Dataset Information

A Retrospective Study of Administrative Data to Identify High-Need Medicare Beneficiaries at Risk of Dying and Being Hospitalized.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Developing a definition of what constitutes high need among Medicare beneficiaries using administrative data is an important prerequisite to evaluating value-based payment reforms. While various definitions of high need exist, their predictive validity for different patient outcomes in the following year has not been systematically assessed for both fee-for-service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE:To develop a definition of high need using administrative data in 2014 and to examine its predictive validity for patient outcomes in 2015 as compared to alternative definitions for both FFS and MA beneficiaries. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study of national Medicare claims and post-acute assessment data. PARTICIPANTS:All Medicare beneficiaries in 2014 who survived until the end of the year (n?=?54,717,039). MAIN MEASURES:Two or more complex conditions, 6 or more chronic conditions, acute or post-acute health services utilization, indicators of frailty, complete dependency in mobility or in any activities of daily living in post-acute care assessments, hospitalization, mortality, days in community, Medicare expenditures. KEY RESULTS:Based on our definition of high-need patients, 13.17% of FFS and 8.85% of MA beneficiaries were identified as high need in 2014. High-need FFS patients had mortality rates 7.1 times higher (16.23% vs. 2.27%) and hospitalization rates 3.4 times higher (40.69 vs. 12.03) in 2015 compared to other beneficiaries. Competing high-need definitions all had good specificity (??0.88). Having 3 or more Hierarchical Chronic Conditions yielded a good positive predictive value for hospitalization, at 0.50, but only identified 19.71% of FFS beneficiaries hospitalized and 28.46% of FFS decedents that year as high need, as opposed to 33.92% and 51.98% for the new definition. Results were similar for MA beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS:The proposed high-need definition has better sensitivity and yields a sample of almost 5 million FFS and 1.5 million MA beneficiaries, facilitating outcome performance comparisons across health systems.

SUBMITTER: Belanger E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6420563 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Retrospective Study of Administrative Data to Identify High-Need Medicare Beneficiaries at Risk of Dying and Being Hospitalized.

Bélanger Emmanuelle E Silver Benjamin B Meyers David J DJ Rahman Momotazur M Kumar Amit A Kosar Cyrus C Mor Vincent V

Journal of general internal medicine 20190102 3

<h4>Background</h4>Developing a definition of what constitutes high need among Medicare beneficiaries using administrative data is an important prerequisite to evaluating value-based payment reforms. While various definitions of high need exist, their predictive validity for different patient outcomes in the following year has not been systematically assessed for both fee-for-service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries.<h4>Objective</h4>To develop a definition of high need using admi ...[more]

PMID: 30604120

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe measured severity of illness of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries has increased. Whether this change is associated with payment reforms, concentrated among hospitalizations with principal diagnoses targeted by payment reform, and reflective of true increases in severity of illness is unknown.ObjectivesTo assess whether the expansion of secondary diagnosis codes in January 2011 and the incentive payments for health information technology under the US Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act were associated with changes in measured severity of illness and whether those changes are reflective of true increases in underlying patient severity.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary discharges (N = 47 951 443) between January 1, 2008, and August 31, 2015, used a regression-discontinuity design to evaluate changes in measured severity of illness after the expansion of secondary diagnoses. Discharge-level linear regression model with hospital fixed effects was used to evaluate changes in measured severity of illness after hospitals' receipt of incentives for health information technology. The change in predictive accuracy of measured severity of illness on 30-day readmissions after the implementation of both policies was evaluated. Data analysis was performed from November 1, 2018, to March 5, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was patients' measured severity of illness determined by the number of condition categories from secondary discharge diagnosis codes. Measured severity of illness for diagnoses commonly targeted by Medicare policies and untargeted diagnoses was assessed.ResultsIn total, 47 951 443 discharges at 2850 hospitals were included. In 2008, these beneficiaries included 3 882 672 women (58.5%) with a mean (SD) age of 78.5 (8.4) years. In 2014, the discharges included 3 377 137 women (57.8%) with the mean (SD) age of 78.4 (8.7) years. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expansion of secondary diagnoses was associated with a 0.348 (95% CI, 0.328-0.367; P < .001) change in condition categories for all diagnoses, 0.445 (95% CI, 0.419-0.470; P < .001) for targeted diagnoses, and 0.321 (95% CI, 0.302-0.341; P < .001) for untargeted diagnoses. Health information technology incentives were associated with a 0.013 (95% CI, 0.004-0.022; P = .005) change in condition categories for all diagnoses, 0.195 (95% CI, 0.184-0.207; P < .001) for targeted diagnoses, and -0.016 (95% CI, -0.025 to -0.007; P < .001) for untargeted diagnoses. Minimal improvements in predictive accuracy were observed.Conclusions and relevanceChanges in Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services policies appear to be associated with increases in measured severity of illness; these increases do not appear to reflect substantive changes in true patient severity.

Project description:IntroductionNonadherence to antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs) increases the incidence of morbidity and mortality, as well as healthcare-related costs, in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study examined the association between medication copayment and adherence and discontinuation among elderly patients with T2D who use generic versus branded AHAs.MethodsA retrospective, observational cohort study used Medicare administrative claims data (index period: 1 June 2012 to 31 December 2013). Drug copayments were measured as the copayment of the index medication for a 30-day supply after patients met their plan deductible. Patients were stratified into a branded or generic cohort based on the index medication. Adherence was measured by the proportion of days covered (≥ 80%) and discontinuation by a treatment gap of > 60 days in 10 months during the follow-up period. Poisson regressions were conducted for medication adherence and discontinuation, while controlling for demographic, clinical, and comorbid conditions.ResultsOverall, 160,250 patients on AHA monotherapy were included in the analysis; 131,594 (82%) were prescribed a generic and 28,656 (18%) a branded AHA with a mean copay of $6 and $41, respectively. Increases in copayment increased nonadherence and discontinuation for branded medications but not for generic AHA medications. In both cohorts, elderly patients (≥ 75 years of age) had a lower risk of nonadherence and discontinuation. Black patients had a higher risk of nonadherence or discontinuing medication. Patients having more frequent inpatient, emergency room, and/or physician visits were at higher risk of nonadherence or discontinuing therapy in the branded and generic cohorts (P < 0.001).ConclusionThe impact of drug copayment on adherence and discontinuation varied considerably between branded and generic AHAs. Medicare patients taking branded AHAs had a higher risk of nonadherence with increasing copayment and were more likely to discontinue medication, whereas this association was not observed in patients taking generic medications.FundingMerck & Co, Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Plain language summary available for this article.

Project description:BackgroundPrescribing of medications with anticholinergic properties in older nursing home residents is relatively common, despite an association with an increased risk for falls, delirium, and other outcomes. Few studies have investigated what factors influence different levels of prescribing of these agents.ObjectivesThe primary objective was to identify factors associated with low- and high-level anticholinergic burden in nursing home residents. A secondary objective was to examine in detail the contribution of different medications to low versus high burden to aid in determining which drugs to target in interventions.MethodsThis was a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of a national sample of 2009-2010 Medicare Part A and B claims, Part D prescription drug events, and Minimum Data Set (MDS) v2.0 assessments. The cohort included 4730 Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 65 years with continuous Medicare Parts A, B, and D enrollment, admitted for non-skilled stays of ≥ 14 days between 1 January 2010 and 30 September 2010. Anticholinergic burden was defined using the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (ACB) scale. Medication scores were summed at the patient level and categorized as high (score ≥ 3), low (score 1-2), or none. Baseline predisposing factors (age, sex, race/ethnicity), enabling factors (prior year hospitalization, emergency department, primary care, specialist visits; region; Medicaid/low-income subsidy), and medical need factors (dementia severity, anti-dementia medication, Charlson co-morbidity index [CCI], select comorbidities) were evaluated for association with anticholinergic burden using multinomial logistic regression.ResultsOverall, 29.6% of subjects had a high anticholinergic burden and 35.2% had a low burden. High burden was most often (72%) due to one highly anticholinergic medication rather than a cumulative effect. In adjusted analyses, factors associated with increased risk of both low and high anticholinergic burden included comorbidity, antidementia medication, depression, hypertension, and prior year hospitalization. Older age was associated with decreased odds of high anticholinergic burden. Urinary incontinence and prior year specialist visit were associated with increased odds of high anticholinergic burden. Severe and nonsevere dementia were associated with decreased odds of low burden but increased odds of high burden.ConclusionAlmost two-thirds of nursing home patients have some degree of anticholinergic burden. Several medical need variables are significantly associated with increased risk for low and high anticholinergic burden. Interventions should be developed to optimize prescribing for residents at increased risk of receiving medications with anticholinergic properties. Future study is needed to evaluate the difference in the risk of adverse outcomes associated with various levels of anticholinergic burden.

Project description:ImportanceA growing proportion of the population is enrolling in Medicare Advantage (MA), which typically offers additional benefits compared with traditional Medicare (TM).ObjectiveTo determine whether frailty and frailty trajectories differ between MA enrollees and TM enrollees.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (2015-2016). Analyses were conducted from August 2023 to March 2024. Participants were community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older.ExposureEnrollment in MA vs TM.Main outcomes and measuresFrailty was calculated by a frailty index (FI) (range, 0-1, with higher values indicating greater frailty) and the Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) score (range, 0-5, with higher values indicating greater frailty). Physical performance, including Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score (range, 0-12, with higher values indicating better performance), and gait speed (meters per second) were measured. The primary outcome was the difference in FI and FFP scores from the 2015 baseline assessment to the 2016 follow-up assessment. Secondary outcomes include the 1-year changes in SPPB and gait speed.ResultsThe final cohort consisted of 7063 participants (2775 [23.1%] aged >80 years; 4040 [54.7%] female), representing a sample of the 38.8 million beneficiaries. There were 2583 (35.0%) MA enrollees (13.6 million) and 4480 (65.0%) TM enrollees (25.2 million). At baseline, the FI score was similar between MA and TM enrollees (mean [SD], 0.22 [0.15] vs 0.21 [0.14]), although MA enrollees had worse phenotypic frailty (496 participants [15.2%] vs 811 participants [13.7%] considered frail by FFP score), SPPB scores (mean [SD], 6.91 [3.34] vs 7.21 [3.27]), and gait speed (0.79 [0.24] m/s vs 0.82 [0.23] m/s) than TM enrollees. One year later, there were no differences between MA and TM enrollees in the 1-year change in FI score (mean [SD], 0.016 [0.071] vs 0.014 [0.066]; adjusted mean difference, 0.001 [95% CI, -0.004 to 0.005]), FFP score (mean [SD], 0.017 [1.004] vs 0.007 [0.958]; adjusted mean difference, -0.009 [95% CI, -0.067 to 0.049]), SPPB score (mean [SD], -0.144 [2.064] vs -0.211 [1.968]; adjusted mean difference, 0.068 [95% CI, -0.076 to 0.212]), and gait speed (mean [SD], -0.0160 [0.148] m/s vs -0.007 [0.148] m/s; adjusted mean difference, -0.010 m/s [95% CI, -0.067 to 0.049 m/s]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries from 2015, MA enrollees experienced similar declines in frailty over 1 year compared with TM enrollees. Future work should examine whether the specific types of services covered by health insurance can impact frailty and health trajectories for older adults.

Project description:ObjectivesHigh-need (HN) Medicare beneficiaries heavily use healthcare services at a high cost. This population is heterogeneous, composed of individuals with varying degrees of medical complexity and healthcare needs. To improve healthcare delivery and decrease costs, it is critical to identify the subpopulations present within this population. We aimed to (1) identify distinct clinical phenotypes present within HN Medicare beneficiaries, and (2) examine differences in outcomes between phenotypes.DesignLatent class analysis was used to identify phenotypes within a sample of HN fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older using Medicare claims and post-acute assessment data.SettingNot applicable.ParticipantsTwo cross-sectional cohorts were used to identify phenotypes. Cohorts included FFS Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older who survived through 2014 (n = 415 659) and 2015 (n = 416 643).MeasurementsThe following variables were used to identify phenotypes: acute and post-acute care use, functional dependency in one or more activities of daily living, presence of six or more chronic conditions, and complex chronic conditions. Mortality, hospitalizations, healthcare expenditures, and days in the community were compared between phenotypes.ResultsFive phenotypes were identified: (1) comorbid ischemic heart disease with hospitalization and skilled nursing facility use (22% of the HN sample), (2) comorbid ischemic heart disease with home care use (23%), (3) home care use (12%), (4) high comorbidity with hospitalization (32%), and (5) Alzheimer's disease/related dementias with functional dependency and nursing home use (11%). Mortality was highest in phenotypes 1 and 2; hospitalizations and expenditures were highest in phenotypes 1, 3, and 4.ConclusionsOur findings represent a first step toward classifying the heterogeneity among HN Medicare beneficiaries. Further work is needed to identify modifiable utilization patterns between phenotypes to improve the value of healthcare provided to these subpopulations. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:70-77, 2019.

Project description:ImportanceAs US hospital expenditures continue to rise, understanding drivers of high-severity billing for hospitalized patients among inpatient physicians is critically important.ObjectiveTo evaluate high-severity billing trends of Medicare beneficiaries treated by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists.Design setting and participantsThis cohort study used Medicare fee-for-service claims of hospitalized patients from 2009 through 2018 to compare the proportion of high-severity billing between general medicine physicians classified as hospitalists vs nonhospitalists across initial, subsequent, and discharge hospital encounters. We compared physicians within the same hospital using hospital fixed effects and adjusted for patient demographics and comorbidities. Changes in the billing practices were assessed by investigating differences in slopes using an interaction term between physician type and time. Analyses were conducted between August 2021 and January 2022.ExposuresTreatment by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists.Main outcomes and measuresHigh-severity billing for initial, subsequent, and discharge hospital encounters.ResultsThe sample included 3 121 260 and 1 855 678 Medicare beneficiaries treated by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists, respectively. In each year, mean age, proportion female, proportion Black and Hispanic dual status, and mean number of chronic conditions were similar among those treated by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists (standardized mean difference < .01). The number of hospitalists grew by 76%, from 23 390 in 2009 to 41 084 in 2018, whereas nonhospitalists decreased by 43.6% (53 758 to 30 289). The proportion of encounters performed by hospitalists increased for the initial hospital encounters (46.3% to 76%), subsequent encounters (46.8% to 76.7%), and discharge encounters (46.1% to 78.5%) over the 10-year period. The proportion of high-severity billing across the hospital, subsequent, and discharge encounters was consistently higher among hospitalists relative to nonhospitalists across all years. Compared with the trends for nonhospitalists, the proportion of high-severity billing grew by 0.46% per year (95% CI, 0.44% to 0.49%; P < .001) for initial encounters, 0.38% per year (95% CI, 0.37% to 0.39%; P < .001) for subsequent encounters, and by 1.1% per year (95% CI, 1.1% to 1.15%; P < .001) for discharge encounters among hospitalists.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries treated in hospitals, high-severity billing increased over time for hospital encounters at higher rates for hospitalists than for nonhospitalists. These differences do not appear to be explained by patient complexity. The increase in the number of hospitalists over time may be contributing to rising national costs related to hospital care.

Dataset Information

A Retrospective Study of Administrative Data to Identify High-Need Medicare Beneficiaries at Risk of Dying and Being Hospitalized.

Publications

A Retrospective Study of Administrative Data to Identify High-Need Medicare Beneficiaries at Risk of Dying and Being Hospitalized.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets