Search

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease and stroke are common and costly, and their prevalence is rising. Forecasts on the prevalence of risk factors and clinical events are crucial. METHODS: Using the 2015 to March 2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and 2015 to 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we estimated trends in prevalence for cardiovascular risk factors based on adverse levels of Life's Essential 8 and clinical cardiovascular disease and stroke. We projected through 2050, overall and by age and race and ethnicity, accounting for changes in disease prevalence and demographics. RESULTS: We estimate that among adults, prevalence of hypertension will increase from 51.2% in 2020 to 61.0% in 2050. Diabetes (16.3% to 26.8%) and obesity (43.1% to 60.6%) will increase, whereas hypercholesterolemia will decline (45.8% to 24.0%). The prevalences of poor diet, inadequate physical activity, and smoking are estimated to improve over time, whereas inadequate sleep will worsen. Prevalences of coronary disease (7.8% to 9.2%), heart failure (2.7% to 3.8%), stroke (3.9% to 6.4%), atrial fibrillation (1.7% to 2.4%), and total cardiovascular disease (11.3% to 15.0%) will rise. Clinical CVD will affect 45 million adults, and CVD including hypertension will affect more than 184 million adults by 2050 (>61%). Similar trends are projected in children. Most adverse trends are projected to be worse among people identifying as American Indian/Alaska Native or multiracial, Black, or Hispanic. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of many cardiovascular risk factors and most established diseases will increase over the next 30 years. Clinical and public health interventions are needed to effectively manage, stem, and even reverse these adverse trends. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the health economics of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the United States. CVD is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the country, resulting in significant direct medical spending and indirect costs. The economic burden of CVD is felt at various levels, including society, clinicians, and individual patients or families. Factors such as obesity, hypertension, and the increasing cost of cardiovascular medications and procedures contribute to the rising medical spending and indirect costs associated with CVD. Demographic shifts, including the aging and diversification of the population, are projected to drive cost growth and the need for cardiovascular services. Structural and systemic racism and other inequities contribute to the disproportionate burden of CVD borne by Black, Hispanic, and Native American individuals. The tension between the price and speed of innovation and health economics is also discussed, with high-priced but highly effective drugs facing challenges in uptake due to their unaffordability. The article emphasizes the need for policy interventions to address these issues, including reducing the unit costs of high-priced treatments, increasing access to innovative care, and reducing health care spending through prevention and addressing high prices. The economic trends facing clinicians, such as consolidation, corporatization, and private equity ownership, are also highlighted, along with the financial burdens faced by individuals and families affected by CVD. The article concludes by emphasizing the importance of prioritizing access, quality, and prevention to maximize cardiovascular health for all individuals in the United States. [Extracted from the article]

Despite higher per-capita health care spending than any other country, the United States lags far behind in health outcomes. Additionally, there are significant health inequities by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic position, and rurality. One set of potential solutions to improve these outcomes and reduce inequities is through health policy. Policy focused on improving access to care through insurance coverage, such as the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, has led to better health and reduced mortality. Policy aimed at improving health care delivery, including value-based payment and alternative payment models, has improved quality of care but has had little impact on population health outcomes. Policies that influence broader issues of economic opportunity likely have a strong influence on health, but lack the evidence base of more targeted interventions. To advance health outcomes and equity, further policy change is crucial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Traditional cardiac rehabilitation (CR) improves cardiovascular outcomes and reduces mortality, but less is known about the relative benefit of intensive CR (ICR) which incorporates greater lifestyle education through 72 sessions (versus 36 in CR). Our objective was to determine whether ICR is associated with a mortality and cardiovascular benefit compared with CR. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare Fee-For-Service beneficiaries in a 100% sample, claims data set. Qualifying events were captured from May 1, 2016 to December 31, 2019 and ICR/CR utilization captured from May 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020. Among patients attending at least 1 day of either CR or ICR, Cox proportional hazards models using a 1 to 5 propensity score match were used to compare utilization and the association of ICR versus CR participation with (1) all-cause mortality and (2) cardiovascular-related hospitalizations or nonfatal cardiac events. Dose-response was assessed by the number of days attended. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2019, 1 277 358 unique patients met at least one qualifying indication for ICR/CR from 2016 to 2019. Of these, 262 579 (20.6%) and 4452 (0.4%) attended at least one session of CR or ICR, respectively (mean [SD] age, 73.2 [7.8] years; 32.3% female). In the matched sample, including 26 659 total patients (median, 2.4-year follow-up), ICR was associated with 12% lower all-cause mortality (multivariable adjusted hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78--0.99]; P=0.036) compared with CR but no significant difference for cardiovascular-related hospitalization or nonfatal cardiac events. The mortality benefit was seen for both ICR and CR per day strata, with each modality demonstrating a clear dose-response benefit. CONCLUSIONS: ICR is associated with lower mortality than traditional CR among Medicare beneficiaries but no difference in cardiovascular-related hospitalization or nonfatal cardiac events. Moreover, ICR and CR demonstrate a dose-response relationship for mortality. Additional studies are needed to confirm these observations and to better understand the mechanisms by which ICR may lead to a reduction in mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A study published in the European Heart Journal analyzed trends in cardiovascular hospitalizations and in-hospital mortality among young and middle-aged adults in the USA between 2008 and 2019. The study found that hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and ischemic stroke increased during this period, while in-hospital mortality rates for these conditions slightly declined. The burden of comorbidities, particularly diabetes, kidney disease, and obesity, also increased among hospitalized patients. The study highlighted disparities in hospitalization rates and mortality based on income and insurance status, with low-income individuals and people identifying as Black or Hispanic being disproportionately affected. The authors suggested that a multifaceted approach is needed to address the increasing rates of hospitalizations and disparities in cardiovascular health, including raising awareness of disparities, improving access to care, and implementing interventions that address social determinants of health. [Extracted from the article]

Background: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation launched the Medicare Bundled Payments for Care Improvement-Advanced (BPCI-A) program for hospitals in October 2018. Information is needed about the effects of the program on health care utilization and Medicare payments.Methods: We conducted a modified segmented regression analysis using Medicare claims and including patients with discharge dates from January 2017 through September 2019 to assess differences between BPCI-A participants and two control groups: hospitals that never joined the BPCI-A program (nonjoining hospitals) and hospitals that joined the BPCI-A program in January 2020, after the conclusion of the intervention period (late-joining hospitals). The primary outcomes were the differences in changes in quarterly trends in 90-day per-episode Medicare payments and the percentage of patients with readmission within 90 days after discharge. Secondary outcomes were mortality, volume, and case mix.Results: A total of 826 BPCI-A participant hospitals were compared with 2016 nonjoining hospitals and 334 late-joining hospitals. Among BPCI-A hospitals, the mean baseline 90-day per-episode Medicare payment was $27,315; the change in the quarterly trends in the intervention period as compared with baseline was -$78 per quarter. Among nonjoining hospitals, the mean baseline 90-day per-episode Medicare payment was $25,994; the change in quarterly trends as compared with baseline was -$26 per quarter (difference between nonjoining hospitals and BPCI-A hospitals, $52 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 34 to 70] per quarter; P<0.001; 0.2% of the baseline payment). Among late-joining hospitals, the mean baseline 90-day per-episode Medicare payment was $26,807; the change in the quarterly trends as compared with baseline was $4 per quarter (difference between late-joining hospitals and BPCI-A hospitals, $82 [95% CI, 41 to 122] per quarter; P<0.001; 0.3% of the baseline payment). There were no meaningful differences in the changes with regard to readmission, mortality, volume, or case mix.Conclusions: The BPCI-A program was associated with small reductions in Medicare payments among participating hospitals as compared with control hospitals. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the mixed outcomes of bundled payment programs in hospitals and physician groups aimed at reducing healthcare expenditures. Programs like the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) have achieved small spending reductions but disproportionately penalized hospitals serving marginalized patients, despite comparable performance to other facilities.

