Dataset Information

Utilization of ACP CPT codes among high-need Medicare beneficiaries in 2017: A brief report.

ABSTRACT: IMPORTANCE:Medicare beneficiaries with high medical needs can benefit from Advance Care Planning (ACP). Medicare reimburses clinical providers for ACP discussions, but it is unknown whether high-need beneficiaries are receiving this service. OBJECTIVE:To compare rates of billed ACP discussions among a cohort of high-need Medicare beneficiaries with the non-high-needs Medicare population. DESIGN:Retrospective analysis of Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) claims in 2017 comparing high-need beneficiaries (seriously ill, frail, ESRD, and disabled) with non-high need beneficiaries. SETTING:Nationally representative FFS Medicare 20% sample. PARTICIPANTS:Medicare beneficiaries were assigned to one of the following classifications: seriously ill (65+), frail (65+), seriously ill & frail (65+); non-high need (65+); end stage renal disease (ESRD) or disabled (<65). All participants had data available for years 2016-2017. EXPOSURE:Receipt of a billed ACP discussion, CPT codes 99497 or 99498. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE:Rates of billed ACP visits were compared between high-need patients and non-high-need patients. Rates were adjusted for the 65+ population for sex, age, race/ethnicity, Charlson comorbidity index, Medicare/Medicaid dual eligibility status, and Hospital Referral Region. RESULTS:Among the 65+ groups, those most likely to have a billed ACP discussion included seriously ill & frail (5.2%), seriously ill (4.2%), and frail (3.3%). Rates remained consistent after adjusting (4.5%, 4.0%, 3.1%, respectively). Each subgroup differed significantly (p < .05) from non-high need beneficiaries (2.3%) in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Among the <65 high need groups, the rates were 2.7% for ESRD and 1.3% for the disabled (the latter p < .05 compared with non-high needs). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:While rates of billed ACP discussions varied among patient groups with high medical needs, overall they were relatively low, even among a cohort of patients for whom ACP may be especially relevant.

SUBMITTER: Reich AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7001931 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Utilization of ACP CPT codes among high-need Medicare beneficiaries in 2017: A brief report.

Reich Amanda J AJ Jin Ginger G Gupta Avni A Kim Dae D Lipstiz Stuart S Prigerson Holly G HG Tjia Jennifer J Ladin Keren K Halpern Scott D SD Cooper Zara Z Weissman Joel S JS

PloS one 20200205 2

<h4>Importance</h4>Medicare beneficiaries with high medical needs can benefit from Advance Care Planning (ACP). Medicare reimburses clinical providers for ACP discussions, but it is unknown whether high-need beneficiaries are receiving this service.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare rates of billed ACP discussions among a cohort of high-need Medicare beneficiaries with the non-high-needs Medicare population.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective analysis of Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) claims in 2017 comparin ...[more]

PMID: 32023311

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundPhysicians spend significant time outside of regular office visits caring for complex patients, and this work is often uncompensated. In 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced a billing code for care coordination between office visits for beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions.ObjectiveCharacterize use of the Chronic Care Management (CCM) code in New England in 2015.DesignRetrospective observational analysis.ParticipantsAll Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in New England continuously enrolled in Parts A and B in 2015.InterventionNone.Main measuresThe primary outcome was the number of beneficiaries with a CCM claim per 1000 eligible beneficiaries. Secondary outcomes included the total number of CCM claims, total reimbursement, mean number of claims per beneficiary, and beneficiary characteristics independently associated with receiving CCM services.Key resultsOf the more than two million Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in New England, almost 1.7 million were potentially eligible for CCM services. Among eligible beneficiaries, 10,951 (0.65%) had a CCM claim in 2015. Massachusetts had the highest penetration of CCM use (9.40 claims per 1000 eligible beneficiaries); Vermont had the lowest (0.54 claims per 1000 eligible beneficiaries). Mean reimbursement per physician was $1745.98. Age, race/ethnicity, dual-eligible status, income, number of chronic conditions, and state of residence were associated with receiving CCM services in an adjusted model.ConclusionsThe CCM code is likely underutilized in New England; the program may therefore not be achieving its intended goal of encouraging consistent, team-based chronic care management for Medicare's most complex beneficiaries. Or practices may be foregoing reimbursement for care coordination that they are already providing. Recently implemented revisions may improve uptake of CCM services; it will be important to compare our results with future utilization.

Project description:ObjectivesMedicare beneficiaries recovering from a critical illness are increasingly being discharged home instead of to post-acute care facilities. Rehabilitation services are commonly recommended for intensive care unit (ICU) survivors; however, little is known about the frequency and dose of home-based rehabilitation in this population.DesignRetrospective analysis of 2012 Medicare hospital and home health (HH) claims data, linked with assessment data from the Medicare Outcomes and Assessment Information Set.SettingParticipant homes.ParticipantsMedicare beneficiaries recovering from an ICU stay longer than 24 hours, who were discharged directly home with HH services within 7 days of discharge and survived without readmission or hospice transfer for at least 30 days (n = 3,176).MeasurementsCount of rehabilitation visits received during HH care episode.ResultsA total of 19,564 rehabilitation visits were delivered to ICU survivors over 118,145 person-days in HH settings, a rate of 1.16 visits per week. One-third of ICU survivors received no rehabilitation visits during HH care. In adjusted models, those with the highest baseline disability received 30% more visits (rate ratio [RR] = 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17-1.45) than those with the least disability. Conversely, an inverse relationship was found between multimorbidity (Elixhauser scores) and count of rehabilitation visits received; those with the highest tertile of Elixhauser scores received 11% fewer visits (RR = .89; 95% CI = .81-.99) than those in the lowest tertile. Participants living in a rural setting (vs urban) received 6% fewer visits (RR = .94; 95% CI = .91-.98); those who lived alone received 11% fewer visits (RR = .89; 95% CI = .82-.96) than those who lived with others.ConclusionOn average, Medicare beneficiaries discharged home after a critical illness receive few rehabilitation visits in the early post-hospitalization period. Those who had more comorbidities, who lived alone, or who lived in rural settings received even fewer visits, suggesting a need for their consideration during discharge planning. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1512-1519, 2020.

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.

Dataset Information

Utilization of ACP CPT codes among high-need Medicare beneficiaries in 2017: A brief report.

Publications

Utilization of ACP CPT codes among high-need Medicare beneficiaries in 2017: A brief report.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets