Dataset Information

Association of Practitioner Interfacility Triage Performance With Outcomes for Severely Injured Patients With Fee-for-Service Medicare Insurance.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Despite evidence that treatment of severely injured patients at trauma centers is associated with reduced mortality, nearly half of all such patients are treated at nontrauma centers (undertriaged). Little is known about whether interfacility undertriage occurs because of practitioner decision-making or institutional and regional factors. Objectives:To assess the associations between variation in triage practitioners at nontrauma centers and between practitioner-level variation and patient outcomes after injury. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective cohort study used Medicare claims data from severely injured patients presenting to nontrauma centers and the practitioners who evaluated them in the emergency department from January 1, 2010, to October 15, 2015. Data analysis was performed from January 15, 2018, to March 21, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:Proportion of variation in undertriage associated with practitioners, practitioner rates of undertriage, practitioner characteristics associated with undertriage, and 30-day case-fatality rate. Results:A total of 124?008 severely injured patients (mean [SD] age, 81 [8.4] years; 67?253 [54.2%] female) and the 25?376 practitioners (5564 [21.9%] female) who evaluated the patients in the emergency department of nontrauma centers were included in the study. Undertriage occurred among 85?403 patients (68.9%), with 40.6% of total variation associated with practitioners, 37.8% with hospitals, and 6.7% with regions. Compared with physicians with National Provider Identification (NPI) enumeration before 2007, those with an NPI enumerated between 2007 and 2010 had an undertriage risk ratio (RR) of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99), and those with an NPI enumerated after 2010 had an undertriage RR of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.99). Hospitals with neurosurgeons had an undertriage RR of 1.51 (95% CI, 1.45-1.57) compared with those that did not; hospitals with spine surgeons had an undertriage RR of 1.10 (95% CI, 1.06-1.13); hospitals with general surgeons had an undertriage RR of 1.13 (95% CI, 1.09-1.17). Compared with practitioners who undertriaged 25% or less of patients, a statistically significant increase was found in the odds of death for patients treated by practitioners with a triage rate of less than 25% to 50% (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.20) and less than 50% to 75% undertriage (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26) but not undertriage at greater than 75% (OR, 1.03, 95% CI, 1.00-1.18). In sensitivity analyses to adjust for unmeasured confounding, the association between triage practices and the case fatality rate became monotonic; compared with patients treated by practitioners with an undertriage rate of 25% or less, the odds of case fatality were 1.13 (95% CI, 1.05-1.21; P?=?.001) among patients treated by practitioners with undertriage rates less than 25% to 50%, 1.22 (95% CI, 1.13-1.32; P?

SUBMITTER: Mohan D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6813581 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association of Practitioner Interfacility Triage Performance With Outcomes for Severely Injured Patients With Fee-for-Service Medicare Insurance.

Mohan Deepika D Wallace David J DJ Kerti Samantha J SJ Angus Derek C DC Rosengart Matthew R MR Barnato Amber E AE Yealy Donald M DM Fischhoff Baruch B Chang Chung-Chou CC Kahn Jeremy M JM

JAMA surgery 20191218 12

<h4>Importance</h4>Despite evidence that treatment of severely injured patients at trauma centers is associated with reduced mortality, nearly half of all such patients are treated at nontrauma centers (undertriaged). Little is known about whether interfacility undertriage occurs because of practitioner decision-making or institutional and regional factors.<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the associations between variation in triage practitioners at nontrauma centers and between practitioner-level v ...[more]

