Dataset Information

Medicare's Acute Care Episode Demonstration: Effects of Bundled Payments on Costs and Quality of Surgical Care.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To 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 setting

Medicare claims for patients who underwent cardiac or orthopedic surgery from 2007 to 2012 at ACE or control hospitals.

Study design

We used a difference-in-differences approach, matching on baseline and pre-enrollment volume, risk-adjusted Medicare payments, and clinical outcomes to identify controls.

Principal findings

Participation 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).

Conclusions

Participation 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.

SUBMITTER: Chen LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5867094 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:ObjectiveTo evaluate whether longer term participation in the bundled payments for care initiative (BPCI) for medical conditions in the United States, which held hospitals financially accountable for all spending during an episode of care from hospital admission to 90 days after discharge, was associated with changes in spending, mortality, or health service use.DesignQuasi-experimental difference-in-differences analysis.SettingUS hospitals participating in bundled payments for acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or pneumonia, and propensity score matched to non-participating hospitals.Participants238 hospitals participating in the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative (BPCI) and 1415 non-BPCI hospitals. 226 BPCI hospitals were matched to 700 non-BPCI hospitals.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were total spending on episodes and death 90 days after discharge. Secondary outcomes included spending and use by type of post-acute care. BPCI and non-BPCI hospitals were compared by patient, hospital, and hospital market characteristics. Market characteristics included population size, competitiveness, and post-acute bed supply.ResultsIn the 226 BPCI hospitals, episodes of care totaled 261?163 in the baseline period and 93?562 in the treatment period compared with 211?208 and 78?643 in the 700 matched non-BPCI hospitals, respectively, with small differences in hospital and market characteristics after matching. Differing trends were seen for some patient characteristics (eg, mean age change -0.3 years at BPCI hospitals v non- BPCI hospitals, P<0.001). In the adjusted analysis, participation in BPCI was associated with a decrease in total episode spending (-1.2%, 95% confidence interval -2.3% to -0.2%). Spending on care at skilled nursing facilities decreased (-6.3%, -10.0% to -2.5%) owing to a reduced number of facility days (-6.2%, -9.8% to -2.6%), and home health spending increased (4.4%, 1.4% to 7.5%). Mortality at 90 days did not change (-0.1 percentage points, 95% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.2 percentage points).ConclusionsIn this longer term evaluation of a large national programme on medical bundled payments in the US, participation in bundles for four common medical conditions was associated with savings at three years. The savings were generated by practice changes that decreased use of high intensity care after hospital discharge without affecting quality, which also suggests that bundles for medical conditions could require multiple years before changes in savings and practice emerge.

Project description:STUDY DESIGN:Retrospective analysis of Medicare claims linked to hospital participation in the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation's episode-based Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) program for lumbar fusion. OBJECTIVE:To describe the early effects of BPCI participation for lumbar fusion on 90-day reimbursement, procedure volume, reoperation, and readmission. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:Initiated on January 1, 2013, BPCI's voluntary bundle payment program provides a predetermined payment for services related to a Diagnosis-Related Group-defined "triggering event" over a defined time period. As an alternative to fee-for-service, these reforms shift the financial risk of care on to hospitals. METHODS:We identified fee-for-service beneficiaries over age 65 undergoing a lumbar fusion in 2012 or 2013, corresponding to the years before and after BPCI initiation. Hospitals were grouped based on program participation status as nonparticipants, preparatory, or risk-bearing. Generalized estimating equation models adjusting for patient age, sex, race, comorbidity, and hospital size were used to compare changes in episode costs, procedure volume, and safety indicators based on hospital BPCI participation. RESULTS:We included 89,605 beneficiaries undergoing lumbar fusion, including 36% seen by a preparatory hospital and 7% from a risk-bearing hospital. The mean age of the cohort was 73.4 years, with 59% women, 92% White, and 22% with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 2 or more. Participant hospitals had greater procedure volume, bed size, and total discharges. Relative to nonparticipants, risk-bearing hospitals had a slightly increased fusion procedure volume from 2012 to 2013 (3.4% increase vs. 1.6% decrease, P?=?0.119), did not reduce 90-day episode of care costs (0.4% decrease vs. 2.9% decrease, P?=?0.044), increased 90-day readmission rate (+2.7% vs. -10.7%, P?=?0.043), and increased repeat surgery rates (+30.6% vs. +7.1% points, P?=?0.043). CONCLUSION:These early, unintended trends suggest an imperative for continued monitoring of BPCI in lumbar fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:3.

Project description:Policy Points Evidence suggests that bundled payment contracting can slow the growth of payer costs relative to fee-for-service contracting, although bundled payment models may not reduce absolute costs. Bundled payments may be more effective than fee-for-service payments in containing costs for certain medical conditions. For the most part, Medicare's bundled payment initiatives have not been associated with a worsening of quality in terms of readmissions, emergency department use, and mortality. Some evidence suggests a worsening of other quality measures for certain medical conditions. Bundled payment contracting involves trade-offs: Expanding a bundle's scope and duration may better contain costs, but a more comprehensive bundle may be less attractive to providers, reducing their willingness to accept it as an alternative to fee-for-service payment.ContextBundled payments have been promoted as an alternative to fee-for-service payments that can mitigate the incentives for service volume under the fee-for-service model. As Medicare has gained experience with bundled payments, it has widened their scope and increased their duration. However, there have been few reviews of the empirical literature on the impact of Medicare's bundled payment programs on cost, resource use, utilization, and quality.MethodsWe examined the history and features of 16 of Medicare's bundled payment programs involving hospital-initiated episodes of care and conducted a literature review of articles about those programs. Database and additional searches yielded 1,479 articles. We evaluate the studies' methodological quality and summarize the quantitative findings about Medicare expenditures and quality of care from 37 studies that used higher-quality research designs.FindingsMedicare's bundled payment initiatives have varied in their design features, such as episode scope and duration. Many initiatives were associated with little to no reduction in Medicare expenditures, unless large pricing discounts for providers were negotiated in advance. Initiatives that included post-acute care services were associated with lower expenditures for certain conditions. Hospitals may have been able to reduce internal production costs with help from physicians via gainsharing. Most initiatives were not associated with significant changes in quality of care, as measured by readmission and mortality rates. Of the significant changes in readmission rates, the results were mixed, showing increases and decreases associated with bundled payments. Some evidence suggested that worse patient outcomes were associated bundled payments, although most results were not statistically significant. Results on case-mix selection were mixed: Several initiatives were associated with reductions in episode severity, whereas others were associated with little change.ConclusionsBundled payments for hospital-initiated episodes may be a good alternative to fee-for-service payments. Bundled payments can help slow the growth of payer spending, although they do not necessarily reduce absolute spending. They are associated with lower provider production costs, and there is no overwhelming evidence of compromised quality. However, designing a bundled payment contract that is attractive to both providers and payers proves to be a challenge.