Dataset Information

What Drives Variation in Episode-of-care Payments for Primary TKA? An Analysis of Medicare Administrative Data.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Episode-of-care payments are defined as a single lump-sum payment for all services associated with a single medical event or surgery and are designed to incentivize efficiency and integration among providers and healthcare systems. A TKA is considered an exemplar for an episode-of-care payment model by many policymakers, but data describing variation payments between hospitals for TKA are extremely limited.

Questions/purposes

We asked: (1) How much variation is there between hospitals in episode-of-care payments for primary TKA? (2) Is variation in payment explained by differences in hospital structural characteristics such as teaching status or geographic location, patient factors (age, sex, ethnicity, comorbidities), and discharge disposition during the postoperative period (home versus skilled nursing facility)? (3) After accounting for those factors, what proportion of the observed variation remains unexplained?

Methods

We used Medicare administrative data to identify fee-for-service beneficiaries who underwent a primary elective TKA in 2009. After excluding low-volume hospitals, we created longitudinal records for all patients undergoing TKAs in eligible hospitals encompassing virtually all payments by Medicare for a 120-day window around the TKA (30 days before to 90 days after). We examined payments for the preoperative, perioperative, and postdischarge periods based on the hospital where the TKA was performed. Confounding variables were controlled for using multivariate analyses to determine whether differences in hospital payments could be explained by differences in patient demographics, comorbidity, or hospital structural factors.

Results

There was considerable variation in payments across hospitals. Median (interquartile range) hospital preoperative, perioperative, postdischarge, and 120-day payments for patients who did not experience a complication were USD 623 (USD 516-768), USD 13,119 (USD 12,165-14,668), USD 8020 (USD 6403-9933), and USD 21,870 (USD 19,736-25,041), respectively. Variation cannot be explained by differences in hospital structure. Median (interquartile range) episode payments were greater for hospitals in the Northeast (USD 26,291 [22,377-30,323]) compared with the Midwest, South, and West (USD 20,614, [USD 18,592-22.968]; USD 21,584, [USD 19,663-23,941]; USD 22,421, [USD 20,317-25,860]; p < 0.001) and for teaching compared with nonteaching hospitals (USD 23,152 [USD 20,426-27,127] versus USD 21,336 [USD 19,352-23,846]; p < 0.001). Patient characteristics explained approximately 15% of the variance in hospital payments, hospital characteristics (teaching status, geographic region) explained 30% of variance, and approximately 55% of variance was not explained by either factor.

Conclusions

There is much unexplained variation in episode-of-care payments at the hospital-level, suggesting opportunities for enhanced efficiency. Further research is needed to ensure an appropriate balance between such efficiencies and access to care.

Level of evidence

Level II, economic analysis.

SUBMITTER: Cram P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4586190 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What Drives Variation in Episode-of-care Payments for Primary TKA? An Analysis of Medicare Administrative Data.

Cram Peter P Ravi Bheeshma B Vaughan-Sarrazin Mary S MS Lu Xin X Li Yue Y Hawker Gillian G

Clinical orthopaedics and related research 20150804 11

<h4>Background</h4>Episode-of-care payments are defined as a single lump-sum payment for all services associated with a single medical event or surgery and are designed to incentivize efficiency and integration among providers and healthcare systems. A TKA is considered an exemplar for an episode-of-care payment model by many policymakers, but data describing variation payments between hospitals for TKA are extremely limited.<h4>Questions/purposes</h4>We asked: (1) How much variation is there be ...[more]

PMID: 26239239

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The purpose of this study was to examine the association of 30-day payments for an episode of heart failure (HF) care at the hospital level with patient outcomes. BACKGROUND:There is increased focus among policymakers on improving value for HF care, given its rising prevalence and associated financial burden in the United States; however, little is known about the relationship between payments and mortality for a 30-day episode of HF care. METHODS:Using Medicare claims data for all fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized for HF between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2014, we examined the association between 30-day Medicare payments at the hospital level (beginning with a hospital admission for HF and across multiple settings following discharge) and patient 30-day mortality using mixed-effect logistic regression models. RESULTS:We included 1,343,792 patients hospitalized for HF across 2,948 hospitals. Mean hospital-level 30-day Medicare payments per beneficiary were $15,423 ± $1,523. Overall observed mortality in the cohort was 11.3%. Higher hospital-level 30-day payments were associated with lower patient mortality after adjustment for patient characteristics (odds ratio per $1,000 increase in payments: 0.961; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.954 to 0.967). This relationship was slightly attenuated after accounting for hospital characteristics and HF volume, but remained significant (odds ratio per $1,000 increase: 0.968; 95% CI: 0.962 to 0.975). Additional adjustment for potential mediating factors, including cardiac service capability and post-acute service use, did not significantly affect the relationship. CONCLUSIONS:Higher hospital-level 30-day episode payments were associated with lower patient mortality following a hospitalization for HF. This has implications for policies that incentivize reduction in payments without considering value. Further investigation is needed to understand the mechanisms that underlie this relationship.

