New CMS Nursing Home Ownership Data: Major Gaps And Discrepancies.

Nursing home ownership has become increasingly complicated, partly because of the growth of facilities owned by institutional investors such as private equity (PE) firms and real estate investment trusts (REITs). Although the ownership transparency and accountability of nursing homes have historically been poor, the Biden administration's nursing home reform plans released in 2022 included a series of data releases on ownership. However, our evaluation of the newly released data identified several gaps: One-third of PE and fewer than one-fifth of REIT investments identified in the proprietary Irving Levin Associates and S&P Capital IQ investment data were present in Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) publicly available ownership data. Similarly, we obtained different results when searching for the ten top common owners of nursing homes using CMS data and facility survey reports of chain ownership. Finally, ownership percentages were missing in the CMS data for 82.40 percent of owners in the top ten chains and 55.21 percent of owners across all US facilities. Although the new data represent an important step forward, we highlight additional steps to ensure that the data are timely, accurate, and responsive. Transparent ownership data are fundamental to understanding the adequacy of public payments to provide patient care, enable policy makers to make timely decisions, and evaluate nursing home quality.

Changes in Diagnoses and Site of Care for Patients Receiving Hospice Care From Agencies Acquired by Private Equity Firms and Publicly Traded Companies.

Importance: Private equity firms and publicly traded companies have been acquiring US hospice agencies; an estimated 16% of US hospice agencies are owned by private equity (PE) firms or publicly traded companies (PTC). Objective: To examine the association of PE and PTC acquisitions of hospices with Medicare patients' site of care and clinical diagnoses. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of US hospice agencies used a novel national database of acquisitions merged with the Medicare Post-Acute Care and Hospice Public Use File for 2013 to 2020. Changes in sites of care and patient characteristics for hospice agencies acquired by PE or PTCs were compared with changes for patients in nonacquired for-profit hospice agencies. Exposure: Private equity and publicly traded company acquisitions. Main Outcomes and Measures: This study used a difference-in-differences approach within an event-study framework to examine the association of PE and PTC acquisitions of hospice agencies with changes in patient diagnoses and sites of care. Dependent variables were annual hospice-level measures of the Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) score and proportion of patients diagnosed with cancer or dementia. Sites of care included the proportion of patients receiving hospice care in their personal home, nursing home, or assisted living facility. Results: A total of 158 hospice agencies acquired by PEs, 250 acquired by PTCs, and 1559 other for-profit hospice agencies were included. Preacquisition, hospice agencies that would later be acquired by PE or PTC served a mean (IQR) 30.1% (12.0%-44.0%) and 29.4% (13.0%-43.0%) of their patients in nursing homes respectively, a greater proportion compared with the 27.1% (8.0%-43.8%) served by for-profit hospices that were never acquired. Agencies acquired by PE between 2014 and 2019 saw a significant relative increase of 5.98% in dementia patients (1.38 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.35-2.40 percentage points; P = .008). In PTC-owned hospices, the proportion of patients receiving care at home increased by 5.26% (2.98 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.46-4.51 percentage points; P < .001), the proportion of dementia patients rose by 13.49% (3.11 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.14-4.09 percentage points; P < .001), and the HCC score decreased by 1.37% (-3.19 percentage points; 95% CI, -5.92 to -0.47 percentage points; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that PE and PTCs select patients and sites of care to maximize profits.

Postacute Care Services Use and Outcomes Among Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries.

Importance: Better evidence is needed on whether Medicare Advantage (MA) plans can control the use of postacute care services while achieving excellent outcomes. Objective: To compare self-reported use of postacute care services and outcomes among traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries and MA enrollees. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) with linked Medicare enrollment data from 2015 to 2017. Participants were community-dwelling MA or TM beneficiaries 70 years and older; those with dual Medicare and Medicaid eligibility were also identified. Analyses were conducted from May 2022 to February 2023 and were weighted to account for the complex survey design. Exposures: Enrollment in MA and dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid. Main Outcomes and Measures: Postacute care service use including site of use, duration, primary indication, and whether participants met their goals or experienced improved functional status during or after services. Results: Included in the analysis were 2357 Medicare beneficiaries who used postacute care. Of these beneficiaries, 815 (32.6%; 62.0% were females [weighted percentages]) had MA and 1542 (67.4%; 59.5% were females [weighted percentages]) had TM. Enrollees in MA reported using postacute care services across all NHATS survey rounds: between 16.2% (95% CI, 14.3%-18.4%) and 17.7% (95% CI, 15.4%-20.4%) of MA enrollees reported using postacute care services each round, vs 22.4% (95% CI, 20.9%-24.1%) to 24.1% (95% CI, 21.8%-26.6%) of TM beneficiaries (P for all rounds <.002). Enrollees in MA reported less functional improvement during postacute care use (63.1% [95% CI, 59.2%-66.8%] vs 71.7% [95% CI, 68.9%-74.3%], P < .001). Among beneficiaries who ended postacute service use, fewer MA enrollees than TM enrollees reported that they met their goals (70.5% [95% CI, 65.1%-75.3%] vs 76.2% [95% CI, 73.1%-79.1%]; P = .053) or had improved functional status (43.9% [95% CI, 38.9%-49.1%] vs 46.0% [95% CI, 42.5%-49.5%]; P = .42), but differences were not statistically significant. Differences in postacute care use and functional improvement were not statistically significant between MA and TM enrollees with dual eligibility. Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries, we found that MA enrollees overall used less postacute care services than their TM counterparts. Among users of postacute care services, MA enrollees reported less favorable outcomes compared with TM enrollees. These findings highlight the importance of assessing patient-reported outcomes, especially as MA and other payment models seek to reduce inefficient use of postacute care services.

The Role Of Real Estate Investment Trusts In Staffing US Nursing Homes.

In 2021 real estate investment trusts (REITs) held investments in 1,806 US nursing homes. REITs are for-profit public or private corporations that invest in income-producing properties. We created a novel database of REIT investments in US nursing homes, merged it with Medicare cost report data (2013-19), and used a difference-in-differences approach within an event study framework to compare staffing before and after a nursing home received REIT investment with staffing in for-profit nursing homes that did not receive REIT investment. REIT investment was associated with average relative staffing increases of 2.15 percent and 1.55 percent for licensed practical nurses (LPNs) and certified nursing assistants (CNAs), respectively. During the postinvestment period, registered nurse (RN) staffing was unchanged, but event study results showed a 6.25 percent decrease in years 2 and 3 after REIT investment. After the three largest REIT deals were excluded, REIT investments were associated with an overall 6.25 percent relative decrease in RN staffing and no changes in LPN and CNA staffing. Larger deals resulted in increases in LPN and CNA staffing, with no changes in RN staffing; smaller deals appeared to replace more expensive and skilled RN staffing with less expensive and skilled staff.

Traditional Medicare Episode-Related Spending on Postacute Care for Dual-Eligible and Medicare-Only Beneficiaries, 2009-2017.

Dual-eligible beneficiaries with Medicare and Medicaid coverage generally have greater utilization and spending levels than Medicare-only beneficiaries on postacute services, raising questions about how strategies to curb postacute spending will affect dual-eligible beneficiaries. We compared trends in postacute spending and use related to inpatient episodes at a population and episode level for dual-eligible and Medicare-only beneficiaries over the years 2009-2017. Although dual-eligible beneficiaries had consistently higher inpatient and postacute service use and spending than Medicare-only populations, both populations experienced similar declines in inpatient and postacute measures over time. Conditional on having an inpatient stay, most types of postacute service use increased regardless of dual-eligible status. These consistent patterns in episode-related postacute spending for Medicare-only and dual-eligible beneficiaries-decreased episode-related spending and use on a per beneficiary basis and increased use and spending on a per episode basis-suggest that changing patterns of care affect both populations.

High-Quality Nursing Home and Palliative Care-One and the Same.

Many individuals receiving post-acute and long-term care services in nursing homes have unmet palliative and end-of-life care needs. Hospice has been the predominant approach to meeting these needs, although hospice services generally are available only to long-term care residents with a limited prognosis who choose to forego disease-modifying or curative therapies. Two additional approaches to meeting these needs are the provision of palliative care consultation through community- or hospital-based programs and facility-based palliative care services. However, access to this specialized care is limited, services are not clearly defined, and the empirical evidence of these approaches' effectiveness is inadequate. In this article, we review the existing evidence and challenges with each of these 3 approaches. We then describe a model for effective delivery of palliative and end-of-life care in nursing homes, one in which palliative and end-of-life care are seen as integral to high-quality nursing home care. To achieve this vision, we make 4 recommendations: (1) promote internal palliative and end-of-life care capacity through comprehensive training and support; (2) ensure that state and federal payment policies and regulations do not create barriers to delivering high-quality, person-centered palliative and end-of-life care; (3) align nursing home quality measures to include palliative and end-of-life care-sensitive indicators; and (4) support access to and integration of external palliative care services. These recommendations will require changes in the organization, delivery, and reimbursement of care. All nursing homes should provide high-quality palliative and end-of-life care, and this article describes some key strategies to make this goal a reality.

Establishing Medicaid incentives for liberating nursing home patients from ventilators.

BACKGROUND: Chronic ventilator use in Tennessee nursing homes surged following 2010 increases in respiratory care payment rates. Tennessee's Medicaid program implemented multiple policies between 2014 and 2017 to promote ventilator liberation in 11 nursing homes, including quality reporting, on-site monitoring, and pay-for-performance incentives. METHODS: Using repeated cross-sectional analysis of Medicare and Medicaid nursing home claims (2011-2017), hospital discharge records (2010-2017), and nursing home quality reports (2015-2017), we examined how service use changed as Tennessee implemented policies designed to promote ventilator liberation in nursing homes. We measured the annual number of nursing home patients with ventilator-related service use; discharge destination of ventilated inpatients and percent of nursing home patients liberated from ventilators. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2014, the number of Medicare SNF and Medicaid nursing home patients with ventilator use increased more than sixfold. Among inpatients with prolonged mechanical ventilation, discharges to home decreased as discharges to nursing homes increased. As Tennessee implemented policy changes, ventilator-related service use moderately declined in nursing homes from a peak of 198 ventilated Medicare SNF patients in 2014 to 125 in 2017 and from 182 Medicaid patients with chronic ventilator use in 2014 to 145 patients in 2017. Nursing home weaning rates peaked at 49%-52% in 2015 and 2016, but declined to 26% by late 2017. Median number of days from admission to wean declined from 81 to 37 days. CONCLUSIONS: This value-based approach demonstrates the importance of designing payment models that target key patient outcomes like ventilator liberation.

Aligning Medicaid and Medicare Advantage Managed Care Plans for Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries.

To coordinate Medicare and Medicaid benefits, multiple states are creating opportunities for dual-eligible beneficiaries to join Medicare Advantage Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs) and Medicaid plans operated by the same insurer. Tennessee implemented this approach by requiring insurers who offered Medicaid plans to also offer a D-SNP by 2015. Tennessee's aligned D-SNP participation increased from 7% to 24% of dual-eligible beneficiaries aged 65 years and above between 2011 and 2017. Within a county, a 10-percentage-point increase in aligned D-SNP participation was associated with 0.3 fewer inpatient admissions (p = .048), 13.9 fewer prescription drugs per month (p = .048), and 0.3 fewer nursing home users (p = .06) per 100 dual-eligible beneficiaries aged 65 years and older. Increased aligned plan participation was associated with 0.2 more inpatient admissions (p = .004) per 100 dual-eligible beneficiaries younger than 65 years. For some dual-eligible beneficiaries, increasing Medicare and Medicaid managed plan alignment has the potential to promote more efficient service use.

Integrating the Financing and Delivery of Medical and Supportive Services for People Living With Dementia.

The number of people living with dementia (PLWD) is expected to grow considerably in the coming years. PLWD often have substantial medical and supportive service needs and face fragmentation of services across payers and across health and social service systems; recently, efforts have been made to achieve greater integration of care and financing. This article considers issues related to integrating long-term services and supports (LTSS), medical care, and financing for PLWD; reviews the policy context and key clinical and delivery system challenges to these efforts; and describes key lessons regarding integration learned from examples in the field. Recommendations are provided and include the following: (1) assess carefully whether integration of medical and LTSS is required to achieve the intended outcomes of an intervention or program targeted at PLWD; if integration is needed, select carefully the types of medical and LTSS to integrate and the mode of integration; (2) use measures that evaluate quality across LTSS settings in which PLWD receive care; (3) assess whether and how eligibility and payment policies pose barriers to PLWD from receiving services they need, and evaluate ways in which policies might be reformed to meet beneficiaries' needs; and (4) conduct research examining the potential of value-based payment efforts to improve the quality and efficiency of care received by PLWD, including their potential impact on out-of-pocket expenses and caregiving burden for PLWD and their families.

Nursing home oversight during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Regulatory oversight has been a central strategy to assure nursing home quality of care for decades. In response to COVID-19, traditional elements of oversight that relate to resident care have been curtailed in favor of implementing limited infection control surveys and targeted complaint investigations. We seek to describe the state of nursing home oversight during the pandemic to facilitate a discussion of whether and how these activities should be altered going forward. DESIGN AND SETTING: In a retrospective study, we describe national oversight activities in January-June 2020 and compare these activities to the same time period from 2019. We also examine state-level oversight activities during the peak months of the pandemic. PARTICIPANTS: United States nursing homes. DATA: Publicly available Quality, Certification, and Oversight Reports (QCOR) data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). MEASUREMENTS: Number of standard, complaint, and onsite infection surveys, number of deficiencies from standard and complaint surveys, number of citations by deficiency tag, and number and amount of civil monetary penalties. RESULTS: The number of standard and complaint surveys declined considerably in the second quarter of 2020 relative to the same time frame in 2019. Deficiency citations generally decreased to near zero by April 2020 with the exception of infection prevention and control deficiencies and citations for failure to report COVID-19 data to the national health safety network. Related enforcement actions were down considerably in 2020, relative to 2019. CONCLUSION: In the months since COVID-19 first impacted nursing homes, regulatory oversight efforts have fallen off considerably. While CMS implemented universal infection control surveys and targeted complaint investigations, other routine aspects of oversight dropped in light of justifiable limits on nursing home entry. Going forward, we must develop policies that allow regulators to balance the demands of the pandemic while fulfilling their responsibilities effectively.

Evolution of the home health care market: The expansion and quality performance of multi-agency chains.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the growth and evolution of the home health agency (HHA) market and to compare quality performance across HHA ownership categories. DATA SOURCE: Agency characteristics were extracted from Medicare cost reports and Provider of Services file. Quality of care and patient characteristics were extracted from Quality of Patient Care Star Ratings and HHA Public Use File. STUDY DESIGN: Agency- and state-level analyses were conducted to describe HHA market trends. Patient characteristics and quality measures were compared across ownership categories of interest. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: All Medicare-certified HHAs in operation, 2005-2018. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Over the study period, the HHA sector grew substantially, increasing from 7899 to 10 818 agencies, and chain-owned HHAs doubled in number from 903 (11.4% of all agencies) to 1841 (17.0%). In 2018, across agency types, for-profit nonchain agencies were the largest category both in the number of agencies (67.8%) and the number of Medicare enrollees served (40.7%). Additionally, for-profit nonchain agencies grew most in total number, from 4293 (54.3%) to 7337 (67.8%), while for-profit chain agencies grew most in the number of Medicare enrollees served, from 439 998 (12.9%) to 1 082 385 (28.3%). Regarding patient composition, for-profit nonchain agencies served the highest proportion of dual eligible beneficiaries (42.2%) and African-Americans (27.9%) among all agency types. Regarding quality performance, a higher star rating is significantly (P < .01) associated with chain agency status. Moreover, chain HHAs performed better on self-reported process measures, and risk-adjusted self-reported outcome measures; however, they performed worse on risk-adjusted claims-based outcome measures. These results were similar across for-profit and nonprofit chain agencies. CONCLUSION: Chains play a growing role in the home health sector. Substantial differences in geographic distribution, patient composition, and quality performance were observed between chain- and nonchain HHAs. Examining the growth and performance of multi-agency chains can help inform quality reporting and monitoring, assess payment adequacy, and facilitate greater transparency and accountability within the HHA marketplace.

Risk adjusting for Medicaid participation in Medicare Advantage.

OBJECTIVES: Determining appropriate capitated payments has important access implications for dual-eligible Medicare Advantage (MA) members. In 2017, MA plans began receiving higher capitated payments for beneficiaries with full vs partial Medicaid when payments started being risk adjusted for level of Medicaid benefits instead of any Medicaid participation. This approach could favor MA plans in states with more generous Medicaid programs where more beneficiaries qualify for full Medicaid and thus a higher capitated payment. To understand this issue, we examined adjusted Medicare spending for dual-eligible beneficiaries across states with differing Medicaid eligibility criteria. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of 2007-2015 traditional Medicare data for dual-eligible beneficiaries 65 years and older. METHODS: We compared predicted per-beneficiary spending levels after adjusting for any Medicaid participation and for level of Medicaid benefits across states with varying Medicaid eligibility requirements. RESULTS: States with the most generous Medicaid requirements had more dual-eligible beneficiaries with full Medicaid compared with the most restrictive states (median, 82% vs 55%). Nationally, Medicare spending levels were 1.3 times greater for full vs partial Medicaid participants (range across states, 0.8-1.7). When per-beneficiary spending was adjusted for level of Medicaid benefits, rather than any Medicaid participation, states with more generous Medicaid eligibility had larger gains in predicted spending per dual-eligible beneficiary than states with less generous Medicaid coverage (1.7% vs 1.3% increase). CONCLUSIONS: Distinguishing between partial and full Medicaid in MA payments may disproportionately increase MA payments in states that have more full Medicaid beneficiaries due to more generous Medicaid eligibility.

