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.

The PROMISⓇ-Plus-Osteoarthritis of the Knee (OAK) profile measure integrates generic and condition-specific content to enhance relevance and efficiency.

OBJECTIVE: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Plus-Osteoarthritis of the Knee (OAK) profile integrates universal PROMIS items with knee-specific items across 13 domains. We evaluated the psychometric properties of a subset of six domains associated with quality of life in people with OAK. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In a cross-sectional study of OAK patients (n=600), we estimated reliability using Pearson and Spearman correlations with Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscores and known-groups validity with PROMIS Global Health. Measure responsiveness was tested via paired t-tests in a longitudinal study (n=238), pre/post total knee replacement. RESULTS: Across the six domains, internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha) was 0.77-0.95 and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients) was ≥0.90. Correlations with Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscores and PROMIS Global supported convergent and divergent validity. Known-groups validity testing revealed better scores in all domains for high vs. low global status groups, and knee-specific items added value in physical function and pain. All domains reflected (p<0.001) better health status scores at follow up. CONCLUSION: The six PROMIS-Plus-OAK profile domains demonstrated good psychometric characteristics. The measure integrates universal and knee-specific content to provide enhanced relevance, measurement precision and efficient administration for patient care and clinical research.

Financial Integration's Impact On Care Delivery And Payment Reforms: A Survey Of Hospitals And Physician Practices.

Health systems continue to grow in size. Financial integration-the ownership of hospitals or physician practices-often has anticompetitive effects that contribute to the higher prices for health care seen in the US. To determine whether the potential harms of financial integration are counterbalanced by improvements in quality, we surveyed nationally representative samples of hospitals (n = 739) and physician practices (n = 2,189), stratified according to whether they were independent or were owned by complex systems, simple systems, or medical groups. The surveys included nine scales measuring the level of adoption of diverse, quality-focused care delivery and payment reforms. Scores varied widely across hospitals and practices, but little of this variation was explained by ownership status. Quality scores favored financially integrated systems for four of nine hospital measures and one of nine practice measures, but in no case favored complex systems. Greater financial integration was generally not associated with better quality.

How Do Accountable Care Organizations Deliver Preventive Care Services? A Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act and the introduction of accountable care organizations (ACOs) have increased the incentives for patients and providers to engage in preventive care, for example, through quality metrics linked to disease prevention. However, little is known about how ACOs deliver preventive care services. OBJECTIVE: To understand how Medicare ACOs provide preventive care services to their attributed patients. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study using survey data reporting Medicare ACO capabilities in patient care management and interviews with high-performing ACOs. PARTICIPANTS: ACO executives completed survey data on 283 Medicare ACOs. These data were supplemented with 39 interviews conducted across 18 Medicare ACOs with executive-level leaders and associated clinical and managerial staff. MAIN MEASURES: Survey measures included ACO performance, organizational characteristics, collaboration experience, and capabilities in care management and quality improvement. Telephone interviews followed a semi-structured interview guide and explored the mechanisms used, and motivations of, ACOs to deliver preventive care services. KEY RESULTS: Medicare ACOs that reported being comprehensively engaged in the planning and management of patient care - including conducting reminders for preventive care services - had more beneficiaries and had a history of collaboration experience, but were not more likely to receive shared savings or achieve high-quality scores compared to other surveyed ACOs. Interviews revealed that offering annual wellness visits and having a system-wide approach to closing preventive care gaps are key mechanisms used by high-performing ACOs to address patients' preventive care needs. Few programs or initiatives were identified that specifically target clinically complex patients. Aside from meeting patient needs, motivations for ACOs included increasing patient attribution and meeting performance targets. CONCLUSIONS: ACOs are increasingly motivated to deliver preventive care services. Understanding the mechanisms and motivations used by high-performing ACOs may help both providers and payers to increase the use of preventive care.

ACO Contracts With Downside Financial Risk Growing, But Still In The Minority.

Success of the accountable care organization (ACO) model may require stronger financial incentives, such as including downside risk in contracts. Using the National Survey of ACOs, we explored ACO structure and contracts in 2012-18. Though the number of ACO contracts and the proportion of ACOs with multiple contracts have grown, the proportion bearing downside risk has increased only modestly.

A method to create a standardized generic and condition-specific patient-reported outcome measure for patient care and healthcare improvement.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), which are generic or condition-specific, are used for a number of reasons, including clinical care, clinical trials, and in national-level efforts to monitor the quality of health care delivery. Creating PROMs that meet different purposes without overburdening patients, healthcare systems, providers, and data systems is paramount. The objective of this study was to test a generalizable method to incorporate condition-specific issues into generic PROM measures as a first step to producing PROMs that efficiently provide a standardized score. This paper outlines the method and preliminary findings focused on a PROM for osteoarthritis of the knee (OA-K). METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach and PROMIS® measures to test development of a combined generic and OA-K-specific PROM. Qualitative methods included patient focus groups and provider interviews to identify impacts of OA-K important to patients. We then conducted a thematic analysis and an item gap analysis: identified areas covered by existing generic PROMIS measures, identified "gap" areas not covered, compared gap areas to legacy instruments to verify relevance, and developed new items to address gaps. We then performed cognitive testing on new items and drafted an OA-K-specific instrument based on findings. RESULTS: We identified 52 existing PROMIS items and developed 24 new items across 14 domains. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a process for creating condition-specific instruments that bridge gaps in existing generic measures. If successful, the methodology will create instruments that efficiently gather the patient's perspective while allowing health systems, researchers, and other interested parties to monitor and compare outcomes over time, conditions, and populations.

