Prescribing of Proton Pump Inhibitors for Prevention of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in US Outpatient Visits.

Antisecretory medications, primarily proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), have proven effective in reducing upper gastrointestinal toxicities, including upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and aspirin, which are among the most commonly used medications in the United States.1 Accordingly, professional guidance recommends PPIs for patients at high risk for UGIB.2-4 However, little is known about trends in use of antisecretory medications for gastrointestinal prophylaxis ("gastroprotection"). Herein, we examined contemporary use and prescribing of antisecretory medications in visits by patients at high risk for UGIB, relative to visits by patients diagnosed with acid-related disorders.

Developing an electronic health record measure of low-value esophagogastroduodenoscopy for GERD at a large academic health system.

OBJECTIVES: Low-value esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) for uncomplicated gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) can harm patients and raise patient and payer costs. We developed an electronic health record (EHR) 'eMeasure' to detect low-value EGDs. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort of 518 adult patients diagnosed with GERD who underwent initial EGD between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2019. SETTING: Outpatient primary care and gastroenterology clinics at a large, urban, academic health centre. PARTICIPANTS: Adult primary care patients at the University of California Los Angeles who underwent initial EGD for GERD in 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: EGD appropriateness criteria were based on the American College of Gastroenterology 2012 guidelines. An initial EGD was considered low-value if it lacked a documented guideline-based indication, including alarm symptoms (eg, iron-deficiency anaemia); failure of an 8-week proton pump inhibitor trial or elevated Barrett's oesophagus risk. We performed manual chart review on a random sample of 204 patients as a gold standard of the eMeasure's validity. We estimated EGD costs using Medicare physician and facility fee rates. RESULTS: Among 518 initial EGDs performed (mean age 53 years; 54% female), the eMeasure identified 81 (16%) as low-value. The eMeasure's sensitivity was 42% (95% CI 22 to 61) and specificity was 93% (95% CI 89 to 96). Stratifying across clinics, 62 (74.6%) low-value EGDs originated from 2 (12.5%) out of 16 clinics. Total cost for 81 low-value EGDs was approximately US$75 573, including US$14 985 in patients' out-of-pocket costs. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a highly specific eMeasure that showed that low-value EGDs occurred frequently in our healthcare system and were concentrated in a minority of clinics. These results can inform future QI efforts at our institution, such as best practice alerts for the ordering physician. Moreover, this open-source eMeasure has a much broader potential impact, as it can be integrated into any EHR and improve medical decision-making at the point of care.

Proportion Of Preventive Primary Care Visits Nearly Doubled, Especially Among Medicare Beneficiaries, 2001-19.

There is debate about the value of preventive visits in primary care, and multiple policy trends during the past fifteen years may have influenced the likelihood of US adults undergoing preventive primary care visits. Using nationally representative, serial cross-sectional data on adult visits to primary care physicians from the 2001-19 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, we characterized temporal trends in the proportion of primary care visits with a preventive focus and the differential characteristics of these visits. Based on a sample of 139,783 unweighted (5,902,144,258 weighted) US primary care visits, we found that the proportion of primary care visits with a preventive focus increased between 2001 and 2019 (12.8 percent of visits in 2001-02 versus 24.6 percent in 2018-19; [Formula: see text]), with the greatest rate of increase seen for people with Medicare. Primary care visits with a preventive focus involved more time spent with the physician and addressed fewer reasons for the visit compared with problem-based visits. At least one of the following was significantly more likely to occur during a preventive visit than a problem-based visit: counseling provision, ordering of preventive labs, or ordering of a preventive image or procedure. Our findings demonstrate a relative increase in preventive versus problem-based visits in primary care and suggest the importance of enhanced insurance coverage in influencing preventive care delivery trends.

Choosing Wisely interventions to reduce antibiotic overuse in the safety net.

OBJECTIVES: Physician pay-for-performance (P4P) programs frequently target inappropriate antibiotics. Yet little is known about P4P programs' effects on antibiotic prescribing among safety-net populations at risk for unintended harms from reducing care. We evaluated effects of P4P-motivated interventions to reduce antibiotic prescriptions for safety-net patients with acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs). STUDY DESIGN: Interrupted time series. METHODS: A nonrandomized intervention (5/28/2015-2/1/2018) was conducted at 2 large academic safety-net hospitals: Los Angeles County+University of Southern California (LAC+USC) and Olive View-UCLA (OV-UCLA). In response to California's 2016 P4P program to reduce antibiotics for acute bronchitis, 5 staggered Choosing Wisely-based interventions were launched in combination: audit and feedback, clinician education, suggested alternatives, procalcitonin, and public commitment. We also assessed 5 unintended effects: reductions in Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS)-appropriate prescribing, diagnosis shifting, substituting antibiotics with steroids, increasing antibiotics for ARTIs not penalized by the P4P program, and inappropriate withholding of antibiotics. RESULTS: Among 3583 consecutive patients with ARTIs, mean antibiotic prescribing rates for ARTIs decreased from 35.9% to 22.9% (odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.93) at LAC+USC and from 48.7% to 27.3% (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93) at OV-UCLA after the intervention. HEDIS-inappropriate prescribing rates decreased from 28.9% to 19.7% (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.39-1.21) at LAC+USC and from 40.9% to 12.5% (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.88) at OV-UCLA. There was no evidence of unintended consequences. CONCLUSIONS: These real-world multicomponent interventions responding to P4P incentives were associated with substantial reductions in antibiotic prescriptions for ARTIs in 2 safety-net health systems without unintended harms.

Evaluating the accessibility and value of U.S. ambulatory care among Medicaid expansion states and non-expansion states, 2012-2015.

BACKGROUND: While the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion improved healthcare coverage and access for millions of uninsured Americans, less is known about its effects on the overall accessibility and quality of care across all payers. Rapid volume increases of newly enrolled Medicaid patients might have unintentionally strained accessibility or quality of care. We assessed changes in physician office visits and high- and low-value care associated with Medicaid expansion across all payers. METHODS: Prespecified, quasi-experimental, difference-in-differences analysis pre and post Medicaid expansion (2012-2015) in 8 states that did and 5 that did not choose to expand Medicaid. Physician office visits sampled from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, standardized with U.S. Census population estimates. Outcomes included visit rates per state population and rates of high or low-value service composites of 10 high-value measures and 7 low-value care measures respectively, stratified by year and insurance. RESULTS: We identified approximately 143 million adults utilizing 1.9 billion visits (mean age 56; 60% female) during 2012-2015. Medicaid visits increased in expansion states post-expansion compared to non-expansion states by 16.2 per 100 adults (p = 0.031 95% CI 1.5-31.0). New Medicaid visits increased by 3.1 per 100 adults (95% CI 0.9-5.3, p = 0.007). No changes were observed in Medicare or commercially-insured visit rates. High or low-value care did not change for any insurance type, except high-value care during new Medicaid visits, which increased by 4.3 services per 100 adults (95% CI 1.1-7.5, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Following Medicaid expansion, the U.S. healthcare system increased access to care and use of high-value services for millions of Medicaid enrollees, without observable reductions in access or quality for those enrolled in other insurance types. Provision of low-value care continued at similar rates post-expansion, informing future federal policies designed to improve the value of care.

Estimated Annual Spending on Lecanemab and Its Ancillary Costs in the US Medicare Program.

This cross-sectional cost analysis uses data from the 2018 Health and Retirement Study to estimate the potential future Medicare spending and beneficiary costs for lecanemab.

Reallocating Cervical Cancer Preventive Service Spending from Low- to High-Value Clinical Scenarios.

Timely follow-up care after an abnormal cervical cancer screening test result is critical to the prevention and early diagnosis of cervical cancer. The current inadequate and inequitable delivery of these potentially life-saving services is attributed to several factors, including patient out-of-pocket costs. Waiving of consumer cost-sharing for follow-up testing (e.g., colposcopy and related cervical services) is likely to improve access and uptake, especially among underserved populations. One approach to defray the incremental costs of providing more generous coverage for follow-up testing is reducing expenditures on "low-value" cervical cancer screening services. To explore the potential fiscal implications of a policy that redirects cervical cancer screening resources from potentially low- to high-value clinical scenarios, we analyzed 2019 claims from the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database to quantify (i) total spending on low-value cervical cancer screening and (ii) out-of-pocket costs associated with colposcopy and related cervical services among commercially insured Virginians. In a cohort of 1,806,921 female patients (ages 48.1 ± 24.8 years), 295,193 claims for cervical cancer screening were reported, 100,567 (34.0%) of which were determined to be low-value ($4,394,361 total; $4,172,777 for payers and $221,584 out-of-pocket [$2/patient]). Claims for 52,369 colposcopy and related cervical services were reported ($40,994,016 total; $33,457,518 for payers and $7,536,498 out-of-pocket [$144/patient]). These findings suggest that reallocating savings incurred from unnecessary spending to fund more generous coverage of necessary follow-up care is a feasible approach to enhancing cervical cancer prevention equity and outcomes. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Out-of-pocket fees are a barrier to follow-up care after an abnormal cervical cancer screening test. Among commercially insured Virginians, out-of-pocket costs for follow-up services averaged $144/patient; 34% of cervical cancer screenings were classified as low value. Reallocating low-value cervical cancer screening expenditures to enhance coverage for follow-up care can improve screening outcomes. See related Spotlight, p. 363.

A pragmatic parallel arm randomized-controlled trial of a multi-pronged electronic health record-based clinical decision support tool protocol to reduce low-value antipsychotic prescriptions among older adults with Alzheimer's and related dementias.

Among patients with Alzheimer's disease and its related dementias (ADRD) with behavioral disturbances, antipsychotic prescriptions have limited efficacy and increase the risk of death. Yet, physicians continue to routinely prescribe low-value antipsychotic medications for behavioral disturbances among patients with ADRD. We designed a pragmatic randomized-controlled trial to measure the impact of a behavioral economic electronic health record (EHR) clinical decision support (CDS) intervention to reduce physician prescriptions of new antipsychotic medications among patients with ADRD. Utilizing a pragmatic parallel arm randomized-controlled trial design, the study will randomize eligible physicians from a large academic health system to either receive a EHR CDS intervention or not (control) when they prescribe a new antipsychotic medication during visits with patients with ADRD. The intervention will include three components: 1) alerts prescribers that antipsychotic prescriptions increase mortality risk (motivating physicians' intrinsic desire for non-malfeasance); 2) offers non-pharmacological behavioral resources for caregivers; 3) auto-defaults the prescription to contain the lowest dose and number of pill-days (n = 30) without refills if the prescriber does not cancel the order (appealing to default bias). Over 1 year, we will compare the cumulative total of new antipsychotic pill-days prescribed (primary outcome) by physicians in the intervention group versus in the control group. The study protocol meets international SPIRIT guidelines. Behavioral economics, or the study of human behavior as a function of more than rational incentives, considering a whole host of cognitive and social psychological preferences, tendencies, and biases, is increasingly recognized as an important conceptual framework to improve physician behavior. This pragmatic trial is among the first to combine two distinct behavioral economic principles, a desire for non-malfeasance and default bias, to improve physician prescribing patterns for patients with ADRD. We anticipate this trial will substantially advance understanding of how behavioral-economic informed EHR CDS tools can potentially reduce harmful, low-value care among patients with ADRD.

Estimated Annual Spending on Aducanumab in the US Medicare Program.

This cross-sectional study examines upper bound and lower bound annualized Medicare costs for administering aducanumab to beneficiaries with the approved indications of mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia.

US emergency care patterns among nurse practitioners and physician assistants compared with physicians: a cross-sectional analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Nurse practitioners and physician assistants (NPs/PAs) increasingly practice in emergency departments (EDs), yet limited research has compared their practice patterns with those of physicians. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Using nationally representative data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), we analysed ED visits among NPs/PAs and physicians between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2017. To compare NP/PA and physician utilisation, we estimated propensity score-weighted multivariable regressions adjusted for clinical/sociodemographic variables, including triage acuity score (1=sickest/5=healthiest). Because NPs/PAs may preferentially consult physicians for more complex patients, we performed sensitivity analyses restricting to EDs with >95% of visits including the NP/PA-physician combination. EXPOSURES: NPs/PAs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Use of hospitalisations, diagnostic tests, medications, procedures and six low-value services, for example, CT/MRI for uncomplicated headache, based on Choosing Wisely and other practice guidelines. RESULTS: Before propensity weighting, we studied visits to 12 410 NPs/PAs-alone, 21 560 to the NP/PA-physician combination and 143 687 to physicians-alone who saw patients with increasing age (41, 45 and 47 years, p<0.001) and worsening triage acuity scores (3.03, 2.85 and 2.67, p<0.001), respectively. After weighting, NPs/PAs-alone used fewer medications (2.62 vs 2.80, p=0.002), diagnostic tests (3.77 vs 4.66, p<0.001), procedures (0.67 vs 0.77, p<0.001), hospitalisations (OR 0.35 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.46)) and low-value CT/MRI studies (OR 0.65 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.80)) than physicians. Contrastingly, the NP/PA-physician combination used more medications (3.08 vs 2.80, p<0.001), diagnostic tests (5.07 vs 4.66, p<0.001), procedures (0.86 vs 0.77, p<0.001), hospitalisations OR 1.33 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.51) and low-value CT/MRI studies (OR 1.23 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.43)) than physicians-results were similar among EDs with >95% of NP/PA visits including the NP/PA-physician combination. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: While U.S. NPs/PAs-alone used less care and low-value advanced diagnostic imaging, the NP/PA-physician combination used more care and low-value advanced diagnostic imaging than physicians alone. Findings were reproduced among EDs where nearly all NP/PA visits were collaborative with physicians, suggesting that NPs/PAs seeing more complex patients used more services than physicians alone, but the converse might be true for more straightforward patients.

Trends in US Ambulatory Care Patterns During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2019-2021.

Importance: Following reductions in US ambulatory care early in the pandemic, it remains unclear whether care consistently returned to expected rates across insurance types and services. Objective: To assess whether patients with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility had significantly lower than expected return to use of ambulatory care rates than patients with commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service insurance. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study examining ambulatory care service patterns from January 1, 2019, through February 28, 2021, claims data from multiple US payers were combined using the Milliman MedInsight research database. Using a difference-in-differences design, the extent to which utilization during the pandemic differed from expected rates had the pandemic not occurred was estimated. Changes in utilization rates between January and February 2020 and each subsequent 2-month time frame during the pandemic were compared with the changes in the corresponding months from the year prior. Age- and sex-adjusted Poisson regression models of monthly utilization counts were used, offsetting for total patient-months and stratifying by service and insurance type. Exposures: Patients with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility compared with patients with commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service insurance, respectively. Main Outcomes and Measures: Utilization rates per 100 people for 6 services: emergency department, office and urgent care, behavioral health, screening colonoscopies, screening mammograms, and contraception counseling or HIV screening. Results: More than 14.5 million US adults were included (mean age, 52.7 years; 54.9% women). In the March-April 2020 time frame, the combined use of 6 ambulatory services declined to 67.0% (95% CI, 66.9%-67.1%) of expected rates, but returned to 96.7% (95% CI, 96.6%-96.8%) of expected rates by the November-December 2020 time frame. During the second COVID-19 wave in the January-February 2021 time frame, overall utilization again declined to 86.2% (95% CI, 86.1%-86.3%) of expected rates, with colonoscopy remaining at 65.0% (95% CI, 64.1%-65.9%) and mammography at 79.2% (95% CI, 78.5%-79.8%) of expected rates. By the January-February 2021 time frame, overall utilization returned to expected rates as follows: patients with Medicaid at 78.4% (95% CI, 78.2%-78.7%), Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility at 73.3% (95% CI, 72.8%-73.8%), commercial at 90.7% (95% CI, 90.5%-90.9%), Medicare Advantage at 83.2% (95% CI, 81.7%-82.2%), and Medicare fee-for-service at 82.0% (95% CI, 81.7%-82.2%; P < .001; comparing return to expected utilization rates among patients with Medicaid and Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility, respectively, with each of the other insurance types). Conclusions and Relevance: Between March 2020 and February 2021, aggregate use of 6 ambulatory care services increased after the preceding decrease in utilization that followed the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the rate of increase in use of these ambulatory care services was significantly lower for participants with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility than for those insured by commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service.

Protocol for pragmatic randomised trial: integrating electronic health record-based behavioural economic 'nudges' into the electronic health record to reduce preoperative testing for patients undergoing cataract surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Robust randomised trial data have shown that routine preoperative (pre-op) testing for cataract surgery patients is inappropriate. While guidelines have discouraged testing since 2002, cataract pre-op testing rates have remained unchanged since the 1990s. Given the challenges of reducing low-value care despite strong consensus around the evidence, innovative approaches are needed to promote high-value care. This trial evaluates the impact of an interdisciplinary electronic health record (EHR) intervention that is informed by behavioural economic theory. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pragmatic randomised trial is being conducted at UCLA Health between June 2021 and June 2022 with a 12-month follow-up period. We are randomising all UCLA Health physicians who perform pre-op visits during the study period to one of the three nudge arms or usual care. These three nudge alerts address (1) patient harm, (2) increased out-of-pocket costs for patients and (3) psychological harm to the patients related to pre-op testing. The nudges are triggered when a physician starts to order a pre-op test. We hypothesise that receipt of a nudge will be associated with reduced pre-op testing. The primary outcome will be the change in the percentage of patients undergoing pre-op testing at 12 months. Secondary outcomes will include the percentage of patients undergoing specific categories of pre-op tests (labs, EKGs, chest X-rays (CXRs)), the efficacy of each nudge, same-day surgery cancellations and cost savings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of the University of California, Los Angeles as well as a nominated Data Safety Monitoring Board. If successful, we will have created a tool that can be disseminated rapidly to EHR vendors across the nation to reduce inappropriate testing for the most common low-risk surgical procedures in the country. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04104256.

The Utilization and Costs of Grade D USPSTF Services in Medicare, 2007-2016.

BACKGROUND: Low-value care, or patient care that offers no net benefit in specific clinical scenarios, is costly and often associated with patient harm. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Grade D recommendations represent one of the most scientifically sound and frequently delivered groups of low-value services, but a more contemporary measurement of the utilization and spending for Grade D services beyond the small number of previously studied measures is needed. OBJECTIVE: To estimate utilization and costs of seven USPSTF Grade D services among US Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional study of data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2007 to 2016 to identify instances of Grade D services. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: NAMCS is a nationally representative survey of US ambulatory visits at non-federal and non-hospital-based offices that uses a multistage probability sampling design. We included all visits by Medicare enrollees, which included traditional fee-for-service, Medicare Advantage, supplemental coverage, and dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid enrollees. MAIN MEASURES: We measured annual utilization of seven Grade D services among adult Medicare patients, using inclusion and exclusion criteria from prior studies and the USPSTF recommendations. We calculated annual costs by multiplying annual utilization counts by mean per-unit costs of services using publicly available sources. KEY RESULTS: During the study period, we identified 95,121 unweighted Medicare patient visits, representing approximately 2.4 billion visits. Each year, these seven Grade D services were utilized 31.1 million times for Medicare beneficiaries and cost $477,891,886. Three services-screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria, vitamin D supplements for fracture prevention, and colorectal cancer screening for adults over 85 years-comprised $322,382,772, or two-thirds of the annual costs of the Grade D services measured in this study. CONCLUSIONS: US Medicare beneficiaries frequently received a group of rigorously defined and costly low-value preventive services. Spending on low-value preventive care concentrated among a small subset of measures, representing important opportunities to safely lower US health care spending while improving the quality of care.

Trends in Low-Value Health Service Use and Spending in the US Medicare Fee-for-Service Program, 2014-2018.

Importance: Low-value care, defined as care offering no net benefit in specific clinical scenarios, is associated with harmful outcomes in patients and wasteful spending. Despite a national education campaign and increasing attention on reducing health care waste, recent trends in low-value care delivery remain unknown. Objective: To assess national trends in low-value care use and spending. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, analyses of low-value care use and spending from 2014 to 2018 were conducted using 100% Medicare fee-for-service enrollment and claims data. Included individuals were aged 65 years or older and continuously enrolled in Medicare parts A, B, and D during each measurement year and the previous year. Data were analyzed from September 2019 through December 2020. Exposure: Being enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare for a period of time, in years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The Milliman MedInsight Health Waste Calculator was used to assess 32 claims-based measures of low-value care associated with Choosing Wisely recommendations and other professional guidelines. The calculator designates services as wasteful, likely wasteful, or not wasteful based on an absence of indication of appropriate use in the claims history; calculator-designated wasteful services were defined as low-value care. Spending was calculated as claim-line level (ie, spending on the low-value service) and claim level (ie, spending on the low-value service plus associated services), adjusting for inflation. Results: Among 21 045 759 individuals with fee-for-service Medicare (mean [SD] age, 77.4 [7.9] years; 12 515 915 [59.5%] women), the percentage receiving any of 32 low-value services decreased from 36.3% (95% CI, 36.3%-36.4%) to 33.6% (95% CI, 33.6%-33.6%) from 2014 to 2018. Uses of low-value services per 1000 individuals decreased from 677.8 (95% CI, 676.2-679.5) to 632.7 (95% CI, 632.6-632.8) from 2014 to 2018. Three services comprised approximately two-thirds of uses among 32 low-value services per 1000 individuals: preoperative laboratory testing decreased from 213.8 (95% CI, 213.4-214.2) to 166.2 (95% CI, 166.2-166.2), while opioids for back pain increased from 154.4 (95% CI, 153.6-155.2) to 182.1 (95% CI, 182.1-182.1) and antibiotics for upper respiratory infections increased from 75.0 (95% CI, 75.0-75.1) to 82 (95% CI, 82.0-82.0). Spending per 1000 individuals on low-value care also decreased, from $52 765.5 (95% CI, $51 952.3-$53 578.6) to $46 921.7 (95% CI, $46 593.7-$47 249.7) at the claim-line level and from $160 070.4 (95% CI, $158 999.8-$161 141.0) to $144 741.1 (95% CI, $144 287.5-$145 194.7) at the claim level. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that among individuals with fee-for-service Medicare receiving any of 32 measured services, low-value care use and spending decreased marginally from 2014 to 2018, despite a national education campaign in collaboration with clinician specialty societies and increased attention on low-value care. While most use of low-value care came from 3 services, 1 of these was opioid prescriptions, which increased over time despite the harms associated with their use. These findings may represent several opportunities to prevent patient harm and lower spending.

The Quality and Outcomes of Care Provided to Patients with Cirrhosis by Advanced Practice Providers.

Cirrhosis is morbid and increasingly prevalent, yet the U.S. health care system lacks enough physicians and specialists to adequately manage patients with cirrhosis. Although advanced practice providers (APPs) can expand access to cirrhosis-related care, their impact on the quality of care remains unknown. We sought to determine the effect on care quality and outcomes for patients managed by APPs using a retrospective analysis of a nationally representative American commercial claims database (Optum), which included 389,257 unique adults with cirrhosis. We evaluated a complication of process measures (i.e., rates of hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC] screening, endoscopic varices screening, and use of rifaximin after hospitalization for hepatic encephalopathy) and outcomes (30-day readmissions and survival). Compared with patients without APP care, patients with APP care had higher rates of HCC screening (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.19, 1.27), varices screening (OR 1.20 [1.13, 1.27]), use of rifaximin after a discharge for hepatic encephalopathy (OR 2.09 [1.80, 2.43]), and reduced risk of 30-day readmission (OR 0.68 [0.66, 0.70]). Gastroenterology/hepatology consultation was also associated with improved quality metric performance compared with primary care; however, shared visits between gastroenterologists/hepatologists and APPs were associated with the best performance and lower 30-day readmissions compared with subspecialty consultation without an APP (OR 0.91 [0.87, 0.95]. Multivariate analysis adjusting for comorbidities, liver disease severity, and other factors including gastroenterology/hepatology consultation showed that patients seen by APPs were more likely to receive consistent HCC and varices screening over time, less likely to experience 30-day readmissions, and had lower mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.55, 0.60). Conclusion: APPs, particularly when working with gastroenterologists/hepatologists, are associated with improved quality of care and outcomes for patients with cirrhosis.