Persistent Variation in Medicare Payment Authorization for Home Hemodialysis Treatments.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To analyze variation in medical care use attributable to Medicare's decentralized claims adjudication process as exemplified in home hemodialysis (HHD) therapy.Data sources/study setting
Secondary data analysis using 2009-2012 paid Medicare claims for HHD and in-center hemodialysis (IHD).Study design
We compared variation across Medicare administrative contractors (MACs) in predicted paid treatments per standardized patient-month for HHD and IHD patients. We used ordinary least-squares regression to determine whether higher paid HHD treatment counts expanded HHD programs' presence among dialysis facilities.Data collection
We identified HHD and IHD treatments using procedure, revenue center, and claim condition codes on type 72x claims.Principal findings
MACs varied persistently in predicted HHD treatments per patient-month, ranging from 14.3 to 21.9 treatments versus 10.9 to 12.4 IHD treatments. The presence of facilities' HHD programs was uncorrelated with average HHD payment counts.Conclusions
Medicare's claims adjudication process promotes variation in medical care use, as we observe among HHD patients. MACs' discretionary decision making, while potentially facilitating innovation, may admit inefficiency in care practice as well as inequitable access to health care services. Regulators should weigh the benefits of flexibility in local coverage decisions against those of national standards for medical necessity.
SUBMITTER: Wilk AS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5867144 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Persistent Variation in Medicare Payment Authorization for Home Hemodialysis Treatments.
Wilk Adam S AS Hirth Richard A RA Zhang Wei W Wheeler John R C JRC Turenne Marc N MN Nahra Tammie A TA Sleeman Kathryn K KK Messana Joseph M JM
Health services research 20170119 2
<h4>Objective</h4>To analyze variation in medical care use attributable to Medicare's decentralized claims adjudication process as exemplified in home hemodialysis (HHD) therapy.<h4>Data sources/study setting</h4>Secondary data analysis using 2009-2012 paid Medicare claims for HHD and in-center hemodialysis (IHD).<h4>Study design</h4>We compared variation across Medicare administrative contractors (MACs) in predicted paid treatments per standardized patient-month for HHD and IHD patients. We use ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPrior studies have shown peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients to have lower or equivalent mortality to patients who receive in-center hemodialysis (HD). Medicare's 2011 bundled dialysis prospective payment system encouraged expansion of home-based PD with unclear impacts on patient outcomes. This paper revisits the comparative risk of mortality between HD and PD among patients with incident end-stage kidney disease initiating dialysis in 2006-2013.Research designWe conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing 2-year all-cause mortality among patients with incident end-stage kidney disease initiating dialysis via HD and PD in 2006-2013, using data from the US Renal Data System and Medicare. Analysis was conducted using Cox proportional hazards models fit with inverse probability of treatment weighting that adjusted for measured patient demographic and clinical characteristics and dialysis market characteristics.ResultsOf the 449,652 patients starting dialysis between 2006 and 2013, the rate of PD use in the first 90 days increased from 9.3% of incident patients in 2006 to 14.2% in 2013. Crude 2-year mortality was 27.6% for patients dialyzing via HD and 16.7% for patients on PD. In adjusted models, there was no evidence of mortality differences between PD and HD before and after bundled payment (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.04; P=0.33).ConclusionsOverall mortality for HD and PD use was similar and mortality differences between modalities did not change before versus after the 2011 Medicare dialysis bundled payment, suggesting that increased use of home-based PD did not adversely impact patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC7855236 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo develop the first longitudinal database of state Medicaid policies for paying the cost sharing in Medicare Part B for services provided to dual Medicare-Medicaid enrollees ("duals") and an index summarizing the impact of these policies on payments for physician office services.Data sourcesMedicaid policy data collected from electronic sources and inquiries with states.Study designWe constructed a national database of Medicaid payment policies for the period 2004-2018, consolidating information from online Medicaid policy documents, state laws, and policy data reported to us by state Medicaid programs. Using this database and state Medicaid fee schedules, we constructed a Medicaid payment index for duals. This index represented the proportion of the Medicare allowed amount that physicians would expect to be paid from Medicare and Medicaid for a subset of physician office services (evaluation and management services) based on annual state payment policies and Medicaid fee schedules.Principal findingsIn 2018, 42 states had policies to limit Medicaid payments of Medicare cost sharing when Medicaid's fee schedule was lower than Medicare's-an increase from 36 such states in 2004. In the preponderance of states with these policies, combined Medicare and Medicaid payments for evaluation and management services provided to duals averaged 78 percent of the Medicare allowed amount for these services, reflecting relatively low Medicaid fee schedules in these states. In 2013 and 2014, physicians who qualified for the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid "fee bump" were paid 100 percent of the Medicare allowed amount for these services.ConclusionsMedicaid programs vary across states and over time in their payments of cost sharing for physician office services provided to duals. Our database and index can facilitate monitoring of these policies and research on the consequences of policy changes for duals.
| S-EPMC7518808 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMedicare began paying for medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) at opioid treatment programs (OTPs) that dispense methadone and other MOUD in January 2020. There has been little research describing the response to this payment change and whether it resulted in more patients receiving MOUD or just a shift in who pays for this care.ObjectiveTo describe how many and which Medicare beneficiaries receive care from OTPs and how this compares to those receiving MOUD in other settings.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study included all patients receiving MOUD care identified in 2019-2022 100% US Medicare Parts B and D claims. Patients receiving care in an OTP who were dually insured with Medicare and Medicaid in the 2019-2020 Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System were also included.ExposureReceiving MOUD care in an OTP.Main outcomes and measuresComparisons of 2022 beneficiaries treated in OTPs vs other non-OTP settings in 2022.ResultsThe share of Medicare beneficiaries treated by OTPs rose steadily from 4 per 10 000 (14 160 beneficiaries) in January 2020 to 7 per 10 000 (25 596 beneficiaries) in August 2020, then plateaued through December 2022; of 38 870 patients (23% ≥66 years; 35% female) treated at an OTP in 2022, 96% received methadone. Patients in OTPs, compared to those receiving MOUD in other settings, were more likely be 65 years and younger (65% vs 62%; P < .001), less likely to be White (72% vs 82%; P < .001), and more likely to be an urban resident (86% vs 74%; P < .001). When Medicare OTP coverage began, there was no associated drop in the number of dually insured patients with Medicaid with an OTP claim. Of the 1854 OTPs, 1115 (60%) billed Medicare in 2022, with the share billing Medicare ranging from 13% to 100% across states.Conclusions and relevanceThis study showed that since the initiation of Medicare OTP coverage in 2020, there has been a rapid increase in the number of Medicare beneficiaries with claims for OTP services for MOUD, and most OTPs have begun billing Medicare. Patients in OTPs were more likely to be urban residents and members of racial or ethnic minority groups than the patients receiving other forms of MOUD.
| S-EPMC11259898 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSome Medicare-reimbursed services are overused or improperly used, resulting in payments for unnecessary services.ObjectiveTo determine if prior authorization of services vulnerable to improper use is associated with reduced use and costs without changing patient access or health outcomes.Design setting and participantsThis study involved repeated cross-sectional evaluation with a state-level matched control group construction and inverse propensity score weighting at the Medicare beneficiary level. Eight states plus the District of Columbia requiring prior authorization were compared with 13 matched comparison group states not subject to prior authorization. Observations on approximately 1.7 million Medicare beneficiaries spanned January 2012 through December 2019. Depending on their state of residence, this included 3 or 4 preintervention years and 4 or 5 postintervention years. Data analysis was performed from September 2020 to July 2021.InterventionAmbulance suppliers were directed to request prior authorization for Repetitive, Scheduled, Non-Emergent Ambulance Transport (RSNAT) services; failure to do so resulted in prepayment claim review. The goal of prior authorization is to reduce use of nonemergency ambulance transports that do not meet Medicare coverage criteria.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes included total cost of care, RSNAT use rates and expenditures, unplanned hospital admission, emergency department admission, and emergency ambulance use per beneficiary-year. All measures were constructed from Medicare claims.ResultsApproximately 1.7 million Medicare beneficiaries were observed in the study (mean [SD] age, 71 [15] years; 50% female beneficiaries; 30% Black beneficiaries, 64% White beneficiaries; 20% rural residence; 35% dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid; 58% with end-stage renal disease; and 44% with severe [stage 3 or 4] pressure ulcers). After controlling for covariates, the results showed that prior authorization was associated with a 2.4% reduction in total annual expenditures for a total of $1530 per beneficiary-year (95% CI, -$1775 to -$1285; P < .001); a 61% reduction in the probability of RSNAT use for a total of 4.1 percentage points per beneficiary-year (95% CI, -4.26 to -3.94; P < .001); a 77% reduction in RSNAT expenditures for a total of $1136 per beneficiary-year (95% CI, -$1179 to -$1093; P < .001); a 1.4% reduction in the probability of emergency department use by 0.99 percentage points per beneficiary-year (95% CI, -1.17 to -0.81; P < .001); no change in the probability of emergency ambulance use (0.07 percentage points, 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.29; P = .50); a 2.6% reduction in the probability of unplanned hospital admission for a total of 1.53 percentage points per beneficiary-year (95% CI, -1.71 to -1.35; P < .001); and a 19% annual increase in the probability of emergency dialysis use for a total of 1.4 percentage points per beneficiary with end-stage renal disease (95% CI, 1.28 to 1.60; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this difference-in-differences analysis of Medicare beneficiaries, the results suggest that the RSNAT Prior Authorization Model was associated with reduced costs with little or no change in the quality or access indicators examined. Targeted approaches to prior authorization may be an appropriate control measure for Medicare services vulnerable to improper use.
| S-EPMC9287758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study examines the relationship between evidence-based appropriateness criteria for neurologic imaging procedures and Medicare payment determinations. The primary research question is whether Medicare is more likely to pay for imaging procedures as the level of appropriateness increases.Data sourcesThe American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria (ACRAC) for neurological imaging, ICD-9-CM codes, CPT codes, and payment determinations by the Medicare Part B carrier for Florida and Connecticut.Study designCross-sectional study of appropriateness criteria and Medicare Part B payment policy for neurological imaging. In addition to descriptive and bivariate statistics, multivariate logistic regression on payment determination (yes or no) was performed.Data collection methodsThe American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria (ACRAC) documents specific to neurological imaging, ICD-9-CM codes, and CPT codes were used to create 2,510 medical condition/imaging procedure combinations, with associated appropriateness scores (coded as low/middle/high).Principal findingsAs the level of appropriateness increased, more medical condition/imaging procedure combinations were payable (low = 61 percent, middle = 70 percent, and high = 74 percent). Logistic regression indicated that the odds of a medical condition/imaging procedure combination with a middle level of appropriateness being payable was 48 percent higher than for an otherwise similar combination with a low appropriateness score (95 percent CI on odds ratio=1.19-1.84). The odds ratio for being payable between high and low levels of appropriateness was 2.25 (95 percent CI: 1.66-3.04).ConclusionsMedicare could improve its payment determinations by taking advantage of existing clinical guidelines, appropriateness criteria, and other authoritative resources for evidence-based practice. Such an approach would give providers a financial incentive that is aligned with best-practice medicine. In particular, Medicare should review and update its payment policies to reflect current information on the appropriateness of alternative imaging procedures for the same medical condition.
| S-EPMC2442247 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceVarious policy proposals would reduce federal payments to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. However, it is unclear whether payment reductions would compromise beneficiary access to the MA program.ObjectiveTo quantify the association between MA payment reductions under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and MA enrollment growth.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study examined the MA market before and after the ACA, which mandated cuts to MA benchmark payment rates. Using 2008 to 2019 county-level enrollment and payment data, a difference-in-differences analysis was conducted comparing MA enrollment changes between counties with larger vs smaller benchmark reductions, before vs after the ACA.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the MA enrollment rate, defined as the proportion of a county's Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in MA. A secondary analysis examined MA plan payments per member per month.ResultsAmong 3138 counties with 37 639 county-year observations, ACA-induced benchmark cuts were sizeable and varied, ranging from 0% to 42.9% (mean [SD], 5.9% [6.6%]). Counties with benchmark cuts above the 75th percentile had population-weighted average benchmark cuts of 14.9% compared with 4.4% in other counties. In the 8 years following the ACA, there was no differential change in MA enrollment between counties with larger vs smaller benchmark cuts (difference-in-differences estimate, 0.02 [95% CI, -1.18 to 1.21] percentage points; P = .98). Plan payments differentially fell in counties with larger benchmark cuts by $78.35 (95% CI, $62.21-$94.48) per member per month (P < .001).Conclusion and relevanceThis cohort study found no evidence that the MA benchmark and ensuing payment cuts imposed by the ACA were associated with reduced MA enrollment, compromising access to MA. This evidence can inform ongoing policy debates regarding the growth of MA, concerns about excess payments to MA plans, and proposed Medicare reforms, including further reductions in MA payments.
| S-EPMC10290750 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10709768 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the predictive accuracy of two approaches to target price calculations under Bundled Payments for Care Improvement-Advanced (BPCI-A): the traditional Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) methodology and an empirical Bayes approach designed to mitigate the effects of regression to the mean.Data sourcesMedicare fee-for-service claims for beneficiaries discharged from acute care hospitals between 2010 and 2016.Study designWe used data from a baseline period (discharges between January 1, 2010 and September 30, 2013) to predict spending in a performance period (discharges between October 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016). For 23 clinical episode types in BPCI-A, we compared the average prediction error across hospitals associated with each statistical approach. We also calculated an average across all clinical episode types and explored differences by hospital size.Data collection/extraction methodsWe used a 20% sample of Medicare claims, excluding hospitals and episode types with small numbers of observations.Principal findingsThe empirical Bayes approach resulted in significantly more accurate episode spending predictions for 19 of 23 clinical episode types. Across all episode types, prediction error averaged $8456 for the CMS approach versus $7521 for the empirical Bayes approach. Greater improvements in accuracy were observed with increasing hospital size.ConclusionsCMS should consider using empirical Bayes methods to calculate target prices for BPCI-A.
| S-EPMC8313949 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo measure variation in payment rates under Medicare's Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) and identify the main payment adjustments that drive variation.Data sources/study settingMedicare cost reports for all Medicare-certified hospitals, 1987-2013, and Dartmouth Atlas geographic files.Study designWe measure the Medicare payment rate as a hospital's total acute inpatient Medicare Part A payment, divided by the standard IPPS payment for its geographic area. We assess variation using several measures, both within local markets and nationally. We perform a factor decomposition to identify the share of variation attributable to specific adjustments. We also describe the characteristics of hospitals receiving different payment rates and evaluate changes in the magnitude of the main adjustments over time.Data collection/extraction methodsData downloaded from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and the Dartmouth Atlas.Principal findingsIn 2013, Medicare paid for acute inpatient discharges at a rate 31 percent above the IPPS base. For the top 10 percent of discharges, the mean rate was double the IPPS base. Variations were driven by adjustments for medical education and care to low-income populations. The magnitude of variation has increased over time.ConclusionsAdjustments are a large and growing share of Medicare hospital payments, and they create significant variation in payment rates.
| S-EPMC5346495 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSome uncertainty exists about whether hospital variations in cost are largely associated with differences in case mix.ObjectiveTo establish whether the same patients admitted with the same diagnosis (heart failure or pneumonia) at 2 different hospitals incur different costs associated with the hospital's Medicare payment profile.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational cohort study used Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) discharge data of patients with a principal diagnosis of heart failure (n = 1615) or pneumonia (n = 708) occurring between July 1, 2013, and June 30, 2016. Patients were individuals aged 65 years or older who were enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service Part A and Part B and were discharged from nonfederal, short-term, acute care or critical access hospitals in the United States. Data were analyzed from March 16, 2018, to September 25, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresThe CMS heart failure and pneumonia payment measure cohorts were divided into 2 random samples. In the first sample, hospitals were classified into payment quartiles for heart failure and pneumonia. In the second sample, patients with 2 admissions for heart failure or pneumonia, one in a lowest-quartile hospital and one in a highest-quartile hospital more than 1 month apart, were identified. Standardized Medicare payments for these patients were compared for the lowest- and the highest-quartile payment hospitals.ResultsThe study sample included 1615 patients with heart failure (mean [SD] age, 78.7 [8.0] years; 819 [50.7%] male) and 708 with pneumonia (mean [SD] age, 78.3 [8.0] years; 401 [56.6%] male). The observed 30-day mortality rates for patients among lowest- compared with highest-payment hospitals were not significantly different. The median (interquartile range) hospital 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates were 8.1% (7.7%-8.5%) for heart failure and 11.3% (10.7%-12.1%) for pneumonia. The 30-day episode payment for hospitalization for the same patients at the lowest-payment hospitals was $2118 (95% CI, $1168-$3068; P < .001) lower for heart failure and $2907 (95% CI, $1760-$4054; P < .001) lower for pneumonia than at the highest-payment hospitals. More than half of the difference was associated with the payment during the index hospitalization ($1425 [95% CI, $695-$2154; P < .001] for heart failure and $1659 [95% CI, $731-$2588; P < .001] for pneumonia).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that the same Medicare beneficiaries who were admitted with the same diagnosis to hospitals with the highest payment profiles incurred higher costs than when they were admitted to hospitals with the lowest payment profiles. The findings suggest that variations in payments to hospitals are, at least in part, associated with the hospitals independently of non-time-varying patient characteristics.
| S-EPMC6902811 | biostudies-literature