Feasibility of and Experience with Free State Funded Telehealth Based Patient Self-referral for COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment for COVID-19 has been underutilized due to logistical challenges, lack of access and variable treatment awareness among patients and healthcare professionals. The use of telehealth during the pandemic provides an opportunity to increase access to COVID-19 care. METHODS: This is a single-center descriptive study of telehealth-based patient self-referral for mAb therapy between March 1, 2021, to October 31, 2021 at Baltimore Convention Center Field Hospital (BCCFH). RESULTS: Among the 1001 self-referral patients, the mean age was 47, and most were female (57%) white (66%), and had a primary care provider (62%). During the study period, self-referrals increased from 14 per month in March to 427 in October resulting in a 30-fold increase. About 57% of self-referred patients received a telehealth visit, and of those 82% of patients received mAb infusion therapy. The median time from self-referral to onsite infusion was 2 days (1-3 IQR). DISCUSSION: Our study shows the integration of telehealth with a self-referral process improved access to mAb infusion. A high proportion of self-referrals were appropriate and led to timely treatment. This approach helped those without traditional avenues for care and avoided potential delay for patients seeking referral from their PCPs.

High Sensitivity and NPV for BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Test in Children at a Mass Testing Site during Prevalent Delta Variant Period.

SARS-CoV-2 continues to develop new, increasingly infectious variants including delta and omicron. We evaluated the efficacy of the Abbott BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Test against Reverse Transcription PCR (RT-PCR) in 1,054 pediatric participants presenting to a high-volume Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing site while the delta variant was predominant. Both tests utilized anterior nares swabs. Participants were grouped by COVID-19 exposure and symptom status. 5.2% of samples tested positive by RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2. For all participants, sensitivity of the BinaxNOW was 92.7% (95% CI 82.4%-98.0%), and specificity was 98.0% (95% CI 97.0%-98.8%). For symptomatic participants, positive predictive value (PPV) was 72.7% (95% CI 54.5%-86.7%) and negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.2% (95% CI 98.2%-100%). Among asymptomatic participants, PPV was 71.4% (95% CI 53.7%-85.4%) and NPV was 99.7% (95% CI 99.0%-100%). Our reported sensitivity and NPV are higher than other pediatric studies, potentially because of higher viral load from the delta variant, but specificity and PPV are lower. IMPORTANCE The BinaxNOW rapid antigen COVID-19 test had a sensitivity of nearly 92% in both symptomatic and asymptomatic children when performed at a high-throughput setting during the more transmissible delta variant dominant period. The test may play an invaluable role in asymptomatic screening and keeping children safe in school.

Potential Financial Effects on Hospitals of the Removal of Common Orthopaedic and Spinal Procedures From Medicare's "Inpatient-Only" List: A Comparison of the Medicare Fee-for-service Payment Model Versus Maryland's Global Budget Revenue Model.

BACKGROUND: When treating Medicare beneficiaries, orthopaedic surgeons must follow Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) policies regarding whether to perform surgical treatments under inpatient or outpatient status. Recently, most orthopaedic and spinal procedures were removed from the CMS's "inpatient-only" list (IPOL). We investigated differences in hospital payments under the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG)/Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) system when common orthopaedic/spinal procedures are done under outpatient rather than inpatient status. We compared these differences under the DRG/APC model with differences in payments to Maryland hospitals, which are paid under the alternative Global Budget Revenue model. METHODS: We used the CMS Inpatient Pricer and CMS Addendum B to retrieve the mean duration-of-stay data, estimated DRG (inpatient) payment, and APC (outpatient) payment for eight common orthopaedic/spinal procedures for four non-Maryland hospitals (2 urban academic hospitals and 2 neighboring community hospitals). We retrieved Maryland's Health Services Cost Review Commission hospital rates for the same eight procedures done under inpatient or outpatient status to estimate hospital charges for a Maryland urban academic hospital and a neighboring community hospital. RESULTS: Among the four non-Maryland hospitals, estimated differences in payment for hospitalizations under inpatient versus outpatient status for common orthopaedic/spinal procedures with a mean duration of stay of <2 days, whose status would be most subject to change from inpatient to outpatient by its removal from the IPOL, ranged from $19 to $13,042. For the two Maryland hospitals, differences in outpatient versus inpatient payment for these same procedures ranged from $182 to $1,273. DISCUSSION: Non-Maryland hospitals receive widely different CMS payments for common orthopaedic/spinal procedures based on a change in hospitalization status (inpatient to outpatient) prompted by the procedure being removed from the IPOL. The Maryland global budget revenue mitigates most of the effect of hospitalization status on hospital payment and may serve as a guide toward DRG/APC payment reassessment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

The increasing impact of length of stay "outliers" on length of stay at an urban academic hospital.

