Search

There is growing concern about the health of older US adults who live in rural areas, but little is known about how mortality has changed over time for low-income Medicare beneficiaries residing in...

Rapid growth of Medicare Advantage (MA) plans has the potential to change clinical practice for both MA and fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries, particularly for high-need, high-cost beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions or a costly single condition. We assessed whether MA growth from 2010 to 2017 spilled over to county-level per capita spending, emergency department visits, and readmission rates among FFS beneficiaries, and how much this varied by the comorbidity burden of the beneficiary. We also examined whether the association between MA growth and per capita spending in FFS varied in beneficiaries with specific chronic conditions. MA growth was associated with decreased FFS spending and emergency department visits only among beneficiaries with six or more chronic conditions. MA growth was associated with decreased FFS spending among beneficiaries with 11 of the 20 chronic conditions. This suggests that MA growth may drive improvements in efficiency of health care delivery for high-need, high-cost beneficiaries.

Racial disparities in hospitalization rates for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions are concerning and may signal differential access to high-quality ambulatory care. Whether racial disparities are improving as a result of better ambulatory care versus artificially narrowing because of increased use of observation status is unclear. Using Medicare data for 2011-15, we sought to determine whether black-white disparities in avoidable hospitalizations were improving and evaluated the degree to which changes in observations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions may be contributing to changes in these gaps. We found that while the racial gap in avoidable hospitalizations due to such conditions has decreased, that seems to be explained by a concomitant increase in the gap of avoidable observation stays. This suggests that changes from inpatient admissions to observation status seem to be driving the reduction in racial disparities in avoidable hospitalizations, rather than changes in the ambulatory setting.

Medicare Advantage (MA) plans often establish restrictive networks of covered providers. Some policy makers have raised concerns that networks may have become excessively restrictive over time, potentially interfering with patients' access to providers. Because of data limitations, little is known about the breadth of MA networks. Taking a novel approach, we used Medicare Part D claims data for 2011-15 to examine how primary care physician networks have changed over time and what demographic and plan characteristics are associated with varying levels of network breadth. Our findings indicate that the share of MA plans with broad networks increased from 80.1 percent in 2011 to 82.5 percent in 2015. Enrollment in broad-network plans grew from 54.1 percent to 64.9 percent over the same period. In an adjusted analysis, we detected no significant time trend. In addition, narrow networks were associated with urbanicity, higher income, higher physician density, and more competition among plans. Health maintenance organizations had narrower networks than did point-of-service plans, whose networks were narrower than those of preferred provider organizations.

The COVID-19 pandemic threatens the health and well-being of older adults with multiple chronic conditions. To date, limited information exists about how Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are adapting to manage these patients. We surveyed 78 Medicare ACOs about their concerns for these patients during the pandemic and strategies they are employing to address them. ACOs expressed major concerns about disruptions to necessary care for this population, including the accessibility of social services and long-term care services. While certain strategies like virtual primary and specialty care visits were being used by nearly all ACOs, other services such as virtual social services, home medication delivery, and remote lab monitoring were far less commonly accessible. ACOs expressed that support for telehealth services, investment in remote monitoring capabilities, and funding for new, targeted care innovation initiatives would help them better care for vulnerable patients during this pandemic.

Purpose Health care practices across the United States have been consolidating in response to various market forces. The degree of practice consolidation varies widely across specialties but has not been well studied within radiation oncology. This study used Medicare data to characterize the extent of practice consolidation among radiation oncologists and to investigate associated market factors. Methods and Materials We utilized Medicare Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System data to assess the practice size and billing patterns of U.S. radiation oncologists in 2013 and again in 2017. Individual practices were categorized by the number of radiation oncologists practicing together: solo practices had 1 radiation oncologist, small practices 2 to 10, and large practices 11 or more. Market consolidation within each hospital referral region (HRR) across the country was quantified using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. Hospital and market level data were obtained for each HRR, and factors associated with the growth of radiation oncology practices over time were calculated via multivariable linear regression. Results Across the United States, radiation oncology practices appear to be highly consolidated. The mean Herfindahl-Hirschman Index was 0.4711 in 2013—indicating high levels of consolidation at baseline—and increased further to 0.4865 by 2017. Between 2013 and 2017, the number of practices with radiation oncologists in the United States decreased 3.8%, from 1679 to 1615, whereas the number of practicing radiation oncologists increased 9.4%, from 4948 to 5415. Over the study period, the number of solo practices fell 11% (from 708 in 2013 to 627 in 2017), whereas the number of large practices (those with 11 or more radiation oncologists) increased 50% (from 60 to 90). Large practices likewise grew to employ a greater share of all radiation oncologists (23.9%-32.4%) and accounted for a larger proportion of total Medicare billing (21%-26%). Two market factors were predictive for increases in the mean radiation oncology practice size. HRRs with greater hospital market consolidation and those with lower levels of baseline radiation oncology consolidation were more likely to experience higher levels of growth over the study period. Conclusions Radiation oncologists are increasingly working in larger practices. By 2017, nearly one-third of all practicing radiation oncologists in the United States were employed by just the 90 largest practices. Radiation oncology, as a field, is highly concentrated, and represents one of the most consolidated specialties across the country. The implications of practice consolidation among radiation oncologists warrants further investigation.

