Search

Long-term sequelae after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection may impact well-being, yet existing data primarily focus on discrete symptoms and/or health care use.To compare patient-reported outcomes of physical, mental, and social well-being among adults with symptomatic illness who received a positive vs negative test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection.This cohort study was a planned interim analysis of an ongoing multicenter prospective longitudinal registry study (the Innovative Support for Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry [INSPIRE]). Participants were enrolled from December 11, 2020, to September 10, 2021, and comprised adults (aged ≥18 years) with acute symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection at the time of receipt of a SARS-CoV-2 test approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The analysis included the first 1000 participants who completed baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys consisting of questions from the 29-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29; 7 subscales, including physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, social participation, sleep disturbance, and pain interference) and the PROMIS Short Form-Cognitive Function 8a scale, for which population-normed T scores were reported.SARS-CoV-2 status (positive or negative test result) at enrollment.Mean PROMIS scores for participants with positive COVID-19 tests vs negative COVID-19 tests were compared descriptively and using multivariable regression analysis.Among 1000 participants, 722 (72.2%) received a positive COVID-19 result and 278 (27.8%) received a negative result; 406 of 998 participants (40.7%) were aged 18 to 34 years, 644 of 972 (66.3%) were female, 833 of 984 (84.7%) were non-Hispanic, and 685 of 974 (70.3%) were White. A total of 282 of 712 participants (39.6%) in the COVID-19-positive group and 147 of 275 participants (53.5%) in the COVID-19-negative group reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. After adjustment, improvements in well-being were statistically and clinically greater for participants in the COVID-19-positive group vs the COVID-19-negative group only for social participation (β = 3.32; 95% CI, 1.84-4.80; P .001); changes in other well-being domains were not clinically different between groups. Improvements in well-being in the COVID-19-positive group were concentrated among participants aged 18 to 34 years (eg, social participation: β = 3.90; 95% CI, 1.75-6.05; P .001) and those who presented for COVID-19 testing in an ambulatory setting (eg, social participation: β = 4.16; 95% CI, 2.12-6.20; P .001).In this study, participants in both the COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative groups reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. Although some individuals had clinically meaningful improvements over time, many reported moderate to severe impairments in well-being 3 months later. These results highlight the importance of including a control group of participants with negative COVID-19 results for comparison when examining the sequelae of COVID-19.

This cohort study uses Medicare prescription claims data to evaluate patterns of direct oral anticoagulant prescribing by US clinicians between 2013 and 2018., Key Points Question How have patterns of direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use changed among US clinicians between 2013 and 2018? Findings In this cohort study of Medicare prescription claim data encompassing 325 666 clinicians from 2013 to 2018, most clinicians continued to use warfarin as their predominant or only anticoagulant instead of DOACs, including 1 in 5 general medicine practitioners exclusively using warfarin in 2018. Despite an increase in DOAC prescribing, those prescribing only warfarin in 2013 had lower proportionate DOAC use throughout the study than 2013 DOAC prescribers. Meaning In this study, many clinicians did not prescribe any DOACs in 2018, suggesting a need to address barriers to DOAC use., Importance Contemporary national clinical practice guidelines recommend direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as the first-line anticoagulant strategy over warfarin for most indications, especially among older individuals with an elevated bleeding risk. Objective To evaluate anticoagulant prescribing and DOAC uptake by US clinicians in the Medicare population. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study included all US clinicians with more than 10 Medicare oral anticoagulant prescription claims, who were included in the national Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data (2013-2018). Data analyses were conducted between October 2020 and October 2021. Exposures DOAC prescription in 2013. Main Outcomes and Measures Clinicians were categorized based on 2013 prescribing as solely prescribing warfarin, DOAC, or both, and their temporal trajectories of proportionate DOAC use were examined. Results The analysis included 325 666 unique clinicians with more than 10 oral anticoagulant prescriptions between 2013 and 2018 (26 620 [8.2%] cardiologists, 85 563 [26.3%] internal medicine physicians, 84 369 [25.9%] family medicine physicians, and 81 161 [24.9%] advanced practice clinicians, including nurse practitioners and physician assistants). In 2013, among 91 837 prescribers, 54 501 (59.3%) prescribed only warfarin, 1918 (2.1%) prescribed only a DOAC, and 35 418 (38.6%) prescribed both. During the study period, the number of clinicians prescribing DOACs increased, but 19% continued to prescribe only warfarin in 2018. While 359 cardiologists prescribing anticoagulants (1.6%) were warfarin-only prescribers, 10 414 (20.0%) and 6296 (12.6%) of family and internal medicine physicians also prescribed only warfarin, respectively. Clinicians prescribing only warfarin in 2013 had lower proportionate DOAC use throughout the study compared with 2013 DOAC prescribers, which represents a median (IQR) of 41.9% (20.3%-61.9%) of their anticoagulant prescriptions in 2018 vs 67.0% (49.9%-82.8%) for DOAC prescribers. Conclusions and Relevance Despite the increase in DOAC use among Medicare beneficiaries, many clinicians in this study continued to use warfarin as their predominant or only anticoagulant instead of DOACs. There is a need to address barriers to the uptake of these medications to realize their potential benefits for patients.

