify different negotiation scenarios for the first 10 drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation, based on key elements involved in the derivation of the initial price offer. Our analyses can help improve transparency in the negotiation process, because the CMS is not required to reveal the information used in the derivation of price offers.

A Rule-Based Solution to Opaque Medical Billing in the U.S.

Patients and physicians do not know the cost of medical procedures. Opaque medical billing thus contributes to exorbitant, rising medical costs, burdening the healthcare system and individuals. After criticizing two proposed solutions to the problem of opaque medical billing, I argue that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should pursue a rule requiring that patients be informed by the physician of a reasonable out-of-pocket expense estimate for non-urgent procedures prior to services rendered.

Advanced Hospital Healthcare at Home-How Is It Going?

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) Acute Hospital Care at Home (AHCAH) waiver, which launched in November 2020, has prompted hundreds of hospitals across the country to initiate programs that allow certain patients to complete their acute care stays in the familiar comfort of their homes. But this waiver is about to expire in December 2024. It is a success; but can we continue it?

Trends in hospital price transparency after implementation of the CMS Final Rule.

OBJECTIVE: To assess trends in hospital price disclosures after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Final Rule went into effect. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: The Turquoise Health Price Transparency Dataset was used to identify all US hospitals that publicly displayed pricing from 2021 to 2023. STUDY DESIGN: Price-disclosing versus nondisclosing hospitals were compared using Pearson's Chi-squared and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Bayesian structural time-series modeling was used to determine if enforcement of increased penalties for nondisclosure was associated with a change in the trend of hospital disclosures. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Not applicable. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: As of January 2023, 5162 of 6692 (77.1%) US hospitals disclosed pricing of their services, with the majority (2794 of 5162 [54.1%]) reporting their pricing within the first 6 months of the final rule going into effect in January 2021. An increase in hospital disclosures was observed after penalties for nondisclosure were enforced in January 2022 (relative effect size 20%, p = 0.002). Compared with nondisclosing hospitals, disclosing hospitals had higher annual revenue, bed number, and were more likely to be have nonprofit ownership, academic affiliation, provide emergency services, and be in highly concentrated markets (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital pricing disclosures are continuously in flux and influenced by regulatory and market factors.

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.

Access denied: CMS' action hurts patients with cancer in rural America.

In 2020, cancer claimed more than 600,000 lives in the US. Cancer is an unyielding public health crisis. Cancer treatments typically involve multidisciplinary approaches, including surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and oral medications. For patients, especially those in rural areas, obtaining multiple oral medications can be inconvenient. The adoption of delivering cancer medications from medically integrated pharmacies (MIPs) has become popular in recent years. On May 12, 2023, CMS introduced guidelines restricting MIPs from delivering cancer-specific medications by mail or to oncology satellite offices and also requiring patients themselves to pick up the medications in person. This regulatory change has had a devastating impact on patients with cancer in rural and underserved communities, exacerbating existing health care disparities. This commentary explores the negative impacts of the policy change by CMS in rural America.