Recent health reforms have created incentives for cardiologists and accountable care organizations to participate in value-based care models for heart failure (HF). Accurate risk stratification of HF patients is critical to efficiently deploy interventions aimed at reducing preventable utilization. The goal of this paper was to compare deep learning approaches with traditional logistic regression (LR) to predict preventable utilization among HF patients. We conducted a prognostic study using data on 93,260 HF patients continuously enrolled for 2-years in a large U.S. commercial insurer to develop and validate prediction models for three outcomes of interest: preventable hospitalizations, preventable emergency department (ED) visits, and preventable costs. Patients were split into training, validation, and testing samples. Outcomes were modeled using traditional and enhanced LR and compared to gradient boosting model and deep learning models using sequential and non-sequential inputs. Evaluation metrics included precision (positive predictive value) at k, cost capture, and Area Under the Receiver operating characteristic (AUROC). Deep learning models consistently outperformed LR for all three outcomes with respect to the chosen evaluation metrics. Precision at 1% for preventable hospitalizations was 43% for deep learning compared to 30% for enhanced LR. Precision at 1% for preventable ED visits was 39% for deep learning compared to 33% for enhanced LR. For preventable cost, cost capture at 1% was 30% for sequential deep learning, compared to 18% for enhanced LR. The highest AUROCs for deep learning were 0.778, 0.681 and 0.727, respectively. These results offer a promising approach to identify patients for targeted interventions.

In the US, approximately 27% of deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have occurred among residents of nursing homes (NHs).1 However, why some facilities have been more successful at limiting the spread of infection than others is unclear. For example, those with greater staffing or higher performance on quality measures may be better at containing the spread of COVID-19 among staff and residents. We evaluated whether NHs rated highly by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) across 3 unique domains—health inspections, quality measures, and nurse staffing—had lower COVID-19 cases than facilities with lower ratings.

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

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

Purpose Spending on patients with cancer can be substantial and has continued to increase in recent years. Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are arguably the most important national experiment to control health care spending, yet how ACOs are managing patients with cancer diagnoses is largely unknown. We aimed to determine whether practices that became ACOs had changes in overall or cancer-specific spending among patients with cancer. Methods Using 2011 to 2015 national Medicare claims, practices that became part of ACOs were identified and matched to non-ACO practices within the same geographic region. We calculated total and category-specific annual spending per beneficiary as well as spending for and utilization of emergency departments, inpatient admissions, hospice, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. A difference-in-differences model was used to examine changes in spending and utilization associated with ACO contracts in the Medicare Shared Savings Program for beneficiaries with cancer. Results We found that the introduction of ACOs had no meaningful impact on overall spending in patients with cancer (−$308 per beneficiary in ACOs v −$319 in non-ACOs; difference, $11; 95% CI, −$275 to $297; P = .94). We found no changes in total spending in patients within any of the 11 different cancer types examined. Finally, changes in spending and utilization did not meaningfully differ between ACO and non-ACO patients within various categories, including cancer-specific categories. Conclusion Compared with patients with cancer treated at non-ACO practices, being a patient with a cancer diagnosis in a Medicare ACO is not associated with significantly reduced spending or heath care utilization. The introduction of ACOs does not seem to have had any meaningful effect on spending or utilization for patients with a cancer diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION Despite the increased emphasis on patient experience, little is known about whether there are meaningful differences in hospital satisfaction between Hispanic and non-Hispanic whites. METHODS To determine if satisfaction differs, we used Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey data (2009-2010) reported by hospitals to compare responses between Hispanic and non-Hispanic white patients. Clustered logistic regression models identified within-hospital and between-hospital differences in satisfaction. RESULTS Of the 3,864,938 respondents, 6.2% were Hispanics, who were more often younger and females and less likely to have graduated from high school. Hispanics were overall more likely to recommend their hospital (74.1% vs. 70.9%, p < .001) and to rate it 9 or 10 (72.5% vs. 65.9%, p < .001) than whites. Increased satisfaction among Hispanics was more pronounced when compared with whites within the same hospitals, with significantly higher ratings on all HCAHPS measures. However, hospitals serving a higher percentage of Hispanics had lower satisfaction scores for both Hispanic and white patients than other hospitals. CONCLUSION There were significant but only modest-sized differences in patient experience between Hispanic and white patients across U.S. hospitals. Hispanics tended to be more satisfied with their care but received care at lower-performing hospitals.

