Clinical Outcomes After Admission of Patients With COVID-19 to Skilled Nursing Facilities.

Importance: During the COVID-19 pandemic, stabilized COVID-19-positive patients were discharged to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) to alleviate hospital crowding. These discharges generated controversy due to fears of seeding outbreaks, but there is little empirical evidence to inform policy. Objective: To assess the association between the admission to SNFs of COVID-19-positive patients and subsequent COVID-19 cases and death rates among residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed survey data from the National Healthcare Safety Network of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The cohort included SNFs in the US from June 2020 to March 2021. Exposed facilities (ie, with initial admission of COVID-19-positive patients) were matched to control facilities (ie, without initial admission of COVID-19-positive patients) in the same county and with similar preadmission case counts. Data were analyzed from June 2023 to February 2024. Exposure: The week of the first observable admission of COVID-19-positive patients (defined as those previously diagnosed with COVID-19 and continued to require transmission-based precautions) during the study period. Main Outcomes and Measures: Weekly counts of new cases of COVID-19, COVID-19-related deaths, and all-cause deaths per 100 residents in the week prior to the initial admission. A stacked difference-in-differences approach was used to compare outcomes for 10 weeks before and 15 weeks after the first admission. Additional analyses examined whether outcomes differed in facilities with staff or personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages. Results: A matched group of 264 exposed facilities and 518 control facilities was identified. Over the 15-week follow-up period, exposed SNFs had a cumulative increase of 6.94 (95% CI, 2.91-10.98) additional COVID-19 cases per 100 residents compared with control SNFs, a 31.3% increase compared with the sample mean (SD) of 22.2 (26.4). Exposed facilities experienced 2.31 (95% CI, 1.39-3.24) additional cumulative COVID-19-related deaths per 100 residents compared with control facilities, representing a 72.4% increase compared with the sample mean (SD) of 3.19 (5.5). Exposed facilities experiencing potential staff shortage and PPE shortage had larger increases in COVID-19 cases per 100 residents (additional 10.97 [95% CI, 2.76-19.19] cases and additional 14.81 [95% CI, 2.38-27.25] cases, respectively) compared with those without such shortages. Conclusion: This cohort study suggests that admission of COVID-19-positive patients into SNFs early in the pandemic was associated with preventable COVID-19 cases and mortality among residents, particularly in facilities with potential staff and PPE shortages. The findings speak to the importance of equipping SNFs to adhere to infection-control best practices as they continue to face COVID-19 strains and other respiratory diseases.

Preferences for Postacute Care at Home vs Facilities.

Importance: Two in 5 US hospital stays result in rehabilitative postacute care, typically through skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) or home health agencies (HHAs). However, a lack of clear guidelines and understanding of patient and caregiver preferences make it challenging to promote high-value patient-centered care. Objective: To assess preferences and willingness to pay for facility-based vs home-based postacute care among patients and caregivers, considering demographic variations. Design, Setting, and Participants: In September 2022, a nationally representative survey was conducted with participants 45 years or older. Using a discrete choice experiment, participants acting as patients or caregivers chose between facility-based and home-based postacute care that best met their preferences, needs, and family conditions. Survey weights were applied to generate nationally representative estimates. Main Outcomes and Measures: Preferences and willingness to pay for various attributes of postacute care settings were assessed, examining variation based on demographic factors, socioeconomic status, job security, and previous care experiences. Results: A total of 2077 adults were invited to participate in the survey; 1555 (74.9%) completed the survey. In the weighted sample, 52.9% of participants were women, 6.5% were Asian or Pacific Islander, 1.7% were American Indian or Alaska Native, 11.2% were Black or African American, 78.4% were White; the mean (SD) age was 62.6 (9.6) years; and there was a survey completion rate of 74.9%. Patients and caregivers showed a substantial willingness to pay for home-based and high-quality care. Patients and caregivers were willing to pay an additional $58.08 per day (95% CI, 45.32-70.83) and $45.54 per day (95% CI, 31.09-59.99) for HHA care compared with a shared SNF room, respectively. However, increased demands on caregiver time within an HHA scenario and socioeconomic challenges, such as insecure employment, shifted caregivers' preferences toward facility-based care. There was a strong aversion to below average quality. To avoid below average SNF care, patients and caregivers were willing to pay $75.21 per day (95% CI, 61.68-88.75) and $79.10 per day (95% CI, 63.29-94.91) compared with average-quality care, respectively. Additionally, prior awareness and experience with postacute care was associated with willingness to pay for home-based care. No differences in preferences among patients and caregivers based on race, educational background, urban or rural residence, general health status, or housing type were observed. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this survey study underscore a prevailing preference for home-based postacute care, aligning with current policy trends. However, attention is warranted for disadvantaged groups who are potentially overlooked during the shift toward home-based care, particularly those facing caregiver constraints and socioeconomic hardships. Ensuring equitable support and improved quality measure tools are crucial for promoting patient-centric postacute care, with emphasis on addressing the needs of marginalized groups.