Comparison of Populations Served in Hospital Service Areas With and Without Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Medical Homes.

Importance: Little is known about the types of primary care practices that have chosen to participate in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) program or about how participation could affect disparities. Objective: To describe practices that joined the CPC+ model and compare hospital service areas with and without CPC+ practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative cross-sectional study identified 2647 CPC+ practices in round 1 (from January 1, 2017; round 1 is ongoing through 2021). Using IMS Health Care Organization Services data, ownership and characteristics of health systems and practices were extracted. Practices participating in the CPC+ program were compared with practices with similar proportions of primary care physicians (>85%) within the 14 regions designated as eligible to participate by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Within eligible regions, hospital service areas with (n = 434) and without (n = 322) 1 or more CPC+ practice were compared. Characteristics compared included area-level population demographics (from the US Census Bureau), health system characteristics (from the IMS Health Care Organization Services), and use of health services by Medicare fee-for-service enrollees (Dartmouth Atlas). Main Outcomes and Measures: Area-level characteristics of all eligible CPC+ regions, areas without a CPC+ practice, and areas with 1 or more CPC+ practices. Results: Of 756 eligible service areas, 322 had no CPC+ practices and 434 had at least 1 CPC+ practice. Of 2647 CPC+ practices, 579 (21.9%) had 1 physician and 1791 (67.7%) had 2 to 10 physicians. In areas without CPC+ practices, the population had a lower median income ($43 197 [interquartile range, $42 170-$44 224] vs $57 206 [interquartile range, $55 470-$58 941]), higher mean share of households living in poverty (17.8% [95% CI, 17.2%-18.4%] vs 14.4% [95% CI, 13.9%-15.0%]), higher mean educational attainment of high school or less (52.7% [95% CI, 51.7%-53.6%] vs 43.1% [95% CI, 42.1%-44.2%]), higher mean proportion of disabled residents (17.7% [95% CI, 17.3%-18.2%] vs 14.2% [13.8%-14.6%]), higher mean participation in Medicare (21.9% [95% CI, 21.3%-22.4%] vs 18.8% [95% CI, 18.3%-19.1%]) and Medicaid (22.2% [95% CI, 21.5%-22.9%]) vs 18.5% [95% CI, 17.8%-19.2%]), and higher mean proportion of uninsured residents (12.4% [95% CI, 11.9%-12.9%] vs 10.3% [95% CI, 9.9%-10.7%]) (P < .001 for all) compared with areas that had a CPC+ practice. Conclusions and Relevance: According to this study, although a diverse set of practices joined the CPC+ program, practices in areas characterized by patient populations with greater advantage were more likely to join, which may affect access to advanced primary care medical home models such as CPC+, by vulnerable populations.

Evidence on the Validity of a Comprehensive Health Risk Index and Implications for Ambulatory Care and Population Health Management.

A novel, comprehensive health risk index for adults has been validated and is now ready for use to improve the health of individuals and populations. This health risk index provides an estimate of the avoidable risk of death for adults 30 years or older. It includes 12 evidence-based clinical and behavioral risk factors and was validated on discrimination and calibration using the NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) and Framingham Heart Study cohorts. The results from both cohorts were consistent and similar. Discrimination was good, and calibration was acceptable but tended to overpredict mortality risk for females in the higher-risk deciles.

ACOs Serving High Proportions Of Racial And Ethnic Minorities Lag In Quality Performance.

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are intended, in part, to improve health care quality. However, little is known about how ACOs may affect disparities or how providers serving disadvantaged patients perform under Medicare ACO contracts. We analyzed racial and ethnic disparities in health care outcomes among ACOs to investigate the association between the share of an ACO's patients who are members of racial or ethnic minority groups and the ACO's performance on quality measures. Using data from Medicare and a national survey of ACOs, we found that having a higher proportion of minority patients was associated with worse scores on twenty-five of thirty-three Medicare quality performance measures, two disease composite measures, and an overall quality composite measure. However, ACOs serving a high share of minority patients were similar to other ACOs in most observable characteristics and capabilities, including provider composition, services, and clinical capabilities. Our findings suggest that ACOs with a high share of minority patients may struggle with quality performance under ACO contracts, especially during their early years of participation-maintaining or potentially exacerbating current inequities. Policy makers must consider how to refine ACO programs to encourage the participation of providers that serve minority patients and to reward performance appropriately.