Dataset Information

Association of Medicare Spending With Subspecialty Consultation for Elderly Hospitalized Adults.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

High use of subspecialty care is an important source of health care spending. Medical subspecialty care in particular may duplicate the scope of practice of the primary attending physicians for patients hospitalized for medical conditions. Under value-based payments, which aim to control overall spending during an episode of hospitalization (including Part B physician fees), subspecialty consultations may be a target for hospitals working to reduce costs.

Objectives

To measure the use of subspecialty consultation for Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for nonsurgical conditions; to compare payments for consultative and nonconsultative care, adjusted for case mix and demographics; and to measure variation in payments across hospital referral regions (HRRs).

Design, setting, and participants

This retrospective cross-sectional study included a 15% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries enrolled in Parts A and B and identified all discharges after acute care hospital stays for nonsurgical conditions from January 1 through December 31, 2014. A total of 735?627 discharges were included. The analyses were conducted from December 1, 2017, through February 12, 2019. Total Part B payments were extrapolated to the population of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries.

Main outcomes and measures

Probability of any consultation during a hospitalization was estimated using logistic regression. The number of consultations per stay and the number of consultative visits per hospital day were estimated using Poisson regression. Part B payments for consultative and nonconsultative care were estimated using generalized linear regression with gamma-log link. All models were adjusted for patient demographics and case mix. Payment models also included HRR fixed effects.

Results

A total of 735?627 discharges from 4534 hospitals in 2014 were included in the analysis (41.2% men and 58.8% women; mean [SD] age, 79.6 [8.9] years; 84.7% white, 10.1% black, and 5.2% other race). After adjusting for patient case mix and demographics, a 6-fold variation between the top and bottom quintiles of hospitals (relative difference, $401 [95% CI, $368-$434]) and HRRs (relative difference, $363 [95% CI, $337-$389]) was found in payments per stay for consultative care. Part B payments for consultative care by medical subspecialists accounted for 41.3% of payments for physician visits during hospitalization and totaled $1.3 billion in 2014.

Conclusions and relevance

The substantial variation in the use of subspecialty consultative care suggests potential opportunities for cost savings.

SUBMITTER: Ryskina KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6450334 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association of Medicare Spending With Subspecialty Consultation for Elderly Hospitalized Adults.

Ryskina Kira L KL Yuan Yihao Y Werner Rachel M RM

JAMA network open 20190405 4

<h4>Importance</h4>High use of subspecialty care is an important source of health care spending. Medical subspecialty care in particular may duplicate the scope of practice of the primary attending physicians for patients hospitalized for medical conditions. Under value-based payments, which aim to control overall spending during an episode of hospitalization (including Part B physician fees), subspecialty consultations may be a target for hospitals working to reduce costs.<h4>Objectives</h4>To ...[more]

PMID: 30951157

Similar Datasets

Project description:IMPORTANCE:Accountable care contracts hold physician groups financially responsible for the quality and cost of health care delivered to patients. Focusing on clinically vulnerable patients, those with serious conditions who are responsible for the greatest proportion of spending, may result in the largest effects on both patient outcomes and financial rewards for participating physician groups. OBJECTIVE:To estimate the effect of Medicare accountable care organization (ACO) contracts on spending and high-cost institutional use for all Medicare beneficiaries and for clinically vulnerable beneficiaries. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:For this cohort study, 2 study populations were defined: the overall Medicare population and the clinically vulnerable subgroup of Medicare beneficiaries. The overall Medicare population was based on a random 40% sample drawn from continuously enrolled fee-for-service beneficiaries with at least 1 evaluation and management visit in a calendar year. The clinically vulnerable study population included all Medicare beneficiaries 66 years or older who had at least 3 Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCCs). Beneficiaries entered the cohort during the quarter between January 2009 to December 2011 when they first had at least 3 HCCs and remained in the cohort until death. Cohort entry was restricted to the preperiod to account for potential changes in coding practices after ACO implementation. Difference-in-difference estimations were used to compare changes in health care outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries attributed to physicians in ACOs with those attributed to non-ACO physicians from January 2009 to December 2013. EXPOSURES:Medicare ACOs beginning contracts in January 2012, April 2012, July 2012, and January 2013 through the Pioneer and Medicare Shared Savings Programs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Total spending per beneficiary-quarter, spending categories, use of hospitals and emergency departments, ambulatory care sensitive admissions, and 30-day readmissions. RESULTS:Total spending decreased by $34 (95% CI, -$52 to -$15) per beneficiary-quarter after ACO contract implementation across the overall Medicare population (n?=?15?592?600) and decreased $114 in clinically vulnerable patients (n?=?8?673?823) (95% CI, -$178 to -$50). In the overall Medicare cohort, hospitalizations and emergency department visits decreased by 1.3 and 3.0 events per 1000 beneficiaries per quarter, respectively (95% CIs: -2.1 to -0.4 and -4.8 to -1.3), and hospitalizations and emergency department visits decreased in the clinically vulnerable cohort by 2.9 and 4.1 events per 1000 beneficiaries per quarter, respectively (95% CIs: -5.2 to -0.7 and -7.1 to -1.2). Changes in total spending associated with ACOs did not vary by clinical condition of beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Medicare ACO programs are associated with modest reductions in spending and use of hospitals and emergency departments. Savings were realized through reductions in use of institutional settings in clinically vulnerable patients.

Project description:Importance:The degree to which the presence of mental health disorders is associated with additional medical spending on non-mental health conditions is largely unknown. Objective:To determine the proportion and degree of total spending directly associated with mental health conditions vs spending on other non-mental health conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective cohort study of 4 358 975 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the US in 2015 compared spending and health care utilization among Medicare patients with serious mental illness (SMI; defined as bipolar disease, schizophrenia or related psychotic disorders, and major depressive disorder), patients with other common mental health disorders (defined as anxiety disorders, personality disorders, and posttraumatic stress disorder), and patients with no known mental health disorders. Data analysis was conducted from February to October 2019. Exposure:Diagnosis of an SMI or other common mental health disorder. Main Outcomes and Measures:Risk-adjusted, standardized spending and health care utilization. Multivariable linear regression models were used to adjust for patient characteristics, including demographic characteristics and other medical comorbidities, using hospital referral region fixed effects. Results:Of 4 358 975 Medicare beneficiaries, 987 379 (22.7%) had an SMI, 326 991 (7.5%) had another common mental health disorder, and 3 044 587 (69.8%) had no known mental illness. Compared with patients with no known mental illness, patients with an SMI were younger (mean [SD] age, 72.3 [11.6] years vs 67.4 [15.7] years; P < .001) and more likely to have dual eligibility (633 274 [20.8%] vs 434 447 [44.0%]; P < .001). Patients with an SMI incurred more mean (SE) spending on mental health services than those with other common mental health disorders or no known mental illness ($2024 [3.9] vs $343 [6.2] vs $189 [2.1], respectively; P < .001). Patients with an SMI also had substantially higher mean (SE) spending on medical services for physical conditions than those with other common mental health disorders or no known mental illness ($17 651 [23.6] vs $15 253 [38.2] vs $12 883 [12.8], respectively; P < .001), reflecting $4768 (95% CI, $4713-$4823; 37% increase) more in costs for patients with an SMI and $2370 (95% CI, $2290-$2449; 18.4% increase) more in costs for patients with other common mental health disorders. Among Medicare beneficiaries, $2 686 016 110 of $64 326 262 104 total Medicare spending (4.2%) went to mental health services and an additional $5 482 791 747 (8.5%) went to additional medical spending associated with mental illness, representing a total of 12.7% of spending associated with mental health disorders. Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, having a mental health disorder was associated with spending substantially more on other medical conditions. These findings quantify the extent of additional spending in the Medicare fee-for-service population associated with a diagnosis of a mental health disorder.

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:BACKGROUND:Health care providers who participate as an accountable care organization (ACO) in the voluntary Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) have incentives to lower spending for Medicare patients while achieving high performance on a set of quality measures. Little is known about the extent to which early savings achieved by ACOs in the program have grown and been replicated by ACOs that entered the program in later years. ACOs that are physician groups have stronger incentives to lower spending than hospital-integrated ACOs. METHODS:Using fee-for-service Medicare claims from 2009 through 2015, we performed difference-in-differences analyses to compare changes in Medicare spending for patients in ACOs before and after entry into the MSSP with concurrent changes in spending for local patients served by providers not participating in the MSSP (control group). We estimated differential changes (i.e., the between-group difference in the change from the pre-entry period) separately for hospital-integrated ACOs and physician-group ACOs that entered the MSSP in 2012, 2013, or 2014. RESULTS:MSSP participation was associated with differential spending reductions in physician-group ACOs. These reductions grew with longer participation in the program and were significantly greater than the reductions in hospital-integrated ACOs. By 2015, the mean differential change in per-patient Medicare spending was -$474 (-4.9% of the pre-entry mean, P<0.001) for physician-group ACOs that entered in 2012, -$342 (-3.5% of the pre-entry mean, P<0.001) for those that entered in 2013, and -$156 (-1.6% of the pre-entry mean, P=0.009) for those that entered in 2014. The corresponding differential changes for hospital-integrated ACOs were -$169 (P=0.005), -$18 (P=0.78), and $88 (P=0.14), which were significantly lower than for physician-group ACOs (P<0.001). Spending reductions in physician-group ACOs constituted a net savings to Medicare of $256.4 million in 2015, whereas spending reductions in hospital-integrated ACOs were offset by bonus payments. CONCLUSIONS:After 3 years of the MSSP, participation in shared-savings contracts by physician groups was associated with savings for Medicare that grew over the study period, whereas hospital-integrated ACOs did not produce savings (on average) during the same period. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging.).

Dataset Information

Association of Medicare Spending With Subspecialty Consultation for Elderly Hospitalized Adults.

Importance

Objectives

Design, setting, and participants

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Association of Medicare Spending With Subspecialty Consultation for Elderly Hospitalized Adults.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure