Dataset Information

Association of Hospital Participation in a Medicare Bundled Payment Program With Volume and Case Mix of Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Episodes.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) surgery has been associated with a reduction in episode spending and stable-to-improved quality. However, BPCI may create unintended effects by prompting participating hospitals to increase the overall volume of episodes paid for by Medicare, which could potentially eliminate program-related savings or prompt them to shift case mix to lower-risk patients.

Objective

To evaluate whether hospital BPCI participation for LEJR was associated with changes in overall volume and case mix.

Design, setting, and participants

Observational study using Medicare claims data and a difference-in-differences method to compare 131 markets (hospital referral regions) with at least 1 BPCI participant hospital (n = 322) and 175 markets with no participating hospitals (n = 1340), accounting for 580 043 Medicare beneficiaries treated before (January 2011-September 2013) and 462 161 after (October 2013-December 2015) establishing the BPCI initiative. Hospital-level case-mix changes were assessed by comparing 265 participating hospitals with a 1:1 propensity-matched set of nonparticipating hospitals from non-BPCI markets.

Exposures

Hospital BPCI participation.

Main outcomes and measures

Changes in market-level LEJR volume in the before vs after BPCI periods and changes in hospital-level case mix based on demographic, socioeconomic, clinical, and utilization factors.

Results

Among the 1 717 243 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent LEJR (mean age, 75 years; 64% women; and 95% nonblack race/ethnicity), BPCI participation was not significantly associated with a change in overall market-level volume. The mean quarterly market volume in non-BPCI markets increased 3.8% from 3.8 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries before BPCI to 3.9 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries after BPCI was launched. For BPCI markets, the mean quarterly market volume increased 4.4% from 3.6 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries before BPCI to 3.8 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries after BPCI was launched. The adjusted difference-in-differences estimate between the market types was 0.32% (95% CI, -0.06% to 0.69%; P = .10). Among 20 demographic, socioeconomic, clinical, and utilization factors, BPCI participation was associated with differential changes in hospital-level case mix for only 1 factor, prior skilled nursing facility use (adjusted difference-in-differences estimate, -0.53%; 95% CI, -0.96% to -0.10%; P = .01) in BPCI vs non-BPCI markets.

Conclusions and relevance

In this observational study of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent LEJR, hospital participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement was not associated with changes in market-level lower extremity joint replacement volume and largely was not associated with changes in hospital case mix. These findings may provide reassurance regarding 2 potential unintended effects associated with bundled payments for LEJR.

SUBMITTER: Navathe AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6142996 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMuch of the evidence for bundled payments has been drawn from models in the traditional Medicare program. Although private insurers are increasingly offering bundled payment programs, it is not known whether they are associated with changes in episode spending and quality.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether a voluntary bundled payment program offered by a national Medicare Advantage insurer was associated with changes in episode spending or quality of care for beneficiaries receiving lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) surgery.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study of 23 034 LEJR surgical episodes that emulated a stepped-wedge design by using the time-varying, geographically staggered rollout of the bundled payment program from January 1, 2012, to September 30, 2019. Episode-level multivariable regression models were estimated within practice to compare changes before and after program participation, using episodes at physician practices that had not yet begun participating in the program during a given time period (but would go on to do so) as the control. Data analyses were performed from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022.ExposuresPhysician practice participation in the bundled payment program.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was episode spending (plan and beneficiary). Secondary outcomes included postacute care use (skilled nursing facility and home health care), surgical setting (inpatient vs outpatient), and quality (90-day complications [including deep vein thrombosis, wound infection, fracture, or dislocation] and readmissions).ResultsThe final analytic sample included 23 034 LEJR episodes (6355 bundled episodes and 16 679 control episodes) from 109 physician practices participating in the program. Of the beneficiaries, 7730 were male and 15 304 were female, 3057 were Black, 19 351 were White, 447 were of other race or ethnicity (assessed according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services beneficiary race and ethnicity code, which reflects data reported to the Social Security Administration), and 179 were of unknown race and ethnicity. The mean (SD) age was 70.9 (7.2) years. Participation in the bundled payment program was associated with a 2.7% (95% CI, 1.3%-4.1%) decrease in spending per episode (mean episodic spending, $21 964 [95% CI, $21 636-$22 296] vs $22 562 [95% CI, $22 346-$22 779]), as well as reductions in skilled nursing facility use after discharge (21.3% for bundled episodes vs 25.0% for control episodes; odds ratio [OR], 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67-0.98]) and increased use of the outpatient surgical setting (14.1% for bundled episodes vs 8.4% for control episodes; OR, 1.79 [95% CI, 1.53-2.09]). The program was not associated with changes in quality outcomes, including 90-day complications (8.8% for bundled episodes vs 8.6% for control episodes; OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.86-1.20]) and readmissions (4.3% for bundled episodes vs 4.6% for control episodes; OR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.75-1.13]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study of an LEJR bundled payment program offered by a national Medicare Advantage insurer, findings suggest that physician practice participation in the program was associated with a decrease in episode spending without changes in quality. Bundled payments offered by private insurers, including Medicare Advantage plans, are an alternate payment option to fee for service that may reduce spending for LEJR episodes while maintaining quality of care.

Project description:BackgroundWe examined whether the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model was associated with changes in the receipt of joint replacement among people with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) as well as spending, health service use, and postsurgical outcomes among people with ADRD who underwent a joint replacement surgery.MethodsRetrospective cohort study using 2013-2017 Medicare claims and Minimum Data Set. We used a difference-in-differences analysis to compare people with ADRD residing in CJR-participating treatment areas versus nonparticipating control areas on the receipt of joint replacement, episode spending during the index hospitalization and subsequent 90-day post-discharge period, discharges to an institutional post-acute care setting, and readmissions within 90 days of hospital discharge.ResultsOur sample included 3,361,950 Medicare enrollees with ADRD (2,156,995 women [64%]; mean [SD] age, 83 [8.0] years; 2,646,405 white [78%], 344,478 black [10%], 224,010 Hispanic [7%]). The receipt of replacement among people with ADRD changed similarly between CJR-participating treatment and control areas after CJR model was implemented, suggesting no association of CJR model with the receipt of replacement. Among people with ADRD who received joint replacement, the CJR model was associated with a $1029 decrease in spending per episode (95% confidence interval [CI] -$1577, -$481, p < 0.001), a 1.62 percentage point decrease in discharges to an institutional post-acute care setting (95% CI -3.17, -0.07, p = 0.04), but no changes in 90-day readmission (95% CI -2.68, 0.00, p = 0.051).ConclusionsDespite concerns that the CJR model could hinder people with ADRD from receiving joint replacement, the receipt of joint replacement did not change among people with ADRD under CJR. The CJR model was associated with decreased spending for people with ADRD who received joint replacements, driven by reduced discharges to an institutional post-acute care setting, without any changes in 90-day readmission.

Project description:ImportanceThere are marked racial/ethnic differences in hip and knee joint replacement care as well as concerns that value-based payments may exacerbate existing racial/ethnic disparities in care.ObjectiveTo examine changes in joint replacement care associated with Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model among White, Black, and Hispanic patients.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study of Medicare claims from 2013 through 2017 among White, Black, and Hispanic patients undergoing joint replacement in 67 treatment (selected for CJR participation) and 103 control metropolitan statistical areas.ExposuresThe CJR model holds hospitals accountable for spending and quality of joint replacement care during care episodes (index hospitalization through 90 days after discharge).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were spending, discharge to institutional postacute care, and readmission during care episodes.ResultsAmong 688 346 patients, 442 163 (64.2%) were women, and 87 286 (12.7%) were 85 years or older. Under CJR, spending decreased by $439 for White patients (95% CI, -$718 to -$161; from pre-CJR spending in treatment metropolitan statistical areas of $25 264) but did not change for Black patients and Hispanic patients. Discharges to institutional postacute care decreased for all groups (-2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to -0.4, from pre-CJR risk of 46.2% for White patients; -6.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -2.2, from pre-CJR risk of 59.5% for Black patients; and -4.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.6 to -1.0, from pre-CJR risk of 54.3% for Hispanic patients). Readmission risk decreased for Black patients by 3.1 percentage points (95% CI, -5.9 to -0.4, from pre-CJR risk of 21.8%) and did not change for White patients and Hispanic patients. Under CJR, Black-White differences in discharges to institutional postacute care decreased by 3.4 percentage points (95% CI, -6.4 to -0.5, from the pre-CJR Black-White difference of 13.3 percentage points). No evidence was found demonstrating that Black-White differences changed for other outcomes or that Hispanic-White differences changed for any outcomes under CJR.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of patients receiving joint replacements, CJR was associated with decreased readmissions for Black patients. Furthermore, Black patients experienced a greater decrease in discharges to institutional postacute care relative to White patients, representing relative improvements despite concerns that value-based payment models may exacerbate existing disparities. Nonetheless, differences between White and Black patients in joint replacement care still persisted even after these changes.

Project description:ImportanceMedicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model rewards or penalizes hospitals on the basis of meeting spending benchmarks that do not account for patients' preexisting social and medical complexity or high expenses associated with serving disadvantaged populations such as dual-eligible patients (ie, those enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid). The CJR model may have different implications for hospitals serving a high percentage of dual-eligible patients (termed high-dual) and hospitals serving a low percentage of dual-eligible patients (termed low-dual).ObjectiveTo examine changes associated with the CJR model among high-dual or low-dual hospitals in 2016 to 2017.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study comprised 3 analyses of high-dual or low-dual hospitals (n = 1165) serving patients with hip or knee joint replacements (n = 768 224) in 67 treatment metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) selected for CJR participation and 103 control MSAs. The study used Medicare claims data and public reports from 2012 to 2017. Data analysis was conducted from February 1, 2019, to August 31, 2019.ExposuresThe CJR model holds participating hospitals accountable for the spending and quality of care during care episodes for patients with hip or knee joint replacement, including hospitalization and 90 days after discharge.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were total episode spending, discharge to institutional postacute care facility, and readmission within the 90-day postdischarge period; bonus and penalty payments for each hospital; and reductions in per-episode spending required to receive a bonus for each hospital.ResultsIn total, 1165 hospitals (291 high-dual and 874 low-dual) and 768 224 patients with joint replacement (494 013 women [64.3%]; mean [SD] age, 76 [7] years) were included. An episode-level triple-difference analysis indicated that total spending under the CJR model decreased at high-dual hospitals (by $851; 95% CI, -$1556 to -$146; P = .02) and low-dual hospitals (by $567; 95% CI, -$933 to -$202; P = .003). The size of decreases did not differ between the 2 groups (difference, -$284; 95% CI, -$981 to $413; P = .42). Discharge to institutional postacute care settings and readmission did not change among both hospital groups. High-dual hospitals were less likely to receive a bonus compared with low-dual hospitals (40.3% vs 59.1% in 2016; 56.9% vs 76.0% in 2017). To receive a bonus, high-dual hospitals would be required to reduce spending by $887 to $2231 per episode, compared with only $89 to $215 for low-dual hospitals.Conclusions and relevanceThe study found that high- and low-dual hospitals made changes in care after CJR implementation, and the magnitude of these changes did not differ between the 2 groups. However, high-dual hospitals were less likely to receive a bonus for spending cuts. Spending benchmarks for CJR would require high-dual hospitals to reduce spending more substantially to receive a financial incentive.

Project description:ImportanceMedicare recently concluded a national voluntary payment demonstration, Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) model 3, in which skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) assumed accountability for patients' Medicare spending for 90 days from initial SNF admission. There is little evidence on outcomes associated with this novel payment model.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of BPCI model 3 with spending, health care utilization, and patient outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries undergoing lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR).Design, setting, and participantsObservational difference-in-difference analysis using Medicare claims from 2013-2017 to evaluate the association of BPCI model 3 with outcomes for 80 648 patients undergoing LEJR. The preintervention period was from January 2013 through September 2013, which was 9 months prior to enrollment of the first BPCI cohort. The postintervention period extended from 3 months post-BPCI enrollment for each SNF through December 2017. BPCI SNFs were matched with control SNFs using propensity score matching on 2013 SNF characteristics.ExposuresAdmission to a BPCI model 3-participating SNF.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was institutional spending, a combination of postacute care and hospital Medicare-allowed payments. Additional outcomes included other categories of spending, changes in case mix, admission volume, home health use, length of stay, and hospital use within 90 days of SNF admission.ResultsThere were 448 BPCI SNFs with 18 870 LEJR episodes among 16 837 patients (mean [SD] age, 77.5 [9.4] years; 12 173 [72.3%] women) matched with 1958 control SNFs with 72 005 LEJR episodes among 63 811 patients (mean [SD] age, 77.6 [9.4] years; 46 072 [72.2%] women) in the preintervention and postintervention periods. Seventy-nine percent of matched BPCI SNFs were for-profit facilities, 85% were located in an urban area, and 85% were part of a larger corporate chain. There were no systematic changes in patient case mix or episode volume between BPCI-participating SNFs and controls during the program. Institutional spending decreased from $17 956 to $15 746 in BPCI SNFs and from $17 765 to $16 563 in matched controls, a differential decrease of 5.6% (-$1008 [95% CI, -$1603 to -$414]; P < .001). This decrease was related to a decline in SNF days per beneficiary (from 26.2 to 21.3 days in BPCI SNFs and from 26.3 to 23.4 days in matched controls; differential change, -2.0 days [95% CI, -2.9 to -1.1]). There was no significant change in mortality or 90-day readmissions.Conclusions and relevanceAmong Medicare patients undergoing lower extremity joint replacement from 2013-2017, the BPCI model 3 was significantly associated with a decrease in mean institutional spending on episodes initiated by admission to SNFs. Further research is needed to assess bundled payments in other clinical contexts.

Project description:BackgroundTo improve the value and efficiency of care among traditional Medicare enrollees, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has implemented alternative payment models designed to control health-care spending and improve quality. These models may affect care beyond traditional Medicare enrollees, "spilling over" into other populations. Established in April 2016, the Medicare mandatory bundled payment program, called the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, holds hospitals accountable for spending and quality of care for traditional Medicare joint-replacement patients during care episodes that span from the index hospitalization to 90 days post-discharge. We assessed the extent to which the CJR model was associated with outcomes for patients enrolled in commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage plans.MethodsWith use of Health Care Cost Institute claims data from 2012 through 2017, we assessed the association of the CJR model with total expenditures, discharges to institutional post-acute care, and readmissions among commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage joint-replacement patients. The exposure variable was the implementation of the CJR model in 67 randomly selected metropolitan statistical areas compared with 103 similar areas without CJR implementation. We utilized difference-in-differences models to estimate the spillover effects of the CJR model by comparing outcomes between these areas before and after CJR implementation.ResultsThe study included 174,893 joint-replacement episodes of care in commercial insurance enrollees and 202,070 episodes in Medicare Advantage enrollees. Among both commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage enrollees, CJR implementation was associated with no meaningful changes in total episode expenditures, discharges to institutional post-acute care, or readmissions.ConclusionsWe found no evidence for spillover effects of the CJR model on commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage patients, suggesting that alternative payment models targeting traditional Medicare patients may have limited effects on the cost and quality of care for patients outside of the traditional Medicare system.

Project description:ImportanceBundled payments are an increasingly common alternative payment model for Medicare, yet there is limited evidence regarding their effectiveness.ObjectiveTo report interim outcomes from the first year of implementation of a bundled payment model for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR).Design, setting, and participantsAs part of a 5-year, mandatory-participation randomized trial by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, eligible metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) were randomized to the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) bundled payment model for LEJR episodes or to a control group. In the first performance year, hospitals received bonus payments if Medicare spending for LEJR episodes was below the target price and hospitals met quality standards. This interim analysis reports first-year data on LEJR episodes starting April 1, 2016, with data collection through December 31, 2016.ExposureRandomization of MSAs into the CJR bundled payment model group (75 assigned; 67 included) or to the control group without the CJR model (121 assigned; 121 included). Instrumental variable analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between inclusion of MSAs in the CJR model and outcomes.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was share of LEJR admissions discharged to institutional postacute care. Secondary outcomes included the number of days in institutional postacute care, discharges to other locations, Medicare spending during the episode (overall and for institutional postacute care), net Medicare spending during the episode, LEJR patient volume and patient case mix, and quality-of-care measures.ResultsAmong the 196 MSAs and 1633 hospitals, 131 285 eligible LEJR procedures were performed during the study period (mean volume, 110 LEJR episodes per hospital) among 130 343 patients (mean age, 72.5 [SD, 0.91] years; 65% women; 90% white). The mean percentage of LEJR admissions discharged to institutional postacute care was 33.7% (SD, 11.2%) in the control group and was 2.9 percentage points lower (95% CI, -4.95 to -0.90 percentage points) in the CJR group. Mean Medicare spending for institutional postacute care per LEJR episode was $3871 (SD, $1394) in the control group and was $307 lower (95% CI, -$587 to -$27) in the CJR group. Mean overall Medicare spending per LEJR episode was $22 872 (SD, $3619) in the control group and was $453 lower (95% CI, -$909 to $3) in the CJR group, a statistically nonsignificant difference. None of the other secondary outcomes differed significantly between groups.Conclusions and relevanceIn this interim analysis of the first year of the CJR bundled payment model for LEJR among Medicare beneficiaries, MSAs covered by CJR, compared with those that were not, had a significantly lower percentage of discharges to institutional postacute care but no significant difference in total Medicare spending per LEJR episode. Further evaluation is needed as the program is more fully implemented.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03407885; American Economic Association Registry Identifier: AEARCTR-0002521.

Project description:ImportanceMedicare beneficiaries with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) are a particularly vulnerable group in whom arthritis is a frequently occurring comorbidity. Medicare's mandatory bundled payment reform-the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model-was intended to improve quality and reduce spending in beneficiaries undergoing joint replacement surgical procedures for arthritis. In the absence of adjustment for clinical risk, hospitals may avoid performing elective joint replacements for beneficiaries with ADRD.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of the CJR model with utilization of joint replacements for Medicare beneficiaries with ADRD.Design setting and participantsThis cohort study used national Medicare data from 2013 to 2017 and multivariable linear probability models and a triple differences estimation approach. Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of arthritis were identified from 67 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) mandated to participate in CJR and 104 control MSAs. Data were analyzed from July 2020 to July 2021.ExposuresImplementation of the CJR model in 2016.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes were separate binary indicators for whether or not a beneficiary underwent hip or knee replacement. Key independent variables were the MSA group, before-CJR and after-CJR phase, ADRD diagnosis, and their interactions. The linear probability models controlled for beneficiary characteristics, MSA fixed effects, and time trends.ResultsThe study included 24 598 729 beneficiary-year observations for 9 624 461 unique beneficiaries, of which 250 168 beneficiaries underwent hip and 474 751 underwent knee replacements. The mean (SD) age of the 2013 cohort was 77.1 (7.9) years, 3 110 922 (66.4%) were women, 3 928 432 (83.8%) were non-Hispanic White, 792 707 (16.9%) were dually eligible for Medicaid, and 885 432 (18.9%) had an ADRD diagnosis. Before CJR implementation, joint replacement rates were lower among beneficiaries with ADRD (hip replacements: 0.38% vs 1.17% for beneficiaries with and without ADRD, respectively; P < .001; knee replacements: 0.70% vs 2.25%; P < .001). After controlling for relevant covariates, CJR was associated with a 0.07-percentage-point decline in hip replacements for beneficiaries with ADRD (95% CI, -0.13 to -0.001; P = .046) and a 0.07-percentage-point decline for beneficiaries without ADRD (95% CI, -0.12 to -0.02; P = .01) residing in CJR MSAs compared with beneficiaries in control MSAs. However, this change in hip replacement rates for beneficiaries with ADRD was not statistically significantly different from the change for beneficiaries without ADRD (percentage point difference: 0.01; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.09; P = .88). No statistically significant changes in knee replacement rates were noted for beneficiaries with ADRD compared with those without ADRD with CJR implementation (percentage point difference: -0.03, 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.02; P = .27).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with arthritis, the CJR model was not associated with a decline in joint replacement utilization among beneficiaries with ADRD compared with beneficiaries without ADRD in the first 2 years of the program, thereby alleviating patient selection concerns.

Project description:Background One of the most significant challenges of implementing a multi-provider bundled payment contract is to determine an appropriate, casemix-adjusted total bundle price. The most frequently used approach is to leverage historic care utilization based on claims data. However, those claims data may not accurately reflect appropriate care (e.g. due to supplier induced demand and moral hazard effects). This study aims to examine variation in claims-based costs of post-discharge primary care physical therapy (PT) utilization after total knee and hip arthroplasties (TKA/THA) for osteoarthritis patients. Methods This retrospective cohort study used multilevel linear regression analyses to predict the factors that explain the variation in the utilization of post-discharge PT after TKA or THA for osteoarthritis patients, based on the historic (2015–2018) claims data of a large Dutch health insurer. The factors were structured as predisposing, enabling or need factors according to the behavioral model of Andersen. Results The 15,309 TKA and 14,325 THA patients included in this study received an average of 20.7 (SD 11.3) and 16.7 (SD 10.1) post-discharge PT sessions, respectively. Results showed that the enabling factor ‘presence of supplementary insurance’ was the strongest predictor for post-discharge PT utilization in both groups (TKA: β = 7.46, SE = 0.498, p-value< 0.001; THA: β = 5.72, SE = 0.515, p-value< 0.001). There were also some statistically significant predisposing and need factors, but their effects were smaller. Conclusions This study shows that if enabling factors (such as supplementary insurance coverage or co-payments) are not taken into account in risk-adjustment of the bundle price, they may cause historic claims-based pricing methods to over- or underestimate appropriate post-discharge primary care PT use, which would result in a bundle price that is either too high or too low. Not adjusting bundle prices for all relevant casemix factors is a risk because it can hamper the successful implementation of bundled payment contracts and the desired changes in care delivery it aims to support. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08410-7.