During the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic, there were approximately 50 million influenza-related deaths worldwide, including 675 000 in the US. Few persons in the US have a frame of reference for the historic levels of excess mortality currently being observed during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.1 In this study, excess deaths in New York City during the peak of the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic were compared with those during the initial period of the COVID-19 outbreak.

This comparative effectiveness research study assesses whether using present on admission codes and single, rather than grouped, diagnostic codes can enhance Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) models to predict payment for hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia., Key Points Question Does leveraging present on admission codes and using single, rather than grouped, diagnostic codes enhance risk models for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia payment measures? Findings In this comparative effectiveness research study of risk models on 1 667 983 patients with 1 943 049 Medicare fee-for-service hospitalizations, use of present on admission codes and single diagnosis codes and separation of index admission codes from codes in the previous year improved models predicting payment that were compared with models based on Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services grouped codes. The patient-level pseudo R2 improved from 0.077 to 0.129 for acute myocardial infarction, from 0.042 to 0.129 for heart failure, and from 0.114 to 0.237 for pneumonia. Meaning Changing candidate variables from the current standard improved models predicting payments, which has implications for research, benchmarking, public reporting, and calculations for population-based programs., Importance Predicting payments for particular conditions or populations is essential for research, benchmarking, public reporting, and calculations for population-based programs. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) models often group codes into disease categories, but using single, rather than grouped, diagnostic codes and leveraging present on admission (POA) codes may enhance these models. Objective To determine whether changes to the candidate variables in CMS models would improve risk models predicting patient total payment within 30 days of hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants This comparative effectiveness research study used data from Medicare fee-for-service hospitalizations for AMI, HF, and pneumonia at acute care hospitals from July 1, 2013, through September 30, 2015. Payments across multiple care settings, services, and supplies were included and adjusted for geographic and policy variations, corrected for inflation, and winsorized. The same data source was used but varied for the candidate variables and their selection, and the method used by CMS for public reporting that used grouped codes was compared with variations that used POA codes and single diagnostic codes. Combinations of use of POA codes, separation of index admission diagnoses from those in the previous 12 months, and use of individual International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes instead of grouped diagnostic categories were tested. Data analysis was performed from December 4, 2017, to June 10, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures The models’ goodness of fit was compared using root mean square error (RMSE) and the McFadden pseudo R2. Results Among the 1 943 049 total hospitalizations of the study participants, 343 116 admissions were for AMI (52.5% male; 37.4% aged ≤74 years), 677 044 for HF (45.5% male; 25.9% aged ≤74 years), and 922 889 for pneumonia (46.4% male; 28.2% aged ≤74 years). The mean (SD) 30-day payment was $23 103 ($18 221) for AMI, $16 365 ($12 527) for HF, and $17 097 ($12 087) for pneumonia. Each incremental model change improved the pseudo R2 and RMSE. Incorporating all 3 changes improved the pseudo R2 of the patient-level models from 0.077 to 0.129 for AMI, from 0.042 to 0.129 for HF, and from 0.114 to 0.237 for pneumonia. Parallel improvements in RMSE were found for all 3 conditions. Conclusions and Relevance Leveraging POA codes, separating index from previous diagnoses, and using single diagnostic codes improved payment models. Better models can potentially improve research, benchmarking, public reporting, and calculations for population-based programs.

Key Points Question Was the announcement or implementation of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) associated with an increase in mortality following hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia among Medicare beneficiaries? Findings In this cohort study, between 2006 and 2014, in-hospital mortality decreased for the 3 conditions while 30-day postdischarge mortality decreased for acute myocardial infarction but increased for heart failure and pneumonia. Before the announcement of the HRRP, postdischarge mortality was stable for acute myocardial infarction and increasing for heart failure and pneumonia, and there were no inflections in slope around the announcement or implementation of the HRRP. Meaning There was no evidence for increase in in-hospital or postdischarge mortality associated with the HRRP announcement or implementation—a period with substantial reductions in readmissions., Importance The US Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was associated with reduced readmissions among Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia. It is important to assess whether there has been a signal for concomitant harm with an increase in mortality. Objective To evaluate whether the announcement or the implementation of HRRP was associated with an increase in either in-hospital or 30-day postdischarge mortality following hospitalization for AMI, HF, or pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants In this cohort study, using Medicare data, all hospitalizations for AMI, HF, and pneumonia were identified among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2014. These were assessed for changes in trends for risk-adjusted rates of in-hospital and 30-day postdischarge mortality after announcement and implementation of the HRRP using an interrupted time series framework. Analyses were done in November 2017 and December 2017. Exposures Announcement of the HRRP in March 2010, and implementation of its penalties in October 2012. Main Outcomes and Measures Monthly risk-adjusted rates of in-hospital and 30-day postdischarge mortality. Results The sample included 1.7 million AMI, 4 million HF, and 3.5 million pneumonia hospitalizations. Between 2006 and 2014, in-hospital mortality decreased for the 3 conditions (AMI, from 10.4% to 9.7%; HF, from 4.3% to 3.5%; pneumonia, from 5.3% to 4.0%) while 30-day postdischarge mortality decreased from 7.4% to 7.0% for AMI (P for trend .05 for all). In contrast, there were significant negative deflections in slopes for readmission rates at HRRP announcement for all conditions. Conclusions and Relevance Among Medicare beneficiaries, there was no evidence for an increase in in-hospital or postdischarge mortality associated with HRRP announcement or implementation—a period with substantial reductions in readmissions. The improvement in readmission was therefore not associated with any increase in in-hospital or 30-day postdischarge mortality., This cohort study uses Medicare data to evaluate whether the announcement or implementation of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was associated with an increase in either in-hospital or 30-day postdischarge mortality following hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), or pneumonia.

This cohort study analyzes Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data for heart failure and pneumonia discharges to ascertain hospital payment profiles associated with hospitalization costs for Medicare beneficiaries., Key Points Question Is the amount that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services pays hospitals associated with characteristics of the hospital independent of non–time-varying characteristics of patients? Findings In this cohort study of 1615 Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with heart failure and 708 beneficiaries hospitalized with pneumonia, the same patients admitted with the same diagnosis to hospitals in the highest Medicare payment quartile had higher costs than when they were admitted to hospitals in the lowest quartile. Meaning Findings from this study suggest that hospitals operate at different cost levels independent of their patients., Importance Some uncertainty exists about whether hospital variations in cost are largely associated with differences in case mix. Objective To establish whether the same patients admitted with the same diagnosis (heart failure or pneumonia) at 2 different hospitals incur different costs associated with the hospital’s Medicare payment profile. Design, Setting, and Participants This observational cohort study used Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) discharge data of patients with a principal diagnosis of heart failure (n = 1615) or pneumonia (n = 708) occurring between July 1, 2013, and June 30, 2016. Patients were individuals aged 65 years or older who were enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service Part A and Part B and were discharged from nonfederal, short-term, acute care or critical access hospitals in the United States. Data were analyzed from March 16, 2018, to September 25, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures The CMS heart failure and pneumonia payment measure cohorts were divided into 2 random samples. In the first sample, hospitals were classified into payment quartiles for heart failure and pneumonia. In the second sample, patients with 2 admissions for heart failure or pneumonia, one in a lowest-quartile hospital and one in a highest-quartile hospital more than 1 month apart, were identified. Standardized Medicare payments for these patients were compared for the lowest- and the highest-quartile payment hospitals. Results The study sample included 1615 patients with heart failure (mean [SD] age, 78.7 [8.0] years; 819 [50.7%] male) and 708 with pneumonia (mean [SD] age, 78.3 [8.0] years; 401 [56.6%] male). The observed 30-day mortality rates for patients among lowest- compared with highest-payment hospitals were not significantly different. The median (interquartile range) hospital 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates were 8.1% (7.7%-8.5%) for heart failure and 11.3% (10.7%-12.1%) for pneumonia. The 30-day episode payment for hospitalization for the same patients at the lowest-payment hospitals was $2118 (95% CI, $1168-$3068; P

This comparative effectiveness study examines current US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 30-day mortality risk models vs novel risk models for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia hospitalizations., Key Points Question Could present on admission indicators and ungrouped diagnostic codes enhance risk models for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia mortality measures and improve discrimination of hospital-level performance? Findings In this comparative effectiveness study including all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia at acute care hospitals, incorporating present on admission coding and ungrouped historical and index admission International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes was associated with greater discrimination in patient-level and hospital-level 30-day mortality risk models. Meaning Changes incurring no additional cost could enhance the risk adjustment for mortality and increase discrimination of hospital-level performance., Importance Risk adjustment models using claims-based data are central in evaluating health care performance. Although US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) models apply well-vetted statistical approaches, recent changes in the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) coding system and advances in computational capabilities may provide an opportunity for enhancement. Objective To examine whether changes using already available data would enhance risk models and yield greater discrimination in hospital-level performance measures. Design, Setting, and Participants This comparative effectiveness study used ICD-9-CM codes from all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary claims for hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), or pneumonia among patients 65 years and older from July 1, 2013, through September 30, 2015. Changes to current CMS mortality risk models were applied incrementally to patient-level models, and the best model was tested on hospital performance measures to model 30-day mortality. Analyses were conducted from April 19, 2018, to September 19, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was all-cause death within 30 days of hospitalization for AMI, HF, or pneumonia, examined using 3 changes to current CMS mortality risk models: (1) incorporating present on admission coding to better exclude potential complications of care, (2) separating index admission diagnoses from those of the 12-month history, and (3) using ungrouped ICD-9-CM codes. Results There were 361 175 hospital admissions (mean [SD] age, 78.6 [8.4] years; 189 225 [52.4%] men) for AMI, 716 790 hospital admissions (mean [SD] age, 81.1 [8.4] years; 326 825 [45.6%] men) for HF, and 988 225 hospital admissions (mean [SD] age, 80.7 [8.6] years; 460 761 [46.6%] men) for pneumonia during the study; mean 30-day mortality rates were 13.8% for AMI, 12.1% for HF, and 16.1% for pneumonia. Each change to the models was associated with incremental gains in C statistics. The best model, incorporating all changes, was associated with significantly improved patient-level C statistics, from 0.720 to 0.826 for AMI, 0.685 to 0.776 for HF, and 0.715 to 0.804 for pneumonia. Compared with current CMS models, the best model produced wider predicted probabilities with better calibration and Brier scores. Hospital risk-standardized mortality rates had wider distributions, with more hospitals identified as good or bad performance outliers. Conclusions and Relevance Incorporating present on admission coding and using ungrouped index and historical ICD-9-CM codes were associated with improved patient-level and hospital-level risk models for mortality compared with the current CMS models for all 3 conditions.

Importance Payers and policy makers have advocated for transitioning toward value-based payment models. However, little is known about what is the extent of hospital variation in the value of care and whether there are any hospital characteristics associated with high-value care. Objectives To investigate the association between hospital-level 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) and 30-day risk-standardized payments (RSPs) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia (PNA); to characterize patterns of value in care; and to identify hospital characteristics associated with high-value care (defined by having lower than median RSMRs and RSPs). Design, Setting, and Participants This national cross-sectional study applied weighted linear correlation to investigate the association between hospital RSMRs and RSPs for AMI, HF, and PNA between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2014, among all hospitals; examined correlations in subgroups of hospitals based on key characteristics; and assessed the proportion and characteristics of hospitals delivering high-value care. The data analysis was completed in October 2017. The setting was acute care hospitals. Participants were Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged with AMI, HF, or PNA. Main Outcomes and Measures Hospital-level 30-day RSMRs and RSPs for AMI, HF, and PNA. Results The AMI sample consisted of 4339 hospitals with 487 141 hospitalizations for mortality and 462 905 hospitalizations for payment. The HF sample included 4641 hospitals with 960 960 hospitalizations for mortality and 903 721 hospitalizations for payment. The PNA sample contained 4685 hospitals with 952 022 hospitalizations for mortality and 901 764 hospitalizations for payment. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) RSMRs and RSPs, respectively, was 14.3% (IQR, 13.8%-14.8%) and $21 620 (IQR, $20 966-$22 567) for AMI, 11.7% (IQR, 11.0%-12.5%) and $15 139 (IQR, $14 310-$16 118) for HF, and 11.5% (IQR, 10.6%-12.6%) and $14 220 (IQR, $13 342-$15 097) for PNA. There were statistically significant but weak inverse correlations between the RSMRs and RSPs of −0.08 (95% CI, −0.11 to −0.05) for AMI, −0.21 (95% CI, −0.24 to −0.18) for HF, and −0.07 (95% CI, −0.09 to −0.04) for PNA. The largest shared variance between the RSMRs and RSPs was only 4.4% (for HF). The correlations between the RSMRs and RSPs did not differ significantly across teaching status, safety-net status, urban/rural status, or the proportion of patients with low socioeconomic status. Approximately 1 in 4 hospitals (20.9% for AMI, 23.0% for HF, and 23.9% for PNA) had both lower than median RSMRs and RSPs. Conclusions and Relevance These findings suggest that there is significant potential for improvement in the value of AMI, HF, and PNA care and also suggest that high-value care for these conditions is attainable across most hospital types.

Key Points Question What is the source of known disparities in outcomes after hospitalization according to patients’ race and socioeconomic status? Findings This cohort study found differences in outcomes by race and neighborhood income, but hospital performance within and between hospitals by patient race and neighborhood income was generally consistent. Meaning There was no evidence that specific hospitals that treated patients from a range of racial and socioeconomic backgrounds contributed to observed disparities after hospitalization, suggesting a systemic effect may be contributory., This cohort study uses Medicare claims data to compare performance within and between US hospitals concerning the association of race and neighborhood income with patient outcomes after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure, and pneumonia., Importance Although studies have described differences in hospital outcomes by patient race and socioeconomic status, it is not clear whether such disparities are driven by hospitals themselves or by broader systemic effects. Objective To determine patterns of racial and socioeconomic disparities in outcomes within and between hospitals for patients with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants Retrospective cohort study initiated before February 2013, with additional analyses conducted during the peer-review process. Hospitals in the United States treating at least 25 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older in each race (ie, black and white) and neighborhood income level (ie, higher income and lower income) for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia between 2009 and 2011 were included. Main Outcomes and Measures For within-hospital analyses, risk-standardized mortality rates and risk-standardized readmission rates for race and neighborhood income subgroups were calculated at each hospital. The corresponding ratios using intraclass correlation coefficients were then compared. For between-hospital analyses, risk-standardized rates were assessed according to hospitals’ proportion of patients in each subgroup. These analyses were performed for each of the 12 analysis cohorts reflecting the unique combinations of outcomes (mortality and readmission), demographics (race and neighborhood income), and conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia). Results Between 74% (3545 of 4810) and 91% (4136 of 4554) of US hospitals lacked sufficient racial and socioeconomic diversity to be included in this analysis, with the number of hospitals eligible for analysis varying among cohorts. The 12 analysis cohorts ranged in size from 418 to 1265 hospitals and from 144 417 to 703 324 patients. Within included hospitals, risk-standardized mortality rates tended to be lower among black patients (mean [SD] difference between risk-standardized mortality rates in black patients compared with white patients for acute myocardial infarction, −0.57 [1.1] [P = .47]; for heart failure, −4.7 [1.3] [P