Hospice providers serving assisted living residents: Association of higher volume with lower quality.

BACKGROUND: Assisted living (AL) community caregivers are known to report lower quality of hospice care. However, little is known about hospice providers serving AL residents and factors that may contribute to, and explain, differences in quality. We examined the association between hospice providers' AL patient-day volume and their quality ratings based on Hospice Item Set (HIS) and Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Hospice Surveys. METHODS: This cross-sectional study employed information from the Medicare Compare website and Medicare claims data. Medicare-eligible AL residents were identified using previously validated methods and merged with hospice claims. Linear probability models adjusting for county fixed effects were used to examine the association between hospice provider AL volume, measured as the share of annual hospice patient days from AL residents, and quality measures obtained from HIS and CAHPS. Models controlled for hospice providers' profit status and daily patient census. RESULTS: Higher AL-volume hospice providers were 7 percentage points more likely to have caregivers reporting lower median scores on domains of pain assessment, dyspnea treatment, and emotional support. Their caregivers also reported lower scores in team communications and training family to provide care. Higher AL-volume hospice providers also were 5 percentage points less likely to get higher aggregated scores from all CAHPS domains and 7 percentage points less likely to have higher HIS composite scores. CONCLUSIONS: Hospice providers serving higher volumes of AL patient days had lower quality scores. In order to identify targeted opportunities for quality improvement, research is needed to understand why lower quality providers are concentrated in the AL market.

Clinical Risk and Outpatient Therapy Utilization for COVID-19 in the Medicare Population.

Importance: Multiple therapies are available for outpatient treatment of COVID-19 that are highly effective at preventing hospitalization and mortality. Although racial and socioeconomic disparities in use of these therapies have been documented, limited evidence exists on what factors explain differences in use and the potential public health relevance of these differences. Objective: To assess COVID-19 outpatient treatment utilization in the Medicare population and simulate the potential outcome of allocating treatment according to patient risk for severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included patients enrolled in Medicare in 2022 across the US, identified with 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was any COVID-19 outpatient therapy utilization. Secondary outcomes included COVID-19 testing, ambulatory visits, and hospitalization. Differences in outcomes were estimated based on patient demographics, treatment contraindications, and a composite risk score for mortality after COVID-19 based on demographics and comorbidities. A simulation of reallocating COVID-19 treatment, particularly with nirmatrelvir, to those at high risk of severe disease was performed, and the potential COVID-19 hospitalizations and mortality outcomes were assessed. Results: In 2022, 6.0% of 20 026 910 beneficiaries received outpatient COVID-19 treatment, 40.5% of which had no associated COVID-19 diagnosis within 10 days. Patients with higher risk for severe disease received less outpatient treatment, such as 6.4% of those aged 65 to 69 years compared with 4.9% of those 90 years and older (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.62-0.65]) and 6.4% of White patients compared with 3.0% of Black patients (aOR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.54-0.58]). In the highest COVID-19 severity risk quintile, 2.6% were hospitalized for COVID-19 and 4.9% received outpatient treatment, compared with 0.2% and 7.5% in the lowest quintile. These patterns were similar among patients with a documented COVID-19 diagnosis, those with no claims for vaccination, and patients who are insured with Medicare Advantage. Differences were not explained by variable COVID-19 testing, ambulatory visits, or treatment contraindications. Reallocation of 2022 outpatient COVID-19 treatment, particularly with nirmatrelvir, based on risk for severe COVID-19 would have averted 16 503 COVID-19 deaths (16.3%) in the sample. Conclusion: In this cross-sectional study, outpatient COVID-19 treatment was disproportionately accessed by beneficiaries at lower risk for severe infection, undermining its potential public health benefit. Undertreatment was not driven by lack of clinical access or treatment contraindications.

Health Care Staff Turnover and Quality of Care at Nursing Homes.

Importance: Turnover in health care staff may disrupt patient care and create operational and organizational challenges, and nursing home staff turnover rates are particularly high. Empirical evidence on the association between turnover and quality of care is limited and has typically relied on low-quality measures of turnover, small and selected samples of facilities, and comparisons across facilities that are highly susceptible to residual confounding. Objective: To quantify the association between nursing home staff turnover and quality of care using within-facility variation over time in reliable turnover measures available for virtually all US nursing homes. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on health inspection citations and quality measures at US nursing homes were combined with turnover measures constructed from daily staffing payroll data for quarter 2 of 2017 (April 1 to June 30) to quarter 4 of 2019 (October 1 to December 31), covering 1.06 billion shifts for 7.48 million employment relationships at 15 869 facilities. A 2-way fixed-effects design was used to estimate the association between staff turnover (direct care nursing staff and administrators) and quality-of-care outcomes based on how the same facility performed differently in times of low and high turnover. Data analysis was performed from September 2022 to August 2023. Exposures: Facility turnover, defined as the share of hours worked in a period by staff hired within the last 90 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number, type, scope, and severity of health inspection citations, overall health inspection scores, and Nursing Home Compare quality measures. Results: The study sample included 1.45 million facility-weeks between April 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019, corresponding to 13 826 unique facilities. During an average facility-week, 15.0% of nursing staff and 11.6% of administrators were new hires due to recent turnover. After both administrator turnover and the overall staffing level were controlled for, an additional 10 percentage points in nursing staff turnover in the 2 weeks before a health inspection was associated with an additional 0.241 (95% CI, 0.084-0.399) citations in that inspection, compared with a mean of 5.98 citations. An additional 10 percentage points in nursing staff turnover was associated with a mean decrease of 0.035 (95% CI, 0.023-0.047) SDs in assessment-based quality measures and 0.020 (95% CI, 0.001-0.038) SDs in claims-based quality measures, with the strongest associations found for measures related to patient functioning. Conclusions and Relevance: Within-facility variation in staff turnover was associated with decreased quality of care. These findings suggest that efforts to monitor and reduce staff turnover may be able to improve patient outcomes.

Monoclonal Antibody and Oral Antiviral Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in US Nursing Homes.

This study examines the use of COVID-19 antiviral treatments in US nursing homes and the facility characteristics associated with use of oral antivirals and monoclonal antibodies.

Association of Receipt of Paycheck Protection Program Loans With Staffing Patterns Among US Nursing Homes.

Importance: Staffing shortages in nursing homes (NHs) threaten the quality of resident care, and the COVID-19 pandemic magnified critical staffing shortages within NHs. During the pandemic, the US Congress enacted the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), a forgivable loan program that required eligible recipients to appropriate 60% to 75% of the loan toward staffing to qualify for loan forgiveness. Objective: To evaluate characteristics of PPP loan recipient NHs vs nonloan recipient NHs and whether there were changes in staffing hours at NHs that received a loan compared with those that did not. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used national data on US nursing homes that were aggregated from the Small Business Administration, Nursing Home Compare, LTCFocus, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Payroll Based Journal, the Minimum Data Set, the Area Deprivation Index, the Healthcare Cost Report Information System, and the US Department of Agriculture Rural-Urban Continuum Codes from January 1 to December 23, 2020. Exposure: Paycheck Protection Program loan receipt status. Main Outcome and Measures: Staffing variables included registered nurse, licensed practical nurse (LPN), and certified nursing assistant (CNA) total hours per week. Staffing hours were examined on a weekly basis before and after loan receipt during the study period. An event-study approach was used to estimate the staffing total weekly hours at NHs that received PPP loans compared with NHs that did not receive a PPP loan. Results: Among 6008 US NHs, 1807 (30.1%) received a PPP loan and 4201 (69.9%) did not. The median loan amount was $664 349 (IQR, $407 000-$1 058 300). Loan recipients were less likely to be part of a chain (733 [40.6%] vs 2592 [61.7%]) and more likely to be for profit (1342 [74.3%] vs 2877 [68.5%]), be located in nonurban settings (159 [8.8%] vs 183 [4.4%]), have a greater proportion of Medicaid-funded residents (mean [SD], 60.92% [21.58%] vs 56.78% [25.57%]), and have lower staffing quality ratings (mean [SD], 2.88 [1.20] vs 3.03 [1.22]) and overall quality star ratings (mean [SD], 3.08 [1.44] vs 3.22 [1.44]) (P < .001 for all). Twelve weeks after PPP loan receipt, NHs that received a PPP loan experienced a mean difference of 26.19 more CNA hours per week (95% CI, 14.50-37.87 hours per week) and a mean difference of 6.67 more LPN hours per week (95% CI, 1.21-12.12 hours per week) compared with nursing homes that did not receive a PPP loan. No associations were found between PPP loan receipt and weekly RN staffing hours (12 weeks: mean difference, 1.99 hours per week; 95% CI, -2.38 to 6.36 hours per week). Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, a forgivable loan program that required funding to be appropriated toward staffing was associated with a significant increase in CNA and LPN staffing hours among NH PPP loan recipients. Because the PPP loans are temporary, federal and state entities may need to institute sufficient and sustainable support to mitigate NH staffing shortages.

Examination of Staffing Shortages at US Nursing Homes During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Staffing shortages have been widely reported in US nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic, but traditional quantitative research analyses have found mixed evidence of staffing shortfalls. Objective: To examine whether nursing home administrator perspectives can provide context for conflicting aggregate staffing reports in US nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a qualitative study, convergent mixed-methods analysis integrating qualitative and quantitative data sets was used. Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted between July 14, 2020, and December 16, 2021. Publicly available national Payroll Based Journal data were retrieved from January 1, 2020, to September 30, 2022, on 40 US nursing homes in 8 health care markets that varied by region and nursing home use patterns. Staffing and resident measures were derived from Payroll Based Journal data and compared with national trends for 15 436 US nursing homes. Nursing home administrators were recruited for interviews. Of the 40 administrators who consented to participate, 4 were lost to follow-up. Exposure: Four repeated, semistructured qualitative interviews with participants were conducted. Interview questions focused on the changes noted during the COVID-19 pandemic in nursing homes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Thematic description of nursing home administrator compensatory strategies to provide context for quantitative analyses on nursing home staffing levels during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: A total of 156 interviews were completed with 40 nursing home administrators. Administrators reported experiencing staff shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic and using compensatory strategies, such as overtime, cross-training, staff-to-resident ratio adjustments, use of agency staff, and curtailing admissions, to maintain operations and comply with minimum staffing regulations. Payroll Based Journal data measures graphed from January 1, 2020, to September 30, 2022, supported administrator reports showing that study facilities had reductions in staff hours, increased use of agency staff, and decreased resident census. Findings were similar to national trends. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative, convergent mixed-methods study, nursing home administrators reported the major staffing strain they experienced at their facilities and the strategies they used to offset staffing shortages. Their experiences provide context to quantitative analyses on aggregate nursing home census data. The short-term compensatory measures administrators used to comply with regulations and maintain operations may be detrimental to the long-term stability of this workforce.

Hospital Proximity and Emergency Department Use among Assisted Living Residents.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between AL communities' distance to the nearest hospital and residents' rates of emergency department (ED) use. We hypothesize that when access to an ED is more convenient, as measured by a shorter distance, assisted living (AL)-to-ED transfers are more common, particularly for nonemergent conditions. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study, where the main exposure of interest was the distance between each AL and the nearest hospital. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 2018-2019 Medicare claims were used to identify fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥55 years residing in AL communities. METHODS: The primary outcome of interest was ED visit rates, classified into those that resulted in an inpatient hospital admission and those that did not (ie, ED treat-and-release visits). ED treat-and-release visits were further classified, based on the NYU ED Algorithm, as (1) nonemergent; (2) emergent, primary care treatable; (3) emergent, not primary care treatable; and (4) injury-related. Linear regression models adjusting for resident characteristics and hospital referral region fixed effects were used to estimate the relationship between distance to the nearest hospital and AL resident ED use rates. RESULTS: Among 540,944 resident-years from 16,514 AL communities, the median distance to the nearest hospital was 2.5 miles. After adjustment, a doubling of distance to the nearest hospital was associated with 43.5 fewer ED treat-and-release visits per 1000 resident years (95% CI -53.1, -33.7) and no significant difference in the rate of ED visits resulting in an inpatient admission. Among ED treat-and-release visits, a doubling of distance was associated with a 3.0% (95% CI -4.1, -1.9) decline in visits classified as nonemergent, and a 1.6% (95% CI -2.4%, -0.8%) decline in visits classified as emergent, not primary care treatable. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Distance to the nearest hospital is an important predictor of ED use rates among AL residents, particularly for visits that are potentially avoidable. AL facilities may rely on nearby EDs to provide nonemergent primary care to residents, potentially placing residents at risk of iatrogenic events and generating wasteful Medicare spending.

Medicaid home and community-based services spending for older adults: Is there a "woodwork" effect?

BACKGROUND: Although older adults prefer to age at home, Medicaid has a longstanding institutional bias in funding long-term services and supports (LTSS). Some states have resisted expanding Medicaid funding for home- and community-based services (HCBS) due to budgetary concerns related to the so-called "woodwork" effect whereby individuals enroll on Medicaid to access HCBS. METHODS: To examine the implications associated with state Medicaid HCBS expansion, we obtained state-year data for 1999-2017 from various sources. We estimated difference-in-differences regressions comparing outcomes in states that expanded Medicaid HCBS aggressively versus those that expanded less aggressively, controlling for several covariates. We examined a range of outcomes including Medicaid enrollment, nursing home census, Medicaid institutional LTSS spending, total Medicaid LTSS spending, and Medicaid HCBS waiver enrollment. We measured HCBS expansion by the total share of state Medicaid LTSS spending for aged and disabled persons devoted to HCBS. RESULTS: HCBS expansion was not associated with increased Medicaid enrollment among individuals ages 65 and older. A 1% increase in HCBS spending was associated with reductions in the state nursing home population of 47.1 residents (95% confidence interval [CI]: -80.5, -13.8) and institutional Medicaid LTSS spending of $7.3 million (95% CI: -$12.1M, -$2.4M). A $1 increase in HCBS spending was associated with $0.74 increase (95% CI: $0.57, $0.91) in total LTSS spending, suggesting each dollar directed to HCBS was offset by $0.26 savings from decreased nursing home use. Increased HCBS waiver spending was associated with more older adults receiving LTSS at a lower cost per beneficiary served relative to the nursing home setting. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence of a woodwork effect in those states that expanded Medicaid HCBS more aggressively, as measured by age 65 and older Medicaid enrollment. However, they did experience Medicaid savings from reduced nursing home use, suggesting states that expand Medicaid HCBS are able to use these additional dollars to serve more LTSS recipients.

Spillover effect of the Patient Drive Payment Model on skilled nursing facility therapy delivery among Medicare Advantage enrollees.

In a multi-payer health care system, economic theory suggests that different payers can impose spillover effects on one another. This study aimed to evaluate the spillover effect of the Patient Driven Payment Model (PDPM) on Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees, despite it being designed for Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries. We applied a regression discontinuity approach by comparing therapy utilization before and after the implementation of PDPM in October 2019 focusing on patients newly admitted to skilled nursing facilities. The results showed that both TM and MA enrollees experienced a decrease in individual therapy minutes and an increase in non-individual therapy minutes. The estimated reduction in total therapy use was 9 min per day for TM enrollees and 3 min per day for MA enrollees. The effect of PDPM on MA beneficiaries varied depending on the level of MA penetration, with the smallest effect in facilities with the highest MA penetration quartile. In summary, the PDPM had directionally similar effects on therapy utilization for both TM and MA enrollees, but the magnitudes were smaller for MA beneficiaries. These results suggest that policy changes intended for TM beneficiaries may spillover to MA enrollees and should be assessed accordingly.

Covid-19 Surveillance Testing and Resident Outcomes in Nursing Homes.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread adoption of surveillance testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) among staff members in skilled nursing facilities, evidence is limited regarding its relationship with outcomes among facility residents. METHODS: Using data obtained from 2020 to 2022, we performed a retrospective cohort study of testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among staff members in 13,424 skilled nursing facilities during three pandemic periods: before vaccine approval, before the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant wave, and during the omicron wave. We assessed staff testing volumes during weeks without Covid-19 cases relative to other skilled nursing facilities in the same county, along with Covid-19 cases and deaths among residents during potential outbreaks (defined as the occurrence of a case after 2 weeks with no cases). We reported adjusted differences in outcomes between high-testing facilities (90th percentile of test volume) and low-testing facilities (10th percentile). The two primary outcomes were the weekly cumulative number of Covid-19 cases and related deaths among residents during potential outbreaks. RESULTS: During the overall study period, 519.7 cases of Covid-19 per 100 potential outbreaks were reported among residents of high-testing facilities as compared with 591.2 cases among residents of low-testing facilities (adjusted difference, -71.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], -91.3 to -51.6). During the same period, 42.7 deaths per 100 potential outbreaks occurred in high-testing facilities as compared with 49.8 deaths in low-testing facilities (adjusted difference, -7.1; 95% CI, -11.0 to -3.2). Before vaccine availability, high- and low-testing facilities had 759.9 cases and 1060.2 cases, respectively, per 100 potential outbreaks (adjusted difference, -300.3; 95% CI, -377.1 to -223.5), along with 125.2 and 166.8 deaths (adjusted difference, -41.6; 95% CI, -57.8 to -25.5). Before the omicron wave, the numbers of cases and deaths were similar in high- and low-testing facilities; during the omicron wave, high-testing facilities had fewer cases among residents, but deaths were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Greater surveillance testing of staff members at skilled nursing facilities was associated with clinically meaningful reductions in Covid-19 cases and deaths among residents, particularly before vaccine availability.

Association of State COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates With Staff Vaccination Coverage and Staffing Shortages in US Nursing Homes.

Importance: Several states implemented COVID-19 vaccine mandates for nursing home employees, which may have improved vaccine coverage but may have had the unintended consequence of staff departures. Objective: To assess whether state vaccine mandates for US nursing home employees are associated with staff vaccination rates and reported staff shortages. Design Setting and Participants: This cohort study performed event study analyses using National Healthcare Safety Network data from June 6, 2021, through November 14, 2021. Changes in weekly staff vaccination rates and reported staffing shortages were evaluated for nursing homes in states with mandates after the mandate announcement compared with changes in facilities in nonmandate states. An interaction between the mandates and county political leaning was considered. Data analysis was performed from February to March 2022. Exposures: Weeks after announcement of a state's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Main Outcomes and Measures: Weekly percentage of all health care staff at a nursing home who received at least 1 COVID-19 vaccine dose, and a weekly indicator of whether a nursing home reported a staffing shortage. Results: Among 38 study-eligible states, 26 had no COVID-19 vaccine mandate for nursing home employees, 4 had a mandate with a test-out option, and 8 had a mandate with no test-out option. Ten weeks or more after mandate announcement, nursing homes in states with a mandate and no test-out option experienced a 6.9 percentage point (pp) increase in staff vaccination coverage (95% CI, -0.1 to 13.9); nursing homes in mandate states with a test-out option experienced a 3.1 pp increase (95% CI, 0.5 to 5.7) compared with facilities in nonmandate states. No significant increases were detected in the frequency of reported staffing shortages after a mandate announcement in mandate states with or without test-out options. Increases in vaccination rates in states with mandates were larger in Republican-leaning counties (14.3 pp if no test-out option; 4.3 pp with option), and there was no evidence of increased staffing shortages. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that state-level vaccine mandates were associated with increased staff vaccination coverage without increases in reported staffing shortages. Vaccination increases were largest when mandates had no test-out option and were also larger in Republican-leaning counties, which had lower mean baseline vaccination rates. These findings support the use of state mandates for booster doses for nursing home employees because they may improve vaccine coverage, even in areas with greater vaccine hesitancy.

Staffing Patterns in US Nursing Homes During COVID-19 Outbreaks.

Importance: Staff absences and departures at nursing homes may put residents at risk and present operational challenges. Objective: To quantify changes in nursing home facility staffing during and after a severe COVID-19 outbreak. Design Setting and Participants: In this cohort study, daily staffing payroll data were used to construct weekly measures of facility staffing, absences, departures, and use of overtime and contract staff among US nursing homes experiencing a severe COVID-19 outbreak that started between June 14, 2020, and January 1, 2021. Facility outbreaks were identified using COVID-19 case data. An event-study design with facility and week fixed effects was used to investigate the association of severe outbreaks with staffing measures. Exposures: Weeks since the beginning of a severe COVID-19 outbreak (4 weeks prior to 16 weeks after). Main Outcomes and Measures: Total weekly staffing hours, staff counts, staff absences, departures, new hires, overtime and contract staff hours measured for all nursing staff and separately by staff type (registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, certified nursing assistants), facility self-reported staff shortages, and resident deaths. Results: Of the included 2967 nursing homes experiencing severe COVID-19 outbreaks, severe outbreaks were associated with a statistically significant drop in nursing staffing levels owing to elevated absences and departures. Four weeks after an outbreak's start, around when average new cases peaked, staffing hours were 2.6% (95% CI, 2.1%-3.2%) of the mean below preoutbreak levels, despite facilities taking substantial measures to bolster staffing through increased hiring and the use of contract staff and overtime. Because these measures were mostly temporary, staffing declined further in later weeks; 16 weeks after an outbreak's start, staffing hours were 5.5% (95% CI, 4.5%-6.5%) of the mean below preoutbreak levels. Staffing declines were greatest among certified nursing assistants, primarily owing to smaller increases in new hires of this staff type compared with licensed practical nurses and registered nurses. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of nursing homes experiencing severe COVID-19 outbreaks, facilities experienced considerable staffing challenges during and after outbreaks. These results suggest the need for policy action to ensure facilities' abilities to maintain adequate staffing levels during and after infectious disease outbreaks.

Association Between the Patient Driven Payment Model and Therapy Utilization and Patient Outcomes in US Skilled Nursing Facilities.

Importance: In October 2019, Medicare changed its skilled nursing facility (SNF) reimbursement model to the Patient Driven Payment Model (PDPM), which has modified financial incentives for SNFs that may relate to therapy use and health outcomes. Objective: To assess whether implementation of the PDPM was associated with changes in therapy utilization or health outcomes. Design Setting and Participants: This cross-sectional study used a regression discontinuity (RD) approach among Medicare fee-for-service postacute-care patients admitted to a Medicare-certified SNF following hip fracture between January 2018 and March 2020. Exposures: Skilled nursing facility admission after PDPM implementation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were individual and nonindividual (concurrent and group) therapy minutes per day, hospitalization within 40 days of SNF admission, SNF length of stay longer than 40 days, and discharge activities of daily living score. Results: The study cohort included 201 084 postacute-care patients (mean [SD] age, 83.8 [8.3] years; 143 830 women [71.5%]; 185 854 White patients [92.4%]); 147 711 were admitted pre-PDPM, and 53 373 were admitted post-PDPM. A decrease in individual therapy (RD estimate: -15.9 minutes per day; 95% CI, -16.9 to -14.6) and an increase in nonindividual therapy (RD estimate: 3.6 minutes per day; 95% CI, 3.4 to 3.8) were observed. Total therapy use in the first week following admission was about 12 minutes per day (95% CI, -13.3 to -11.3) (approximately 13%) lower for residents admitted post-PDPM vs pre-PDPM. No consistent and statistically significant discontinuity in hospital readmission (0.31 percentage point increase; 95% CI, -1.46 to 2.09), SNF length of stay (2.7 percentage point decrease in likelihood of staying longer than 40 days; 95% CI, -4.83 to -0.54), or functional score at discharge (0.04 point increase in activities of daily living score; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.26) was observed. Nonindividual therapy minutes were reduced to nearly zero in late March 2020, likely owing to COVID-19-related restrictions on communal activities in SNFs. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of SNF admission after PDPM implementation, a reduction of total therapy minutes was observed following the implementation of PDPM, even though PDPM was designed to be budget neutral. No significant changes in postacute outcomes were observed. Further study is needed to understand whether the PDPM is associated with successful discharge outcomes.