PMID: 31642889

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLess than 50% of non-Hispanic Asian adults taking antihypertensive medication have controlled blood pressure.MethodsWe compared non-persistence and low adherence to antihypertensive medication between non-Hispanic Asian and other race/ethnicity groups among US adults ≥66 years who initiated antihypertensive medication between 2011 and 2018 using a 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries (non-Hispanic Asian, n = 2,260; non-Hispanic White, n = 56,000; non-Hispanic Black, n = 5,792; Hispanic, n = 4,212; and Other, n = 1,423). Non-persistence was defined as not having antihypertensive medication available to take in the last 90 of 365 days following treatment initiation. Low adherence was defined as having antihypertensive medication available to take on <80% of the 365 days following initiation.ResultsIn 2011-2012, 2013-2014, 2015-2016 and 2017-2018, the proportion of non-Hispanic Asian Medicare beneficiaries with non-persistence was 29.1%, 25.6%, 25.4% and 26.7% (p-trend = 0.381), respectively, and the proportion with low adherence was 58.1%, 54.2%, 53.4% and 51.6%, respectively (p-trend = 0.020). In 2017-2018, compared with non-Hispanic Asian beneficiaries, non-persistence was less common among non-Hispanic White beneficiaries (risk ratio 0.74 [95%CI, 0.64-0.85]), non-Hispanic Black beneficiaries (0.80 [95%CI 0.68-0.94]) and those reporting Other race/ethnicity (0.68 [95%CI, 0.54-0.85]) but not among Hispanic beneficiaries (1.04 [95%CI, 0.88-1.23]). Compared to non-Hispanic Asian beneficiaries, non-Hispanic White beneficiaries and beneficiaries reporting Other race/ethnicity were less likely to have low adherence to antihypertensive medication (relative risk 0.78 [95%CI 0.72-0.84] and 0.84 [95%CI 0.74-0.95], respectively); there was no association for non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic beneficiaries.ConclusionsNon-persistence and low adherence to antihypertensive medication were more common among older non-Hispanic Asian than non-Hispanic White adults.

Project description:ImportancePrescription drug spending is a topic of increased interest to the public and policymakers. However, prior assessments have been limited by focusing on retail spending (Part D-covered drugs), omitting clinician-administered (Part B-covered) drug spending, or focusing on all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of their enrollment into prescription drug coverage.ObjectiveTo estimate the proportion of health care spending contributed by prescription drugs and to assess spending for retail and clinician-administered prescriptions.Design, setting, and participantsDescriptive, serial, cross-sectional analysis of a 20% random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States from 2008 to 2019 who were continuously enrolled in Parts A (hospital), B (medical), and D (prescription drug) benefits, and not in Medicare Advantage.ExposureCalendar year.Main outcomes and measuresNet spending on retail (Part D-covered) and clinician-administered (Part B-covered) prescription drugs; prescription drug spending (spending on Part B-covered and Part D-covered drugs) as a percentage of total per-capita health care spending. Measures were adjusted for inflation and for postsale rebates (for Part D-covered drugs).ResultsThere were 3 201 284 beneficiaries enrolled in Parts A, B, and D in 2008 and 4 502 718 in 2019. In 2019, beneficiaries had a mean (SD) age of 71.7 (12.0) years, documented sex was female for 57.7%, and 69.5% had no low-income subsidies. Total per-capita spending was $16 345 in 2008 and $20 117 in 2019. Comparing 2008 with 2019, per-capita Part A spending was $7106 (95% CI, $7084-$7128) vs $7120 (95% CI, $7098-$7141), Part B drug spending was $720 (95% CI, $713-$728) vs $1641 (95% CI, $1629-$1653), Part B nondrug spending was $5113 (95% CI, $5105-$5122) vs $6702 (95% CI, $6692-$6712), and Part D net spending was $3122 (95% CI, $3117-$3127) vs $3477 (95% CI, $3466-$3489). The proportion of total annual spending attributed to prescription drugs increased from 24.0% in 2008 to 27.2% in 2019, net of estimated rebates and discounts.Conclusions and relevanceIn 2019, spending on prescription drugs represented approximately 27% of total spending among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part D, even after accounting for postsale rebates.

Project description:ImportanceDecreasing use of low-value care is a major goal for Medicare given the potential to decrease costs and harms. Compared with traditional fee-for-service Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) is more strongly financially incentivized to decrease use of low-value care.ObjectivesTo compare use of low-value care among individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA overall and to examine trends in use of low-value care in both programs from 2006 to 2015.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed individuals enrolled in TM and MA using data from the 2006 to 2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. To account for differences in characteristics between individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA, a propensity score-based approach was used. Data were analyzed from August 2020 through January 2021.ExposuresBeing enrolled in MA or TM.Main outcomes and measuresBinary measures of use were collected for 13 low-value services in 4 categories (ie, [1] cancer screening: cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening in older adults; [2] antibiotic use: antibiotic for acute upper respiratory infection and antibiotic for influenza; [3] medication: anxiolytic, sedative, or hypnotic in an adult older than 65 years; benzodiazepine for depression; opioid for headache; opioid for back pain; and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID] for hypertension, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease; and [4] imaging: magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or computed tomography [CT] for back pain, radiograph for back pain, and MRI or CT for headache) and 4 low-value composites corresponding to the categories (ie, cancer screening composite, antibiotic use composite, medication composite, and imaging composite).ResultsAmong 11 677 individuals enrolled in TM and 5164 individuals enrolled in MA, 9429 (56.0%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 74.5 (6.3) years. Of 13 low-value services and 4 low-value composites, statistically significant differences were found in 2 measures. For the low-value medication composite, 2054 of 11 636 eligible individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 17.6%; 95% CI, 16.8%-18.3%) received the care, and 981 of 5141 eligible individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 19.7%; 95% CI, 18.3%-21.2%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5-3.8 percentage points; P = .02). For the NSAID use for hypertension, heart failure, or kidney disease metric, 807 of 7832 individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 10.0%; 95% CI, 9.2%-10.8%) received the care, and 447 of 3566 individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 12.9%; 95% CI, 19.7%-27.1%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI, 1.3-4.6 percentage points; P = .001). Overall, there were no decreases in use of low-value care in TM or MA over time.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that use of low-value care was similarly prevalent in MA and TM, suggesting that MA enrollment was not associated with decreased provision of low-value care compared with TM.

Project description:ImportanceMedicare Advantage (MA), a private insurance plan option, now covers one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries. Although patients with cardiovascular disease enrolled in MA have been reported to receive higher quality of care in the ambulatory setting than patients enrolled in fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare, it is unclear whether MA is associated with higher quality in patients hospitalized with heart failure, or alternatively, if incentives to reduce utilization under MA plans may be associated with worse care.ObjectiveTo determine whether there are differences in quality of care received and in-hospital outcomes among patients enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare.Design, setting, and participantsObservational, retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with heart failure in hospitals participating in the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure registry.ExposuresMedicare Advantage enrollment.Main outcomes and measuresIn-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, length of stay, and 4 heart failure achievement measures.ResultsOf 262 626 patients hospitalized with heart failure, 93 549 (35.6%) were enrolled in MA and 169 077 (64.4%) in FFS Medicare. The median (interquartile range) age was 78 (70-85) years for patients enrolled in MA and 78 (69-86) years for patients enrolled in FFS Medicare. Standard mean differences in age, sex, prevalence of comorbidities, or objective measures on admission, including vital signs and laboratory values, were less than 10%. After adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in receipt of evidence-based β-blockers when indicated; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors at discharge; measurement of left ventricular function; and postdischarge appointments by Medicare insurance type. Patients enrolled in MA, however, had higher odds of being discharged directly home (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.19; P < .001) relative to patients enrolled in FFS Medicare and lower odds of being discharged within 4 days (AOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.00; P = .04). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between patients with MA and patients with FFS Medicare (AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.03; P = .42).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients hospitalized with heart failure, no observable benefit was noted in quality of care or in-hospital mortality between those enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare, except lower use of post-acute care facilities. As MA continues to grow, it will be important to ensure that participating private plans provide an added value to the patients they cover to justify the higher administrative costs compared with traditional FFS Medicare.

Dataset Information

Association of Practitioner Interfacility Triage Performance With Outcomes for Severely Injured Patients With Fee-for-Service Medicare Insurance.

Publications

Association of Practitioner Interfacility Triage Performance With Outcomes for Severely Injured Patients With Fee-for-Service Medicare Insurance.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets