Dataset Information

Association of Patient Social, Cognitive, and Functional Risk Factors with Preventable Hospitalizations: Implications for Physician Value-Based Payment.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Ambulatory care-sensitive condition (ACSC) hospitalizations are used to evaluate physicians' performance in Medicare value-based payment programs. However, these measures may disadvantage physicians caring for vulnerable populations because they omit social, cognitive, and functional factors that may be important determinants of hospitalization. OBJECTIVE:To determine whether social, cognitive, and functional risk factors are associated with ACSC hospitalization rates and whether adjusting for them changes outpatient safety-net providers' performance. DESIGN:Using data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, we conducted patient-level multivariable regression to estimate the association (as incidence rate ratios (IRRs)) between patient-reported social, cognitive, and functional risk factors and ACSC hospitalizations. We compared outpatient safety-net and non-safety-net providers' performance after adjusting for clinical comorbidities alone and after additional adjustment for social, cognitive, and functional factors captured in survey data. SETTING:Safety-net and non-safety-net clinics. PARTICIPANTS:Community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries contributing 38,616 person-years from 2006 to 2013. MEASUREMENTS:Acute and chronic ACSC hospitalizations. RESULTS:After adjusting for clinical comorbidities, Alzheimer's/dementia (IRR 1.30, 95% CI 1.02-1.65), difficulty with 3-6 activities of daily living (ADLs) (IRR 1.43, 95% CI 1.05-1.94), difficulty with 1-2 instrumental ADLs (IADLs, IRR 1.54, 95% CI 1.26-1.90), and 3-6 IADLs (IRR 1.90, 95% CI 1.49-2.43) were associated with acute ACSC hospitalization. Low income (IRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03-1.58), lack of educational attainment (IRR 1.33, 95% CI 1.04-1.69), being unmarried (IRR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01-1.36), difficulty with 1-2 IADLs (IRR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05-1.60), and 3-6 IADLs (IRR 1.44, 95% CI 1.16-1.80) were associated with chronic ACSC hospitalization. Adding these factors to standard Medicare risk adjustment eliminated outpatient safety-net providers' performance gap (p?

SUBMITTER: Johnston KJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6667509 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association of Patient Social, Cognitive, and Functional Risk Factors with Preventable Hospitalizations: Implications for Physician Value-Based Payment.

Johnston Kenton J KJ Wen Hefei H Schootman Mario M Joynt Maddox Karen E KE

Journal of general internal medicine 20190425 8

<h4>Background</h4>Ambulatory care-sensitive condition (ACSC) hospitalizations are used to evaluate physicians' performance in Medicare value-based payment programs. However, these measures may disadvantage physicians caring for vulnerable populations because they omit social, cognitive, and functional factors that may be important determinants of hospitalization.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether social, cognitive, and functional risk factors are associated with ACSC hospitalization rates a ...[more]

PMID: 31025305

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMedicare is moving toward value-based payment. The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) program judges outpatient clinicians' performance on a measure of annual Medicare spending. However, this measure may disadvantage outpatient clinicians who care for vulnerable populations because the algorithm omits meaningful determinants of cost.ObjectivesTo determine whether factors not included in Medicare risk adjustment, including patient neuropsychological and functional status, as well as local area health resources and economic conditions, are associated with Medicare total annual cost of care (TACC), and evaluate whether accounting for these factors is associated with improved TACC performance by outpatient safety-net clinicians.Design, setting, and participantsIn this retrospective observational study, we used the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) to examine patient-reported neuropsychological and functional status and the Area Health Resources File to obtain information on local area characteristics. Included were Medicare beneficiaries with annual physician or clinic visits to outpatient safety-net (federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics) and non-safety-net clinics, contributing 76 927 person-years of data to the MCBS from 2006 through 2013. We used patient-level multivariable regression models to estimate the association between each factor and annual Medicare spending, and compared outpatient safety-net performance under current risk adjustment and after adding additional adjustment for these factors.Main outcomes and measuresMedicare TACC, measured as the total annual reimbursed amount per patient for Medicare Part A and Part B services, in all categories.ResultsOur study included 111 414 unique identifiable physicians, and the final weighted sample included 213 904 324 patient-years (unweighted, 76 927 patient-years) from 30 058 unique patients, of whom 17 478 (58.1%) were women. The mean (SD) patient age was 71.84 (12.48) years. The mean TACC was $9117. Those with higher than mean TACC included beneficiaries with depression ($14 436), dementia ($18 311), and difficulty with 3 or more activities of daily living (ADLs, $19 113) or instrumental ADLs ($17 443). After adjusting for comorbidities, depression and dementia were still associated with $2740 (95% CI, $2200-$2739) and $2922 (95% CI, $2399-$3445) higher TACC, respectively. Difficulty with 3 or more ADLs ($3121 higher; 95% CI, $2633-$3609) or instrumental ADLs ($895 higher; 95% CI, $452-$1337) was also associated with higher TACC. Adding these neuropsychological and functional factors, as well as local residence area factors, to risk adjustment calculations reduced outpatient safety-net clinicians' underperformance on Medicare TACC relative to non-safety-net clinicians by 52% (from 0.098 to 0.047 difference in the observed to expected ratio).Conclusions and relevanceNeuropsychological and functional impairment are common in Medicare beneficiaries and are associated with increased annual Medicare spending. Failure to account for these factors may inappropriately penalize outpatient clinicians who care for these vulnerable groups, such as safety-net clinicians, for factors that are arguably beyond their control.

Project description:ImportanceMedicare recently launched the Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier (PVBM) Program, a mandatory pay-for-performance program for physician practices. Little is known about performance by practices that serve socially or medically high-risk patients.ObjectiveTo compare performance in the PVBM Program by practice characteristics.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional observational study using PVBM Program data for payments made in 2015 based on performance of large US physician practices caring for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in 2013.ExposuresHigh social risk (defined as practices in the top quartile of proportion of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid) and high medical risk (defined as practices in the top quartile of mean Hierarchical Condition Category risk score among fee-for-service beneficiaries).Main outcomes and measuresQuality and cost z scores based on a composite of individual measures. Higher z scores reflect better performance on quality; lower scores, better performance on costs.ResultsAmong 899 physician practices with 5 189 880 beneficiaries, 547 practices were categorized as low risk (neither high social nor high medical risk) (mean, 7909 beneficiaries; mean, 320 clinicians), 128 were high medical risk only (mean, 3675 beneficiaries; mean, 370 clinicians), 102 were high social risk only (mean, 1635 beneficiaries; mean, 284 clinicians), and 122 were high medical and social risk (mean, 1858 beneficiaries; mean, 269 clinicians). Practices categorized as low risk performed the best on the composite quality score (z score, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.28]) compared with each of the practices categorized as high risk (high medical risk only: z score, -0.55 [95% CI, -0.77 to -0.32]; high social risk only: z score, -0.86 [95% CI, -1.17 to -0.54]; and high medical and social risk: -0.78 [95% CI, -1.04 to -0.51]) (P < .001 across groups). Practices categorized as high social risk only performed the best on the composite cost score (z score, -0.52 [95% CI, -0.71 to -0.33]), low risk had the next best cost score (z score, -0.18 [95% CI, -0.25 to -0.10]), then high medical and social risk (z score, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.57]), and then high medical risk only (z score, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.99]) (P < .001 across groups). Total per capita costs were $9506 for practices categorized as low risk, $13 683 for high medical risk only, $8214 for high social risk only, and $11 692 for high medical and social risk. These patterns were associated with fewer bonuses and more penalties for high-risk practices.Conclusions and relevanceDuring the first year of the Medicare Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier Program, physician practices that served more socially high-risk patients had lower quality and lower costs, and practices that served more medically high-risk patients had lower quality and higher costs.

Project description:ImportanceThe US Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is a major Medicare value-based payment program aimed at improving quality and reducing costs. Little is known about how physicians' performance varies by social risk of their patients.ObjectiveTo determine the relationship between patient social risk and physicians' scores in the first year of MIPS.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study of physicians participating in MIPS in 2017.ExposuresPhysicians in the highest quintile of proportion of dually eligible patients served; physicians in the 3 middle quintiles; and physicians in the lowest quintile.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the 2017 composite MIPS score (range, 0-100; higher scores indicate better performance). Payment rates were adjusted -4% to 4% based on scores.ResultsThe final sample included 284 544 physicians (76.1% men, 60.1% with ≥20 years in practice, 11.9% in rural location, 26.8% hospital-based, and 24.6% in primary care). The mean composite MIPS score was 73.3. Physicians in the highest risk quintile cared for 52.0% of dually eligible patients; those in the 3 middle risk quintiles, 21.8%; and those in the lowest risk quintile, 6.6%. After adjusting for medical complexity, the mean MIPS score for physicians in the highest risk quintile (64.7) was lower relative to scores for physicians in the middle 3 (75.4) and lowest (75.9) risk quintiles (difference for highest vs middle 3, -10.7 [95% CI, -11.0 to -10.4]; highest vs lowest, -11.2 [95% CI, -11.6 to -10.8]; P < .001). This relationship was found across specialties except psychiatry. Compared with physicians in the lowest risk quintile, physicians in the highest risk quintile were more likely to work in rural areas (12.7% vs 6.4%; difference, 6.3 percentage points [95% CI, 6.0 to 6.7]; P < .001) but less likely to care for more than 1000 Medicare beneficiaries (9.4% vs 17.8%; difference, -8.3 percentage points [95% CI, -8.7 to -8.0]; P < .001) or to have more than 20 years in practice (56.7% vs 70.6%; difference, -13.9 percentage points [95% CI, -14.4 to -13.3]; P < .001). For physicians in the highest risk quintile, several characteristics were associated with higher MIPS scores, including practicing in a larger group (mean score, 82.4 for more than 50 physicians vs 46.1 for 1-5 physicians; difference, 36.2 [95% CI, 35.3 to 37.2]; P < .001) and reporting through an alternative payment model (mean score, 79.5 for alternative payment model vs 59.9 for reporting as individual; difference, 19.7 [95% CI, 18.9 to 20.4]; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional analysis of physicians who participated in the first year of the Medicare MIPS program, physicians with the highest proportion of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid had significantly lower MIPS scores compared with other physicians. Further research is needed to understand the reasons underlying the differences in physician MIPS scores by levels of patient social risk.

