Less Intense Postacute Care, Better Outcomes For Enrollees In Medicare Advantage Than Those In Fee-For-Service.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Huckfeldt PJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5521268 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Reimbursement for colonic pathology by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are grouped in the Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Groups (MS-DRG). With limited available data, we sought to compare the relative impact of malignant vs benign colonic pathology on reimbursement under the MS-DRG system. METHODS:We used 5% national Medicare data from 2011 to 2014. Patients were classified as having benign disease or malignancy. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression analysis were used to evaluate the surgical approach and health resource utilization. RESULTS:Of 10?928 patients, most were Non-Hispanic White women. The majority underwent open colectomy in both cohorts (P?<?.001). Colectomy for benign disease was associated with higher total charges (P?<?.001) and a longer length of stay (P?=?.0002). Despite higher charges, payments were not significantly different between the cohorts (P?=?.434). Both inpatient mortality and discharge to a rehab facility were higher in the oncologic group (P?<?.001). CONCLUSION:Payment methodology for colectomy under the CMS MS-DRG system does not appear to accurately reflect the episode cost of care. The data suggest that inpatient costs are not fully compensated. A transition to value-based payments with expanded episode duration will require a better understanding of unique costs before adoption.
| S-EPMC6635007 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently identified 30-day readmission after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation facilities as a national quality indicator. Research is needed to determine the rates and factors related to readmission in this patient population.ObjectiveTo determine 30-day readmission rates and factors related to readmission for patients receiving postacute inpatient rehabilitation.Design, setting, and patientsRetrospective cohort study of records for 736,536 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries (mean age, 78.0 [SD, 7.3] years) discharged from 1365 inpatient rehabilitation facilities to the community in 2006 through 2011. Sixty-three percent of patients were women, and 85.1% were non-Hispanic white.Main outcomes and measuresThirty-day readmission rates for the 6 largest diagnostic impairment categories receiving inpatient rehabilitation. These included stroke, lower extremity fracture, lower extremity joint replacement, debility, neurologic disorders, and brain dysfunction.ResultsMean rehabilitation length of stay was 12.4 (SD, 5.3) days. The overall 30-day readmission rate was 11.8% (95% CI, 11.7%-11.8%). Rates ranged from 5.8% (95% CI, 5.8%-5.9%) for patients with lower extremity joint replacement to 18.8% (95% CI, 18.8%-18.9%). for patients with debility. Rates were highest in men (13.0% [ 95% CI, 12.8%-13.1%], vs 11.0% [95% CI, 11.0%-11.1%] in women), non-Hispanic blacks (13.8% [95% CI, 13.5%-14.1%], vs 11.5% [95% CI, 11.5%-11.6%] in whites, 12.5% [95% CI, 12.1%-12.8%] in Hispanics, and 11.9% [95% CI, 11.4%-12.4%] in other races/ethnicities), beneficiaries with dual eligibility (15.1% [95% CI, 14.9%-15.4%], vs 11.1% [95% CI, 11.0%-11.2%] for no dual eligibility), and in patients with tier 1 comorbidities (25.6% [95% CI, 24.9%-26.3%], vs 18.9% [95% CI, 18.5%-19.3%] for tier 2, 15.1% [95% CI, 14.9%-15.3%] for tier 3, and 9.9% [95% CI, 9.9%-10.0%] for no tier comorbidities). Higher motor and cognitive functional status were associated with lower hospital readmission rates across the 6 impairment categories. Adjusted readmission rates by state ranged from 9.2% to 13.6%. Approximately 50% of patients rehospitalized within the 30-day period were readmitted within 11 days of discharge. Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group codes for heart failure, urinary tract infection, pneumonia, septicemia, nutritional and metabolic disorders, esophagitis, gastroenteritis, and digestive disorders were common reasons for readmission.Conclusions and relevanceAmong postacute rehabilitation facilities providing services to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, 30-day readmission rates ranged from 5.8% to 18.8% for selected impairment groups. Further research is needed to understand the causes of readmission.
| S-EPMC4085109 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDecreasing use of low-value care is a major goal for Medicare given the potential to decrease costs and harms. Compared with traditional fee-for-service Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) is more strongly financially incentivized to decrease use of low-value care.ObjectivesTo compare use of low-value care among individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA overall and to examine trends in use of low-value care in both programs from 2006 to 2015.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed individuals enrolled in TM and MA using data from the 2006 to 2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. To account for differences in characteristics between individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA, a propensity score-based approach was used. Data were analyzed from August 2020 through January 2021.ExposuresBeing enrolled in MA or TM.Main outcomes and measuresBinary measures of use were collected for 13 low-value services in 4 categories (ie, [1] cancer screening: cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening in older adults; [2] antibiotic use: antibiotic for acute upper respiratory infection and antibiotic for influenza; [3] medication: anxiolytic, sedative, or hypnotic in an adult older than 65 years; benzodiazepine for depression; opioid for headache; opioid for back pain; and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID] for hypertension, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease; and [4] imaging: magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or computed tomography [CT] for back pain, radiograph for back pain, and MRI or CT for headache) and 4 low-value composites corresponding to the categories (ie, cancer screening composite, antibiotic use composite, medication composite, and imaging composite).ResultsAmong 11 677 individuals enrolled in TM and 5164 individuals enrolled in MA, 9429 (56.0%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 74.5 (6.3) years. Of 13 low-value services and 4 low-value composites, statistically significant differences were found in 2 measures. For the low-value medication composite, 2054 of 11 636 eligible individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 17.6%; 95% CI, 16.8%-18.3%) received the care, and 981 of 5141 eligible individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 19.7%; 95% CI, 18.3%-21.2%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5-3.8 percentage points; P = .02). For the NSAID use for hypertension, heart failure, or kidney disease metric, 807 of 7832 individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 10.0%; 95% CI, 9.2%-10.8%) received the care, and 447 of 3566 individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 12.9%; 95% CI, 19.7%-27.1%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI, 1.3-4.6 percentage points; P = .001). Overall, there were no decreases in use of low-value care in TM or MA over time.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that use of low-value care was similarly prevalent in MA and TM, suggesting that MA enrollment was not associated with decreased provision of low-value care compared with TM.
| S-EPMC7970337 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:In 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services introduced mandatory bundled payments for knee and hip replacement surgical procedures among traditional Medicare (TM) patients in randomly selected areas. The association of bundled payments with outcomes among patients enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) is not known. Objective:To determine the association of bundled payments for joint replacement surgical procedures with the use of postacute care (PAC) services among MA patients. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cohort study used difference-in-differences analysis to evaluate changes in PAC use among patients enrolled in Medicare who underwent joint replacement operations before and after the introduction of bundled payments (ie, from January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2017). A total of 75 metropolitan statistical areas were randomized to participate in the bundled payment program, with 121 areas serving as controls. Data were analyzed between September 15, 2018, and October 1, 2019. Exposure:Bundled payments for hip and knee joint replacement operations, in which hospitals received a single payment to cover all costs associated with a joint replacement and associated care for the 90 days after surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcomes were discharge to any institutional PAC setting and days spent in institutional PAC within 90 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included discharge and days spent in specific PAC settings (ie, home health, skilled nursing facility, inpatient rehabilitation). Results:Of 1 536 387 individuals who underwent hip and knee join replacement surgery, 493 977 (32.2%) were enrolled in MA (mean [SD] age, 73.3 [8.4] years; 386 699 [63.5%] women; 55 078 [6.4%] black) and 1 042 410 (67.8%) were enrolled in TM (mean [SD] age, 73.3 [8.7] years, 829 014 [65.2%] women; 82 890 [9.4%] black). Among MA patients, bundled payments were associated with a reduction of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.0-2.0) percentage points in discharge to an institutional PAC setting (P < .001) and an estimated reduction of 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2-0.5) days spent in an institutional PAC setting (P < .001), a 5.6% relative reduction. Among TM patients, bundled payments were associated with a reduction of 2.6 (95% CI, 2.2-2.9) percentage points in institutional PAC discharge (P < .001) and a reduction of 0.8 (95% CI, 0.7-0.9) days spent in an institutional PAC setting (P < .001), a 2.5% relative reduction. These changes were larger in hospitals with greater proportions of TM patients. In hospitals with low concentrations of MA patients, time spent in institutional PAC settings decreased by 0.9 days among TM patients and 0.8 days among MA patients; in hospitals with high MA concentrations, time spent in institutional PAC settings decreased by 0.6 days for TM patients and 0.2 days for MA patients. Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, the first 18 months of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services bundled payment program for joint replacement surgery were associated with reductions in the use of institutional PAC among MA patients. Past evaluations of bundled payments that focused on TM patients may not have measured the full consequences of this alternative payment model.
| S-EPMC6991238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the extent to which all-cause 30-day readmission rate varies by Medicare program within the same hospitals.Study designWe used conditional logistic regression clustered by hospital and generalized estimating equations to compare the odds of unplanned all-cause 30-day readmission between Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA).Data collectionWisconsin Health Information Organization collects claims data from various payers including private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid, twice a year.Principal findingsFor 62 of 66 hospitals, hospital-level readmission rates for MA were lower than those for Medicare FFS. The odds of 30-day readmission in MA were 0.92 times lower than Medicare FFS within the same hospital (odds ratio, 0.93; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.89-0.98). The adjusted overall readmission rates of Medicare FFS and MA were 14.9 percent and 11.9 percent, respectively.ConclusionThese findings provide additional evidence of potential variations in readmission risk by payer and support the need for improved monitoring systems in hospitals that incorporate payer-specific data. Further research is needed to delineate specific care delivery factors that contribute to differential readmission risk by payer source.
| S-EPMC7375992 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMost healthcare costs are concentrated in a small proportion of individuals with complex social, medical, behavioral, and clinical needs that are poorly met by a fee-for-service healthcare system. Efforts to reduce cost in the top decile have shown limited effectiveness. Understanding patient subgroups within the top decile is a first step toward designing more effective and targeted interventions.ObjectiveSegment the top decile based on spending and clinical characteristics and examine the temporal movement of individuals in and out of the top decile.DesignRetrospective claims data analysis.ParticipantsUnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees (N = 1,504,091) continuously enrolled from 2016 to 2019.Main measuresMedical (physician, inpatient, outpatient) and pharmacy claims for services submitted for third-party reimbursement under Medicare Advantage, available as International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) and National Drug Codes (NDC) claims.Key resultsThe top decile was segmented into three distinct subgroups characterized by different drivers of cost: (1) Catastrophic: acute events (acute myocardial infarction and hip/pelvic fracture), (2) persistent: medications, and (3) semi-persistent chronic conditions and frailty indicators. These groups show different patterns of spending across time. Each year, 79% of the catastrophic group dropped out of the top decile. In contrast, 68-70% of the persistent group and 36-37% of the semi-persistent group remained in the top decile year over year. These groups also show different 1-year mortality rates, which are highest among semi-persistent members at 17.5-18.5%, compared to 12% and 13-14% for catastrophic and persistent members, respectively.ConclusionsThe top decile consists of subgroups with different needs and spending patterns. Interventions to reduce utilization and expenditures may show more effectiveness if they account for the different characteristics and care needs of these subgroups.
| S-EPMC9198168 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMedicare Advantage (MA), a private insurance plan option, now covers one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries. Although patients with cardiovascular disease enrolled in MA have been reported to receive higher quality of care in the ambulatory setting than patients enrolled in fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare, it is unclear whether MA is associated with higher quality in patients hospitalized with heart failure, or alternatively, if incentives to reduce utilization under MA plans may be associated with worse care.ObjectiveTo determine whether there are differences in quality of care received and in-hospital outcomes among patients enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare.Design, setting, and participantsObservational, retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with heart failure in hospitals participating in the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure registry.ExposuresMedicare Advantage enrollment.Main outcomes and measuresIn-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, length of stay, and 4 heart failure achievement measures.ResultsOf 262 626 patients hospitalized with heart failure, 93 549 (35.6%) were enrolled in MA and 169 077 (64.4%) in FFS Medicare. The median (interquartile range) age was 78 (70-85) years for patients enrolled in MA and 78 (69-86) years for patients enrolled in FFS Medicare. Standard mean differences in age, sex, prevalence of comorbidities, or objective measures on admission, including vital signs and laboratory values, were less than 10%. After adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in receipt of evidence-based β-blockers when indicated; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors at discharge; measurement of left ventricular function; and postdischarge appointments by Medicare insurance type. Patients enrolled in MA, however, had higher odds of being discharged directly home (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.19; P < .001) relative to patients enrolled in FFS Medicare and lower odds of being discharged within 4 days (AOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.00; P = .04). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between patients with MA and patients with FFS Medicare (AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.03; P = .42).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients hospitalized with heart failure, no observable benefit was noted in quality of care or in-hospital mortality between those enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare, except lower use of post-acute care facilities. As MA continues to grow, it will be important to ensure that participating private plans provide an added value to the patients they cover to justify the higher administrative costs compared with traditional FFS Medicare.
| S-EPMC7489427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Medicare annual wellness visit-a preventive care visit free to Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part B-requires detection of cognitive impairment. We surveyed an internet panel of adults ages sixty-five and older who were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare or Medicare Advantage to measure the use of that benefit and the receipt of structured cognitive assessment by 2019. Overall, approximately one-half of beneficiaries surveyed reported having an annual wellness visit, and fewer than one-third reported having a structured cognitive assessment. Compared with fee-for-service enrollees, Medicare Advantage enrollees were nearly 20 percentage points more likely to report that they had an annual wellness visit and 8.6 percentage points more likely to report that it included a structured cognitive assessment. The difference suggests that the rate of structured cognitive assessment in fee-for-service Medicare might be increased by offering financial and other incentives for take-up that are similar to those in Medicare Advantage.
| S-EPMC9517732 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The prices that private insurers pay hospitals have received considerable attention in recent years, but most of that literature has focused on the commercially insured population. Although nearly one-third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan, little is known about the prices paid to hospitals by the private insurers that administer such plans. More information on the hospital prices paid by MA plans would provide additional insights into whether MA prices are more closely tied to Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) prices or commercial prices. Moreover, information on whether the hospital prices paid by MA plans vary with market characteristics or other factors would be useful for evaluating the performance of the MA program and analyzing proposals to modify it. In this study, we compared the hospital prices paid by MA plans and commercial plans with Medicare FFS prices using 2013 claims from the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI) database. The HCCI claims were used to calculate hospital prices for private insurers, and Medicare's payment rules were used to estimate Medicare FFS prices. We focused on stays at acute care hospitals in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). We found MA prices to be roughly equal to Medicare FFS prices, on average, but commercial prices were 89% higher than FFS prices. In addition, commercial prices varied greatly across and within MSAs, but MA prices varied much less.
| S-EPMC6050995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceOne-third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicare's private plan option. Medicare Advantage incentivizes performance on evidence-based care, but limited information exists using reliable clinical data to determine whether this translates into better quality for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) enrolled in MA compared with those enrolled in traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare.ObjectiveTo determine differences in evidence-based secondary prevention treatments and intermediate outcomes among patients with CAD enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare.Design, setting, and participantsIn this observational, retrospective, cohort study, deidentified data from patients 18 years or older diagnosed as having CAD between January 1, 2013, and May 1, 2014, at cardiology practices participating in the Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence (PINNACLE) registry were studied, including 35 563 patients enrolled in MA and 172 732 enrolled in FFS Medicare. Data were analyzed from March to July 2018.ExposuresMedicare Advantage enrollment.Main outcomes and measuresMedication prescription patterns among eligible patients and intermediate outcomes, including blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.ResultsOf the 35 563 patients with CAD enrolled in MA, 20 193 (56.8%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 76.7 (7.6) years; of the 172 732 patients with CAD enrolled in FFS Medicare, 100 025 (57.9%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 77.5 (8.0) years. Patients enrolled in MA were younger, less likely to be white, and more likely to be female and to have heart failure, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease compared with those enrolled in FFS Medicare. Compared with FFS Medicare beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries were more likely to receive secondary prevention treatments, including β-blockers (80.6% vs 78.8%; P < .001), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (70.7% vs 65.1%; P < .001), and statins (68.4% vs 64.5%; P < .001). Patients enrolled in MA were also more likely to receive all 3 medications when eligible (48.9% vs 40.4%; P < .001). After adjustment, MA beneficiaries had higher odds of receiving guideline-recommended therapy compared with FFS Medicare beneficiaries for β-blockers (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.17; P = .002), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.19; P < .001), and all 3 medications (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.001-1.50; P = .047). There were no significant differences in intermediate outcomes between those enrolled in MA and FFS Medicare, including systolic and diastolic blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with CAD in the PINNACLE registry, MA beneficiaries had more comorbidities than FFS Medicare beneficiaries and were more likely to receive secondary prevention treatments. However, this did not translate into differences in intermediate outcomes. These findings suggest that MA plans may drive improvements in process-based quality measures for Medicare beneficiaries, although this may have a limited effect on improving patient outcomes over FFS Medicare.
| S-EPMC6439549 | biostudies-literature