Availability of Medication for Opioid Use Disorder Among Accountable Care Organizations: Evidence From a National Survey.

OBJECTIVE: This report aimed to assess how accountable care organizations (ACOs) addressed ongoing opioid use disorder treatment needs over time. METHODS: Responses from the 2018 (N=308 organizations) and 2022 (N=276) National Survey of Accountable Care Organizations (response rate=55% in both years) were used to examine changes in availability of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) among ACOs with Medicare and Medicaid contracts. RESULTS: The percentage of respondents offering at least one MOUD grew from 39% in 2018 to 52% in 2022 (p<0.01). MOUDs were more likely to be available in 2022 among ACOs with (vs. without) in-network substance use treatment facilities (80% vs. 33%, p<0.001). The percentage of 2022 respondents who reported offering MOUD was similar in states with high versus low opioid overdose mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Despite growing availability of MOUD among ACOs, nearly half reported not offering any MOUD in 2022, and the availability of MOUD did not increase with treatment need.

Racial differences in low value care among older adult Medicare patients in US health systems: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize racial differences in receipt of low value care (services that provide little to no benefit yet have potential for harm) among older Medicare beneficiaries overall and within health systems in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study SETTING: 100% Medicare fee-for-service administrative data (2016-18). PARTICIPANTS: Black and White Medicare patients aged 65 or older as of 2016 and attributed to 595 health systems in the United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Receipt of 40 low value services among Black and White patients, with and without adjustment for patient age, sex, and previous healthcare use. Additional models included health system fixed effects to assess racial differences within health systems and separately, racial composition of the health system's population to assess the relative contributions of individual patient race and health system racial composition to low value care receipt. RESULTS: The cohort included 9 833 304 patients (6.8% Black; 57.9% female). Of 40 low value services examined, Black patients had higher adjusted receipt of nine services and lower receipt of 20 services than White patients. Specifically, Black patients were more likely to receive low value acute diagnostic tests, including imaging for uncomplicated headache (6.9% v 3.2%) and head computed tomography scans for dizziness (3.1% v 1.9%). White patients had higher rates of low value screening tests and treatments, including preoperative laboratory tests (10.3% v 6.5%), prostate specific antigen tests (31.0% v 25.7%), and antibiotics for upper respiratory infections (36.6% v 32.7%; all P<0.001). Secondary analyses showed that these differences persisted within given health systems and were not explained by Black and White patients receiving care from different systems. CONCLUSIONS: Black patients were more likely to receive low value acute diagnostic tests and White patients were more likely to receive low value screening tests and treatments. Differences were generally small and were largely due to differential care within health systems. These patterns suggest potential individual, interpersonal, and structural factors that researchers, policy makers, and health system leaders might investigate and address to improve care quality and equity.

Sources of Low-Value Care Received by Medicare Beneficiaries and Associated Spending Within US Health Systems.

This cross-sectional study examines referrals for low-value health care services and associated spending by ordering clinician among Medicare beneficiaries.

Who's Accountable? Low-Value Care Received By Medicare Beneficiaries Outside Of Their Attributed Health Systems.

Policy makers and payers increasingly hold health systems accountable for spending and quality for their attributed beneficiaries. Low-value care-medical services that offer little or no benefit and have the potential for harm in specific clinical scenarios-received outside of these systems could threaten success on both fronts. Using national Medicare data for fee-for-service beneficiaries ages sixty-five and older and attributed to 595 US health systems, we describe where and from whom they received forty low-value services during 2017-18 and identify factors associated with out-of-system receipt. Forty-three percent of low-value services received by attributed beneficiaries originated from out-of-system clinicians: 38 percent from specialists, 4 percent from primary care physicians, and 1 percent from advanced practice clinicians. Recipients of low-value care were more likely to obtain that care out of system if age 75 or older (versus ages 65-74), male (versus female), non-Hispanic White (versus other races or ethnicities), rural dwelling (versus metropolitan dwelling), more medically complex, or experiencing lower continuity of care. However, out-of-system service receipt was not associated with recipients' health systems' accountable care organization status. Health systems might improve quality and reduce spending for their attributed beneficiaries by addressing out-of-system receipt of low-value care-for example, by improving continuity.

Changes in spending and quality after ACO contract participation for dually eligible beneficiaries with mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Fragmented care and misaligned payment across Medicare and Medicaid lower care quality for dually eligible beneficiaries with mental illness. Accountable care organizations aim to improve the quality and value of care. METHODS: Using Medicare fee-for-service Part A and B claims data from 2009 to 2017 and a difference-in-differences design, we compared the spending and utilization of dually eligible beneficiaries with mental illness that were and were not attributed to Medicare ACO providers before and after ACO contract entry. RESULTS: Dually eligible beneficiaries with mental illness (N = 5,157,533, 70% depression, 22% bipolar, 27% schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders) had average annual Medicare spending of $17,899. ACO contract participation was generally not associated with spending or utilization changes. However, ACO contract participation was associated with higher rates of follow-up visits after mental health hospitalization: 1.17 and 1.30 percentage points within 7 and 30 days of discharge, respectively (p < 0.001). ACO-attributed beneficiaries with schizophrenia, bipolar, or other psychotic disorders received more ambulatory visits (393.9 per 1000 person-years, p = 0.002), while ACO-attributed beneficiaries with depression experienced fewer emergency department visits (-29.5 per 1000 person-years, p = 0.003) after ACO participation. CONCLUSIONS: Dually eligible beneficiaries served by Medicare ACOs did not have lower spending, hospitalizations, or readmissions compared with other beneficiaries. However, ACO participation was associated with timely follow-up after mental health hospitalization, as well as more ambulatory care and fewer ED visits for certain diagnostic groups. IMPLICATIONS: ACOs that include dually eligible beneficiaries with mental illness should tailor their designs to address the distinct needs of this population.