Project description:Importance:Consolidation among physician practices and between hospitals and physician practices has accelerated in the past decade, resulting in higher prices in commercial markets. The resulting integration of health care across clinicians and participation in alternative payment models (APMs), which aim to improve quality while constraining spending, are cited as reasons for consolidation, but little is known about the association between integration and APM participation. Objective:To examine the association of organizational characteristics, ownership, and integration with intensity of participation in APMs among physician practices. Design, Setting, and Participants:A cross-sectional descriptive study, adjusted for sampling and nonresponse weights, was conducted in US physician practice respondents to the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems conducted between June 16, 2017, and August 17, 2018; of 2333 responses received (response rate, 46.9%) and after exclusion of ineligible and incomplete responses, the number of practices included in the analysis was 2061. Data analysis was performed from April 1, 2019, to August 31, 2019. Exposures:Self-reported physician practice characteristics, including ownership, integration (clinical, cultural, financial, and functional), care delivery capabilities, activities, and environmental factors. Main Outcomes and Measures:Participation in APMs: (1) bundled payments, (2) comprehensive primary care and medical home programs, (3) pay-for-performance programs, (4) capitated contracts with commercial health plans, and (5) accountable care organization contracts. Results:A total of 49.2% of the 2061 practices included reported participating in 3 or more APMs; most participated in pay-for-performance and accountable care organization models. Covariate-adjusted analyses suggested that operating within a health care system (odds ratio [OR] for medical group: 2.35; 95% CI, 1.70-3.25; P?<?.001; simple health system: 1.46; 95% CI, 1.08-1.97; P?=?.02; and complex health system: 1.76; 95% CI, 1.25-2.47; P?=?.001 relative to independent practices), greater clinical (OR, 4.68; 95% CI, 2.28-9.59; P?<?.001) and functional (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 2.00-8.97; P?<?.001) integration, and being located in the Northeast (OR for Midwest: 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.65; P?<?.001; South: 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.66; P?<?.001; and West:?0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.91; P?=?.01) were associated with greater APM participation. Conclusions and Relevance:Greater APM participation appears to be supported by integration and system ownership.

Project description:Background:When risk adjustment is inadequate and incentives are weak, pay-for-performance programs, such as the Value-Based Payment Modifier (Value Modifier [VM]) implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, may contribute to health care disparities without improving performance on average. Objective:To estimate the association between VM exposure and performance on quality and spending measures and to assess the effects of adjusting for additional patient characteristics on performance differences between practices serving higher-risk and those serving lower-risk patients. Design:Exploiting the phase-in of the VM on the basis of practice size, regression discontinuity analysis and 2014 Medicare claims were used to estimate differences in practice performance associated with exposure of practices with 100 or more clinicians to full VM incentives (bonuses and penalties) and exposure of practices with 10 or more clinicians to partial incentives (bonuses only). Analyses were repeated with 2015 claims to estimate performance differences associated with a second year of exposure above the threshold of 100 or more clinicians. Performance differences were assessed between practices serving higher- and those serving lower-risk patients after standard Medicare adjustments versus adjustment for additional patient characteristics. Setting:Fee-for-service Medicare. Patients:Random 20% sample of beneficiaries. Measurements:Hospitalization for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions, all-cause 30-day readmissions, Medicare spending, and mortality. Results:No statistically significant discontinuities were found at the threshold of 10 or more or 100 or more clinicians in the relationship between practice size and performance on quality or spending measures in either year. Adjustment for additional patient characteristics narrowed performance differences by 9.2% to 67.9% between practices in the highest and those in the lowest quartile of Medicaid patients and Hierarchical Condition Category scores. Limitation:Observational design and administrative data. Conclusion:The VM was not associated with differences in performance on program measures. Performance differences between practices serving higher- and those serving lower-risk patients were affected considerably by additional adjustments, suggesting a potential for Medicare's pay-for-performance programs to exacerbate health care disparities. Primary Funding Source:The Laura and John Arnold Foundation and National Institute on Aging.

Project description:BackgroundIn 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.Study designWe 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.Setting & participantsMedicare beneficiaries in the United States receiving hemodialysis in the 2 years prior to and following reimbursement reform.PredictorThe 2 years following nephrologist reimbursement reform.OutcomesOdds of hospitalization and 30-day hospital readmission for all causes and fluid overload; US dollars.ResultsWe 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.LimitationsDue 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.ConclusionsA 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.

Dataset Information

Association of Patient Social, Cognitive, and Functional Risk Factors with Preventable Hospitalizations: Implications for Physician Value-Based Payment.

Publications

Association of Patient Social, Cognitive, and Functional Risk Factors with Preventable Hospitalizations: Implications for Physician Value-Based Payment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets