Assessment of Overuse of Medical Tests and Treatments at US Hospitals Using Medicare Claims.

Importance: Overuse of health care services exposes patients to unnecessary risk of harm and costs. Distinguishing patterns of overuse among hospitals requires hospital-level measures across multiple services. Objective: To describe characteristics of hospitals associated with overuse of health care services in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional analysis used Medicare fee-for-service claims data for beneficiaries older than 65 years from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017, with a lookback of 1 year. Inpatient and outpatient services were included, and services offered at specialty and federal hospitals were excluded. Patients were from hospitals with the capacity (based on a claims filter developed for this study) to perform at least 7 of 12 investigated services. Statistical analyses were performed from July 1, 2020, to December 20, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were a composite overuse score ranging from 0 (no overuse of services) to 1 (relatively high overuse of services) and characteristics of hospitals clustered by overuse rates. Twelve published low-value service algorithms were applied to the data to find overuse rates for each hospital, normalized and aggregated to a composite score and then compared across 6 hospital characteristics using multivariable regression. A k-means cluster analysis was used on normalized overuse rates to identify hospital clusters. Results: The primary analysis was performed on 2415 cohort A hospitals (ie, hospitals with capacity for 7 or more services), which included 1 263 592 patients (mean [SD] age, 72.4 [14] years; 678 549 women [53.7%]; 101 017 191 White patients [80.5%]). Head imaging for syncope was the highest-volume low-value service (377 745 patients [29.9%]), followed by coronary artery stenting for stable coronary disease (199 579 [15.8%]). The mean (SD) composite overuse score was 0.40 (0.10) points. Southern hospitals had a higher mean score than midwestern (difference in means: 0.06 [95% CI, 0.05-0.07] points; P < .001), northeast (0.08 [95% CI, 0.06-0.09] points; P < .001), and western hospitals (0.08 [95% CI, 0.07-0.10] points; P < .001). Nonprofit hospitals had a lower adjusted mean score than for-profit hospitals (-0.03 [95% CI, -0.04 to -0.02] points; P < .001). Major teaching hospitals had significantly lower adjusted mean overuse scores vs minor teaching hospitals (difference in means, -0.07 [95% CI, -0.08 to -0.06] points; P < .001) and nonteaching hospitals (-0.10 [95% CI, -0.12 to -0.09] points; P < .001). Of the 4 clusters identified, 1 was characterized by its low counts of overuse in all services except for spinal fusion; the majority of major teaching hospitals were in this cluster (164 of 223 major teaching hospitals [73.5%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study used a novel measurement of hospital-associated overuse; results showed that the highest scores in this Medicare population were associated with nonteaching and for-profit hospitals, particularly in the South.

Multi-level Drivers of Disparities in Hispanic Cesarean Delivery Rates in US-Mexico Border States.

BACKGROUND: Hispanic women living along the US-Mexico border have higher cesarean delivery rates than non-Hispanic white women, African American women, and other Hispanic women in the USA. Their rates also exceed those of other Hispanic women in states that border Mexico and non-Hispanic white women along the border. Our objective was to determine the causes of the disparities in border Hispanic cesarean rates. METHODS: Using the 2015 birth certificate file and other sources, we performed a twofold Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition analysis of the disparities in low-risk primary and repeat cesarean rates between Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women in the US-Mexico border counties and Hispanic women residing in nonborder counties of border states. RESULTS: Rates of low-risk primary cesarean among border Hispanic, nonborder Hispanic, and border non-Hispanic white women were 21.1%, 15.0%, and 16.5%, respectively. Higher Hispanic concentration in county of residence, a larger proportion of for-profit hospital beds, and greater poverty accounted for 24.7%, 22.1%, and 11.1% of the border-nonborder Hispanic difference, respectively. No other variable explained more than 5% of the difference. Higher Hispanic concentration, more for-profit beds, less attendance by an MD, higher BMI, and greater poverty explained 60.6%, 42.4%, 42.4%, 27.4%, and 21.3%, respectively, of the Hispanic-non-Hispanic white difference. Hispanic concentration and for-profit beds were also important explanatory variables for low-risk repeat cesareans. CONCLUSION: Efforts to address potentially unnecessary cesareans among Hispanic women on the border should recognize that community demographic and health delivery system characteristics are more influential than maternal medical risk factors.

Regional Differences in Palliative Care Utilization Among Geriatric Colorectal Cancer Patients Needing Emergent Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of palliative care (PC) in critical illness are validated across a range of diseases, yet it remains underutilized in surgical patients. This study analyzed patient and hospital factors predictive of PC utilization for elderly patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) requiring emergent surgery. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample was queried for patients aged ≥ 65 years admitted emergently with CRC from 2009 to 2014. Patients undergoing colectomy, enterectomy, or ostomy formation were included and stratified according to documentation of PC consultation during admission. Chi-squared testing identified unadjusted group differences, and multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of PC. RESULTS: Of 86,573 discharges meeting inclusion criteria, only 3598 (4.2%) had PC consultation. Colectomy (86.6%) and ostomy formation (30.4%) accounted for the operative majority. PC frequency increased over time (2.9% in 2009 to 6.2% in 2014, P < 0.001) and was nearly twice as likely to occur in the West compared with the Northeast (5.7 vs. 3.3%, P < 0.001) and in not-for-profit compared with proprietary hospitals (4.5 vs. 2.3%, P < 0.001). PC patients were more likely to have metastases (60.1 vs. 39.9%, P < 0.001) and die during admission (41.5 vs. 6.4%, P < 0.001). On multivariable logistic regression, PC predictors (P < 0.05) included region outside the Northeast, increasing age, more recent year, and metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: In the USA, PC consultation for geriatric patients with surgically managed complicated CRC is low. Regional variation appears to play an important role. With mounting evidence that PC improves quality of life and outcomes, understanding the barriers associated with its provision to surgical patients is paramount.

Proprietary management and higher readmission rates: A correlation.

INTRODUCTION: Reducing preventable readmissions among Medicare beneficiaries is an effective way to not only reduce the exorbitantly rising cost in healthcare but also as a measure to improve the quality of patient care. Many of the previous efforts in reducing readmission rate of patients have not been very successful because of ill-defined quality measures, improper data collection methods and lack of effective strategies based on data driven solutions. METHODS: In this study, we analyzed the readmission data of patients for six major diseases including acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), pneumonia (PN), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and total hip arthroplasty and/or total knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) program for the period 2012-2015 in context with the ownership structure of the hospitals. RESULTS: Our analysis demonstrates that the readmission rates of patients were statistically higher in proprietary (for profit) hospitals compared to the government and non-profit hospitals which was independent of their geographical distribution across all six major diseases. CONCLUSION: This finding we believe has strong implications for policy makers to mitigate any potential risks in the quality of patient care arising from unintended revenue pressure in healthcare institutions.

The Choice of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implementation (TAVI): Do Patient Co-morbidity and Hospital Ownership Type Matter?

BACKGROUND: Innovative technologies challenge healthcare systems, as evidence on costs and benefits frequently usually are slow to reflect new technology. We investigated these dynamics for Germany, using the emergence of transcatheter aortic valve implementation (TAVI) as an alternative to conventional aortic valve replacements (CAVR). OBJECTIVE: We focused on the role of patient co-morbidity-which would be a medical explanation for adopting TAVI-and hospital ownership status, hypothesizing that for-profit facilities are more likely to capitalize on the favorable reimbursement conditions of TAVI. METHODS: The analysis uses claims data from the Techniker Krankenkasse, the largest health insurance fund in Germany, for the years 2009-2015, covering 2892 patients with TAVI and 9523 with CAVR. The decision on TAVI versus CAVR was estimated for patient-level data, that is, socioeconomic data as well as co-morbidity. At the hospital level, we included the ownership type. We also controlled for effects of the respective owner (rather than the type of ownership), including a random intercept. RESULTS: While the co-morbidity score of TAVI patients was much higher in the early years, over time, the score almost converged with that of CAVR patients. This is in agreement with emerging evidence that suggests the use of TAVI also leads to better patient outcomes. Our results indicate that the type of ownership does not drive the switch to TAVI. We found little, if any, effect from the respective owner, regardless of ownership type. CONCLUSION: Overall, the effects of co-morbidity suggest that providers acted responsibly when adopting TAVI while evidence was still emerging.

Hidden burden of venous thromboembolism after trauma: A national analysis.

BACKGROUND: Trauma patients are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). One in four trauma readmissions occur at a different hospital. There are no national studies measuring readmissions to different hospitals with VTE after trauma. Thus, the true national burden in trauma patients readmitted with VTE is unknown and can provide a benchmark to improve quality of care. METHODS: The Nationwide Readmission Database (2010-2014) was queried for patients ≥18 years non-electively admitted for trauma. Patients with VTE or inferior vena cava filter placement on index admission were excluded. Outcomes included 30-day and 1-year readmission to both index and different hospitals with a new diagnosis of VTE. Multivariable logistic regression identified risk factors. Results were weighted for national estimates. RESULTS: Of the 5,151,617 patients admitted for trauma, 1.2% (n = 61,800) were readmitted within 1 year with VTE. Of those, 29.6% (n = 18,296) were readmitted to a different hospital. Risk factors for readmission to a different hospital included index admission to a for-profit hospital (OR 1.33 [1.27-1.40], p < 0.001), skull fracture (OR 1.20 [1.08-1.35], p < 0.001), Medicaid (OR 1.16 [1.06-1.26], p < 0.001), hospitalization >7 days (OR 1.12 [1.07-1.18], p < 0.001), and the lowest quartile of median household income for patient ZIP code (OR 1.13 [1.07-1.19], p < 0.01). The yearly cost of 1-year readmission for VTE was $256.9 million, with $90.4 million (35.2%) as a result of different hospital readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Previously unreported, over one in three patients readmitted with VTE a year after hospitalization for trauma, accounting for over a third of the cost, present to another hospital and are not captured by current metrics. Risk factors are unique. This has significant implications for benchmarking, outcomes, prevention, and policy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological study, level II.

Which patients receive surgery in for-profit and non-profit hospitals in a universal health system? An explorative register-based study in Norway.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the socioeconomic status (SES) and case-mix among day surgical patients treated at private for-profit hospitals (PFPs) and non-profit hospitals (NPs) in Norway, and to explore whether the use of PFPs in a universal health system has compromised the principle of equal access regardless of SES. DESIGN: A retrospective, exploratory study comparing hospital types using the Norwegian Patient Register linked with socioeconomic data from Statistics Norway by using Norwegian citizens' personal identification numbers. SETTING: The Norwegian healthcare system. POPULATION: All publicly financed patients in five Norwegian metropolitan areas having day surgery for meniscus (34 100 patients), carpal tunnel syndrome (15 010), benign breast hypertrophy (6297) or hallux valgus (2135) from 2009 to 2014. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Having surgery at a PFP or NP. RESULTS: Across four unique procedures, the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for using PFPs were generally lower for the lowest educational level (0.77-0.87) and the lowest income level (0.68-0.89), though aORs were not always significant. Likewise, comorbidity and previous hospitalisation had lower aORs (0.62-0.95; 0.44-0.97, respectively) for having surgery at PFPs across procedures, though again aORs were not always significant. No clear patterns emerged with respect to age, gender or higher levels of income and education. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from our study of four procedures suggests that equal access to PFPs compared with NPs for those patients at the lowest education and income levels may be compromised, though further investigations are needed to generalise these findings across more procedures and probe causal mechanisms and appropriate policy remedies. The finding that comorbidity and previous hospitalisation had lower odds of treatment at PFPs indicates that NPs play an essential role for more complex patients, but raises questions about patient preference and cream skimming.

Are Patients Undergoing an Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Treated Differently at a Physician-owned Hospital?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. BACKGROUND: Physician-owned specialty hospitals focus on taking care of patients with a select group of conditions. In some instances, they may also create a potential conflict of interest for the surgeon. The effect this has on the surgical algorithm for patients with degenerative cervical spine conditions has not been determined. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent a 1- or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion between October 2009 and December 2014 at either a physician-owned specialty hospital or an independently owned community hospital were identified. Demographic information, the time course for treatment and the nonoperative treatment regimen were evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 115 patients undergoing surgery at a physician-owned specialty hospital and 149 patients undergoing surgery at an independent community hospital were identified. Demographic data between the groups including the presence of 12 medical comorbidities and insurance status was similar between the groups. The only difference that was identified was that patients at the surgeon-owned hospital were marginally younger than patients who had surgery at the independent hospital (49.7 vs. 50.0, P=0.048). No difference in the median number of months from the onset of symptoms to surgery (6.51 vs. 7.53 mo, respectively; P=0.55), from the onset of symptoms to the preoperative visit (6.02 vs. 6.02, P=0.64), or from the initial surgical consultation to surgery (0.99 vs. 1.02, P=0.31) was identified. No difference in the number of patients who underwent formal physical therapy (72.2% vs. 67.1%, P=0.42) or who had a cervical steroid injection (55.6% vs. 50.3%, P=0.25%) was identified between patients who had surgery at a physician-owned or independent hospital; however, patients who underwent surgery at the physician-owned hospital were more likely to have taken oral anti-inflammatories (93.0% vs. 83.9%, P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: When comparing hospitals with similar resources, surgeons do not preferentially select younger, healthier patients with higher paying insurance to be treated at the physician-owned hospital. Furthermore, both the time from the onset of symptoms to surgery and the nonoperative treatment regimen were similar between patients treated at the 2 facilities.