Low-Value Care at the Actionable Level of Individual Health Systems.

Importance: Low-value health care remains prevalent in the US despite decades of work to measure and reduce such care. Efforts have been only modestly effective in part because the measurement of low-value care has largely been restricted to the national or regional level, limiting actionability. Objectives: To measure and report low-value care use across and within individual health systems and identify system characteristics associated with higher use using Medicare administrative data. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study of health system-attributed Medicare beneficiaries was conducted among 556 health systems in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Compendium of US Health Systems and included system-attributed beneficiaries who were older than 65 years, continuously enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B for at least 12 months in 2016 or 2017, and eligible for specific low-value services. Statistical analysis was conducted from January 26 to July 15, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Use of 41 individual low-value services and a composite measure of the 28 most common services among system-attributed beneficiaries, standardized to distance from the mean value. Measures were based on the Milliman MedInsight Health Waste Calculator and published claims-based definitions. Results: Across 556 health systems serving a total of 11 637 763 beneficiaries, the mean (SD) use of each of the 41 low-value services ranged from 0% (0.01%) to 28% (4%) of eligible beneficiaries. The most common low-value services were preoperative laboratory testing (mean [SD] rate, 28% [4%] of eligible beneficiaries), prostate-specific antigen testing in men older than 70 years (mean [SD] rate, 27% [8%]), and use of antipsychotic medications in patients with dementia (mean [SD] rate, 24% [8%]). In multivariable analysis, the health system characteristics associated with higher use of low-value care were smaller proportion of primary care physicians (adjusted composite score, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.04-0.26] for systems with less than the median percentage of primary care physicians vs -0.16 [95% CI, -0.27 to -0.05] for those with more than the median percentage of primary care physicians; P < .001), no major teaching hospital (adjusted composite, 0.10 [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.20] without a teaching hospital vs -0.18 [95% CI, -0.34 to -0.02] with a teaching hospital; P = .01), larger proportion of non-White patients (adjusted composite, 0.15 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.32] for systems with >20% of non-White beneficiaries vs -0.06 [95% CI, -0.16 to 0.03] for systems with ≤20% of non-White beneficiaries; P = .04), headquartered in the South or West (adjusted composite, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.14-0.43] for the South and 0.22 [95% CI, 0.02-0.42] for the West compared with -0.09 [95% CI, -0.26 to 0.08] for the Northeast and -0.44 [95% CI, -0.60 to -0.28] for the Midwest; P < .001), and serving areas with more health care spending (adjusted composite, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.11-0.35] for areas above the median level of spending vs -0.24 [95% CI, -0.36 to -0.12] for areas below the median level of spending; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this large cohort study suggest that system-level measurement and reporting of specific low-value services is feasible, enables cross-system comparisons, and reveals a broad range of low-value care use.

US Ventilator Allocation and Patient Triage Policies in Anticipation of the COVID-19 Surge.

Before the predicted March 2020 surge of COVID-19, US healthcare organizations were charged with developing resource allocation policies. We assessed policy preparedness and substantive triage criteria within existing policies using a cross-sectional survey distributed to public health personnel and healthcare providers between March 23 and April 23, 2020. Personnel and providers from 68 organizations from 34 US states responded. While half of the organizations did not yet have formal allocation policies, all but 4 were in the process of developing policies. Using manual abstraction and natural language processing, we summarize the origins and features of the policies. Most policies included objective triage criteria, specified inapplicable criteria, separated triage and clinical decision making, detailed reassessment plans, offered an appeals process, and addressed palliative care. All but 1 policy referenced a sequential organ failure assessment score as a triage criterion, and 10 policies categorically excluded patients. Six policies were almost identical, tracing their origins to influenza planning. This sample of policies reflects organizational strategies of exemplar-based policy development and the use of objective criteria in triage decisions, either before or instead of clinical judgment, to support ethical distribution of resources. Future guidance is warranted on how to adapt policies across disease type, choose objective criteria, and specify processes that rely on clinical judgments.

A state policy framework for integrating health and social services.

Recognizing that health is determined by a variety of interrelated factors, states are looking to connect health care, public health, and social services to help achieve improved population health, better care, and reduced cost of care. This issue brief describes three essential components for integrating health, including physical and behavioral health services and public health, and social services: (1) a coordinating mechanism, (2) quality measurement and data-sharing tools, and (3) aligned financing and payment. It also presents a five-step policy framework to help states move beyond isolated pilot efforts and establish the infrastructure necessary to support ongoing integration of health and social services, particularly for Medicaid beneficiaries.