BackgroundPatient experience is a key measure of hospital quality and is increasingly contained in value-based payment programmes. Understanding whether strategies aimed at improving care transitions are associated with better patient experience could help clinical leaders and policymakers seeking to improve care across multiple dimensions.ObjectiveTo determine the association of specific hospital care coordination and transition strategies with patient experience.DesignWe surveyed leadership at 1600 acute care hospitals and categorised respondents into three groups based on the strategies used: low-strategy (bottom quartile of number of strategies), mid-strategy (quartiles 2 and 3) and high-strategy (highest quartile). We used linear regression models to examine the association between use of these strategies and performance on measures of patient experience from the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey.ResultsWe achieved a 62% response rate. High-strategy hospitals reported using 7.7 strategies on average usually or always on their patient populations, while mid-strategy and low-strategy hospitals reported using 5.0 and 2.3 strategies, respectively. Compared with low-strategy hospitals, high-strategy hospitals had a higher overall rating (+2.23 percentage points (pp), PConclusionsHospitals with greater reported use of care coordination and transition strategies have better patient experience than hospitals with fewer reported strategies. Strategies that most directly involve patients have the strongest association with better experience.

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program has been associated with improvements in readmission rates, yet little is known about its effect on racial disparities. We compared trends in thirty-day readmission rates for congestive heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia among non-Hispanic whites versus non-Hispanic blacks, and among minority-serving hospitals versus others. During the penalty-free implementation period (April 2010–September 2012), readmission rates improved over pre-implementation trends (January 2007–March 2010) for both whites and blacks, with a significantly greater decline among blacks than among whites (−0.45 percent versus −0.36 percent per quarter, respectively). In the period October 2012–December 2014, after penalties began, readmission improvements slowed for both races. Following a similar pattern, minority-serving hospitals saw greater reductions in readmissions than other hospitals did. Despite the narrowing of the two race-based gaps after announcement of th...

Given that health care costs in Massachusetts continue to grow despite great efforts to contain them, we seek to understand characteristics and spending patterns of the costliest non-elderly adults in Massachusetts based on type of insurance.We used the Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database (APCD) from 2012 and analyzed demographics, utilization patterns and spending patterns across payers (Medicaid, Medicaid managed care, and private insurers) for high cost patients (those in the top 10% of spending) and non-high cost patients (the remaining 90%).We identified 3,712,045 patients between the ages of 18-64 years in Massachusetts in 2012 who met our inclusion criteria. Of this group, 8.5% had Medicaid fee-for-service, 11.1% had Medicaid managed care, and 80.3% had private insurance. High cost patients accounted for 65% of total spending in our sample. We found that high cost patients were more likely to be older (median age 48 vs 40, p0.001), female (60.2% vs. 51.2%, p0.001), and have multiple chronic conditions (4.4 vs. 1.3, p0.001) compared to non-high cost patient patients. Medicaid patients were the most likely to be designated high cost (18.1%) followed by Medicaid managed care (MCO) (13.9%) and private insurance (8.6%). High cost Medicaid patients also had the highest mean annual spending and incurred the most preventable spending compared to high cost MCO and high cost private insurance patients.We used 2012 claims data from Massachusetts to examine characteristics and spending patterns of the state's costliest patients based on type of insurance. Providers and policymakers seeking to reduce costs and increase value under delivery system reform may wish to target the Medicaid population.

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.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.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-values0.001). Despite reporting more barriers, SNHs were less likely to use e-tools to share discharge summaries (70.1% vs. 73.7%, P0.04) or verbally communicate (31.5% vs. 39.8%, P0.001) with outpatient providers, track readmissions by race/ethnicity (23.9% vs. 28.6%, P0.001), or enroll patients in postdischarge programs (13.3% vs. 17.2%, P0.001). 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.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.

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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-020-06029-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patient perspectives are essential to reliable detection of harm, including near missesHealthcare is not as safe as it should be. Twenty years since the publication of the seminal report To Err is Human,1 Panagioti and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.l4185) estimate that about 12% of patients still experience some form of harm associated with healthcare, around half of which is preventable.2 This study raises serious concerns about the safety of health systems. How should health system leaders, doctors, and patients interpret these findings?Separating harm into outcomes that are deemed either preventable or inevitable is a necessary step to advance efforts toward patient safety. Yet no consensus exists as to what constitutes preventable harm, and even experienced clinicians vary in the extent to which they agree on whether an error is preventable.3 Panagioti and colleagues define preventable harm as the result of an identifiable modifiable cause and an event the recurrence …

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, many studies have used national Medicare data to examine associations between national hospital pay-for-performance programs and quality and costs of care. In January 2011, as the ACA was being implemented, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services increased the number of available diagnosis billing codes from a maximum of 9 diagnosis codes (the primary diagnosis plus 8 comorbidities; a tenth code was reserved for coding external causes of injury and usually left blank) to 25 diagnosis codes (the primary diagnosis plus 24 comorbidities).

IMPORTANCE: One-third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicare’s private plan option. Medicare Advantage incentivizes performance on evidence-based care, but limited information exists using reliable clinical data to determine whether this translates into better quality for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) enrolled in MA compared with those enrolled in traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare. OBJECTIVE: To determine differences in evidence-based secondary prevention treatments and intermediate outcomes among patients with CAD enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this observational, retrospective, cohort study, deidentified data from patients 18 years or older diagnosed as having CAD between January 1, 2013, and May 1, 2014, at cardiology practices participating in the Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence (PINNACLE) registry were studied, including 35 563 patients enrolled in MA and 172 732 enrolled in FFS Medicare. Data were analyzed from March to July 2018. EXPOSURES: Medicare Advantage enrollment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Medication prescription patterns among eligible patients and intermediate outcomes, including blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. RESULTS: Of the 35 563 patients with CAD enrolled in MA, 20 193 (56.8%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 76.7 (7.6) years; of the 172 732 patients with CAD enrolled in FFS Medicare, 100 025 (57.9%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 77.5 (8.0) years. Patients enrolled in MA were younger, less likely to be white, and more likely to be female and to have heart failure, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease compared with those enrolled in FFS Medicare. Compared with FFS Medicare beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries were more likely to receive secondary prevention treatments, including β-blockers (80.6% vs 78.8%; P

One strategy for reducing health care spending is to target the Medicare beneficiaries who remain persistently high cost over time. Using a 20 percent sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in the period 2012-14, we sought to identify the proportion of patients who remained persistently high cost (that is, in the top 10 percent of spending each year) and determine the characteristics and spending patterns that differentiated them from other patients. We found that 28.1 percent of patients who were high cost in 2012 remained persistently high cost over the subsequent two years. On average, persistently high-cost patients were younger, more likely to be members of racial/ethnic minority groups, eligible for Medicare based on having end-stage renal disease, and dually eligible for Medicaid, compared to transiently and never high-cost patients. Persistently high-cost patients had greater relative spending on outpatient care and medications, while very little of their spending was related to preventable hospitalizations. Health care systems and policy makers can use this information to better target spending reductions and care improvements over time.

IMPORTANCE: Medicare Advantage (MA), a private insurance plan option, now covers one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries. Although patients with cardiovascular disease enrolled in MA have been reported to receive higher quality of care in the ambulatory setting than patients enrolled in fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare, it is unclear whether MA is associated with higher quality in patients hospitalized with heart failure, or alternatively, if incentives to reduce utilization under MA plans may be associated with worse care. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are differences in quality of care received and in-hospital outcomes among patients enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational, retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with heart failure in hospitals participating in the Get With the Guidelines—Heart Failure registry. EXPOSURES: Medicare Advantage enrollment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, length of stay, and 4 heart failure achievement measures. RESULTS: Of 262 626 patients hospitalized with heart failure, 93 549 (35.6%) were enrolled in MA and 169 077 (64.4%) in FFS Medicare. The median (interquartile range) age was 78 (70-85) years for patients enrolled in MA and 78 (69-86) years for patients enrolled in FFS Medicare. Standard mean differences in age, sex, prevalence of comorbidities, or objective measures on admission, including vital signs and laboratory values, were less than 10%. After adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in receipt of evidence-based β-blockers when indicated; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors at discharge; measurement of left ventricular function; and postdischarge appointments by Medicare insurance type. Patients enrolled in MA, however, had higher odds of being discharged directly home (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.19; P

Patient-reported experience is a critical part of measuring health care quality. There are limited data on racial differences in patient experience. Using patient-level data for 2009-10 from the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS), we compared blacks' and whites' responses on measures of overall hospital rating, communication, clinical processes, and hospital environment. In unadjusted results, there were no substantive differences between blacks' and whites' ratings of hospitals. Blacks were less likely to recommend hospitals but reported more positive experiences, compared to whites. Higher educational attainment and self-reported worse health status were associated with more negative evaluations in both races. Additionally, blacks rated minority-serving hospitals worse than other hospitals on all HCAHPS measures. Taken together, there were surprisingly few meaningful differences in patient experience between blacks and whites across US hospitals. Although blacks tend to receive care at worse-performing hospitals, compared to whites, within any given hospital black patients tend to report better experience than whites do.

