Hospital Postacute Care Referral Networks: Is Referral Concentration Associated with Medicare-Style Bundled Payments?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kaur R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5682136 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Hospital Postacute Care Referral Networks: Is Referral Concentration Associated with Medicare-Style Bundled Payments?
Kaur Ramandeep R Perloff Jennifer N JN Tompkins Christopher C Bishop Christine E CE
Health services research 20161205 6
<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate whether Medicare-style bundled payments are lower or higher for beneficiaries discharged from hospitals with postacute care (PAC) referrals concentrated among fewer PAC providers.<h4>Data source</h4>Medicare Part A and Part B claim (2008-2012) for all beneficiaries residing in any of 17 market areas: the Provider of Service file, the Healthcare Cost Report Information System, and the Dartmouth Atlas.<h4>Study design</h4>An observational study in which hospitals were ...[more]
Similar Datasets
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:ImportanceThe Medicare comprehensive care for joint replacement (CJR) model, a mandatory bundled payment program started in April 2016 for hospitals in randomly selected metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), may help reduce postacute care (PAC) use and episode costs, but its impact on disparities between Medicaid and non-Medicaid beneficiaries is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine effects of the CJR program on differences (or disparities) in PAC use and outcomes by Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility status.Design, setting, and participantsObservational cohort study of 2013-2017, based on difference-in-differences (DID) analyses on Medicare data for 1,239,452 Medicare-only patients, 57,452 dual eligibles with full Medicaid benefits, and 50,189 dual eligibles with partial Medicaid benefits who underwent hip or knee surgery in hospitals of 75 CJR MSAs and 121 control MSAs.Main outcome measuresRisk-adjusted differences in rates of institutional PAC [skilled nursing facility (SNF), inpatient rehabilitation, or long-term hospital care] use and readmissions; and for the subgroup of patients discharged to SNF, risk-adjusted differences in SNF length of stay, payments, and quality measured by star ratings, rate of successful discharge to community, and rate of transition to long-stay nursing home resident.ResultsThe CJR program was associated with reduced institutional PAC use and readmissions for patients in all 3 groups. For example, it was associated with reductions in 90-day readmission rate by 1.8 percentage point [DID estimate=-1.8; 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.6 to -0.9; P<0.001] for Medicare-only patients, by 1.6 percentage points (DID estimate=-1.6; 95% CI, -3.1 to -0.1; P=0.04) for full-benefit dual eligibles, and by 2.0 percentage points (DID estimate=-2.0; 95% CI, -3.6 to -0.4; P=0.01) for partial-benefit dual eligibles. These CJR-associated effects did not differ between dual eligibles (differences in above DID estimates=0.2; 95% CI, -1.4 to 1.7; P=0.81 for full-benefit patients; and -0.3; 95% CI, -1.9 to 1.3; P=0.74 for partial-benefit patients) and Medicare-only patients. Among patients discharged to SNF, the CJR program showed no effect on successful community discharge, transition to long-term care, or their persistent disparities.ConclusionsThe CJR program did not help reduce persistent disparities in readmissions or SNF-specific outcomes related to Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility, likely due to its lack of financial incentives for reduced disparities and improved SNF outcomes.
| S-EPMC7855778 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RationaleApproximately 20% of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are readmitted within 30 days of discharge. In addition to implementing penalties for excess readmissions, the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has developed Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiatives to improve outcomes and control costs.ObjectivesTo evaluate whether a comprehensive COPD multidisciplinary intervention focusing on inpatient, transitional, and outpatient care as part of our institution's BPCI participation would reduce 30-day all-cause readmission rates for COPD exacerbations and reduce overall costs.MethodsWe performed a pre-postintervention study comparing all-cause readmissions and costs after index hospitalization for Medicare-only patients with acute exacerbation of COPD. The primary outcome was the difference in 30-day all-cause readmission rate compared with historical control subjects; secondary outcomes included the 90-day all-cause readmission rate and also health care costs compared with BPCI target prices.ResultsSeventy-eight consecutive Medicare patients were prospectively enrolled in the BPCI intervention in 2014 and compared with 109 patients in the historical group from 2012. Patients in BPCI were more likely to receive regular follow-up phone calls, pneumococcal and influenza vaccines, home health care, durable medical equipment, and pulmonary rehabilitation, and to attend pulmonary clinic. There was no difference in all-cause readmission rates at 30 days (BPCI, 12 events [15.4%] vs. non-BPCI, 19 events [17.4%]; P = 0.711), and 90 days (21 [26.9%] vs. 37 [33.9%]; P = 0.306). Compared with BPCI target prices, we incurred 4.3% lower 90-day costs before accounting for significant investment from the health system.ConclusionsA Medicare BPCI intervention did not reduce 30-day all-cause readmission rates or overall costs after hospitalization for acute exacerbation of COPD. Although additional studies enrolling larger numbers of patients at multiple centers may demonstrate the efficacy of our BPCI initiative for COPD readmissions, this is unlikely to be cost effective at any single center.
| S-EPMC5802596 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo measure the association between clinician specialization in nursing home (NH) practice and outcomes of patients who received postacute care in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs).Data sourcesMedicare claims and NH assessments for 2 118 941 hospital discharges to 14 526 SNFs in January 2012-October 2014 and MD-PPAS data for 52 379 clinicians.Study designGeneralist physicians and advanced practitioners with ? 90 percent of claims for NH-based care were considered NH specialists. The primary clinician during each SNF stay was determined based on plurality of claims during that stay. We estimated the effect of being treated by a NH specialist on 30-day rehospitalizations, successful discharge to community, and 60-day episode-of-care Medicare payments (Parts A and B). All models included patient demographics, clinical variables, and SNF fixed effects.Principal findingsNursing home specialists' patients were less likely to be rehospitalized (14.71 percent vs 16.23 percent; adjusted difference, -1.51 percent, 95% CI -1.78 to -1.24), more likely to be successfully discharged to community (56.33 percent vs 55.49 percent; adjusted difference, 0.84 percent, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.14), but had higher 60-day Medicare payments ($31 628 vs $31 292; adjusted difference, $335; 95% CI $242 to $429).ConclusionsClinicians who specialize in NH practice may achieve better postacute care outcomes at slightly higher costs.
| S-EPMC6505420 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAn increasing number of hospitals have participated in Medicare's bundled payment and accountable care organization (ACO) programs. Although participation in bundled payments has been associated with savings for lower-extremity joint replacement (LEJR) surgery, simultaneous participation in ACOs may be associated with different outcomes given the prevalence of LEJR among patients receiving care at ACO participant organizations and potential overlap in care redesign strategies adopted under the 2 payment models.ObjectiveTo examine whether simultaneous participation in a Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) ACO affects the association between hospitals' participation in LEJR episodes under the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative and patient outcomes compared with participation in the BPCI initiative alone.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study, conducted from January 1 to May 31, 2019, used 2011 to 2016 Medicare claims data and incorporated an instrumental variable with a difference-in-differences method among 483 008 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries undergoing LEJR surgery at 212 bundled payment participant hospitals, 105 coparticipant hospitals, and 1413 nonparticipant hospitals in the United States.ExposuresHospital participation in both the BPCI initiative and the MSSP (coparticipants), BPCI only (bundled payment participants), or neither (nonparticipants).Main outcomes and measuresChanges in clinical outcomes and mean LEJR episode spending.ResultsA total of 483 008 patients (mean [SD] age, 73.0 [8.4] years; 308 173 [63.8%] female) were included in the study. No differential changes were found in patient and hospital characteristics across participation groups. In adjusted analysis, coparticipants had 1.5% (95% CI, 0.7%-2.2%; P < .001) more unplanned readmissions than did bundled payment participants. Compared with bundled payment participants, coparticipants also had differentially greater decreases in hospital length of stay (adjusted difference-in-differences value, -5.3%; 95% CI, -7.1% to -3.5%; P < .001) and home health care use (adjusted difference-in-differences value, -3.4%; 95% CI, -4.5% to -2.3%; P < .001) and greater increases in postdischarge outpatient follow-up (adjusted difference-in-differences value, 2.1%; 95% CI, 0.9%-3.3%; P < .001). Coparticipants and bundled payment participants did not have differential changes in episode spending (adjusted difference-in-differences value, 0.4%; 95% CI, -0.7% to 1.6%; P = .46), although both groups had more decreased spending compared with nonparticipants.Conclusions and relevanceAmong bundled payment participants, coparticipation in ACOs was not associated with LEJR episode savings but was associated with differential changes in postacute care use patterns and unplanned readmissions. These findings support the longer-term benefits of LEJR bundles and suggest that coparticipants may adopt care redesign strategies that differ from hospitals with bundled payments only.