Readmission rates in not-for-profit vs. proprietary hospitals before and after the hospital readmission reduction program implementation.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act established the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) to penalize hospitals with excessive 30-day hospital readmissions of Medicare enrollees for specific conditions. This policy was aimed at increasing the quality of care delivered to patients and decreasing the amount of money paid for potentially preventable hospital readmissions. While it has been established that the number of 30-day hospital readmissions decreased after program implementation, it is unknown whether this effect occurred equally between not-for-profit and proprietary hospitals. The aim of this study was to determine whether or not the HRRP decreased readmission rates equally between not-for-profit and proprietary hospitals between 2010 and 2012. METHODS: Data on readmissions came from the Dartmouth Atlas and hospital ownership data came from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Data were joined using the Medicare provider number. Using a difference-in-differences approach, bivariate and regression analyses were conducted to compare readmission rates between not-for-profit and proprietary hospitals between 2010 and 2012 and were adjusted for hospital characteristics. RESULTS: In 2010, prior to program implementation, unadjusted readmission rates for proprietary and not-for-profit hospitals were 16.16% and 15.78%, respectively. In 2012, following program implementation, 30-day readmission rates dropped to 15.76% and 15.29% for proprietary and not-for-profit hospitals. The data suggest that the implementation of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program had similar effects on not-for-profit and proprietary hospitals with respect to readmission rates, even after adjusting for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Although not-for-profit hospitals had lower 30-day readmission rates than proprietary hospitals in both 2010 and 2012, they both decreased after the implementation of the HRRP and the decreases were not statistically significantly different. Thus, this study suggests that the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program was equally effective in reducing readmission rates, despite ownership status.

Taxes, bankruptcy costs, and capital structure in for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals.

About 60% of the US hospitals are not-for-profit and it is not clear how traditional theories of capital structure should be adapted to understand the borrowing behavior of not-for-profit hospitals. This paper identifies important determinants of capital structure taken from theories describing for-profit firms as well as prior literature on not-for-profit hospitals. We examine the differential effects these factors have on the capital structure of for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals. Specifically, we use a difference-in-differences regression framework to study how differences in leverage between for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals change in response to key explanatory variables (i.e. tax rates and bankruptcy costs). The sample in this study includes most US short-term general acute hospitals from 2000 to 2012. We find that personal and corporate income taxes and bankruptcy costs have significant and distinct effects on the capital structure of for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals. Specifically, relative to not-for-profit hospitals: (1) higher corporate income tax encourages for-profit hospitals to increase their debt usage; (2) higher personal income tax discourages for-profit hospitals to use debt; and (3) higher expected bankruptcy costs lead for-profit hospitals to use less debt. Over the past decade, the capital structure of for-profit hospitals has been more flexible as compared to that of not-for-profit hospitals. This may suggest that not-for-profit hospitals are more constrained by external financing resources. Particularly, our analysis suggests that not-for-profit hospitals operating in states with high corporate taxes but low personal income taxes may face particular challenges of borrowing funds relative to their for-profit competitors.

Is Profit Status of Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities Independently Associated With 30-Day Unplanned Hospital Readmission for Medicare Beneficiaries?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of facility-level factors on 30-day unplanned risk-adjusted hospital readmission after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs). DESIGN: Study using 100% Medicare claims data, covering 269,306 discharges from 1094 IRFs between October 2010 and September 2011. SETTING: IRFs with at least 30 discharges. PARTICIPANTS: A total number of 1094 IRFs (N=269,306) serving Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk-standardized readmission rate (RSRR) for 30-day hospital readmission. RESULTS: Profit status was the only provider-level IRF characteristic significantly associated with unplanned readmissions. For-profit IRFs had a significantly higher RSRR (13.26±0.51) than did nonprofit IRFs (13.15±0.47) (P<.001). After controlling for all other facility characteristics (except for accreditation status because of its collinearity with facility type), for-profit IRFs had a 0.1% point higher RSRR than did nonprofit IRFs, and census region was the only significant region-level characteristic, with the South showing the highest RSRR of all regions (type III test, P=.005 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the inclusion of profit status on the IRF Compare website (a platform including IRF comparators to indicate quality of services). For-profit IRFs had a higher RSRR than did nonprofit IRFs for Medicare beneficiaries. The South had a higher RSRR than did other regions. The RSRR difference between for-profit and nonprofit IRFs could be due to the combined effects of organizational and regional factors.

A robust analysis of hospital efficiency and factors affecting variability.

The objectives of this paper are to use data envelopment analysis to measure hospital inefficiency in a way that accounts for patient outcomes and to study the association between organizational factors, such as hospital-physicians integration level and teaching status, and market competition with hospital inefficiency. We apply the robust data envelopment analysis approach to a sample of private (both not-for-profit and for-profit) hospitals operating in the United States. Our data envelopment analysis model includes mortality and readmission rates as bad outputs and admissions, surgeries, emergency room, and other visits as good outputs. Therefore, our measurement of hospital inefficiency accounts for quality. We then use a subsampling regression analysis to determine the predictors of hospital inefficiency. For-profit, fully integrated and teaching hospitals were more efficient than their counterparts. Also hospitals located in more competitive markets were more efficient than those located in less competitive markets. Incorporating quality in the measurement of hospital efficiency is key for producing valid efficiency scores. Hospitals in less competitive markets need to improve their efficiency levels. Moreover, high levels of hospital physician integration might be instrumental in ensuring that hospitals achieve their efficiency goals.

Wait times in Canada.

A significant barrier to accessing healthcare in Canada is long waiting lists, which can be linked to the way that Medicare was structured. After significant pressure, provincial governments began to address wait times. An example of a successful strategy to reduce wait times for elective surgery is the Saskatchewan Surgical Initiative, which saw wait times in the province change from being among the longest in Canada to the shortest.

Caesarean sections and for-profit status of hospitals: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Financial incentives may encourage private for-profit providers to perform more caesarean section (CS) than non-profit hospitals. We therefore sought to determine the association of for-profit status of hospital and odds of CS. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from the first year of records through February 2016. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: To be eligible, studies had to report data to allow the calculation of ORs of CS comparing private for-profit hospitals with public or private non-profit hospitals in a specific geographic area. OUTCOMES: The prespecified primary outcome was the adjusted OR of births delivered by CS in private for-profit hospitals as compared with public or private non-profit hospitals; the prespecified secondary outcome was the crude OR of CS in private for-profit hospitals as compared with public or private non-profit hospitals. RESULTS: 15 articles describing 17 separate studies in 4.1 million women were included. In a meta-analysis of 11 studies, the adjusted odds of delivery by CS was 1.41 higher in for-profit hospitals as compared with non-profit hospitals (95% CI 1.24 to 1.60) with no relevant heterogeneity between studies (τ2≤0.037). Findings were robust across subgroups of studies in stratified analyses. The meta-analysis of crude estimates from 16 studies revealed a somewhat more pronounced association (pooled OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.27) with moderate-to-high heterogeneity between studies (τ2≥0.179). CONCLUSIONS: CS are more likely to be performed by for-profit hospitals as compared with non-profit hospitals. This holds true regardless of women's risk and contextual factors such as country, year or study design. Since financial incentives are likely to play an important role, we recommend examination of incentive structures of for-profit hospitals to identify strategies that encourage appropriate provision of CS.

Explaining Differentials in Subsidy Levels Among Hospital Ownership Types in Germany.

German hospitals receive subsidies for investment costs by federal states. Theoretically, these subsidies have to cover the whole investment volume, but in fact, only 50-60% are covered. Balance sheet data show that public hospitals exhibit higher levels of subsidies compared with for-profit hospitals. In this study, I examine the sources of this disparity by decomposing the differential in a so-called facilitation ratio, that is, the ratio of subsidies to tangible fixed assets, revealing to which extent assets are funded by subsidies. The question of interest is whether the differential can be attributed to observable hospital-specific and federal state-specific characteristics or to unobservable factors. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Characteristics and patterns of elective admissions to for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals in France in 2009 and 2010.

In the mid 2000s, in an effort to increase competition among hospitals in France - and thereby reduce hospital care costs - policymakers implemented a prospective payment system and created incentives to promote use of for-profit hospitals. But such policies might incentivize 'upcoding' to higher-reimbursed procedures or overuse of preference-sensitive elective procedures, either of which would offset anticipated cost savings. To explore either possibility, we examined the relative use and costs of admissions for ten common preference-sensitive elective surgical procedures to French not-for profit and for-profit sector hospitals in 2009 and 2010. For each admission type, we compared sector-specific hospitalization characteristics and mean per-admission reimbursement and sector-specific relative rates of lower- and higher-reimbursed procedures. We found that, despite having substantially fewer beds, for-profit hospitals captured a large portion of market for these procedures; further, for-profit admissions were shorter and less expensive, even after adjustment for patient demographics, hospital characteristics, and patterns of admission to different reimbursement categories. While French for-profit hospitals appear to provide more efficient care, we found coding inconsistencies across for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals that may suggest supplier-induced demand and upcoding in for-profit hospitals. Future work should examine sector-specific changes in relative use and billing practices of for elective surgeries, the degree to which these elective surgeries are justified in either sector, and whether outcomes differ according to sector used.