The Rise and Risks of Medicare Advantage "Affinity Plans".

This Viewpoint discusses the proliferation of Medicare Advantage plans targeting specific groups of individuals and whether these plans will improve quality of care for beneficiaries.

Measuring Equity in Readmission as a Distinct Assessment of Hospital Performance.

Importance: Equity is an essential domain of health care quality. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) developed 2 Disparity Methods that together assess equity in clinical outcomes. Objectives: To define a measure of equitable readmissions; identify hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance (dual eligible vs non-dual eligible) or patient race (Black vs White); and compare hospitals with and without equitable readmissions by hospital characteristics and performance on accountability measures (quality, cost, and value). Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of US hospitals eligible for the CMS Hospital-Wide Readmission measure using Medicare data from July 2018 through June 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: We created a definition of equitable readmissions using CMS Disparity Methods, which evaluate hospitals on 2 methods: outcomes for populations at risk for disparities (across-hospital method); and disparities in care within hospitals' patient populations (within-a-single-hospital method). Exposures: Hospital patient demographics; hospital characteristics; and 3 measures of hospital performance-quality, cost, and value (quality relative to cost). Results: Of 4638 hospitals, 74% served a sufficient number of dual-eligible patients, and 42% served a sufficient number of Black patients to apply CMS Disparity Methods by insurance and race. Of eligible hospitals, 17% had equitable readmission rates by insurance and 30% by race. Hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance or race cared for a lower percentage of Black patients (insurance, 1.9% [IQR, 0.2%-8.8%] vs 3.3% [IQR, 0.7%-10.8%], P < .01; race, 7.6% [IQR, 3.2%-16.6%] vs 9.3% [IQR, 4.0%-19.0%], P = .01), and differed from nonequitable hospitals in multiple domains (teaching status, geography, size; P < .01). In examining equity by insurance, hospitals with low costs were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.38-1.77), and there was no relationship between quality and value, and equity. In examining equity by race, hospitals with high overall quality were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.26]), and there was no relationship between cost and value, and equity. Conclusion and Relevance: A minority of hospitals achieved equitable readmissions. Notably, hospitals with equitable readmissions were characteristically different from those without. For example, hospitals with equitable readmissions served fewer Black patients, reinforcing the role of structural racism in hospital-level inequities. Implementation of an equitable readmission measure must consider unequal distribution of at-risk patients among hospitals.

The Volume and Cost of Quality Metric Reporting.

Importance: US hospitals report data on many health care quality metrics to government and independent health care rating organizations, but the annual cost to acute care hospitals of measuring and reporting quality metric data, independent of resources spent on quality interventions, is not well known. Objective: To evaluate externally reported inpatient quality metrics for adult patients and estimate the cost of data collection and reporting, independent of quality-improvement efforts. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective time-driven activity-based costing study at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore, Maryland) with hospital personnel involved in quality metric reporting processes interviewed between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019, about quality reporting activities in the 2018 calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included the number of metrics, annual person-hours per metric type, and annual personnel cost per metric type. Results: A total of 162 unique metrics were identified, of which 96 (59.3%) were claims-based, 107 (66.0%) were outcome metrics, and 101 (62.3%) were related to patient safety. Preparing and reporting data for these metrics required an estimated 108 478 person-hours, with an estimated personnel cost of $5 038 218.28 (2022 USD) plus an additional $602 730.66 in vendor fees. Claims-based (96 metrics; $37 553.58 per metric per year) and chart-abstracted (26 metrics; $33 871.30 per metric per year) metrics used the most resources per metric, while electronic metrics consumed far less (4 metrics; $1901.58 per metric per year). Conclusions and Relevance: Significant resources are expended exclusively for quality reporting, and some methods of quality assessment are far more expensive than others. Claims-based metrics were unexpectedly found to be the most resource intensive of all metric types. Policy makers should consider reducing the number of metrics and shifting to electronic metrics, when possible, to optimize resources spent in the overall pursuit of higher quality.

Organization and Performance of US Health Systems.

Importance: Health systems play a central role in the delivery of health care, but relatively little is known about these organizations and their performance. Objective: To (1) identify and describe health systems in the United States; (2) assess differences between physicians and hospitals in and outside of health systems; and (3) compare quality and cost of care delivered by physicians and hospitals in and outside of health systems. Evidence Review: Health systems were defined as groups of commonly owned or managed entities that included at least 1 general acute care hospital, 10 primary care physicians, and 50 total physicians located within a single hospital referral region. They were identified using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrative data, Internal Revenue Service filings, Medicare and commercial claims, and other data. Health systems were categorized as academic, public, large for-profit, large nonprofit, or other private systems. Quality of preventive care, chronic disease management, patient experience, low-value care, mortality, hospital readmissions, and spending were assessed for Medicare beneficiaries attributed to system and nonsystem physicians. Prices for physician and hospital services and total spending were assessed in 2018 commercial claims data. Outcomes were adjusted for patient characteristics and geographic area. Findings: A total of 580 health systems were identified and varied greatly in size. Systems accounted for 40% of physicians and 84% of general acute care hospital beds and delivered primary care to 41% of traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Academic and large nonprofit systems accounted for a majority of system physicians (80%) and system hospital beds (64%). System hospitals were larger than nonsystem hospitals (67% vs 23% with >100 beds), as were system physician practices (74% vs 12% with >100 physicians). Performance on measures of preventive care, clinical quality, and patient experience was modestly higher for health system physicians and hospitals than for nonsystem physicians and hospitals. Prices paid to health system physicians and hospitals were significantly higher than prices paid to nonsystem physicians and hospitals (12%-26% higher for physician services, 31% for hospital services). Adjusting for practice size attenuated health systems differences on quality measures, but price differences for small and medium practices remained large. Conclusions and Relevance: In 2018, health system physicians and hospitals delivered a large portion of medical services. Performance on clinical quality and patient experience measures was marginally better in systems but spending and prices were substantially higher. This was especially true for small practices. Small quality differentials combined with large price differentials suggests that health systems have not, on average, realized their potential for better care at equal or lower cost.

Association Between Individual Primary Care Physician Merit-based Incentive Payment System Score and Measures of Process and Patient Outcomes.

Importance: The Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) influences reimbursement for hundreds of thousands of US physicians, but little is known about whether program performance accurately captures the quality of care they provide. Objective: To examine whether primary care physicians' MIPS scores are associated with performance on process and outcome measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of 80 246 US primary care physicians participating in the MIPS program in 2019. Exposures: MIPS score. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association between physician MIPS scores and performance on 5 unadjusted process measures, 6 adjusted outcome measures, and a composite outcome measure. Results: The study population included 3.4 million patients attributed to 80 246 primary care physicians, including 4773 physicians with low MIPS scores (≤30), 6151 physicians with medium MIPS scores (>30-75), and 69 322 physicians with high MIPS scores (>75). Compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly worse mean performance on 3 of 5 process measures: diabetic eye examinations (56.1% vs 63.2%; difference, -7.1 percentage points [95% CI, -8.0 to -6.2]; P < .001), diabetic HbA1c screening (84.6% vs 89.4%; difference, -4.8 percentage points [95% CI, -5.4 to -4.2]; P < .001), and mammography screening (58.2% vs 70.4%; difference, -12.2 percentage points [95% CI, -13.1 to -11.4]; P < .001) but significantly better mean performance on rates of influenza vaccination (78.0% vs 76.8%; difference, 1.2 percentage points [95% CI, 0.0 to 2.5]; P = .045] and tobacco screening (95.0% vs 94.1%; difference, 0.9 percentage points [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5]; P = .001). MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with risk-adjusted patient outcomes: compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly better mean performance on 1 outcome (307.6 vs 316.4 emergency department visits per 1000 patients; difference, -8.9 [95% CI, -13.7 to -4.1]; P < .001), worse performance on 1 outcome (255.4 vs 225.2 all-cause hospitalizations per 1000 patients; difference, 30.2 [95% CI, 24.8 to 35.7]; P < .001), and did not have significantly different performance on 4 ambulatory care-sensitive admission outcomes. Nineteen percent of physicians with low MIPS scores had composite outcomes performance in the top quintile, while 21% of physicians with high MIPS scores had outcomes in the bottom quintile. Physicians with low MIPS scores but superior outcomes cared for more medically complex and socially vulnerable patients, compared with physicians with low MIPS scores and poor outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among US primary care physicians in 2019, MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with performance on process and outcome measures. These findings suggest that the MIPS program may be ineffective at measuring and incentivizing quality improvement among US physicians.

Protocol for an intervention development and pilot implementation evaluation study of an e-health solution to improve newborn care quality and survival in two low-resource settings, Malawi and Zimbabwe: Neotree.

INTRODUCTION: Every year 2.4 million deaths occur worldwide in babies younger than 28 days. Approximately 70% of these deaths occur in low-resource settings because of failure to implement evidence-based interventions. Digital health technologies may offer an implementation solution. Since 2014, we have worked in Bangladesh, Malawi, Zimbabwe and the UK to develop and pilot Neotree: an android app with accompanying data visualisation, linkage and export. Its low-cost hardware and state-of-the-art software are used to improve bedside postnatal care and to provide insights into population health trends, to impact wider policy and practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a mixed methods (1) intervention codevelopment and optimisation and (2) pilot implementation evaluation (including economic evaluation) study. Neotree will be implemented in two hospitals in Zimbabwe, and one in Malawi. Over the 2-year study period clinical and demographic newborn data will be collected via Neotree, in addition to behavioural science informed qualitative and quantitative implementation evaluation and measures of cost, newborn care quality and usability. Neotree clinical decision support algorithms will be optimised according to best available evidence and clinical validation studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is a Wellcome Trust funded project (215742_Z_19_Z). Research ethics approvals have been obtained: Malawi College of Medicine Research and Ethics Committee (P.01/20/2909; P.02/19/2613); UCL (17123/001, 6681/001, 5019/004); Medical Research Council Zimbabwe (MRCZ/A/2570), BRTI and JREC institutional review boards (AP155/2020; JREC/327/19), Sally Mugabe Hospital Ethics Committee (071119/64; 250418/48). Results will be disseminated via academic publications and public and policy engagement activities. In this study, the care for an estimated 15 000 babies across three sites will be impacted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT0512707; Pre-results.

How Did Orthopaedic Surgeons Perform in the 2018 Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System?

BACKGROUND: The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the latest value-based payment program implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. As performance-based bonuses and penalties continue to rise in magnitude, it is essential to evaluate this program's ability to achieve its core objectives of quality improvement, cost reduction, and competition around clinically meaningful outcomes. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked the following: (1) How do orthopaedic surgeons differ on the MIPS compared with surgeons in other specialties, both in terms of the MIPS scores and bonuses that derive from them? (2) What features of surgeons and practices are associated with receiving penalties based on the MIPS? (3) What features of surgeons and practices are associated with receiving a perfect score of 100 based on the MIPS? METHODS: Scores from the 2018 MIPS reporting period were linked to physician demographic and practice-based information using the Medicare Part B Provider Utilization and Payment File, the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System Data (NPPES), and National Physician Compare Database. For all orthopaedic surgeons identified within the Physician Compare Database, there were 15,210 MIPS scores identified, representing a 72% (15,210 of 21,124) participation rate in the 2018 MIPS. Those participating in the MIPS receive a final score (0 to 100, with 100 being a perfect score) based on a weighted calculation of performance metrics across four domains: quality, promoting interoperability, improvement activities, and costs. In 2018, orthopaedic surgeons had an overall mean ± SD score of 87 ± 21. From these scores, payment adjustments are determined in the following manner: scores less than 15 received a maximum penalty adjustment of -5% ("penalty"), scores equal to 15 did not receive an adjustment ("neutral"), scores between 15 and 70 received a positive adjustment ("positive"), and scores above 70 (maximum 100) received both a positive adjustment and an additional exceptional performance adjustment with a maximum adjustment of +5% ("bonus"). Adjustments among orthopaedic surgeons were compared across various demographic and practice characteristics. Both the mean MIPS score and the resulting payment adjustments were compared with a group of surgeons in other subspecialties. Finally, multivariable logistic regression models were generated to identify which variables were associated with increased odds of receiving a penalty as well as a perfect score of 100. RESULTS: Compared with surgeons in other specialties, orthopaedic surgeons' mean MIPS score was 4.8 (95% CI 4.3 to 5.2; p < 0.001) points lower. From this difference, a lower proportion of orthopaedic surgeons received bonuses (-5.0% [95% CI -5.6 to -4.3]; p < 0.001), and a greater proportion received penalties (+0.5% [95% CI 0.2 to 0.8]; p < 0.001) and positive adjustments (+4.6% [95% CI 6.1 to 10.7]; p < 0.001) compared with surgeons in other specialties. After controlling for potentially confounding variables such as gender, years in practice, and practice setting, small (1 to 49 members) group size (adjusted odds ratio 22.2 [95% CI 8.17 to 60.3]; p < 0.001) and higher Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) scores (aOR 2.32 [95% CI 1.35 to 4.01]; p = 0.002) were associated with increased odds of a penalty. Also, after controlling for potential confounding, we found that reporting through an alternative payment model (aOR 28.7 [95% CI 24.0 to 34.3]; p < 0.001) was associated with increased odds of a perfect score, whereas small practice size (1 to 49 members) (aOR 0.35 [95% CI 0.31 to 0.39]; p < 0.001), a high patient volume (greater than 500 Medicare patients) (aOR 0.82 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.95]; p = 0.01), and higher HCC score (aOR 0.79 [95% Cl 0.66 to 0.93]; p = 0.006) were associated with decreased odds of a perfect MIPS score. CONCLUSION: Collectively, orthopaedic surgeons performed well in the second year of the MIPS, with 87% earning bonus payments. Among participating orthopaedic surgeons, individual reporting affiliation, small practice size, and more medically complex patient populations were associated with higher odds of receiving penalties and lower odds of earning a perfect score. Based on these findings, we recommend that individuals and orthopaedic surgeons in small group practices strive to forge partnerships with larger hospital practices with adequate ancillary staff to support quality reporting initiatives. Such partnerships may help relieve surgeons of growing administrative obligations and allow for maintained focus on direct patient care activities. Policymakers should aim to produce a shortened panel of performance measures to ensure more standardized comparison and less time and energy diverted from established clinical workflows. The current MIPS scoring methodology should also be amended with a complexity modifier to ensure fair evaluation of surgeons practicing in the safety net setting, or those treating patients with a high comorbidity burden. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Joint-Venture Ambulatory Surgery Centers: The Perfect Partnership.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory surgery growth has increased in the last few decades as ambulatory surgery centers have been shown to succeed in cost efficiencies through their smaller size and breadth, specialization of care, and ability to quickly participate in perioperative process improvement and education. METHODS: A 5-year retrospective fiscal review was performed for all Northwell Health-physician ambulatory surgery center joint ventures. The outcome measures studied included model of ownership, specialty types, and gross revenue. Additional facility characteristics were studied, including growth trajectory, facility size, and cost to build a de novo facility. RESULTS: Eleven free-standing ambulatory surgery centers were identified at Northwell Health during the 5-year study period. The total gross revenue for all Northwell clinical joint ventures for 2019 alone was $102,854,000. Northwell Health is a majority stakeholder in eight of their joint venture ambulatory surgery centers, with an average Northwell ownership of 53 percent and an average number of physician owners per facility of 11. The number of hospital-physician joint-venture ambulatory surgery centers grew from two to 11 facilities during the study period (450 percent). Surgical volume followed a similar trajectory, increasing 295 percent over the same time period. CONCLUSIONS: The ambulatory surgery center setting provides a vast number of possibilities for key stakeholders, including patients themselves, to benefit from financial and clinical efficiencies. Ambulatory surgery centers have been popular, as they meet patient expectations for convenience of elective surgery, reduce payer and clinical pressures to minimize length of stay in hospitals, and achieve similar or higher quality care with less intense resources.

How Different Motivations for Making Informal Out-Of-Pocket Payments Vary in Their Influence on Users' Satisfaction with Healthcare, Local and National Government, and Satisfaction with Life?

BACKGROUND: The dominant view in the literature is that informal payments in healthcare universally are a negative phenomenon. By contrast, we theorize that the motivation healthcare users for making informal payments (IP) can be classified into three categories: (1) a cultural norm, (2) "grease the wheels" payments if users offered to pay to get better services, and (3) "sand the wheels" payments if users were asked to pay by healthcare personnel or felt that payments were expected. We further hypothesize that these three categories of payments are differently associated with a user's outcomes, namely, satisfaction with healthcare, local and national government, satisfaction with life, and satisfaction with life of children in the future. METHODS: We used microdata from the 2016 Life-in-Transition survey. Multivariate regression analysis is used to quantify relationships between these categories of payments and users' outcomes. RESULTS: Payments that are the result of cultural norms are associated with better outcomes. On the contrary, "sand the wheel" payments are associated with worse outcomes. We find no association between making "grease the wheels" payments and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first paper which evaluates association between three different categories of informal payments with a wide range of users' outcomes on a diverse sample of countries. Focusing on informal payments in general, rather than explicitly examining specific motivations, obscures the true outcomes of making IP. It is important to distinguish between three different motivations for informal payment, namely, cultural norms, "grease the wheels," and "sand the wheels" since they have varying associations with user outcomes. From a policy making standpoint, variation in the links between different motivations for making IP and measures of satisfaction suggest that decision-makers should put their primary focus on situations where IP are explicitly asked for or are implied by the situation and that they should differentiate this from cases of gratitude payments. If such measures are not implemented, then policy makers may unintentionally ban the behaviour that is linked with increased satisfaction with healthcare, government, and life (i.e., paying gratitude).

Financial Profit in Medicine: A Position Paper From the American College of Physicians.

The steady growth of corporate interest and influence in the health care sector over the past few decades has created a more business-oriented health care system in the United States, helping to spur for-profit and private equity investment. Proponents say that this trend makes the health care system more efficient, encourages innovation, and provides financial stability to ensure access and improve care. Critics counter that such moves favor profit over care and erode the patient-physician relationship. American College of Physicians (ACP) underscores that physicians are permitted to earn a reasonable income as long as they are fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to provide high-quality, appropriate care within the guardrails of medical professionalism and ethics. In this position paper, ACP considers the effect of mergers, integration, private equity investment, nonprofit hospital requirements, and conversions from nonprofit to for-profit status on patients, physicians, and the health care system.

Acute Care Reimagined: Home Hospital Care Can Support the Triple Aim and Reduce Health Disparities.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Home hospital care (HHC) is a new and exciting concept that holds the promise of achieving all three components of the Triple Aim and reducing health disparities. As an innovative care delivery model, HHC substitutes traditional inpatient hospital care with hospital care at home for older patients with certain conditions. Studies have shown evidence of reduced cost of care, improved patient satisfaction, and enhanced quality and safety of care for patients treated through this model. The steady growth in Medicare Advantage enrollment and the expansion in 2020 of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospitals Without Walls program to include acute hospital care at home creates an opportunity for hospitals to implement such programs and be financially rewarded for reducing costs. Capacity constraints exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that now is the ideal time for healthcare leaders to test and advance the concept of HHC in their communities.

Unplanned hospital visits after ambulatory surgical care.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the rate of unplanned hospital visits among patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The majority of surgeries performed in the United States now take place in outpatient settings. Post-discharge hospital visit rates have been shown to vary widely, suggesting variation in surgical or discharge care quality. Complicating efforts to address quality, most facilities and surgeons are unaware of their patients' hospital visits after surgery since patients may present to a different hospital. METHODS: We used state-level, administrative data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project from California to assess unplanned hospital visits after ambulatory surgery. To compare rates across centers, we determined the age, sex, and procedure-adjusted rates of hospital visits for each facility using 2-level, hierarchical, generalized linear models using methods similar to existing Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services measures. RESULTS: Among a total of 1,260,619 ambulatory same-day surgeries from 440 surgical facilities, the risk adjusted 30-day rate of unplanned hospital visits was 4.8%, with emergency department visits of 3.1% and hospital admissions of 1.7%. Several patient characteristics were associated with increased risk of unplanned hospitals visits, including increased age, increased number of comorbidities (using the Elixhauser score), and type of procedure (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The overall rate unplanned hospital visits within 30 days after same-day surgery is low but variable, suggesting a difference in the quality of care provided. Further, these rates are higher among specific patient populations and procedure types, suggesting areas for targeted improvement.