Search

In 2021 real estate investment trusts (REITs) held investments in 1,806 US nursing homes. REITs are for-profit public or private corporations that invest in income-producing properties. We created a novel database of REIT investments in US nursing homes, merged it with Medicare cost report data (2013-19), and used a difference-in-differences approach within an event study framework to compare staffing before and after a nursing home received REIT investment with staffing in for-profit nursing homes that did not receive REIT investment. REIT investment was associated with average relative staffing increases of 2.15 percent and 1.55 percent for licensed practical nurses (LPNs) and certified nursing assistants (CNAs), respectively. During the postinvestment period, registered nurse (RN) staffing was unchanged, but event study results showed a 6.25 percent decrease in years 2 and 3 after REIT investment. After the three largest REIT deals were excluded, REIT investments were associated with an overall 6.25 percent relative decrease in RN staffing and no changes in LPN and CNA staffing. Larger deals resulted in increases in LPN and CNA staffing, with no changes in RN staffing; smaller deals appeared to replace more expensive and skilled RN staffing with less expensive and skilled staff.

Background/objectives: Regulatory oversight has been a central strategy to assure nursing home quality of care for decades. In response to COVID-19, traditional elements of oversight that relate to resident care have been curtailed in favor of implementing limited infection control surveys and targeted complaint investigations. We seek to describe the state of nursing home oversight during the pandemic to facilitate a discussion of whether and how these activities should be altered going forward., Design and Setting: In a retrospective study, we describe national oversight activities in January-June 2020 and compare these activities to the same time period from 2019. We also examine state-level oversight activities during the peak months of the pandemic., Participants: United States nursing homes., Data: Publicly available Quality, Certification, and Oversight Reports (QCOR) data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)., Measurements: Number of standard, complaint, and onsite infection surveys, number of deficiencies from standard and complaint surveys, number of citations by deficiency tag, and number and amount of civil monetary penalties., Results: The number of standard and complaint surveys declined considerably in the second quarter of 2020 relative to the same time frame in 2019. Deficiency citations generally decreased to near zero by April 2020 with the exception of infection prevention and control deficiencies and citations for failure to report COVID-19 data to the national health safety network. Related enforcement actions were down considerably in 2020, relative to 2019., Conclusion: In the months since COVID-19 first impacted nursing homes, regulatory oversight efforts have fallen off considerably. While CMS implemented universal infection control surveys and targeted complaint investigations, other routine aspects of oversight dropped in light of justifiable limits on nursing home entry. Going forward, we must develop policies that allow regulators to balance the demands of the pandemic while fulfilling their responsibilities effectively., (© 2021 The American Geriatrics Society.)

Background: In recent years, policymakers have paid particular attention to the emergence of a robust for-profit hospice sector and increased hospice use by nursing home residents. Previous research has explored financial incentives for nursing home-hospice use, but there has been limited research on nursing home-hospice partnerships and none on the extent of nursing home-hospice common ownership., Objective: To describe trends in nursing home-hospice contracting and common ownership and to identify potential tradeoffs in care provided by nursing homes and hospice agencies that share common ownership., Research Design: Retrospective cohort study of nursing home-hospice patients between 2005 and 2015., Results: Between 2005 and 2015, the number of hospice agencies and nursing homes with common ownership grew substantially, now representing almost 1-in-5 providers in each sector. Relative to individuals using hospice in nursing homes without common ownership, adjusted analyses found that individuals receiving hospice from a commonly owned agency had a greater likelihood of having stays of 90 days or more [odds ratio (OR)=1.06; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-1.10], having a stay resulting in a live discharge (OR=1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11), and having at least 1 registered nurse/licensed practical nurse visit during the last 3 days of life (OR=1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29); these individuals also had a lower mean visit hours per day (-0.07; P=0.003)., Conclusions: Common ownership between hospice agencies and nursing homes is an emerging trend that reflects a broader push toward consolidation in the health care sector. Our analyses highlight potential concerns relevant to Medicare payment policy and are a first step toward improving our understanding of these trends and their implications.

Staffing is an important quality measure that is included on the federal Nursing Home Compare website. New payroll-based data reveal large daily staffing fluctuations, low weekend staffing, and daily staffing levels often below the expectations of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). These data provide a more accurate and complete staffing picture for CMS and consumers.

Consistently accounting for more than 50% of the nursing homes in the United States, corporate chains have played an important role in the industry for several decades. However, few studies have explicitly considered the role of chains in measuring competition in nursing home markets. In this study, we use a newly developed database tracking common ownership over a period of nearly two decades to compare chain-adjusted and unadjusted measures of competition at the county and 25 km fixed-radius levels and explore how the differences would affect the assessment of local market structure. On average, the chain-adjusted Herfindahl-Hirschman Indexes (HHIs) are about 0.02 higher than the unadjusted HHIs. Each year, about 20% to 22% of the counties would appear more concentrated when recalculating HHIs accounting for common ownership. Evidence suggests that nursing home chains tend to focus more on expanding access to new markets within a state than to increasing market power within a smaller local market.

Background: Standardization in production is common in multientity chain organizations. Although chains are prominent in the nursing home sector, standardization in care has not been studied. One way nursing home chains may standardize is by controlling the level and mix of staffing in member homes., Objectives: To examine the extent to which standardization occurred in staffing, its relative presence across different types of chains, and whether facilities became more standardized following acquisition by a chain., Research Design: We estimated predictors of the difference between facility and chain staffing using Generalized Estimating Equations with 2000-2010 data., Subjects: This study included nursing homes nationally, excluding hospital-based homes and homes in Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia., Measures: Chain ownership was coded from text identifying chain names. Two nurse staffing measures were used: staff hours per resident day and staff mix., Results: Very large for-profit chain nursing homes and large nonprofits had less variation in staff hours per resident day (P<0.001) but greater variation in staffing mix (P<0.001) compared with the chain average nationally. Large for-profit chains and medium nonprofit chains had greater dispersion on staff hours per resident day (P<0.001), while large nonprofit chains had greater dispersion in staffing mix (P<0.001). The difference between facility and chain staffing decreased over time., Conclusions: The largest chains (for-profit and nonprofit) had less staffing variation compared with national standards, suggesting they were best at implementing corporate practices. Following ownership changes, staffing converged towards chain averages over time, suggesting standardization takes time to implement.

Specialty care units (SCUs) in nursing homes (NHs) grew in popularity during the 1990s to attract residents while national policies and treatment paradigms changed. Alzheimer disease has consistently been the dominant form of SCU. This study explored the extent to which chain affiliation, which is common among NHs, affected SCU bed designation. Using data from the Online Survey Certification and Reporting (OSCAR) from 1996 through 2010 with 207 431 NH-year observations, we described trends and compared chain-affiliated NHs with independent NHs. Designation of beds for Alzheimer disease SCUs grew from 1996 to 2003 and then declined. At the peak, 19.6% of all NHs had at least one Alzheimer disease SCU bed. In general, chain affiliation promoted Alzheimer disease SCU bed designation across time, chain size, and NH profit status. During the period of largest growth from 1996 to 2003, the likelihood of designation of Alzheimer disease SCU beds was 1.55 percentage points higher among for-profit NHs affiliated with large chains than independent for-profit NHs ( P < .001) and remained 1.28 percentage points higher from 2004 to 2010. However, chain-affiliated NHs generally had a lower percentage of residents with dementia than independent NHs. For example, although for-profit NHs affiliated with large chains had more Alzheimer disease SCU beds, they had nearly 3% fewer residents with dementia than independent NHs ( P < .001). We conclude that organizational decisions to designate beds for Alzheimer disease SCUs may be related to marketing strategies to attract residents since adoption of Alzheimer disease SCUs has fluctuated over time, but did not appear driven by demand.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of the Nursing Home Value-Based Purchasing demonstration on quality of care and Medicare spending., Data Sources/study Setting: Administrative and qualitative data from Arizona, New York, and Wisconsin nursing homes over the base-year (2008-2009) and 3-year (2009-2012) demonstration period., Study Design: Nursing homes were randomized to the intervention in New York, while the comparison facilities were constructed via propensity score matching in Arizona and Wisconsin. We used a difference-in-difference analysis to compare outcomes across the base-year relative to outcomes in each of the three demonstration years. To provide context and assist with interpretation of results, we also interviewed staff members at participating facilities., Principal Findings: Medicare savings were observed in Arizona in the first year only and Wisconsin for the first 2 years; no savings were observed in New York. The demonstration did not systematically impact any of the quality measures. Discussions with nursing home administrators suggested that facilities made few, if any, changes in response to the demonstration, leading us to conclude that the observed savings likely reflected regression to the mean rather than true savings., Conclusion: The Federal nursing home pay-for-performance demonstration had little impact on quality or Medicare spending., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Currently, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Common Format for nursing homes (NHs) accommodates voluntary reporting for 4 adverse events: falls with injury, pressure ulcers, medication errors, and infections. In 2015, AHRQ funded a technical brief to describe the state of the science related to safety in the NH setting to inform a research agenda. Thirty-six recent systematic reviews evaluated NH safety-related interventions to address these 4 adverse events and reported mostly mixed evidence about effective approaches to ameliorate them. Furthermore, these 4 events are likely inadequate to capture safety issues that are unique to the NH setting and encompass other domains related to residents' quality of care and quality of life. Future research needs include expanding our definition of safety in the NH setting, which differs considerably from that of hospitals, to include contributing factors to adverse events as well as more resident-centered care measures. Second, future research should reflect more rigorous implementation science to include objective measures of care processes related to adverse events, intervention fidelity, and staffing resources for intervention implementation to inform broader uptake of efficacious interventions. Weaknesses in implementation contribute to the current inconclusive and mixed evidence base as well as remaining questions about what outcomes are even achievable in the NH setting, given the complexity of most resident populations. Also related to implementation, future research should determine the effects of specific staffing models on care processes related to safety outcomes. Last, future efforts should explore the potential for safety issues in other care settings for older adults, most notably dementia care within assisted living., (Copyright © 2016 AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Two defining features of the nursing home industry are the tremendous churn in chain ownership and the perception of low-quality care at many facilities. We examined whether nursing homes that underwent chain-related transactions, such as mergers and acquisitions, experienced a larger number of health deficiency citations than nursing homes that maintained common ownership over the same period. Using facility-level data for the period 1993-2010, we found that those nursing homes that underwent chain-related transactions had more deficiency citations in the years preceding and following a transaction than those nursing homes that maintained common ownership. Thus, we did not find that these transactions led to a decline in quality. Instead, we found that chains targeted nursing homes that were already having quality problems and that these problems persisted after the transaction. Given the high frequency of nursing home chain transactions, policy makers will need to continue to invest in tracking, reporting, and overseeing these transactions. One important step would be to report more detailed data on chain ownership, transactions, and aggregate chain quality on the Nursing Home Compare website, the federal government's online report card for nursing homes., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Objective: To explore the impact of nursing home acquisition by private investment firms on nursing home costs, revenue, and overall financial health., Data Sources: Merged data from the Medicare Cost Reports and the Online Survey, Certification, and Reporting system for the period 1998-2010., Study Design: Regression specification incorporating facility and time fixed effects., Principal Findings: We found little impact on the financial health of nursing homes following purchase by private investment companies. However, our findings did suggest that private investment firms acquired nursing home chains in good financial health, possibly to derive profit from the company's real estate holdings., Conclusions: Private investment acquired facilities are an important feature of today's nursing home sector. Although we did not observe a negative impact on the financial health of nursing homes, this development raises important issues about ownership oversight and transparency for the entire nursing home sector., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Background: Two prominent challenges in nursing home care are ensuring appropriate medication use and achieving high-quality care as residents transition from the hospital to the nursing home. Research about prescribing practices at this important clinical juncture is limited., Objective: To analyze the use of high-risk medications by nursing home residents before and after being hospitalized. We define high-risk medications using the Beers criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use., Research Design, Subjects, Measures: Using a dataset with Medicare claims for inpatient and skilled nursing facility stays and pharmacy claims for all medications dispensed in the nursing home setting, we examine high-risk medication use for hospitalized nursing home residents before and after being hospitalized. Our study population includes 52,559 dual-eligible nursing home residents aged 65 and older who are hospitalized and then readmitted to the same nursing home in 2008. Our primary outcome of interest is the use of high-risk medications in the 30 days before hospitalization and the 30 days following readmission to the same nursing home., Results: Around 1 in 5 (21%) hospitalized nursing home residents used at least 1 high-risk medication the day before hospitalization. Among individuals with high-risk medication use at hospitalization, the proportion using these medications dropped to 45% after nursing home readmission but increased thereafter, to 59% by the end of the 30-day period., Conclusion: We found moderate levels of high-risk medication use by hospitalized nursing home residents before and after their hospital stays, constituting an important clinical and policy challenge.

Objectives: In 2006, Medicare Part D transitioned prescription drug coverage for dual-eligible nursing home residents from Medicaid to Medicare and randomly assigned them to Part D prescription drug plans (PDPs). Because PDPs may differ in coverage, plans may be more or less generous for drugs that an individual is taking. Taking advantage of the fact that randomization mitigates potential selection bias common in observational studies, this study sought to assess the effect of PDP coverage on resident outcomes for three medication classes--antidepressants, antipsychotics, and cholinesterase inhibitors., Design: Retrospective cohort study to examine the effect of coverage restrictions--including noncoverage and coverage with restrictions--on depression, hallucinations and delusions, aggressive behaviors, cognitive performance, and activities of daily living for dual-eligible nursing home residents randomized to PDPs in 2006 to 2008. The analyses further adjusted for baseline health status to address any residual imbalances in the comparison groups., Setting: Linked data from Medicare claims, Minimum Data Set assessments, pharmacy claims, and PDP formulary information., Participants: Dual-eligible nursing home residents aged 65 and older living in facilities that contracted with a single pharmacy provider., Results: PDP coverage restrictions in three medication classes of interest were not significantly associated with the resident outcomes examined. Although cholinesterase inhibitor users facing coverage restrictions had a 0.04-point lower depression rating score than residents facing no restrictions, this difference was not statistically significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons., Conclusion: The findings suggest that exogenous changes in coverage for three commonly used medication classes had no detectable effect on nursing home resident outcomes in 2006 to 2008. There are several possible explanations for this lack of association, including the role of policy protections for dual-eligible nursing home residents and the possibility that suitable clinical alternatives were identified or that previously used medications offered little clinical benefit., (© 2014, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2014, The American Geriatrics Society.)

Background: In 2006, dual-eligible nursing home residents were randomly assigned to a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan (PDP). Subsequently, residents not enrolled in qualified plans at the start of the next year were rerandomized. PDPs vary in generosity through differences in medication coverage and utilization management. Therefore, residents' assigned plans may be relatively more or less generous for their particular drugs. The impact of generosity on residents' medication use and health outcomes is unknown., Methods: Using data from 2005 to 2008, we estimated logistic regression models of the impact of coverage and utilization management on the risk for medication changes and gaps in use, hospitalizations, and death among elderly nursing home residents using 1 of 6 selected drug classes, adjusting for patient characteristics., Results: Few current medication users faced noncoverage of their drug (0.4% to 8.7%) or prior authorization or step therapy requirements if the drug was covered (1.1% to 37.4%). After adjusting for individual-level covariates, residents with noncovered drugs were more likely than residents with covered drugs to change medications in most classes studied (eg, for 2006 angiotensin receptor blocker users, the adjusted average probability of medication change was 0.35 when uncovered vs. 0.11 when covered). Those subjected to prior authorization or step therapy were more likely to change in a subset of classes. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of hospitalization or death after correcting for multiple comparisons., Conclusions: The Part D benefit's special protections for nursing home residents may have ameliorated the health impact of coverage limits on this frail elderly population.

Background: The tort system is supposed to help improve the quality and safety of health care, but whether it actually does so is controversial. Most previous studies modeling the effect of negligence litigation on quality of care are ecologic., Objective: To assess whether the experience of being sued and incurring litigation costs affects the quality of care subsequently delivered in nursing homes., Research Design, Subjects, Measures: We linked information on 6471 negligence claims brought against 1514 nursing homes between 1998 and 2010 to indicators of nursing home quality drawn from 2 US national datasets (Online Survey, Certification, and Reporting system; Minimum Data Set Quality Measure/Indicator Reports). At the facility level, we tested for associations between 9 quality measures and 3 variables indicating the nursing homes' litigation experience in the preceding 12-18 months (total indemnity payments; total indemnity payments plus administrative costs; ≥ 1 paid claims vs. none). The analyses adjusted for quality at baseline, case-mix, ownership, occupancy, year, and facility and state random effects., Results: Nearly all combinations of the 3 litigation exposure measures and 9 quality measures--27 models in all--showed an inverse relationship between litigation costs and quality. However, only a few of these associations were statistically significant, and the effect sizes were very small. For example, a doubling of indemnity payments was associated with a 1.1% increase in the number of deficiencies and a 2.2% increase in pressure ulcer rates., Conclusions: Tort litigation does not increase the quality performance of nursing homes, and may decrease it slightly.

The role of ownership in the provision of nursing home care has long been a challenging issue for policy makers and researchers. Although much of the focus historically has been on differences between for-profit and not-for-profit facilities, this simple distinction has become less useful in recent years as companies have employed more complicated ownership and management structures. Using detailed ownership data from the state of Texas, we describe the evolution of nursing home corporate structures from 2000 to 2007, analyze the effect of these structures on quality of care and staffing in nursing homes, and discuss the policy implications of these changes.

Objective: To analyze the effect of market-level changes in assisted living supply on nursing home utilization and resident acuity., Data Sources: Primary data on the supply of assisted living over time were collected from 13 states from 1993 through 2007 and merged with nursing home-level data from the Online Survey Certification and Reporting System and market-level information from the Area Resource File., Study Design: Least squares regression specification incorporating market and time-fixed effects., Principal Findings: A 10 percent increase in assisted living capacity led to a 1.4 percent decline in private-pay nursing home occupancy and a 0.2-0.6 percent increase in patient acuity., Conclusions: Assisted living serves as a potential substitute for nursing home care for some healthier individuals with greater financial resources, suggesting implications for policy makers, providers, and consumers., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Objectives: Much has been written about trends in Medicare Part D formulary design and consumers' choice of plans, but little is known about the magnitude of claims rejections or their clinical and administrative implications. Our objective was to study the overall rate at which Part D claims are rejected, whether these rates differ across plans, drugs, and medication classes, and how these rejection rates and reasons have evolved over time., Study Design and Methods: We performed descriptive analyses of data on paid and rejected Part D claims submitted by 1 large national longterm care pharmacy from 2006 to 2010. In each of the 5 study years, data included approximately 450,000 Medicare beneficiaries living in long-term care settings with approximately 4 million Part D drug claims. Claims rejection rates and reasons for rejection are tabulated for each study year at the plan, drug, and class levels., Results: Nearly 1 in 6 drug claims was rejected during the first 5 years of the Medicare Part D program, and this rate has increased over time. Rejection rates and reasons for rejection varied substantially across drug products and Part D plans. Moreover, the reasons for denials evolved over our study period. Coverage has become less of a factor in claims rejections than it was initially and other formulary tools such as drug utilization review, quantity-related coverage limits, and prior authorization are increasingly used to deny claims., Conclusions: Examining claims rejection rates can provide important supplemental information to assess plans' generosity of coverage and to identify potential areas of concern.

Background: Nursing home residents with advanced dementia commonly experience burdensome and costly interventions (eg, tube feeding) that may be of limited clinical benefit. To our knowledge, Medicare expenditures have not been extensively described in this population., Methods: Nursing home residents with advanced dementia in 22 facilities (N = 323) were followed up for 18 months. Clinical and health services use data were collected every 90 days. Medicare expenditures were described. Multivariate analysis was used to identify factors associated with total 90-day expenditures for (1) all Medicare services and (2) all Medicare services excluding hospice., Results: Over an 18-month period, total mean Medicare expenditures were $2303 per 90 days but were highly skewed; expenditures were less than $500 for 77.1% of the 90-day assessment periods and more than $12,000 for 5.5% of these periods. The largest proportion of Medicare expenditures were for hospitalizations (30.2%) and hospice (45.6%). Among decedents (n = 177), mean Medicare expenditures increased by 65% in each of the last 4 quarters before death owing to an increase in both acute care and hospice. After multivariable adjustment, not living in a special care dementia unit was a modifiable factor associated with higher total expenditures for all Medicare services. Lack of a do-not-hospitalize order, tube feeding, and not living in a special care unit were associated with higher nonhospice Medicare expenditures., Conclusions: Medicare expenditures among nursing home residents with advanced dementia vary substantially. Hospitalizations and hospice account for most spending. Strategies that promote high-quality palliative care may shift expenditures away from aggressive treatments for these patients at the end of life.

Background: It is unclear whether high-quality health care institutions are less likely to be sued for negligence than their low-performing counterparts., Methods: We linked information on tort claims brought against 1465 nursing homes between 1998 and 2006 to 10 indicators of nursing home quality drawn from two U.S. national data sets: the Online Survey, Certification, and Reporting system and the Minimum Data Set Quality Measure/Indicator Report. We tested for associations between the incidence of claims and the quality measures at the facility calendar-quarter level, correcting for facility clustering and adjusting for case mix, ownership, occupancy, year, and state. Odds ratios were calculated for the effect of a change of 1 SD in each quality measure on the odds of one or more claims in each facility calendar-quarter., Results: Nursing homes with more deficiencies (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 1.13) and those with more serious deficiencies (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.08) had higher odds of being sued; this was also true for nursing homes that had more residents with weight loss (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.10) and with pressure ulcers (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.14). The odds of being sued were lower in nursing homes with more nurse's aide-hours per resident-day (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.99). However, all these effects were relatively small. For example, nursing homes with the best deficiency records (10th percentile) had a 40% annual risk of being sued, as compared with a 47% risk among nursing homes with the worst deficiency records (90th percentile)., Conclusions: The best-performing nursing homes are sued only marginally less than the worst-performing ones. Such weak discrimination may subvert the capacity of litigation to provide incentives to deliver safer care.

Objectives: To document the extent and appropriateness of use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines among nursing home residents using a nationally representative survey., Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of the 2004 National Nursing Home Survey. Bivariate and multivariate analyses examined relationships between resident and facility characteristics and antipsychotic and benzodiazepine use by appropriateness classification among residents aged 60 years and older (N = 12,090). Resident diagnoses and information about behavioral problems were used to categorize antipsychotic and benzodiazepine use as appropriate, potentially appropriate, or having no appropriate indication., Results: More than one quarter (26%) of nursing home residents used an antipsychotic medication, 40% of whom had no appropriate indication for such use. Among the 13% of residents who took benzodiazepines, 42% had no appropriate indication. In adjusted analyses, the odds of residents taking an antipsychotic without an appropriate indication were highest for residents with diagnoses of depression (odds ratio [OR] = 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.53), dementia (OR = 1.82; 95% CI: 1.52-2.18), and with behavioral symptoms (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.56-2.50). The odds of potentially inappropriate antipsychotic use increased as the percentage of Medicaid residents in a facility increased (OR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.02-1.15) and decreased as the percentage of Medicare residents increased (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.25-0.83). The odds of taking a benzodiazepine without an appropriate indication were highest among residents who were female (OR = 1.44; 95% CI: 1.18-1.75), white (OR = 1.95; 95% CI: 1.47-2.60), and had behavioral symptoms (OR = 1.69; 95% CI: 1.41-2.01)., Conclusion: Antipsychotics and benzodiazepines seem to be commonly prescribed to residents lacking an appropriate indication for their use.

Objective: To identify characteristics of nursing homes and residents associated with particularly long or short hospice stays., Design/setting: Observational study using administrative data on resident characteristics and hospice utilization from a large regional hospice linked with publicly available data on nursing home characteristics., Participants: A total of 13,479 residents who enrolled in hospice during 2001-2008., Measurements: Logistic regression models of the probability of a long (>180 days) or very short (

Many elderly people spend their final days in nursing homes. For them, high-quality end-of-life care is an important component of their overall care. Unfortunately, the Medicare hospice benefit-the primary source of palliative care coverage for Medicare beneficiaries-is a poor fit with the nursing home setting. We recommend creating a separate end-of-life Medicare benefit for nursing home residents based on documented need for services that neither requires physicians to certify a person's prognosis, nor requires beneficiaries to choose it or to agree to forgo curative care. Nursing homes would be paid directly for end-of-life care services and held accountable for their quality.

The U.S. Medicare hospice benefit has expanded considerably into the nursing home (NH) setting in recent years. This literature review focuses on the provision of NH hospice, exploring its growth and the impact of such care on NH residents, cost and efficiency implications for NHs and government, and policy challenges and important areas for future research. Although hospice utilization is relatively modest among NH residents, its increased availability holds great promise. As an alternative to traditional NH care, hospice has been shown to provide high-quality end-of-life care and offer benefits, such as reduced hospitalizations and improved pain management. The provision of NH hospice also has been shown to have positive effects on nonhospice residents, suggesting indirect benefits on NH clinical practices. Importantly, the expansion of hospice in NHs brings challenges, on both clinical and policy dimensions. Research has shown that NH-hospice collaborations require effective communication around residents' changing care needs and that a range of barriers can impede the integration of hospice and NH care. Moreover, the changing case mix of hospice patients, including increased hospice use by individuals with conditions such as dementia, presents challenges to Medicare's hospice payment and eligibility policies. To date, there has been little research comparing hospice costs, service intensity, and quality of care across settings, reflecting the fact that few comparative data have been available to researchers. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have taken steps toward collecting these data, and further research is needed to shed light on what refinements, if any, are necessary for the Medicare hospice program.

In the Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) program's latest Statement of Work, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is targeting its nursing home activities toward facilities that perform poorly on two quality measures-pressure ulcers and restraint use. The designation of target facilities is a shift in strategy for CMS and a direct response to criticism that QIO program resources were not being targeted effectively to facilities or clinical areas that most needed improvement. Using administrative data, this article analyzes implications of using narrowly defined criteria to identify facilities that need improvement, particularly in light of considerable evidence showing that nursing home quality is multidimensional and may change over time. The analyses show that one in four facilities is targeted for improvement nationally but that approximately half of some states' facilities are targeted while other states have almost none targeted. The analyses also convey deeper limitations to using threshold values on individual measures to identify poorly performing homes. Target facilities can be among the top performers on a range of other quality measures, and their performance on targeted measures themselves may change over time. The implication of these features is that a very different group of facilities would have been chosen had the QIO program targeted other measures or examined performance at a different point in time. Ultimately, CMS has chosen a blunt instrument to identify poorly performing nursing homes, and supplemental strategies-such as soliciting input from state survey agencies and more closely aligning quality improvement and quality assurance efforts-should be considered to address potential limitations.

Private equity investors have recently targeted nursing home chains as investment opportunities. Media attention has raised quality-of-care concerns, but little has been published in the research literature on the topic. Using a multivariate framework, we assessed how private equity purchases of nursing homes affected a range of outcomes. Although some transactions are quite recent, we found little evidence to suggest that nursing home quality worsens significantly following purchase by private equity companies. Nonetheless, recent nursing home ownership trends raise important questions about oversight and accountability, whose answers extend beyond private equity ownership.

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to explore how the introduction of Medicare Part D is changing the operations of long-term-care pharmacies (LTCPs) and nursing homes, as well as implications of those changes for nursing home residents., Design and Methods: We reviewed existing sources of information and interviewed stakeholders across various perspectives. We conducted 31 semistructured telephone interviews with key stakeholders between November 2006 and January 2007., Results: Part D represents a substantial departure from how prescription drugs were previously financed and administered in nursing homes, and nursing home providers and LTCPs have struggled in adapting to some of these changes. Part D increased the variation around formularies and drug management processes for residents at the facility level, creating additional burden on clinical and pharmacy staff and introducing a tension between facilities' need to dispense medications quickly and assuring of coverage for those drugs. Nursing home and LTCP stakeholders perceive wide variation across Part D plans in their ability to meet the needs of nursing home residents., Implications: Although LTCPs, nursing homes and their clinicians, and Part D plans will gain experience with the benefit in the nursing home setting over time, stakeholders we interviewed identified a range of longer term issues and questions that merit attention as the benefit proceeds.

Objective: To examine the effects of ownership conversions on nursing home performance., Data Source: Online Survey, Certification, and Reporting system data from 1993 to 2004, and the Minimum Data Set (MDS) facility reports from 1998 to 2004., Study Design: Regression specification incorporating facility fixed effects, with terms to identify trends in the pre- and postconversion periods., Principal Findings: The annual rate of nursing home conversions almost tripled between 1994 and 2004. Our regression results indicate converting facilities are generally different throughout the pre/postconversion years, suggesting little causal effect of ownership conversions on nursing home performance. Before and after conversion, nursing homes converting from nonprofit to for-profit status generally exhibit deterioration in their performance, while nursing homes converting from for-profit to nonprofit status generally exhibit improvement., Conclusions: Policy makers have expressed concern regarding the implications of ownership conversions for nursing home performance. Our results imply that regulators and policy makers should not only monitor the outcomes of nursing home conversions, but also the targets of these conversions.

Some nursing facility administrators and physicians have raised concerns about the increased administrative burden of working across multiple Part D prescription drug plans (PDPs), citing the possibility for adverse resident outcomes and financial burden on facilities when PDPs reject drug claims for residents. We examined data on claims in rejected status for one large long-term care pharmacy as of December 2006. There was considerable variation across PDPs in both rejection rates and reasons for rejection.

Objective: To compare hospice care delivered at home with hospice care delivered in institutional settings, such as the nursing home., Data Source: Secondary data from the 1994, 1996, 1998, and 2000 waves of the National Home and Hospice Care Survey, a nationally representative survey of home health and hospice care agencies in the United States and their current and discharged patients., Study Design: We describe recipients, use of services, and length of enrollment for hospice received at home compared to hospice received in institutional settings. Comparisons of service use and lengths of enrollment are adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, location, Charlson score, payer status, and linear time trends., Principal Findings: Hospice use in the United States has grown considerably over the last decade, especially among individuals in institutional settings. Institutional hospice users were older than home hospice users; more likely to be female, unmarried, and dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid; and more likely to have primary diagnoses other than cancer. Although institutional hospice users were more likely to have received certain types of services compared to recipients at home, they were much more likely to be enrolled for 1 week or less., Conclusions: These national data point to significant differences across hospice settings and a growing need to analyze their implications. Yet, these data also leave many questions about hospice use across settings unanswered, including whether agency costs differ in institutional compared to home settings. As policymakers seek to assess the quality and appropriateness of hospice utilization and the methods used for its payment, further empirical work is needed, including how the growing use of hospice outside the home affects options for reform.

The objective of this study was to analyze national Part D formulary data to assess adequacy of coverage across seven drug classes commonly used by nursing home residents and older people, focusing on individuals dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and plans in which they enroll. Focusing at the molecule level, reasonably broad coverage across drug classes and minimal prior authorization overall was found. Of nonprotected classes, 69% of plans cover at least four of five Alzheimer's medications, 76% cover at least three of four bisphosphonates, 86% cover at least three of five proton pump inhibitors, and 61% cover at least four of six 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins). Nevertheless, a minority of plans are less generous, and some drug formulations important to nursing home residents are covered less well. For example, 11% of plans cover only one or two of the six statins. Of protected drug classes, plans generally cover all molecules, as expected. The majority of plans require no prior authorization for covered medications in six of seven classes reviewed (excepting bisphosphonates). A minority of plans once again are more stringent. For example, 22% and 9% of Part D Plans nationally require prior authorization for all covered Alzheimer's drugs and proton pump inhibitors, respectively. Random assignment of dually eligible patients to below-benchmark plans means that some residents initially will be enrolled in these more-restrictive plans. Part D allows nursing home residents to switch plans at any time, but there are important barriers to residents' self-advocacy. Finally, it is unclear how well nursing homes and the pharmacies they work with will work across Part D plans, and vigilance will be required as the benefit proceeds.

Publicizing quality information has been used as a quality improvement strategy in the acute care sector for more than a decade. Despite research showing mixed results of these efforts, publicly reporting quality measures is currently being pursued as a quality improvement strategy for nursing homes. Designed to empower consumers to make informed choices and to stimulate provider competition on quality, nursing home public reporting began in 1998 with the Nursing Home Compare Web site and has received greater emphasis in the 2002 Nursing Home Quality Initiative, both directed by the federal government. Focusing on the response of three key stakeholder groups across settings of care-consumers, providers, and purchasers-I identify several challenges that nursing home reporting must overcome to be successful. I conclude that publicly reporting quality measures for nursing homes will have a harder time promoting quality improvement than for acute care settings, where results have been disappointing thus far. In addition to the conceptual analysis, I evaluate whether the quality information reported on Nursing Home Compare had any impact on nursing home occupancy rates following its release. Using a pre/post-release design, I find that the effect of public reporting on nursing home occupancy rates has been minimal thus far. Although some estimates of effect are statistically significant and in the hypothesized direction, they all suggest very small effect sizes. It is unclear whether the absence of a larger reporting effect to date is specific to Nursing Home Compare or whether it inheres to the broader task of using quality information to promote change in the nursing home care sector.

This study uses 5 years of national data on investigated nursing home complaints (1998-2002) to evaluate whether complaints might be used to assess nursing home quality of care. On-Line Survey Certification and Reporting (OSCAR) data are used to evaluate the association between consumer complaints, facility and resident characteristics, and other nursing home quality measures. The analyses are undertaken in the context of considerable cross-state variation in nursing home complaint processes and rates. Complaints varied across facility characteristics in ways consistent with the nursing home quality literature. Complaints were significantly positively associated with survey deficiencies and the presence of serious survey deficiencies, and significantly negatively associated with nurse and nurse aide staffing. Complaints performance was significantly predictive of survey deficiencies at subsequent inspections. This study presents the first national evidence for using consumer complaints to assess nursing home quality of care. Despite limitations, nursing home complaints appear to offer a real-time signal of quality concerns.

Background: State survey agencies collect and investigate consumer complaints for care in nursing homes and other health care settings. Complaint investigations play a key role in quality assurance, because they can respond to concerns of consumers and families., Objective: This study uses 5 years of nursing home complaints data from Massachusetts (1998-2002) to investigate whether complaints might be used to assess nursing home quality of care., Research Design: The investigator matches facility-level complaints data with On-Line Survey Certification and Reporting (OSCAR) data and Minimum Data Set Quality Indicator (MDS QI) data to evaluate the association between consumer complaints, facility and resident characteristics, and other nursing home quality measures., Results: Consumer complaints varied across facility characteristics in ways consistent with the nursing home quality literature. Complaints were consistently and significantly associated with survey deficiencies, the presence of a serious survey deficiency, and nurse aide staffing. Complaints were not significantly associated with nurse staffing, and associations with 6 MDS QIs were mixed. The number of complaints was significantly predictive of survey deficiencies identified at the subsequent inspection., Conclusion: Nursing home consumer complaints provide a supplemental tool with which to differentiate nursing homes on quality. Despite limitations, complaints data have potential strengths when used in combination with other quality measures. The potential of using consumer complaints to assess nursing home quality of care should be evaluated in states beyond Massachusetts. Evaluating consumer complaints also might be a productive area of inquiry for other health care settings such as hospitals and home health agencies.

The medical malpractice crisis that is currently spreading across the United States bears many similarities to earlier crises. One novel aspect of the current crisis is the explicit inclusion of litigation against nursing homes as a target of reform. Encouraged by the nursing home industry, policymakers are considering the extension of conventional medical malpractice tort reforms to the nursing home sector. In this article, we caution against such an approach. Nursing home litigation has a number of distinctive features that raise serious questions about the wisdom of implementing reforms generically across the care continuum. Drawing on findings from our previous study of nursing home litigation, we outline these features and argue for careful attention to them as policymakers evaluate options for reform.

Lawsuits against nursing homes are a relatively recent phenomenon. Despite a growing sense of alarm among policymakers, little is known about these lawsuits' scale, dynamics, or outcomes. To describe these characteristics, we conducted a Web-based survey of attorneys nationwide who bring and defend this litigation. Our respondents and their firms were involved in 4,677 and 8,256 claims, respectively, in 2001; more than half of these claims were in Florida and Texas. The costs of nursing home litigation are substantial, both in the aggregate and per claim, especially in states where the litigation is most prevalent. These findings elevate concerns about quality of nursing home care and indicate that litigation diverts resources from resident care, which may fuel quality problems.

Many states have responded to growing Medicaid long-term care expenditures by limiting the number of long-term care providers through certificate-of-need (CON) programs and moratoriums on new construction or certification for participation in the Medicaid program. This article focuses on the use of these policies in 13 states. Most of the 13 states control the supply of nursing home beds and hospital conversions with CONs or moratoriums, but they are struggling to adapt the role of supply policy to the growth of home health and residential care. As an increasing proportion of Medicaid long-term care spending goes to these nursing home alternatives, supply policy needs to keep pace with the changing provider market and the changing demographics of the consumer market if it hopes to ensure access to long-term care and control Medicaid expenditures.