Search

Background: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation revised the comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program, a mandatory 90-day bundled payment for lower extremity joint replacement, in December 2017, retaining 34 of the original 67 metropolitan statistical areas with higher volume and historic episode payments., Objectives: We describe differences in costs, quality, and patient selection between hospitals that continued to participate compared with those that withdrew from CJR before and after the implementation of CJR., Research Design: We used a triple difference approach to compare the magnitude of the policy effect for elective admissions between hospitals that were retained in the CJR revision or not, before and after the implementation of CJR, and compared with hospitals in nonparticipant metropolitan statistical areas., Subjects: 694,275 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing elective lower extremity joint replacement from January 1, 2013 to August 31, 2017., Measures: The treatment effect heterogeneity of CJR., Results: Hospitals retained in the CJR policy revision had a greater reduction in 90-day episode-of-care cost compared with those that were allowed to discontinue (-$846, 95% CI: -$1,338, -$435) and had greater cost reductions in the more recent year (2017). We also found evidence that retained CJR hospitals disproportionately reduced treating patients who were older than 85 years., Conclusions: Hospitals that continued to participate in CJR after the policy revision achieved a greater cost reduction. However, the cost reductions were partly attributed to avoiding potential higher - cost patients, suggesting that a bundled payment policy might induce disparities in care delivery., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In anticipation of a demand surge for hospital beds attributed to the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) many US states have mandated that hospitals postpone elective admissions., Objectives: To estimate excess demand for hospital beds due to COVID-19, the net financial impact of eliminating elective admissions in order to meet demand, and to explore the scenario when demand remains below capacity., Research Design: An economic simulation to estimate the net financial impact of halting elective admissions, combining epidemiological reports, the US Census, American Hospital Association Annual Survey, and the National Inpatient Sample. Deterministic sensitivity analyses explored the results while varying assumptions for demand and capacity., Subjects: Inputs regarding disease prevalence and inpatient utilization were representative of the US population. Our base case relied on a hospital admission rate reported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention of 137.6 per 100,000, with the highest rates in people aged 65 years and older (378.8 per 100,000) and 50-64 years (207.4 per 100,000). On average, elective admissions accounted for 20% of total hospital admissions, and the average rate of unoccupied beds across hospitals was 30%., Measures: Net financial impact of halting elective admissions., Results: On average, hospitals COVID-19 demand for hospital bed-days fell well short of hospital capacity, resulting in a substantial financial loss. The net financial impact of a 90-day COVID surge on a hospital was only favorable under a narrow circumstance when capacity was filled by a high proportion of COVID-19 cases among hospitals with low rates of elective admissions., Conclusions: Hospitals that restricted elective care took on a substantial financial risk, potentially threatening viability. A sustainable public policy should therefore consider support to hospitals that responsibly served their communities through the crisis., Competing Interests: Coauthors B.I.M. and R.E.N. receive partial salary support from an AHRQ-Funded R01 (Grant #R01HS024714) paid directly to the institution. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is a concern that the Oncology Care Model (OCM), a voluntary bundled payment program, may incentivize mergers and acquisitions among physician practices leading to reduced competition and price increases. These concerns are heightened if OCM is preferentially adopted in competitive health care markets because it could result in reduced competition, but little is known about the characteristics of markets where OCM is adopted., Objective: To measure the association between regional market competition among medical oncologists with the initial adoption of OCM., Research Design: The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), a measure of competition, was calculated for hospital referral regions (HRRs) using secondary data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The relationship between HHI and OCM adoption was assessed using a 2-part regression model adjusting for the market-level number of practices, physician density, average practice size, sociodemographic characteristics, and medical resources. A count model on all HRRs was also estimated to assess an overall effect., Subjects: A total of 10,788 physicians in 3,537 practices who billed Medicare for oncology services in 2015., Results: OCM was adopted in 114 (37%) of the 306 HRRs. We found that practices in competitive health care markets were more likely to adopt OCM than in noncompetitive markets. Two-part regression analysis indicated a nonlinear relationship between HHI and OCM adoption. Average practice size, number of practices in an HRR, and the hospital bed rate were positively associated with adoption, whereas the rate of full-time equivalent hospital employees to 1000 residents was negatively associated with adoption., Conclusions: OCM adoption was higher in HRRs with greater competition. Careful monitoring of market-level changes among OCM adopters should be undertaken to ensure that the benefits of the OCM outweigh the negative consequences of possible changes in competition.

Introduction: The passage of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 has expanded the non-Veteran Affairs (VA) care options for eligible US Veterans. In order for these new arrangements to provide the best care possible for Veterans, it is important to understand the relationship between VA and non-VA care options. The purpose of this study was to use another recent VA policy change, one that increased the reimbursement rate that eligible Veterans receive for travel for health care to VA, to understand the use of VA and Medicare services among Medicare-enrolled Veterans., Methods: We used a difference-in-difference technique to compare inpatient and outpatient utilization and cost in VA and Medicare between Veterans who were eligible for travel reimbursement and those who were not eligible following 2 increases in the travel reimbursement rate. We used generalized estimating equation models and 2-part models when cost outcomes were rare., Results: Our cohort consisted of 110,007 Medicare-enrolled Veterans, including 25,076 under 65 and 84,931 over 65 years old. Following the travel reimbursement rate increases, the number of VA outpatient encounters increased for Veterans in our cohort regardless of age group or whether living in an urban or rural area. The number of non-VA outpatient encounters decreased significantly for Veterans in both age groups living in rural areas following these policy changes., Conclusions: Our estimates suggest that VA outpatient care may be a substitute for Medicare outpatient care for Medicare-enrolled Veterans living in rural areas. These results are important because they indicate how Veteran health care utilization might be affected by future policy changes designed to increase access to VA services. They also indicate the ripple effects that may occur in other health systems due to changes in the VA system.

Background: The effects of sexual trauma on long-term health care utilization and costs are not well understood due to infrequent documentation of sexual trauma history in health care systems. The Veteran's Health Administration provides a unique opportunity to address this constraint as sexual trauma is actively screened for as part of routine care., Methods: We used a retrospective cohort design to analyze Veteran's Health Administration mental health and medical service utilization and costs as a function of a positive screen for exposure to military sexual trauma (MST) among Veterans of recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. We computed adjusted 5-year estimates of overall utilization and costs, and utilization and costs determined not to be related to MST., Results: The cohort included 426,223 men and 59,611 women. A positive MST screen was associated with 50% higher health care utilization and costs relative to a negative screen. Overall, a positive relative to negative MST screen was associated with a 5-year incremental difference of 34.6 encounters and $10,734 among women, and 33.5 encounters and $11,484 among men. After accounting for MST-related treatment, positive MST screen was associated with 11.9 encounters and $4803 among women, and 19.5 encounters and $8001 among men., Conclusions: Results demonstrate significant and consistent differences in health care utilization and costs between Veterans with a positive relative to negative MST screen. Even after accounting for MST-related care, a positive screen was associated with significantly higher utilization and costs. MST-related needs may be more readily recognized in women relative to men.

Background: Previous estimates of the excess costs due to health care-associated infection (HAI) have scarcely addressed the issue of time-dependent bias., Objective: We examined time-dependent bias by estimating the health care costs attributable to an HAI due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) using a unique dataset in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that makes it possible to distinguish between costs that occurred before and after an HAI. In addition, we compare our results to those from 2 other estimation strategies., Methods: Using a historical cohort study design to estimate the excess predischarge costs attributable to MRSA HAIs, we conducted 3 analyses: (1) conventional, in which costs for the entire inpatient stay were compared between patients with and without MRSA HAIs; (2) post-HAI, which included only costs that occurred after an infection; and (3) matched, in which costs for the entire inpatient stay were compared between patients with an MRSA HAI and subset of patients without an MRSA HAI who were matched based on the time to infection., Results: In our post-HAI analysis, estimates of the increase in inpatient costs due to MRSA HAI were $12,559 (P<0.0001) and $24,015 (P<0.0001) for variable and total costs, respectively. The excess variable and total cost estimates were 33.7% and 31.5% higher, respectively, when using the conventional methods and 14.6% and 11.8% higher, respectively, when using matched methods., Conclusions: This is the first study to account for time-dependent bias in the estimation of incremental per-patient health care costs attributable to HAI using a unique dataset in the VA. We found that failure to account for this bias can lead to overestimation of these costs. Matching on the timing of infection can reduce this bias substantially.