BACKGROUND: As healthcare systems strive for efficiency, hospital "length of stay outliers" have the potential to significantly impact a hospital's overall utilization. There is a tendency to exclude such "outlier" stays in local quality improvement and data reporting due to their assumed rare occurrence and disproportionate ability to skew mean and other summary data. This study sought to assess the influence of length of stay (LOS) outliers on inpatient length of stay and hospital capacity over a 5-year period at a large urban academic medical center. METHODS: From January 2014 through December 2019, 169,645 consecutive inpatient cases were analyzed and assigned an expected LOS based on national academic center benchmarks. Cases in the top 1% of national sample LOS by diagnosis were flagged as length of stay outliers. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2019, mean outlier LOS increased (40.98 to 45.11 days), as did inpatient LOS with outliers excluded (5.63 to 6.19 days). Outlier cases increased both in number (from 297 to 412) and as a percent of total discharges (0.98 to 1.56%), and outlier patient days increased from 6.7 to 9.8% of total inpatient plus observation days over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Outlier cases utilize a disproportionate and increasing share of hospital resources and available beds. The current tendency to exclude such outlier stays in data reporting due to assumed rare occurrence may need to be revisited. Outlier stays require distinct and targeted interventions to appropriately reduce length of stay to both improve patient care and maintain hospital capacity.

Learning From Lawsuits: Using Malpractice Claims Data to Develop Care Transitions Planning Tools.

OBJECTIVES: Our understanding of care transitions from hospital to home is incomplete. Malpractice claims are an important and underused data source to understand such transitions. We used malpractice claims data to (1) evaluate safety risks during care transitions and (2) help develop care transitions planning tools and pilot test their ability to evaluate care transitions from the hospital to home. METHODS: Closed malpractice claims were analyzed for 230 adult patients discharged from 4 hospital sites. Stakeholders participated in 2 structured focus groups to review concerns. This led to the development of 2 care transitions planning tools-one for patients/caregivers and one for frontline care providers. Both were tested for feasibility on 53 patient discharges. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis yielded 33 risk factors corresponding to hospital work system elements, care transitions processes, and care outcomes. Providers reported that the tool was easy to use and did not adversely affect workflow. Patients reported that the tool was acceptable in terms of length and response burden. Patients were often still waiting for information at the time they applied the tool. CONCLUSIONS: Malpractice claims provided insights that enriched our understanding of suboptimal care transitions and guided the development of care transitions planning tools. Pilot testing suggested that the tools would be feasible for use with minor adjustment. The malpractice data can complement other approaches to characterize systems failures threatening patient safety.

Hospitalizations With Observation Services and the Medicare Part A Complex Appeals Process at Three Academic Medical Centers.

Hospitalists and other providers must classify hospitalized patients as inpatient or outpatient, the latter of which includes all observation stays. These orders direct hospital billing and payment, as well as patient out-of-pocket expenses. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) audits hospital billing for Medicare beneficiaries, historically through the Recovery Audit program. A recent U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report identified problems in the hospital appeals process of Recovery Audit program audits to which CMS proposed reforms. In the context of the GAO report and CMS's proposed improvements, we conducted a study to describe the time course and process of complex Medicare Part A audits and appeals reaching Level 3 of the 5-level appeals process as of May 1, 2016 at 3 academic medical centers. Of 219 appeals reaching Level 3, 135 had a decision--96 (71.1%) successful for the hospitals. Mean total time since date of service was 1663.3 days, which includes mean days between date of service and audit (560.4) and total days in appeals (891.3). Government contractors were responsible for 70.7% of total appeals time. Overall, government contractors and judges met legislative timeliness deadlines less than half the time (47.7%), with declining compliance at successive levels (discussion, 92.5%; Level 1, 85.4%; Level 2, 38.8%; Level 3, 0%). Most Level 1 and Level 2 decision letters (95.2%) cited time-based (24-hour) criteria for determining inpatient status, despite 70.3% of denied appeals meeting the 24-hour benchmark. These findings suggest that the Medicare appeals system merits process improvement beyond current proposed reforms. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2017;12:251-255.