| S-EPMC6777392 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6583871 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:Postacute care is thought to be a major source of wasteful spending. The extent to which accountable care organizations (ACOs) can limit postacute care spending has implications for the importance and design of other payment models that include postacute care. Objective:To assess changes in postacute care spending and use of postacute care associated with provider participation as ACOs in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) and the pathways by which they occurred. Design, Setting, and Participants:With the use of fee-for-service Medicare claims from a random 20% sample of beneficiaries with 25?544?650 patient-years, 8?395?426 hospital admissions, and 1?595?352 stays in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2014, difference-in-difference comparisons of beneficiaries served by ACOs with beneficiaries served by local non-ACO health care professionals (control group) were performed before vs after entry into the MSSP. Differential changes were estimated separately for cohorts of ACOs entering the MSSP in 2012, 2013, and 2014. Exposures:Patient attribution to an ACO in the MSSP. Main Outcomes and Measures:Postacute spending, discharge to a facility, length of SNF stays, readmissions, use of highly rated SNFs, and mortality, adjusted for patient characteristics. Results:For the 2012 cohort of 114 ACOs, participation in the MSSP was associated with an overall reduction in postacute spending (differential change in 2014 for ACOs vs control group, -$106 per beneficiary [95% CI, -$176 to -$35], or -9.0% of the precontract unadjusted mean of $1172; P?=?.003) that was driven by differential reductions in acute inpatient care, discharges to facilities rather than home (-0.6 percentage points [95% CI, -1.1 to 0.0], or -2.7% of the unadjusted precontract mean of 22.6%; P?=?.03), and length of SNF stays (-0.60 days per stay [95% CI, -0.99 to -0.22], or -2.2% of the precontract unadjusted mean of 27.07 days; P?=?.002). Reductions in use of SNFs and length of stay were largely due to within-hospital or within-SNF changes in care specifically for ACO patients. Participation in the MSSP was associated with smaller significant reductions in SNF spending in 2014 for the 2013 ACO cohort (-$27 per beneficiary [95% CI, -$49 to -$6], or -3.3% of the precontract unadjusted mean of $813; P?=?.01) but not in the 2013 or 2014 cohort's first year of participation (-$13 per beneficiary [95% CI, -$33 to $6]; P?=?.19; and $4 per beneficiary [95% CI, -$15 to $24]; P?=?.66). Estimates were similar for ACOs with and without financial ties to hospitals. Participation in the MSSP was not associated with significant changes in 30-day readmissions, use of highly rated SNFs, or mortality. Conclusions and Relevance:Participation in the MSSP has been associated with significant reductions in postacute spending without ostensible deterioration in quality of care. Spending reductions were more consistent with clinicians working within hospitals and SNFs to influence care for ACO patients than with hospital-wide initiatives by ACOs or use of preferred SNFs.