OBJECTIVES: In 2018, CMS established reimbursement for the first Medicare-covered artificial intelligence (AI)--enabled clinical software: CT fractional flow reserve (FFRCT) to assist in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. This study quantified Medicare utilization of and spending on FFRCT from 2018 through 2022 and characterized adopting hospitals, clinicians, and patients. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis, using 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims data, of the hospitals, clinicians, and patients who performed or received coronary CT angiography with or without FFRCT. METHODS: We measured annual trends in utilization of and spending on FFRCT among hospitals and clinicians from 2018 through 2022. Characteristics of FFRCT-adopting and nonadopting hospitals and clinicians were compared, as well as the characteristics of patients who received FFRCT vs those who did not. RESULTS: From 2018 to 2022, FFRCT billing volume in Medicare increased more than 11-fold (from 1083 to 12,363 claims). Compared with nonbilling hospitals, FFRCT-billing hospitals were more likely to be larger, part of a health system, nonprofit, and financially profitable. FFRCT-billing clinicians worked in larger group practices and were more likely to be cardiac specialists. FFRCT-receiving patients were more likely to be male and White and less likely to be dually enrolled in Medicaid or receiving disability benefits. CONCLUSIONS: In the initial 5 years of Medicare reimbursement for FFRCT, growth was concentrated among well-resourced hospitals and clinicians. As Medicare begins to reimburse clinicians for the use of AI-enabled clinical software such as FFRCT, it is crucial to monitor the diffusion of these services to ensure equal access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) launched the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative in 2013. A subsequent study showed that the initiative was associated with reductions in Medicare payments for total joint replacement, but little is known about the effect of BPCI on medical conditions.Methods: We used Medicare claims from 2013 through 2015 to identify admissions for the five most commonly selected medical conditions in BPCI: congestive heart failure (CHF), pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), sepsis, and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We used difference-in-differences analyses to assess changes in standardized Medicare payments per episode of care (defined as the hospitalization plus 90 days after discharge) for these conditions at BPCI hospitals and matched control hospitals.Results: A total of 125 hospitals participated in BPCI for CHF, 105 hospitals for pneumonia, 101 hospitals for COPD, 88 hospitals for sepsis, and 73 hospitals for AMI. At baseline, the average Medicare payment per episode of care across the five conditions at BPCI hospitals was $24,280, which decreased to $23,993 during the intervention period (difference, -$286; P=0.41). Control hospitals had an average payment for all episodes of $23,901, which decreased to $23,503 during the intervention period (difference, -$398; P=0.08; difference in differences, $112; P=0.79). Changes from baseline to the intervention period in clinical complexity, length of stay, emergency department use or readmission within 30 or 90 days after hospital discharge, or death within 30 or 90 days after admission did not differ significantly between the intervention and control hospitals.Conclusions: Hospital participation in five common medical bundles under BPCI was not associated with significant changes in Medicare payments, clinical complexity, length of stay, emergency department use, hospital readmission, or mortality. (Funded by the Commonwealth Fund.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health services researchers now have enhanced opportunities for overcoming past obstacles to their work being relevant and useful for policy makers. Understanding the policy process itself is essential to taking advantage of these opportunities. Public policy making can be a complex process, and even the highest-quality evidence is only one of many factors considered and balanced during deliberations. We use a recent research report focused on social risk factors and provider performance as an example of the role evidence plays in policy deliberations. The report addressed the question of whether Medicare's value-based purchasing programs should be adjusted for patients' social risk factors. Despite high-quality and consistent results about the relationship between performance and social risk factors, policy deliberations did not result in a simple recommendation about making adjustments. Thus, the report offers a window into the role of research evidence in the development of policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent policy efforts have focused on improving the value of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) care. Medicare payment programs, for example, increasingly evaluate hospital performance based on spending, as determined by payments made to institutions and providers, and outcome measures for a longitudinal episode of AMI care. Little is known about the relationship between total 30-day payments-both in the inpatient and immediate postdischarge timeframe-and outcomes after an admission for AMI.Methods and Results: Using Medicare claims data, we identified Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries ≥65 years of age who were hospitalized at an acute-care hospital for AMI between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2014, and examined the association between hospital-level 30-day payments for an episode of AMI care and patient 30-day mortality using mixed regression models with a logit link function and random hospital intercepts. Our cohort included 642 105 index hospitalizations for AMI at 2319 acute-care hospitals. Overall mean 30-day episode payments per beneficiary were $22 128 (SD, $1750). The observed 30-day mortality rate was 12.9%. Higher 30-day payments were associated with lower 30-day mortality after adjustment for patient characteristics and comorbidities (adjusted odds ratio for additional $1000 payments, 0.986; 95% confidence interval, 0.979-0.992; P<0.001). Additional adjustment for potential mediating factors, including hospital characteristics, coronary revascularization rates, and discharge disposition, did not significantly attenuate the relationship (adjusted odds ratio for additional $1000 payments, 0.987; 95% confidence interval, 0.980-0.994; P<0.001).Conclusions: Higher hospital-level 30-day payments-both inpatient and in multiple settings after discharge-for AMI care were associated with lower 30-day mortality among beneficiaries. This may have implications for payment programs that incent reduction in payments without considering value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]