BACKGROUND To deliver high-quality, patient-centered care during hospitalization, healthcare providers must correctly identify the patient's primary recovery goal. OBJECTIVE To determine the degree of concordance between patients and key hospital providers. DESIGN A validated questionnaire administered to a random sample of hospitalized patients alongside their nurse and physician provider. Goals included: “be cured,” “live longer,” “improve/maintain health,” “be comfortable,” “accomplish a particular life goal,” or “other.” SETTING Major academic hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS Adult patients admitted for more than 48 hours from November 2013 to May 2014 were eligible. When a patient was incapacitated, a legal proxy was interviewed. The nurse and physician provider were then interviewed within 24 hours. MEASUREMENTS Frequencies of responses for each recovery goal and the rate of concordance among the patient, nurse, and physician provider were measured. The frequency of responses across groups were compared using adjusted χ2 analyses. Inter-rater agreement was measured using 2-way Kappa tests. RESULTS All 3 participants were interviewed in 109 of the 181 (60.2%) patients approached (or with proxy available). Significant differences in selected goals were observed across respondent groups (P < 0.001). Patients frequently chose “be cured” (46.8%). Nurses and physician providers frequently selected “improve or maintain health” (38.5% and 46.8%, respectively). All 3 participants selected the same goal in 22 cases (20.2%). Inter-rater agreement was poor to slight for all pairs (kappa 0.09 [−0.03-0.19], 0.19 [0.08-0.30], and 0.20 [0.08-0.32] for patient-physician, patient-nurse, and nurse-physician, respectively). CONCLUSIONS We observed poor to slight concordance among hospitalized patients and key medical team members with regard to the patient's primary recovery goal. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine

BackgroundIndustry marketing to physicians for opioids has received substantial attention as it can potentially influence physicians’ prescription of opioids. However, robust evidence demonstrating a causal link between industry payments for opioids and physicians’ prescription practice for opioids is lacking.MethodsUsing the national databases of physicians treating Medicare beneficiaries, we examined the association between physicians’ receipt of opioid-related industry payments in 2016 and (1) the number of opioids prescribed and (2) the annual expenditures for the opioid products by those physicians in 2017, using propensity-score matching in a 1:1 ratio adjusting for the physician characteristics (sex, years in practice, medical school attended, specialty), the number of opioid prescriptions in 2016, and physicians’ financial relationships with industry in 2015. We compared matched pairs of physicians using the estimated effect and paired t-test.ResultsAmong 43 778 physicians included after propensity-score matching, physicians who received opioid-related industry payments in 2016 prescribed more opioids (153.8 vs 129.7; adjusted difference (95% CI), 24.1 (19.1 to 29.1)) and accounted for more spending due to opioids ($10 476 vs $6983; adjusted difference (95% CI), $3493 (2854 to 4134)) in 2017, compared with physicians who did not receive payments. The association was larger among primary care physicians than surgeons or specialists. The dose–response analysis revealed that even a small amount of industry payments was sufficient to effectively affect physicians’ prescription practice of opioids.ConclusionsOpioid-related industry payments to physicians in the prior year were associated with a higher number of opioid prescriptions and expenditures for opioid products in the subsequent year.

ObjectiveTo empirically assess the quality of hospital care in China and trends over a 5-year period during which the government significantly increased its investment in healthcare.DesignRetrospective, observational study comparing hospital quality between two periods: October 2012–March 2013 and October 2017–March 2018.Setting1–2 of the most reputable large tertiary hospitals in each of the 25 provinces in Mainland China (total of 33).ParticipantsAdults 18 years or older admitted with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (n = 7031), cerebral ischaemic stroke (n = 12 008), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (n = 11 836) and bacterial pneumonia (n = 4263).Main outcome measuresProcess-based quality measures, including seven AMI measures, three stroke measures, four COPD measures and six pneumonia measures.ResultsIn 2012/2013, Chinese hospitals had variable performance on AMI measures, including prescribing aspirin on arrival (80.7%), and discharging patients on aspirin (79.2%), β-blockers (60.8%) or statins (75.8%). This was similar for stroke cases and pneumonia cases. Smoking cessation advice was given at high rates across conditions though rates of influenza/pneumococcal vaccines were performed ConclusionsChinese hospitals had low and variable performances across most quality measures for common medical conditions. Quality of care generally does not appear to be improving post national health reform. The Chinese government should include quality of care improvement in its health reform priorities to ensure patients receive appropriate and effective care.

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 (

This study of Medicare-defined avoidable hospital stays for conditions such as urinary tract infection and complications of diabetes uses Medicare Fee-for-Service Inpatient and Outpatient Claim Files to investigate whether a decrease in inpatient admissions from 2011 to 2015 represented real gains in ambulatory care.

Objective To examine how hospitals that volunteered to be under financial incentives for more than a decade as part of the Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration (early adopters) compared with similar hospitals where these incentives were implemented later under the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing program (late adopters). Design Observational study. Setting 1189 hospitals in the USA (214 early adopters and 975 matched late adopters), using Hospital Compare data from 2003 through 2013. Participants 1 371 364 patients aged 65 years and older, using 100% Medicare claims. Main outcome measures Clinical process scores and 30 day mortality. Results Early adopters started from a slightly higher baseline of clinical process scores (92) than late adopters (90). Both groups reached a ceiling (98) a decade later. Starting from a similar baseline, just below 13%, early and late adopters did not have significantly (P=0.25) different mortality trends for conditions targeted by the program (0.05% point difference quarterly) or for conditions not targeted by the program (−0.02% point difference quarterly). Conclusions No evidence that hospitals that have been operating under pay for performance programs for more than a decade had better process scores or lower mortality than other hospitals was found. These findings suggest that even among hospitals that volunteered to participate in pay for performance programs, having additional time is not likely to turn pay for performance programs into a success in the future.

Healthcare systems around the world are striving to deliver high quality care while controlling costs. One compelling strategy is the use of penalties for low-value care.1 ,2 The US federal government has made significant efforts to shift towards value-based payments for hospitals by introducing three national pay-for-performance (P4P) schemes which employ penalties: Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), Hospital Value-Based-Purchasing (VBP) and, more recently, Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction (HACR) Program. HRRP penalises hospitals with higher-than-expected readmissions; VBP adjusts hospital payments (either a bonus or penalty) based on performance on clinical measures and patient experience and HACR penalises the worst quartile of hospitals on HAC metrics.3 Fiscal year 2015 marks the first time hospitals may be penalised by all three programmes, with Medicare reimbursement rates potentially cut by 5.5%. Although prior work has raised concerns that hospitals serving medically complex or socioeconomically vulnerable populations are at higher risk for penalties by individual programmes,4–7 to our knowledge, there is no study that has examined the characteristics of hospitals that received the most substantial penalties across all three programmes. As …

Despite substantial attention to the greater likelihood of poor clinical outcomes among black versus white surgical patients, little is known about whether racial disparities in postoperative mortality in the United States have narrowed over time. Using nationwide Medicare inpatient claims data for the period 2005-14, we examined trends in thirty-day postoperative mortality rates in black and white patients for five high-risk and three low-risk procedures. Overall, national mortality trends improved for both black and white patients, by 0.10 percent per year and 0.07 percent per year, respectively-which significantly narrowed the black-white difference. The reduction occurred primarily within hospitals, rather than between hospitals. Certain subsets of hospitals, such as small hospitals in the Midwest or West that were not minority-serving (that is, not among the top 10 percent of hospitals by volume of black patients served), improved more than others. In spite of concerns that quality improvement efforts may widen disparities, these findings suggest that national racial disparities in surgical mortality are narrowing.

Health inequities among people of different races and ethnicities, geographical locations, and social classes are not a new phenomenon, although the size of the inequities has changed since researchers first began documenting them. While interventions to improve the health of targeted disadvantaged groups may help combat disparities, broader trends that disproportionately benefit privileged groups or harm vulnerable populations can eclipse the progress made through isolated interventions. These trends threaten equity in health and health care in the United States either through direct effects on health or through impacts on the distribution of resources, risks, and power. We highlight trends in four domains: health care technologies, health reform policies, widening socioeconomic inequality, and environmental hazards. We suggest ways of countering the effects of these trends to promote health equity, focusing on strategies that promise co-benefits across multiple sectors.

BackgroundThe US government created five-star rating systems to evaluate hospital, nursing homes, home health agency and dialysis centre quality. The degree to which quality is a property of organisations versus geographical markets is unclear.ObjectivesTo determine whether high-quality healthcare service sectors are clustered within US healthcare markets.DesignUsing data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Hospital, Dialysis, Nursing Home and Home Health Compare databases, we calculated the mean star ratings of four healthcare sectors in 304 US hospital referral regions (HRRs). For each sector, we ranked HRRs into terciles by mean star rating. Within each HRR, we assessed concordance of tercile rank across sectors using a multirater kappa. Using t-tests, we compared characteristics of HRRs with three to four top-ranked sectors, one to two top-ranked sectors and zero top-ranked sectors.ResultsSix HRRs (2.0% of HRRs) had four top-ranked healthcare sectors, 38 (12.5%) had three top-ranked health sectors, 71 (23.4%) had two top-ranked sectors, 111 (36.5%) had one top-ranked sector and 78 (25.7%) HRRs had no top-ranked sectors. A multirater kappa across all sectors showed poor to slight agreement (K=0.055). Compared with HRRs with zero top-ranked sectors, those with three to four top-ranked sectors had higher median incomes, fewer black residents, lower mortality rates and were less impoverished. Results were similar for HRRs with one to two top-ranked sectors.ConclusionsFew US healthcare markets exhibit high-quality performance across four distinct healthcare service sectors, suggesting that high-quality care in one sector may not be dependent on or improve care quality in other sectors. Policies that promote accountability for quality across sectors (eg, bundled payments and shared quality metrics) may be needed to systematically improve quality across sectors.

IMPORTANCE: Lack of insurance is associated with worse care and outcomes among adults hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). It is unclear whether states’ decision to expand Medicaid eligibility under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2014 were associated with improved quality of care and outcomes among low-income patients hospitalized with AMI. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether rates of uninsurance, quality of care, and outcomes changed among patients hospitalized for AMI 3 years after states elected to expand Medicaid compared with nonexpansion states. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study completed at hospitals participating in National Cardiovascular Data Registry Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry. Participants were patients younger than 65 years hospitalized for AMI from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2016. EXPOSURES: State Medicaid expansion in 2014. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rates of uninsured and Medicaid-insured hospitalizations for AMI in states that expanded Medicaid vs those that did not. Comparison of in-hospital care quality, procedure use, and mortality between expansion and nonexpansion states for the years prior to and after Medicaid expansion. Hierarchical logistic regressions models were used to assess the association between Medicaid expansion and outcomes. RESULTS: The initial cohort included 325 343 patients. Uninsured AMI hospitalizations declined in expansion states (18.0% [4395 of 24 358 hospitalizations] to 8.4% [2638 of 31 382 hospitalizations]) and more modestly in nonexpansion states (25.6% [7963 of 31 137 hospitalizations] to 21.1% [8668 of 41 120 hospitalizations]) from 2012 to 2016 (P

Background Providers are assuming growing responsibility for healthcare spending, and prior studies have shown that spending is concentrated in a small proportion of patients. Using simple methods to segment these patients into clinically meaningful subgroups may be a useful and accessible strategy for targeting interventions to control costs. Methods Using Medicare fee-for-service claims from 2011 (baseline year, used to determine comorbidities and subgroups) and 2012 (spending year), we used basic demographics and comorbidities to group beneficiaries into 6 cohorts, defined by expert opinion and consultation: under-65 disabled/ESRD, frail elderly, major complex chronic, minor complex chronic, simple chronic, and relatively healthy. We considered patients in the highest 10% of spending to be “high-cost.” Results 611,245 beneficiaries were high-cost; these patients were less often white (76.2% versus 80.9%) and more often dually-eligible (37.0% versus 18.3%). By segment, frail patients were the most likely (46.2%) to be high-cost followed by the under-65 (14.3%) and major complex chronic groups (11.1%); fewer than 5% of the beneficiaries in the other cohorts were high-cost in the spending year. The frail elderly ($70,196) and under-65 disabled/ESRD ($71,210) high-cost groups had the highest spending; spending in the frail high-cost group was driven by inpatient ($23,704) and post-acute care ($24,080), while the under 65-disabled/ESRD spent more through part D costs ($23,003). Conclusions Simple criteria can segment Medicare beneficiaries into clinically meaningful subgroups with different spending profiles. Implications Under delivery system reform, interventions that focus on frail or disabled patients may have particularly high value as providers seek to reduce spending. Level of evidence IV.

Recent increases in Medicare Advantage enrollment may have caused lower spending growth in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population. We identified the counties of largest Medicare Advantage growth and determined if increased enrollment was associated with reduced FFS Medicare spending growth in those counties. We found that 73 percent of counties experienced at least a 5-percentage-point increase in Medicare Advantage penetration between 2007 and 2014, with the most growth occurring in larger and poorer counties in the Northeast and South. The association between Medicare Advantage growth and FFS Medicare costs varied depending on baseline Medicare Advantage penetration: In counties with low baseline penetration, Medicare Advantage growth did not have a significant effect on per capita FFS Medicare spending, whereas in counties in the highest quartile of baseline Medicare Advantage penetration, it was associated with a significant decrease in FFS Medicare spending growth ($154 annually per 10-percentage-point increase in Medicare Advantage). These findings suggest that Medicare Advantage growth may be playing a role in moderating FFS Medicare costs.

ObjectivesTo determine whether patients admitted to US hospitals that are accredited have better outcomes than those admitted to hospitals reviewed through state surveys, and whether accreditation by The Joint Commission (the largest and most well known accrediting body with an international presence) confers any additional benefits for patients compared with other independent accrediting organizations.DesignObservational study.Setting4400 hospitals in the United States, of which 3337 were accredited (2847 by The Joint Commission) and 1063 underwent state based review between 2014 and 2017.Participants4 242 684 patients aged 65 years and older admitted for 15 common medical and six common surgical conditions and survey respondents of the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Provider and Systems (HCAHPS).Main outcome measuresRisk adjusted mortality and readmission rates at 30 days and HCAHPS patient experience scores. Hospital admissions were identified from Medicare inpatient files for 2014, and accreditation information was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and The Joint Commission.ResultsPatients treated at accredited hospitals had lower 30 day mortality rates (although not statistically significant lower rates, based on the prespecified P value threshold) than those at hospitals that were reviewed by a state survey agency (10.2% v 10.6%, difference 0.4% (95% confidence interval 0.1% to 0.8%), P=0.03), but nearly identical rates of mortality for the six surgical conditions (2.4% v 2.4%, 0.0% (−0.3% to 0.3%), P=0.99). Readmissions for the 15 medical conditions at 30 days were significantly lower at accredited hospitals than at state survey hospitals (22.4% v 23.2%, 0.8% (0.4% to 1.3%), Pv 15.6%, 0.3% (−1.2% to 1.6%), P=0.75). No statistically significant differences were seen in 30 day mortality or readmission rates (for both the medical or surgical conditions) between hospitals accredited by The Joint Commission and those accredited by other independent organizations. Patient experience scores were modestly better at state survey hospitals than at accredited hospitals (summary star rating 3.4 v 3.2, 0.2 (0.1 to 0.3), Pv 3.2, 0.1 (−0.003 to 0.2), P=0.06).ConclusionsUS hospital accreditation by independent organizations is not associated with lower mortality, and is only slightly associated with reduced readmission rates for the 15 common medical conditions selected in this study. There was no evidence in this study to indicate that patients choosing a hospital accredited by The Joint Commission confer any healthcare benefits over choosing a hospital accredited by another independent accrediting organization.

Importance Studies have found differences in practice patterns between male and female physicians, with female physicians more likely to adhere to clinical guidelines and evidence-based practice. However, whether patient outcomes differ between male and female physicians is largely unknown. Objective To determine whether mortality and readmission rates differ between patients treated by male or female physicians. Design, Setting, and Participants We analyzed a 20% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries 65 years or older hospitalized with a medical condition and treated by general internists from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2014. We examined the association between physician sex and 30-day mortality and readmission rates, adjusted for patient and physician characteristics and hospital fixed effects (effectively comparing female and male physicians within the same hospital). As a sensitivity analysis, we examined only physicians focusing on hospital care (hospitalists), among whom patients are plausibly quasi-randomized to physicians based on the physician’s specific work schedules. We also investigated whether differences in patient outcomes varied by specific condition or by underlying severity of illness. Main Outcomes and Measures Patients’ 30-day mortality and readmission rates. Results A total of 1 583 028 hospitalizations were used for analyses of 30-day mortality (mean [SD] patient age, 80.2 [8.5] years; 621 412 men and 961 616 women) and 1 540 797 were used for analyses of readmission (mean [SD] patient age, 80.1 [8.5] years; 602 115 men and 938 682 women). Patients treated by female physicians had lower 30-day mortality (adjusted mortality, 11.07% vs 11.49%; adjusted risk difference, –0.43%; 95% CI, –0.57% to –0.28%; P P Conclusions and Relevance Elderly hospitalized patients treated by female internists have lower mortality and readmissions compared with those cared for by male internists. These findings suggest that the differences in practice patterns between male and female physicians, as suggested in previous studies, may have important clinical implications for patient outcomes.

Objective To determine the impact of the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program—the US pay for performance program introduced by Medicare to incentivize higher quality care—on 30 day mortality for three incentivized conditions: acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia. Design Observational study. Setting 4267 acute care hospitals in the United States: 2919 participated in the HVBP program and 1348 were ineligible and used as controls (44 in general hospitals in Maryland and 1304 critical access hospitals across the United States). Participants 2 430 618 patients admitted to US hospitals from 2008 through 2013. Main outcome measures 30 day risk adjusted mortality for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia using a patient level linear spline analysis to examine the association between the introduction of the HVBP program and 30 day mortality. Non-incentivized, medical conditions were the comparators. A secondary outcome measure was to determine whether the introduction of the HVBP program was particularly beneficial for a subgroup of hospital—poor performers at baseline—that may benefit the most. Results Mortality rates of incentivized conditions in hospitals participating in the HVBP program declined at −0.13% for each quarter during the preintervention period and −0.03% point difference for each quarter during the post-intervention period. For non-HVBP hospitals, mortality rates declined at −0.14% point difference for each quarter during the preintervention period and −0.01% point difference for each quarter during the post-intervention period. The difference in the mortality trends between the two groups was small and non-significant (difference in difference in trends −0.03% point difference for each quarter, 95% confidence interval −0.08% to 0.13% point difference, P=0.35). In no subgroups of hospitals was HVBP associated with better outcomes, including poor performers at baseline. Conclusions Evidence that HVBP has led to lower mortality rates is lacking. Nations considering similar pay for performance programs may want to consider alternative models to achieve improved patient outcomes.