Trends in Contracting and Common Ownership Between Hospice Agencies and Nursing Homes.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, policymakers have paid particular attention to the emergence of a robust for-profit hospice sector and increased hospice use by nursing home residents. Previous research has explored financial incentives for nursing home-hospice use, but there has been limited research on nursing home-hospice partnerships and none on the extent of nursing home-hospice common ownership. OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in nursing home-hospice contracting and common ownership and to identify potential tradeoffs in care provided by nursing homes and hospice agencies that share common ownership. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of nursing home-hospice patients between 2005 and 2015. RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2015, the number of hospice agencies and nursing homes with common ownership grew substantially, now representing almost 1-in-5 providers in each sector. Relative to individuals using hospice in nursing homes without common ownership, adjusted analyses found that individuals receiving hospice from a commonly owned agency had a greater likelihood of having stays of 90 days or more [odds ratio (OR)=1.06; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-1.10], having a stay resulting in a live discharge (OR=1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11), and having at least 1 registered nurse/licensed practical nurse visit during the last 3 days of life (OR=1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29); these individuals also had a lower mean visit hours per day (-0.07; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Common ownership between hospice agencies and nursing homes is an emerging trend that reflects a broader push toward consolidation in the health care sector. Our analyses highlight potential concerns relevant to Medicare payment policy and are a first step toward improving our understanding of these trends and their implications.

Assessment of Variability in End-of-Life Care Delivery in Intensive Care Units in the United States.

Importance: Overall, 1 of 5 decedents in the United States is admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) before death. Objective: To describe structures, processes, and variability of end-of-life care delivered in ICUs in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide cohort study used data on 16 945 adults who were cared for in ICUs that participated in the 68-unit ICU Liberation Collaborative quality improvement project from January 2015 through April 2017. Data were analyzed between August 2018 and June 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Published quality measures and end-of-life events, organized by key domains of end-of-life care in the ICU. Results: Of 16 945 eligible patients in the collaborative, 1536 (9.1%) died during their initial ICU stay. Of decedents, 654 (42.6%) were women, 1037 (67.5%) were 60 years or older, and 1088 (70.8%) were identified as white individuals. Wide unit-level variation in end-of-life care delivery was found. For example, the median unit-stratified rate of cardiopulmonary resuscitation avoidance in the last hour of life was 89.5% (interquartile range, 83.3%-96.1%; range, 50.0%-100%). Median rates of patients who were pain free and delirium free in last 24 hours of life were 75.1% (interquartile range, 66.0%-85.7%; range, 0-100%) and 60.0% (interquartile range, 43.7%-85.2%; range, 9.1%-100%), respectively. Ascertainment of an advance directive was associated with lower odds of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the last hour of life (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-0.99; P = .04), and a documented offer or delivery of spiritual support was associated with higher odds of family presence at the time of death (odds ratio, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.37-2.77; P < .001). Death in a unit with an open visitation policy was associated with higher odds of pain in the last 24 hours of life (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.15-4.27; P = .02). Unsupervised cluster analysis revealed 3 mutually exclusive unit-level patterns of end-of-life care delivery among 63 ICUs with complete data. Cluster 1 units (14 units [22.2%]) had the lowest rate of cardiopulmonary resuscitation avoidance but achieved the highest pain-free rate. Cluster 2 (25 units [39.7%]) had the lowest delirium-free rate but achieved high rates of all other end-of-life events. Cluster 3 (24 units [38.1%]) achieved high rates across all favorable end-of-life events. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, end-of-life care delivery varied substantially among ICUs in the United States, and the patterns of care observed suggest that units can be characterized as higher and lower performing. To achieve optimal care for patients who die in an ICU, future research should target unit-level variation and disseminate the successes of higher-performing units.