Search

Home- and community-based services (HCBS) users, on average, experience hospitalizations more frequently than nursing facility residents. However, little is known about state-level variation in such adverse events among these groups. Using 2018 Medicare and Medicaid claims for dual-eligible beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, we described hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visit rates among HCBS users and nursing facility residents and observed substantial state-level variation. In addition, consistent with prior evidence, we found more frequent hospitalizations and ED visits among HCBS users than nursing facility residents. The magnitude of this difference varied considerably across states, and the degree of variation was greatest among beneficiaries with six or more comorbid conditions. Our findings represent a crucial initial exploration of the state-level variation in adverse events among HCBS users and nursing facility residents, paving the way for further investigations into factors that contribute to this variability., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: National guidelines for prehospital trauma triage aim to identify seriously injured patients who may benefit from transport to trauma centers. These guidelines have poor sensitivity for serious injury among older adults. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a high-sensitivity triage strategy for older adults., Study Design: We developed a Markov chain Monte Carlo microsimulation model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of high-sensitivity field triage criteria among older adults compared with current practice. The model used a retrospective cohort of 3621 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries who were transported by emergency medical services after an acute injury in 7 counties in the northwestern US during January to December 2011. These data informed model estimates of emergency medical services triage assessment, hospital transport patterns, and outcomes from index hospitalization up to 1 year after discharge. Outcomes beyond 1 year were modeled using published literature. Differences in cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated for both strategies using a lifetime analytical horizon. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per QALY gained) to assess cost-effectiveness, which we defined using a threshold of less than $100,000 per QALY., Results: High-sensitivity trauma field triage for older adults would produce a small incremental benefit in average trauma system effectiveness (0.0003 QALY) per patient at a cost of $1,236,295 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis indicates that the cost of initial hospitalization and emergency medical services adherence to triage status (ie transporting triage-positive patients to a trauma center) had the largest influence on overall cost-effectiveness., Conclusions: High-sensitivity trauma field triage is not cost-effective among older adults., (Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model was designed to reduce the cost and improve the quality of hip or knee replacement among Medicare beneficiaries. Yet whether this model may exacerbate existing racial/ethnic disparities in access to the surgery is unclear., Objective: To examine the association of the CJR model with the receipt of elective hip or knee replacement across White, Black, and Hispanic Medicare beneficiaries., Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare claims from 2013 through 2017 among White, Black, and Hispanic Medicare beneficiaries undergoing elective joint replacement in 65 treatment (selected for CJR participation) and 101 control metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs)., Exposures: Starting in April 2016, hospitals in the treatment MSAs were required to participate in the CJR model and were accountable for expenditures occurring during patients' hospitalization for hip or knee replacement and 90 days after the hospital discharge., Main Outcomes and Measures: Beneficiary-level elective hip or knee replacement receipt in a given year., Results: Among 17 243 304 patients, 9 839 996 (57%) were women; 2 107 425 (12%) were age 85 years or older. Of the final sample, 14 632 434 (85%) were White beneficiaries, 1 518 629 (9%) were Black beneficiaries, and 1 092 241 (6%) were Hispanic beneficiaries. The CJR model was associated with an increase of 1.6 elective hip or knee replacements per 1000 beneficiary-years for Hispanic beneficiaries (95% CI, 0.06-2.05) and a decrease of 0.64 replacements for Black beneficiaries (95% CI, -1.25 to -0.02). No evidence was found for any changes for White beneficiaries per 1000 beneficiary-years (0.04 replacements, 95% CI, -0.35 to 0.42 replacements). The Black-White difference in the rate of elective hip or knee replacement per 1000 beneficiary-years further widened by 0.68 replacements (-0.68, 95% CI, -1.20 to -0.15)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the CJR model was associated with increased receipt of elective hip or knee replacement among Hispanic beneficiaries, decreased receipt among Black beneficiaries, and no change in receipt among White beneficiaries. The decreased receipt of elective hip or knee replacement among Black beneficiaries may suggest that value-based payment models, including the CJR model, could be monitored for unintended consequences. However, the lack of similar findings among Hispanic beneficiaries suggests that payment models may have differential impacts across racial/ethnic groups.

Background: Despite the importance of the hospital discharge destination field ("discharge code" hereafter) for research and payment reform, its accuracy is not well established., Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the accuracy of discharge codes in Medicare claims., Data Sources: 2012-2015 Medicare claims of knee and hip replacement patients., Research Design: We identified patients' discharge location in claims and compared it with the discharge code. We also used a mixed-effects logistic regression to examine the association of patient and hospital characteristics with discharge code accuracy., Results: Approximately 9% of discharge codes were inaccurate. Long-term care hospital discharge codes had the lowest accuracy rate (41%), followed by acute care transfers (72%), inpatient rehabilitation facility (80%), and home discharges (83%). Most misclassifications occurred within 2 broad groups of postacute care settings: home-based and institutional care. The odds of inaccurate discharge codes were higher for Medicaid-enrolled patients and safety-net and low-volume hospitals., Conclusions: Inaccurate hospital discharge coding may have introduced bias in studies relying on these codes (eg, evaluations of Medicare bundled payment models). Inaccuracy was more common among Medicaid-enrolled patients and safety-net and low-volume hospitals, suggesting more potential bias in existing study findings pertaining to these patients and hospitals.

Importance: Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model rewards or penalizes hospitals on the basis of meeting spending benchmarks that do not account for patients' preexisting social and medical complexity or high expenses associated with serving disadvantaged populations such as dual-eligible patients (ie, those enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid). The CJR model may have different implications for hospitals serving a high percentage of dual-eligible patients (termed high-dual) and hospitals serving a low percentage of dual-eligible patients (termed low-dual)., Objective: To examine changes associated with the CJR model among high-dual or low-dual hospitals in 2016 to 2017., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study comprised 3 analyses of high-dual or low-dual hospitals (n = 1165) serving patients with hip or knee joint replacements (n = 768 224) in 67 treatment metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) selected for CJR participation and 103 control MSAs. The study used Medicare claims data and public reports from 2012 to 2017. Data analysis was conducted from February 1, 2019, to August 31, 2019., Exposures: The CJR model holds participating hospitals accountable for the spending and quality of care during care episodes for patients with hip or knee joint replacement, including hospitalization and 90 days after discharge., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were total episode spending, discharge to institutional postacute care facility, and readmission within the 90-day postdischarge period; bonus and penalty payments for each hospital; and reductions in per-episode spending required to receive a bonus for each hospital., Results: In total, 1165 hospitals (291 high-dual and 874 low-dual) and 768 224 patients with joint replacement (494 013 women [64.3%]; mean [SD] age, 76 [7] years) were included. An episode-level triple-difference analysis indicated that total spending under the CJR model decreased at high-dual hospitals (by $851; 95% CI, -$1556 to -$146; P = .02) and low-dual hospitals (by $567; 95% CI, -$933 to -$202; P = .003). The size of decreases did not differ between the 2 groups (difference, -$284; 95% CI, -$981 to $413; P = .42). Discharge to institutional postacute care settings and readmission did not change among both hospital groups. High-dual hospitals were less likely to receive a bonus compared with low-dual hospitals (40.3% vs 59.1% in 2016; 56.9% vs 76.0% in 2017). To receive a bonus, high-dual hospitals would be required to reduce spending by $887 to $2231 per episode, compared with only $89 to $215 for low-dual hospitals., Conclusions and Relevance: The study found that high- and low-dual hospitals made changes in care after CJR implementation, and the magnitude of these changes did not differ between the 2 groups. However, high-dual hospitals were less likely to receive a bonus for spending cuts. Spending benchmarks for CJR would require high-dual hospitals to reduce spending more substantially to receive a financial incentive.

Dual-eligible beneficiaries or "duals" are individuals enrolled in both the Medicare and Medicaid programs. For both Medicare and Medicaid, they may be enrolled in fee-for-service or managed care, creating a mix of possible coverage models. Understanding these different models is essential to improving care for duals. Using All-Payer All-Claims data, we empirically described health service use and quality of care for Oregon duals across five coverage models with different combinations of fee-for-service, managed care, and plan alignment status across Medicare and Medicaid. We found substantial heterogeneity in care across these five coverage models. We also found that duals in plans with aligned financial incentives for Medicare and Medicaid experienced more improvement in their care relative to those with nonaligned Medicare Advantage and Medicaid managed care plans. These results highlight the importance of developing policies that account for the heterogeneity of the dual population and their coverage options.