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: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: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:Importance:Some uncertainty exists about whether hospital variations in cost are largely associated with differences in case mix. Objective:To 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 Participants:This 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 Measures:The 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. Results:The 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 Relevance:This 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
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of the Medicare dialysis payment reform on potential disparities in the selection of peritoneal dialysis (PD) for the treatment of end-stage renal disease (ESRD).Data sourcesCenters for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ESRD Medical Evidence Form, Medicare claims, and other CMS data for 2008-2013.Study designWe examined the association of patient age, race/ethnicity, urban/rural location, pre-ESRD care, comorbidities, insurance, and other factors with the selection of PD as initial dialysis modality across prereform (2008-2009), interim (2010), and postreform (2011-2013) time periods.Principal findingsSelection of PD increased among diverse patient subgroups following the payment reform. However, the lower PD selection observed with older age, black race, Hispanic ethnicity, less pre-ESRD care, and Medicaid insurance before the reform largely remained in the initial postreform years.ConclusionsDespite recent growth in PD, there may be ongoing disparities in access to PD that have largely not been mitigated by the payment reform. There is potential for modifying provider financial incentives to achieve policy goals related to cost and quality of care. However, even with a substantial shift in financial incentives, separate initiatives to reduce existing disparities in care may be needed.
| S-EPMC5980208 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In 2004, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services changed reimbursement for physicians and advanced practitioners caring for patients receiving hemodialysis from a capitated to a tiered fee-for-service system, encouraging increased face-to-face visits. This early version of a pay-for-performance initiative targeted a care process: more frequent provider visits in hemodialysis. Although more frequent provider visits in hemodialysis are associated with fewer hospitalizations and rehospitalizations, it is unknown whether encouraging more frequent visits through reimbursement policy also yielded these benefits.We used a retrospective cohort interrupted time-series study design to examine whether the 2004 nephrologist reimbursement reform led to reduced hospitalizations and rehospitalizations. We also used published data to estimate a range of annual economic costs associated with more frequent visits.Medicare beneficiaries in the United States receiving hemodialysis in the 2 years prior to and following reimbursement reform.The 2 years following nephrologist reimbursement reform.Odds of hospitalization and 30-day hospital readmission for all causes and fluid overload; US dollars.We found no significant change in all-cause hospitalization or rehospitalization and slight reductions in fluid overload hospitalization and rehospitalization following reimbursement reform; the estimated economic cost associated with additional visits ranged from $13 to $87 million per year, depending on who (physicians or advanced practitioners) spent additional time visiting patients and how much additional effort was involved.Due to limited information about how much additional time providers spent seeing patients after reimbursement reform, we could only examine a range of potential economic costs associated with the reform.A Medicare reimbursement policy designed to encourage more frequent visits during outpatient hemodialysis may have been costly. The policy was associated with fewer hospitalizations and rehospitalizations for fluid overload, but had no effect on all-cause hospitalizations or rehospitalizations.
| S-EPMC5263112 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the long-term impact of Medicare payment reductions on patient outcomes for Medicare acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients.Data sourcesAnalysis of secondary data compiled from 100 percent Medicare Provider Analysis and Review between 1995 and 2005, Medicare hospital cost reports, Inpatient Prospective Payment System Payment Impact Files, American Hospital Association annual surveys, InterStudy, Area Resource Files, and County Business Patterns.Study designWe used a natural experiment-the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997-as an instrument to predict cumulative Medicare revenue loss due solely to the BBA, and basing on the predicted loss categorized hospitals into small, moderate, or large payment-cut groups and followed Medicare AMI patient outcomes in these hospitals over an 11-year panel between 1995 and 2005.Principal findingsWe found that while Medicare AMI mortality trends remained similar across hospitals between pre-BBA and initial-BBA periods, hospitals facing large payment cuts saw smaller improvement in mortality rates relative to that of hospitals facing small cuts in the post-BBA period. Part of the relatively higher AMI mortalities among large-cut hospitals might be related to reductions in staffing levels and operating costs, and a small part might be due to patient selection.ConclusionsWe found evidence that hospitals facing large Medicare payment cuts as a result of BBA of 1997 were associated with deteriorating patient outcomes in the long run. Medicare payment reductions may have an unintended consequence of widening the gap in quality across hospitals.
| S-EPMC4213051 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the 2019 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, which modifies reimbursement for office evaluation and management (E&M) visits. This policy moves payment to a single rate for levels 2 through 4 office E&M visits, regardless of complexity. METHODS:Using a 20% sample of 2015 National Medicare claims, we identified urologic practices and their practice organization, academic affiliation, and degree of office focus (ie, proportion of revenues from office visits). Using billing data for each practice, we calculated the revenues expected under the current system and the new policy (both E&M payments and a new add-on code). For each practice, we determined the impact of new payment rates on total Medicare payments. RESULTS:We identified 2822 practices: 1372 (48.6%) solo practices, 1033 (36.6%) multispecialty groups, 322 (11.4%) small urology groups, and 95 (3.4%) large urology groups. Under the new reimbursement rates, the median practice would have a 0.9% increase in Medicare Part B payments (range -20.4% to +50.3%) and, with the add-on code, an increase of 6.8% (range -7.5% to +74.9%). Solo practices had the most heterogeneity, with a quarter losing at least 2.3%. The median multispecialty group would increase payments by 0.4% (range -13.7% to 50.3%). However, the 107 (10.4%) academic multispecialty groups had a median gain of only 0.1% (range -2.8% to +8.1%). CONCLUSION:Urology groups would, on average, benefit from the anticipated change in Medicare office E&M visit payments. However, solo practices with a high office focus and academic multispecialty practices may see reduced Medicare payments.
| S-EPMC6443448 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The ESRD Prospective Payment System introduced two incentives to increase home dialysis use: bundling injectable medications into a single payment for treatment and paying for home dialysis training. We evaluated the effects of the ESRD Prospective Payment System on home dialysis use by patients starting dialysis in the United States from January 1, 2006 to August 31, 2013. We analyzed data on dialysis modality, insurance type, and comorbidities from the United States Renal Data System. We estimated the effect of the policy on home dialysis use with multivariable logistic regression and compared the effect on Medicare Parts A/B beneficiaries with the effect on patients with other types of insurance. The ESRD Prospective Payment System associated with a 5.0% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 4.0% to 6.0%) increase in home dialysis use by the end of the study period. Home dialysis use increased by 5.8% (95% CI, 4.3% to 6.9%) among Medicare beneficiaries and 4.1% (95% CI, 2.3% to 5.4%) among patients covered by other forms of health insurance. The difference between these groups was not statistically significant (1.8%; 95% CI, -0.2% to 3.8%). Conversely, in both populations, the training add-on did not associate with increases in home dialysis use beyond the effect of the policy. The ESRD Prospective Payment System bundling, but not the training add-on, associated with substantial increases in home dialysis, which were identical for both Medicare and non-Medicare patients. These spill-over effects suggest that major payment changes in Medicare can affect all patients with ESRD.
| S-EPMC5619970 | biostudies-literature