| S-EPMC5415671 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIn 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) launched its first mandatory bundled payment program, the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, by randomizing metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) into the payment model.ObjectiveTo evaluate changes in key economic and clinical outcomes associated with the CJR model.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective, national, population-based analysis of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries undergoing lower extremity joint replacement was conducted using 100% Medicare Part A data and 5% Medicare Part B data. Within an intention-to-treat framework, a difference-in-differences approach was used to compare Medicare spending, quality of care, volume of episodes, and patient selection in episodes of lower extremity joint replacements in the first 2 years of the program between propensity score-matched CJR and non-CJR hospitals (episodes initiated from April 1, 2016, through December 31, 2017, with the latter completed by March 31, 2018). Lower extremity joint replacement episodes in MSAs randomly assigned to the CJR model were compared with those in MSAs not assigned to the CJR model.ExposuresRandom assignment of MSAs into the CJR model within prespecified strata.Main outcomes and measuresSpending and its components, quality of care, volume of episodes, and patient characteristics were the main outcomes.ResultsAfter propensity score matching, there were 157 828 primary lower extremity joint replacement cases across 684 hospitals in the CJR (treatment) group (101 641 [64.4%] women; mean [SD] age, 72.8 [8.9] years) and 180 594 cases across 726 hospitals in the non-CJR (control) group (115 580 women [64.0%] women; mean [SD] age, 72.6 [8.8] years). The CJR was associated with a decrease of $582 per episode in Medicare Part A spending, a 2.5% savings on claims (95% CI, -$873 to -$290; P < .001) driven by a 5.5% decline in 90-day postacute care spending, concentrated in skilled nursing facilities (-4.5% change from baseline; 95% CI, -$460 to -$26; P = .03) and inpatient rehabilitation facilities (-22.9% change from baseline; 95% CI,-$497 to -$176; P < .001). Estimated savings on claims, while consistent with changes in practice patterns, may not have exceeded the reconciliation payments to hospitals reported by CMS to date. No significant changes in hospital length of stay, readmissions, complications, 30- or 90-day mortality, volume of episodes, or patient characteristics relative to control were found.Conclusions and relevanceThe CJR was associated with reduced Medicare Part A spending on claims over 2 years, largely through lower postacute spending. Mandatory bundled payments may serve as a useful model for policy efforts to change clinicians' and facilities' behavior without harming quality.
| S-EPMC6547121 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate whether participation in Medicare's Acute Care Episode (ACE) Demonstration Program-an early, small, voluntary episode-based payment program-was associated with a change in expenditures or quality of care.Data sources/study settingMedicare claims for patients who underwent cardiac or orthopedic surgery from 2007 to 2012 at ACE or control hospitals.Study designWe used a difference-in-differences approach, matching on baseline and pre-enrollment volume, risk-adjusted Medicare payments, and clinical outcomes to identify controls.Principal findingsParticipation in the ACE Demonstration was not significantly associated with 30-day Medicare payments (for orthopedic surgery: -$358 with 95 percent CI: -$894, +$178; for cardiac surgery: +$514 with 95 percent CI: -$1,517, +$2,545), or 30-day mortality (for orthopedic surgery: -0.10 with 95 percent CI: -0.50, 0.31; for cardiac surgery: -0.27 with 95 percent CI: -1.25, 0.72). Program participation was associated with a decrease in total 30-day post-acute care payments (for cardiac surgery: -$718; 95 percent CI: -$1,431, -$6; and for orthopedic surgery: -$591; 95 percent CI: $-$1,161, -$22).ConclusionsParticipation in Medicare's ACE Demonstration Program was not associated with a change in 30-day episode-based Medicare payments or 30-day mortality for cardiac or orthopedic surgery, but it was associated with lower total 30-day post-acute care payments.
| S-EPMC5867094 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the National Pilot Program on Payment Bundling, a subset of Medicare providers will receive a single payment for an episode of acute care in a hospital, followed by postacute care in a skilled nursing or rehabilitation facility, the patient's home, or other appropriate setting. This article examines the promises and pitfalls of bundled payments and addresses two important design decisions for the pilot: which conditions to include, and how long an episode should be. Our analysis of Medicare data found that hip fracture and joint replacement are good conditions to include in the pilot because they exhibit strong potential for cost savings. In addition, these conditions pose less financial risk for providers than other common ones do, so including them would make participation in the program more appealing to providers. We also found that longer episode lengths captured a higher percentage of costs and hospital readmissions while adding little financial risk. We recommend that the Medicare pilot program test alternative design features to help foster payment innovation throughout the health system.
| S-EPMC4109141 | biostudies-literature