Search

The Medicare hospice program is intended to provide palliative care to terminal patients, but patients with long stays in hospice are highly profitable, motivating concerns about overuse among the Alzheimer's and Dementia (ADRD) population in the rapidly growing for-profit sector. We provide the first causal estimates of the effect of for-profit hospice on patient spending using the entry of for-profit hospices over 20 years. We find hospice has saved money for Medicare by offsetting other expensive care among ADRD patients. As a result, policies limiting hospice use including revenue caps and antifraud lawsuits are distortionary and deter potentially cost-saving admissions. (JEL H51, I11, I12, I18, J14, L84) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) required a shared decision‐making (SDM) interaction, with an "independent" physician, before left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). The purpose of this study is to better understand how this requirement is implemented in clinical practice. Methods: We surveyed LAAC‐performing centers. The characteristics of respondent and nonrespondent hospitals were compared using the CMS Provider of Services File for 2017. Results: We received 86 responses out of 269 surveys mailed (32%). Respondent and nonrespondent hospital affiliations were similar: mean hospital size 525 beds, 15% for‐profit, and 34% teaching hospitals. Thirty‐four respondents (39.5%) stated that the implanting physician conducts some or all of the SDM interactions. The percentage of patients who decide not to undergo LAAC after the SDM interaction was estimated at 8.1%. Out of 72 responses to an open‐ended question about the benefit of the SDM interaction, 44 (61%) described the requirement in negative terms, of which most felt the requirement was burdensome for patients and providers. Only 28 respondents (39%) described the requirement in positive or mixed terms. Conclusion: In violation of the letter of the CMS policy for LAAC, implanting physicians perform the SDM interaction at nearly 40% of responding hospitals. Most respondents felt the SDM requirement was burdensome for patients. More detailed guidance from CMS on how to comply with the policy may result in better alignment between the intent of the policy and how it is implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: In light of Department of Justice investigations of for‐profit chains for over‐admitting patients, we sought to evaluate whether for‐profit hospitals are more likely to admit patients from the emergency department. Data Sources: We used statewide visit‐level inpatient and emergency department records from Florida's Agency for Healthcare Administration for 2007–2019. Study Design: We calculated differences in admission rates between for‐profit and other hospitals, adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. We also estimated instrumental variables models using differential distance to a for‐profit hospital as an instrument. Data Collection/Extraction Methods: Our main analysis focuses on patients ages 65 and older treated in hospitals that primarily serve adults. Principal Findings: Adjusted admission rates among patients ages 65 and older were 7.1 percentage points (95% CI: 5.1–9.1) higher at for‐profit hospitals in 2019 (or 18.8% of the sample mean of 37.8%). Differences in admission rates have remained constant since 2009. Conclusion: Our results are consistent with allegations that for‐profit hospitals maintain lower admission thresholds to increase occupancy levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE We evaluated the potential cost-effectiveness of combined magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) among populations at high risk for the disease. METHODS We used a microsimulation model of the natural history of PDAC to estimate the lifetime health benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of PDAC screening among populations with specific genetic risk factors for PDAC, including BRCA1 and BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, Lynch syndrome, TP53, CDKN2A, and STK11. For each highrisk population, we simulated 29 screening strategies, defined by starting age and frequency. Screening included MRI with follow-up EUS in a subset of patients. Costs of tests were based on Medicare reimbursement for MRI, EUS, fine-needle aspiration biopsy, and pancreatectomy. Cancer-related cost by stage of disease and phase of treatment was based on the literature. For each high-risk population, we performed an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, assuming a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 US dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS For men with relative risk (RR) 12.33 (CDKN2A) and RR 28 (STK11), annual screening was cost-effective, starting at age 55 and 40 years, respectively. For women, screening was only cost-effective for those with RR 28 (STK11), with annual screening starting at age 45 years. CONCLUSION Combined MRI/EUS screening may be a cost-effective approach for the highestrisk populations (among mutations considered, those with RR >12). However, for those with moderate risk (RR, 5-12), screening would only be cost-effective at higher WTP thresholds (eg, $200K USD/QALY) or with once-only screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Mammography is a screening tool for early detection of breast cancer. Uptake in screening use in states can be influenced by Medicaid coverage and eligibility policies, public health outreach efforts, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–funded National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. We described state-specific mammography use in 2020 and changes as compared with 2012. Methods: We estimated the proportion of women aged ≥40 years who reported receiving a mammogram in the past 2 years, by age group, state, and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, using 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data. We also compared 2020 state estimates with 2012 estimates. Results: The proportion of women aged 50-74 years who received a mammogram in the past 2 years was 78.1% (95% CI, 77.4%-78.8%) in 2020. Across measures of socioeconomic status, mammography use was generally lower among women who did not have health insurance (52.0%; 95% CI, 48.3%-55.6%) than among those who did (79.9%; 95% CI, 79.3%-80.6%) and among those who had a usual source of care (49.4%; 95% CI, 46.1%-52.7%) than among those who did not (81.0%; 95% CI, 80.4%-81.7%). Among women aged 50-74 years, mammography use varied across states, from a low of 65.2% (95% CI, 61.4%-69.0%) in Wyoming to a high of 86.1% (95% CI, 83.8%-88.3%) in Massachusetts. Four states had significant increases in mammography use from 2012 to 2020, and 8 states had significant declines. Conclusion: Mammography use varied widely among states. Use of evidence-based interventions tailored to the needs of local populations and communities may help close gaps in the use of mammography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent advancements in the clinical management of metastatic prostate cancer include several costly therapies and diagnostic tests. The objective of this study was to provide updated information on the cost to payers attributable to metastatic prostate cancer among men aged 18 to 64 years with employer‐sponsored health plans and men aged 18 years or older covered by employer‐sponsored Medicare supplement insurance. Methods: By using Merative MarketScan commercial and Medicare supplemental data for 2009–2019, the authors calculated differences in spending between men with metastatic prostate cancer and their matched, prostate cancer‐free controls, adjusting for age, enrollment length, comorbidities, and inflation to 2019 US dollars. Results: The authors compared 9011 patients who had metastatic prostate cancer and were covered by commercial insurance plans with a group of 44,934 matched controls and also compared 17,899 patients who had metastatic prostate cancer and were covered by employer‐sponsored Medicare supplement plans with a group of 87,884 matched controls. The mean age of patients with metastatic prostate cancer was 58.5 years in the commercial samples and 77.8 years in the Medicare supplement samples. Annual spending attributable to metastatic prostate cancer was $55,949 per person‐year (95% confidence interval [CI], $54,074–$57,825 per person‐year) in the commercial population and $43,682 per person‐year (95% CI, $42,022–$45,342 per person‐year) in the population covered by Medicare supplement plans, both in 2019 US dollars. Conclusions: The cost burden attributable to metastatic prostate cancer exceeds $55,000 per person‐year among men with employer‐sponsored health insurance and $43,000 among those covered by employer‐sponsored Medicare supplement plans. These estimates can improve the precision of value assessments of clinical and policy approaches to the prevention, screening, and treatment of prostate cancer in the United States. Annual spending attributable to metastatic prostate cancer was $55,949 per person‐year in the population covered by commercial insurance and $43,682 in the population covered by employer‐sponsored Medicare supplement plans, both in 2019 US dollars. These estimates can improve the precision of value assessments of clinical and policy approaches to the prevention, screening, and treatment of prostate cancer in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]