Project description: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.

Project description:ImportanceMedicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) is a voluntary pilot program evaluating bundled payments for several common cardiovascular conditions. Evaluating the external validity of this program is important for understanding the effects of bundled payments on cardiovascular care.ObjectiveTo determine whether participants in BPCI cardiovascular bundles are representative of US acute care hospitals and identify factors associated with participation.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cross-sectional study of hospitals participating in BPCI model 2 bundles for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure (CHF), coronary artery bypass graft, and percutaneous coronary intervention and nonparticipating control hospitals (October 2013 to January 2017). The BPCI participants were identified using data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and controls were identified using the 2013 American Hospital Association's Survey of US Hospitals. Hospital structural characteristics and clinical performance data were obtained from the American Heart Association survey and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. One hundred fifty-nine hospitals participating in BPCI model 2 cardiac bundles and 1240 nonparticipating control hospitals were compared, and a multivariable logistic regression was estimated to identify predictors of BPCI participation.ExposuresBundled payments.Main outcomes and measuresHospital-level structural characteristics and 30-day risk-adjusted readmission and mortality rates for AMI and CHF.ResultsCompared with nonparticipants, BPCI participants were larger, more likely to be privately owned or teaching hospitals, had lower Medicaid bed day ratios (ratio of Medicaid inpatient days to total inpatient days: 17.0 vs 19.3; P < .001), and were less likely to be safety net hospitals (2.5% vs 12.3%; P < .001). The BPCI participants had higher AMI and CHF discharge volumes, were more likely to have cardiac intensive care units and catheterization laboratories, and had lower risk-standardized 30-day mortality rates for AMI (13.7% vs 16.6%; P = .001) and CHF (11.3 vs 12.4; P = .005). In multivariable analysis, larger hospital size and access to a cardiac catheterization laboratory were positively associated with participation. Being a safety net hospital was negatively associated with participation (odds ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.7; P = .001).Conclusions and relevanceHospitals participating in BPCI model 2 cardiac bundles differed in significant ways from nonparticipating hospitals. The BPCI outcomes may therefore have limited external validity, particularly among small and safety net hospitals with limited clinical cardiac services.

Project description:ObjectivesChallenges with manual methodologies to identify frailty, have led to enthusiasm for utilising large-scale administrative data, particularly standardised diagnostic codes. However, concerns have been raised regarding coding reliability and variability. We aimed to quantify variation in coding frailty syndromes within standardised diagnostic code fields of an international dataset.SettingPooled data from 37 hospitals in 10 countries from 2010 to 2014.ParticipantsPatients ≥75 years with admission of >24 hours (N=1 404 671 patient episodes).Primary and secondary outcome measuresFrailty syndrome groups were coded in all standardised diagnostic fields by creation of a binary flag if the relevant diagnosis was present in the 12 months leading to index admission. Volume and percentages of coded frailty syndrome groups by age, gender, year and country were tabulated, and trend analysis provided in line charts. Descriptive statistics including mean, range, and coefficient of variation (CV) were calculated. Relationship to in-hospital mortality, hospital readmission and length of stay were visualised as bar charts.ResultsThe top four contributors were UK, US, Norway and Australia, which accounted for 75.4% of the volume of admissions. There were 553 595 (39.4%) patient episodes with at least one frailty syndrome group coded. The two most frequently coded frailty syndrome groups were 'Falls and Fractures' (N=3 36 087; 23.9%) and 'Delirium and Dementia' (N=221 072; 15.7%), with the lowest CV. Trend analysis revealed some coding instability over the frailty syndrome groups from 2010 to 2014. The four countries with the lowest CV for coded frailty syndrome groups were Belgium, Australia, USA and UK. There was up to twofold, fourfold and twofold variation difference for outcomes of length of stay, 30-day readmission and inpatient mortality, respectively, across the countries.ConclusionsVariation in coding frequency for frailty syndromes in standardised diagnostic fields are quantified and described. Recommendations are made to account for this variation when producing risk prediction models.

Dataset Information

What Drives Variation in Episode-of-care Payments for Primary TKA? An Analysis of Medicare Administrative Data.

Background

Questions/purposes

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of evidence

Publications

What Drives Variation in Episode-of-care Payments for Primary TKA? An Analysis of Medicare Administrative Data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets