Disparities in Access to Outpatient Surgery Related to Removal of Procedures from Medicare's Inpatient Only List.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the shift from inpatient to outpatient surgical care related to changes to the Inpatient Only List in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The extent to which procedures shift from the inpatient to outpatient setting following removal from Medicare's Inpatient Only List is unknown. Many health systems also encouraged a shift from inpatient to outpatient surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessing the relative change in outpatient surgical utilization for procedures removed from the Inpatient Only List during COVID-19 would provide empirical data on whether reimbursement policy changes or inpatient capacity needs during the pandemic were more likely to shift care from the inpatient to outpatient setting. METHODS: We used administrative data from the PINC AI Healthcare Database across 723 hospitals to determine the within-facility relative change in outpatient vs inpatient procedural volume in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019 using a multivariable conditional fixed-effects Poisson regression model. We also assessed whether outpatient surgical utilization varied by race and ethnicity. Using a multivariable linear probability model, we assessed the absolute change in risk-adjusted 30-day complication, readmission, and mortality rates for inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures. RESULTS: In 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019 respectively, there was a 5.3% (95% CI, 1.4% to 9.5%) and 41.3% (95% CI 33.1% to 50.0%) relative increase in outpatient elective procedural volume. Outpatient procedural volume increased most significantly for hip replacement which was removed from the Inpatient Only List in 2020 (increase in outpatient surgical utilization of 589.3% (95% CI, 524.9% to 660.3%)). The shift to outpatient hip replacement procedures was concentrated among White patients; in 2021, hip replacement procedural volume increased by 271.1% (95% CI, 241.2% and 303.7%) for White patients and 29.5% (95% CI, 24.4% and 34.9%) for Black patients compared to 2019 levels. There were no consistent or large changes in 30-day complication, readmission, or mortality risk in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019. CONCLUSION: There was a modest increase in elective outpatient surgeries and a pronounced increase in outpatient orthopedic surgeries which were removed from the Inpatient Only List during the COVID-19 pandemic. Utilization of outpatient surgical procedures was concentrated among White patients.

Antiretroviral Therapy Use and Disparities Among Medicare Beneficiaries with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral therapy (ART) is recommended for all people with HIV. Understanding ART use among Medicare beneficiaries with HIV is therefore critically important for improving quality and equity of care among the growing population of older adults with HIV. However, a comprehensive national evaluation of filled ART prescriptions among Medicare beneficiaries is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in ART use among Medicare beneficiaries with HIV from 2013 to 2019 and to evaluate whether racial and ethnic disparities in ART use are narrowing over time. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SUBJECTS: Traditional Medicare beneficiaries with Part D living with HIV in 2013-2019. MAIN MEASURES: Months of filled ART prescriptions each year. KEY RESULTS: Compared with beneficiaries not on ART, beneficiaries on ART were younger, less likely to be Black (41.6% vs. 47.0%), and more likely to be Hispanic (13.1% vs. 9.7%). While the share of beneficiaries who filled ART prescriptions for 10 + months/year improved (+ 0.48 percentage points/year [p.p.y.], 95% CI 0.34-0.63, p < 0.001), 25.8% of beneficiaries did not fill ART for 10 + months in 2019. Between 2013 and 2019, the proportion of beneficiaries who filled ART for 10 + months improved for Black beneficiaries (65.8 to 70.3%, + 0.66 p.p.y., 95% CI 0.43-0.89, p < 0.001) and White beneficiaries (74.8 to 77.4%, + 0.38 p.p.y.; 95% CI 0.19-0.58, p < 0.001), while remaining stable for Hispanic beneficiaries (74.5 to 75.0%, + 0.12 p.p.y., 95% CI - 0.24-0.49, p = 0.51). Although Black-White disparities in ART use narrowed over time, the share of beneficiaries who filled ART prescriptions for 10 + months/year was significantly lower among Black beneficiaries relative to White beneficiaries each year. CONCLUSIONS: ART use improved from 2013 to 2019 among Medicare beneficiaries with HIV. However, about 25% of beneficiaries did not consistently fill ART prescriptions within a given year. Despite declining differences between Black and White beneficiaries, concerning disparities in ART use persist.

Effect of Medicare Advantage on Hospital Readmission and Mortality Rankings.

BACKGROUND: Medicare links hospital performance on readmissions and mortality to payment solely on the basis of outcomes among fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries. Whether including Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries, who account for nearly half of all Medicare beneficiaries, in the evaluation of hospital performance affects rankings is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine if the inclusion of MA beneficiaries in readmission and mortality measures reclassifies hospital performance rankings compared with current measures. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Population-based. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitals participating in the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program or Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. MEASUREMENTS: Using the 100% Medicare files for FFS and MA claims, the authors calculated 30-day risk-adjusted readmissions and mortality for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and pneumonia on the basis of only FFS beneficiaries and then both FFS and MA beneficiaries. Hospitals were divided into quintiles of performance based on FFS beneficiaries only, and the proportion of hospitals that were reclassified to a different performance group with the inclusion of MA beneficiaries was calculated. RESULTS: Of the hospitals in the top-performing quintile for readmissions and mortality based on FFS beneficiaries, between 21.6% and 30.2% were reclassified to a lower-performing quintile with the inclusion of MA beneficiaries. Similar proportions of hospitals were reclassified from the bottom performance quintile to a higher one across all measures and conditions. Hospitals with a higher proportion of MA beneficiaries were more likely to improve in performance rankings. LIMITATION: Hospital performance measurement and risk adjustment differed slightly from those used by Medicare. CONCLUSION: Approximately 1 in 4 top-performing hospitals is reclassified to a lower performance group when MA beneficiaries are included in the evaluation of hospital readmissions and mortality. These findings suggest that Medicare's current value-based programs provide an incomplete picture of hospital performance. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Association Between Emergency Physician's Age and Mortality of Medicare Patients Aged 65 to 89 Years After Emergency Department Visit.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between emergency physicians' ages and patient mortality after emergency department visits. METHODS: This observational study used a 20% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 to 89 years treated by emergency physicians at EDs from 2016 to 2017. We investigated whether 7-day mortality after ED visits differed by the age of the emergency physician, adjusting for patient and physician characteristics and hospital fixed effects. RESULTS: We observed 2,629,464 ED visits treated by 32,570 emergency physicians (mean age 43.5). We found that patients treated by younger emergency physicians had lower mortality rates compared with those treated by older physicians. Adjusted 7-day mortality was 1.33% for patients treated by emergency physicians aged less than 40 years, 1.36% (adjusted difference, 0.03%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.001% to 0.06%) for physicians ages 40 to 49, 1.40% (0.08%; 95% CI 0.04% to 0.12%) for physicians ages 50 to 59, and 1.43% (0.11%; 95% CI 0.06% to 0.16%) for those with a physician age of 60 years and more. Similar patterns were observed when stratified by the patient's disposition (discharged vs admitted), and the association was more pronounced for patients with higher severity of illness. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare patients aged 65 to 89 years treated by emergency physicians aged under 40 years had lower 7-day mortality rates than those treated by physicians aged 50 to 59 years and 60 years or older within the same hospital. Potential mechanisms explaining the association between emergency physician age and patient mortality (eg, differences in training received and other unobservable patient/physician characteristics) are uncertain and require further study.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Heart and Cerebrovascular Disease Deaths During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular deaths increased during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. However, it is unclear whether diverse racial/ethnic populations have experienced a disproportionate rise in heart disease and cerebrovascular disease deaths. METHODS: We used the National Center for Health Statistics to identify heart disease and cerebrovascular disease deaths for non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian, and Hispanic individuals from March to August 2020 (pandemic period), as well as for the corresponding months in 2019 (historical control). We determined the age- and sex-standardized deaths per million by race/ethnicity for each year. We then fit a modified Poisson model with robust SEs to compare change in deaths by race/ethnicity for each condition in 2020 versus 2019. RESULTS: There were a total of 339 076 heart disease and 76 767 cerebrovascular disease deaths from March through August 2020, compared with 321 218 and 72 190 deaths during the same months in 2019. Heart disease deaths increased during the pandemic in 2020, compared with the corresponding period in 2019, for non-Hispanic White (age-sex standardized deaths per million, 1234.2 versus 1208.7; risk ratio for death [RR], 1.02 [95% CI, 1.02-1.03]), non-Hispanic Black (1783.7 versus 1503.8; RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.17-1.20]), non-Hispanic Asian (685.7 versus 577.4; RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.15-1.22]), and Hispanic (968.5 versus 820.4; RR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.16-1.20]) populations. Cerebrovascular disease deaths also increased for non-Hispanic White (268.7 versus 258.2; RR, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.03-1.05]), non-Hispanic Black (430.7 versus 379.7; RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.10-1.17]), non-Hispanic Asian (236.5 versus 207.4; RR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.09-1.21]), and Hispanic (264.4 versus 235.9; RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.08-1.16]) populations. For both heart disease and cerebrovascular disease deaths, Black, Asian, and Hispanic populations experienced a larger relative increase in deaths than the non-Hispanic White population (interaction term, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, Black, Hispanic, and Asian populations experienced a disproportionate rise in deaths caused by heart disease and cerebrovascular disease, suggesting that these groups have been most impacted by the indirect effects of the pandemic. Public health and policy strategies are needed to mitigate the short- and long-term adverse effects of the pandemic on the cardiovascular health of diverse populations.

Spending outcomes among patients with cancer in accountable care organizations 4 years after implementation.

BACKGROUND: The long-term impact of affordable care organizations (ACOs) on cancer spending remains unknown. The authors examined whether practices that became ACOs altered their spending for patients with cancer in the first 4 years after ACO implementation. METHODS: By using national Medicare data from 2011 to 2017, a random sample of 20% of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older with cancer was obtained (n = 866,532), and each patient was assigned to a practice. Practices that became ACOs in the Medicare Shared Savings Program were matched to non-ACO practices. Total, cancer-specific, and service category-specific yearly spending per patient was calculated. A difference-in-differences model was used to determine spending changes associated with ACO status for patients with cancer in the 4 years after ACO implementation. RESULTS: The introduction of ACOs did not have a significant impact on overall spending for patients with cancer in the 2 years after ACO implementation (difference, -$38; 95% CI, -$268, $191; P = .74). Changes in spending also did not differ between ACO and non-ACO patients within service categories or among the 11 cancer types examined. The lack of difference in spending for patients with cancer in ACO and non-ACO practices persisted in the third and fourth years after ACO implementation (difference, -$120; 95% CI, -$284, $525; P = .56). CONCLUSIONS: ACOs did not significantly change spending for patients with cancer in the first 4 years after their implementation compared with non-ACOs. This prompts a reevaluation of the current efficacy of ACOs in reducing spending for cancer care and may encourage policymakers to reconsider the incentive structures of ACOs. LAY SUMMARY: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) were developed to curtail health care spending and improve quality, but their effects on cancer spending in their first 2 years have been minimal. The long-term impact of ACOs on cancer spending remains unknown. By using data from 866,532 Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, the authors observed that the association of a practice with an ACO did not significantly change total yearly spending per patient in the first 4 years after ACO implementation. This finding prompts a reevaluation of the current efficacy of ACOs in reducing spending for cancer care.

ACO Spending and Utilization Among Medicare Patients at the End of Life: an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life (EOL) costs constitute a substantial portion of healthcare spending in the USA and have been increasing. ACOs may offer an opportunity to improve quality and curtail EOL spending. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether practices that became ACOs altered spending and utilization at the EOL. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Medicare claims. PATIENTS: We assigned patients who died in 2012 and 2015 to an ACO or non-ACO practice. Practices that converted to ACOs in 2013 or 2014 were matched to non-ACOs in the same region. A total of 23,643 ACO patients were matched to 23,643 non-ACO patients. MAIN MEASURES: Using a difference-in-differences model, we examined changes in EOL spending and care utilization after ACO implementation. KEY RESULTS: The introduction of ACOs did not significantly impact overall spending for patients in the last 6 months of life (difference-in-difference (DID) = $192, 95%CI -$841 to $1125, P = 0.72). Changes in spending did not differ between ACO and non-ACO patients across spending categories (inpatient, outpatient, physician services, skilled nursing, home health, hospice). No differences were seen between ACO and non-ACO patients in rates of ED visits, inpatient admissions, ICU admission, mean healthy days at home, and mean hospice days at 180 and 30 days prior to death. However, non-ACO patients had a significantly greater increase in hospice utilization compared to ACO patients at 180 days (DID P-value = 0.02) and 30 days (DID P-value = 0.01) prior to death. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of hospice care utilization, spending and utilization were not different between ACOs and non-ACO patients at the EOL. Longer follow-up may be necessary to evaluate the impact of ACOs on EOL spending and care.

Changes in Employment Status and Access to Care During COVID-19 Pandemic Among Low-Income Adults in 4 Southern States.

BACKGROUND: While the impact of the COVID-19 recession on the economy is clear, there is limited evidence on how the COVID-19 pandemic-related job losses among low-income people may have affected their access to health care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of job loss during the pandemic with insurance coverage and access to and affordability of health care among low-income adults. DESIGN: Using a random digit dialing telephone survey from October 2020 to December 2020 of low-income adults in 4 states-Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Texas-we conducted a series of multivariable logistic regression analyses, adjusting for demographics, chronic conditions, and state of residence. PARTICIPANTS: US citizens aged 19-64 with a family income less than 138% of the federal poverty line who became newly unemployed during pandemic, remained employed during pandemic, or were chronically unemployed before and during the pandemic. MAIN MEASURES: Rates of insurance, type of insurance coverage, measures of access to/affordability of care, and food/housing security KEY RESULTS: Of 1,794 respondents, 14.5% were newly unemployed, 49.6% were chronically unemployed, and 35.7% were employed. The newly unemployed were slightly younger and more likely Black or Latino. The newly unemployed were more likely to report uninsurance compared to the employed (+16.4 percentage points, 95% CI 6.0-26.9), and the chronically unemployed (+26.4 percentage points, 95% CI 16.2-36.6), mostly driven by Texas' populations. The newly unemployed also reported lower rates of access to care and higher rates of financial barriers to care. They were also more likely to report food and housing insecurity compared to others. CONCLUSIONS: In a survey of 4 Southern States during pandemic, the newly unemployed had higher rates of uninsurance and worse access to care-largely due to financial barriers-and reported more housing and food insecurity than other groups. Our study highlights the vulnerability of low-income populations who experienced a job loss, especially in Texas, which did not expand Medicaid.

Hospital Readmission and Emergency Department Revisits of Homeless Patients Treated at Homeless-Serving Hospitals in the USA: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: As the U.S. homeless population grows, so has the challenge of providing effective care to homeless individuals. Understanding hospitals that achieve better outcomes after hospital discharge for homeless patients has important implications for making our health system more sustainable and equitable. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether homeless patients experience higher rates of readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits after hospital discharge than non-homeless patients, and whether the homeless patients exhibit lower rates of readmissions and ED visits after hospital discharge when they were admitted to hospitals experienced with the treatment of the homeless patients ("homeless-serving" hospitals-defined as hospitals in the top decile of the proportion of homeless patients). DESIGN: A population-based longitudinal study, using the data including all hospital admissions and ED visits in FL, MA, MD, and NY in 2014. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 3,527,383 patients (median age [IQR]: 63 [49-77] years; 1,876,466 [53%] women; 134,755 [4%] homeless patients) discharged from 474 hospitals. MAIN MEASURES: Risk-adjusted rates of 30-day all-cause readmissions and ED visits after hospital discharge. KEY RESULTS: After adjusting for potential confounders, homeless patients had higher rates of readmissions (adjusted rate, 27.3% vs. 17.5%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.93; 95% CI, 1.69-2.21; p < 0.001) and ED visits after hospital discharge (37.1% vs. 23.6%; aOR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.74-2.25; p < 0.001) compared with non-homeless patients. Homeless patients treated at homeless-serving hospitals exhibited lower rates of readmissions (23.9% vs. 33.4%; p < 0.001) and ED visits (31.4% vs. 45.4%; p < 0.001) after hospital discharge than homeless patients treated at non-homeless-serving hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Homeless patients were more likely to be readmitted or return to ED within 30 days after hospital discharge, especially when they were treated at hospitals that treat a small proportion of homeless patients. These findings suggest that homeless patients may receive better discharge planning and care coordination when treated at hospitals experienced with caring for homeless people.

Association of Clinician Health System Affiliation With Outpatient Performance Ratings in the Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System.

Importance: Integration of physician practices into health systems composed of hospitals and multispecialty practices is increasing in the era of value-based payment. It is unknown how clinicians who affiliate with such health systems perform under the new mandatory Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) relative to their peers. Objective: To assess the relationship between the health system affiliations of clinicians and their performance scores and value-based reimbursement under the 2019 MIPS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Publicly reported data on 636 552 clinicians working at outpatient clinics across the US were used to assess the association of the affiliation status of clinicians within the 609 health systems with their 2019 final MIPS performance score and value-based reimbursement (both based on clinician performance in 2017), adjusting for clinician, patient, and practice area characteristics. Exposures: Health system affiliation vs no affiliation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was final MIPS performance score (range, 0-100; higher scores intended to represent better performance). The secondary outcome was MIPS payment adjustment, including negative (penalty) payment adjustment, positive payment adjustment, and bonus payment adjustment. Results: The final sample included 636 552 clinicians (41% female, 83% physicians, 50% in primary care, 17% in rural areas), including 48.6% who were affiliated with a health system. Compared with unaffiliated clinicians, system-affiliated clinicians were significantly more likely to be female (46% vs 37%), primary care physicians (36% vs 30%), and classified as safety net clinicians (12% vs 10%) and significantly less likely to be specialists (44% vs 55%) (P < .001 for each). The mean final MIPS performance score for system-affiliated clinicians was 79.0 vs 60.3 for unaffiliated clinicians (absolute mean difference, 18.7 [95% CI, 18.5 to 18.8]). The percentage receiving a negative (penalty) payment adjustment was 2.8% for system-affiliated clinicians vs 13.7% for unaffiliated clinicians (absolute difference, -10.9% [95% CI, -11.0% to -10.7%]), 97.1% vs 82.6%, respectively, for those receiving a positive payment adjustment (absolute difference, 14.5% [95% CI, 14.3% to 14.6%]), and 73.9% vs 55.1% for those receiving a bonus payment adjustment (absolute difference, 18.9% [95% CI, 18.6% to 19.1%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Clinician affiliation with a health system was associated with significantly better 2019 MIPS performance scores. Whether this represents differences in quality of care or other factors requires additional research.

Mortality and Hospitalizations for Dually Enrolled and Nondually Enrolled Medicare Beneficiaries Aged 65 Years or Older, 2004 to 2017.

Importance: Medicare beneficiaries who are also enrolled in Medicaid (dually enrolled beneficiaries) have drawn the attention of policy makers because they comprise the poorest subset of the Medicare population; however, it is unclear how their outcomes have changed over time compared with those only enrolled in Medicare (nondually enrolled beneficiaries). Objective: To evaluate annual changes in all-cause mortality, hospitalization rates, and hospitalization-related mortality among dually enrolled beneficiaries and nondually enrolled beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants: Serial cross-sectional study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older between January 2004 and December 2017. The final date of follow-up was September 30, 2018. Exposures: Dual vs nondual enrollment status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual all-cause mortality rates; all-cause hospitalization rates; and in-hospital, 30-day, 1-year hospitalization-related mortality rates. Results: There were 71 017 608 unique Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older (mean age, 75.6 [SD, 9.2] years; 54.9% female) enrolled in Medicare for at least 1 month from 2004 through 2017. Of these beneficiaries, 11 697 900 (16.5%) were dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid for at least 1 month. After adjusting for age, sex, and race, annual all-cause mortality rates declined from 8.5% (95% CI, 8.45%-8.56%) in 2004 to 8.1% (95% CI, 8.05%-8.13%) in 2017 among dually enrolled beneficiaries and from 4.1% (95% CI, 4.08%-4.13%) in 2004 to 3.8% (95% CI, 3.76%-3.79%) in 2017 among nondually enrolled beneficiaries. The difference in annual all-cause mortality between dually and nondually enrolled beneficiaries increased between 2004 (adjusted odds ratio, 2.09 [95% CI, 2.08-2.10]) and 2017 (adjusted odds ratio, 2.22 [95% CI, 2.21-2.23]) (P < .001 for interaction between dual enrollment status and time). All-cause hospitalizations per 100 000 beneficiary-years declined from 49 888 in 2004 to 41 121 in 2017 among dually enrolled beneficiaries (P < .001) and from 29 000 in 2004 to 22 601 in 2017 among nondually enrolled beneficiaries (P < .001); however, the difference between these groups widened between 2004 (adjusted risk ratio, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.71-1.73]) and 2017 (adjusted risk ratio, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.82-1.83]) (P < .001 for interaction). Among hospitalized beneficiaries, the risk-adjusted 30-day mortality rates declined from 10.3% (95% CI, 10.22%-10.33%) in 2004 to 10.1% (95% CI, 10.02%-10.20%) in 2017 among dually enrolled beneficiaries and from 8.5% (95% CI, 8.50%-8.56%) in 2004 to 8.1% (95% CI, 8.06%-8.13%) in 2017 among nondually enrolled beneficiaries. In contrast, 1-year mortality increased among hospitalized beneficiaries from 23.1% (95% CI, 23.05%-23.20%) in 2004 to 26.7% (95% CI, 26.58%-26.84%) in 2017 among dually enrolled beneficiaries and from 18.1% (95% CI, 18.11%-18.17%) in 2004 to 20.3% (95% CI, 20.21%-20.31%) in 2017 among nondually enrolled beneficiaries. The difference in hospitalization-related outcomes between dually and nondually enrolled beneficiaries persisted during the study period. Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, dually enrolled beneficiaries had higher annual all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalizations, and hospitalization-related mortality compared with nondually enrolled beneficiaries. Between 2004 and 2017, these differences did not decrease.

Persistence and Drivers of High-Cost Status Among Dual-Eligible Medicare and Medicaid Beneficiaries: An Observational Study.

Background: Little is known about the persistence of high-cost status among dual-eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, who account for a substantial proportion of expenditures in both programs. Objective: To determine what proportion of this population has persistently high costs. Design: Observational study. Setting: Medicare-Medicaid Linked Enrollee Analytic Data Source data for 2008 to 2010. Participants: 1 928 340 dual-eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries who were alive all 3 years. Measurements: Medicare and Medicaid payments for these beneficiaries were calculated for each year. Beneficiaries were categorized as high-cost for a given year if their spending was in the top 10% for that year. Differences in spending were then examined for those who were persistently high-cost (all 3 years) versus those who were transiently high-cost (2008 but not 2009 or 2010) and those who were non-high-cost in all 3 years. Results: In the first year, 192 835 patients were high-cost. More than half (54.8%) remained high-cost across all 3 years. These patients were younger than transiently high-cost patients, with fewer medical comorbidities and greater intellectual impairment. Persistently high-cost patients spent $161 224 per year compared with $86 333 per year for transiently high-cost patients and $22 352 per year for non-high-cost patients. Most of the spending among persistently high-cost patients (68.8%) was related to long-term care, and very little (<1%) was related to potentially preventable hospitalizations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions. Limitation: Potential misclassification of preventable spending and lack of detailed clinical data in administrative claims. Conclusion: A substantial majority of high-cost dual-eligible beneficiaries had persistently high costs over 3 years, with most of the cost related to long-term care and very little related to potentially preventable hospitalizations. Primary Funding Source: Peterson Center on Healthcare.

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.

Concentration of Potentially Preventable Spending Among High-Cost Medicare Subpopulations: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about whether potentially preventable spending is concentrated among a subset of high-cost Medicare beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of total spending that is potentially preventable across distinct subpopulations of high-cost Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN: Beneficiaries in the highest 10% of total standardized individual spending were defined as "high-cost" patients, using a 20% sample of Medicare fee-for-service claims from 2012. The following 6 subpopulations were defined using a claims-based algorithm: nonelderly disabled, frail elderly, major complex chronic, minor complex chronic, simple chronic, and relatively healthy. Potentially preventable spending was calculated by summing costs for avoidable emergency department visits using the Billings algorithm plus inpatient and associated 30-day postacute costs for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSCs). The amount and proportion of potentially preventable spending were then compared across the high-cost subpopulations and by individual ACSCs. SETTING: Medicare. PARTICIPANTS: 6 112 450 Medicare beneficiaries. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of spending deemed potentially preventable. RESULTS: In 2012, 4.8% of Medicare spending was potentially preventable, of which 73.8% was incurred by high-cost patients. Despite making up only 4% of the Medicare population, high-cost frail elderly persons accounted for 43.9% of total potentially preventable spending ($6593 per person). High-cost nonelderly disabled persons accounted for 14.8% of potentially preventable spending ($3421 per person) and the major complex chronic group for 11.2% ($3327 per person). Frail elderly persons accounted for most spending related to admissions for urinary tract infections, dehydration, heart failure, and bacterial pneumonia. LIMITATION: Potential misclassification in the identification of preventable spending and lack of detailed clinical data in administrative claims. CONCLUSION: Potentially preventable spending varied across Medicare subpopulations, with the majority concentrated among frail elderly persons. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Commonwealth Fund.

Integrating Medicare and Medicaid Coverage for Dual Eligibles-Recommendations for Reform.

This Viewpoint highlights costly inefficiencies in delivery of care to patients who qualify to receive both Medicare and Medicaid and proposes more effective care models.

Safety-net Hospitals Face More Barriers Yet Use Fewer Strategies to Reduce Readmissions.

OBJECTIVE: US hospitals that care for vulnerable populations, "safety-net hospitals" (SNHs), are more likely to incur penalties under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, which penalizes hospitals with higher-than-expected readmissions. Understanding whether SNHs face unique barriers to reducing readmissions or whether they underuse readmission-prevention strategies is important. DESIGN: We surveyed leadership at 1600 US acute care hospitals, of whom 980 participated, between June 2013 and January 2014. Responses on 28 questions on readmission-related barriers and strategies were compared between SNHs and non-SNHs, adjusting for nonresponse and sampling strategy. We further compared responses between high-performing SNHs and low-performing SNHs. RESULTS: We achieved a 62% response rate. SNHs were more likely to report patient-related barriers, including lack of transportation, homelessness, and language barriers compared with non-SNHs (P-values<0.001). Despite reporting more barriers, SNHs were less likely to use e-tools to share discharge summaries (70.1% vs. 73.7%, P<0.04) or verbally communicate (31.5% vs. 39.8%, P<0.001) with outpatient providers, track readmissions by race/ethnicity (23.9% vs. 28.6%, P<0.001), or enroll patients in postdischarge programs (13.3% vs. 17.2%, P<0.001). SNHs were also less likely to use discharge coordinators, pharmacists, and postdischarge programs. When we examined the use of strategies within SNHs, we found trends to suggest that high-performing SNHs were more likely to use several readmission strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite reporting more barriers to reducing readmissions, SNHs were less likely to use readmission-reduction strategies. This combination of higher barriers and lower use of strategies may explain why SNHs have higher rates of readmissions and penalties under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.