Dataset Information

Association of Outpatient Practice-Level Socioeconomic Disadvantage With Quality of Care and Outcomes Among Older Adults With Coronary Artery Disease: Implications for Value-Based Payment.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Medicare patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) have been a significant focus of value-based payment programs for outpatient practices. Physicians and policymakers, however, have voiced concern that value-based payment programs may penalize practices that serve vulnerable populations. This study evaluated whether outpatient practices that serve socioeconomically disadvantaged populations have worse CAD outcomes, and if this reflects the delivery of lower-quality care or rather, patient and community factors beyond the care provided by physician practices.

Methods and results

Retrospective cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service patients ≥65 years with CAD at outpatient practices participating in the the Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence registry from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2015. Outpatient practices were stratified into quintiles by the proportion of most disadvantaged patients-defined by an area deprivation score in the highest 20% nationally-served at each practice site. Prescription of guideline recommended therapies for CAD as well as clinical outcomes (emergency department presentation for chest pain, hospital admission for unstable angina or acute myocardial infarction [AMI], 30-day readmission after AMI, and 30-day mortality after AMI) were evaluated by practice-level socioeconomic disadvantage with hierarchical logistic regression models, using practices serving the fewest socioeconomically disadvantaged patients as a reference. The study included 453 783 Medicare fee-for-service patients ≥65 years of age with CAD (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [7.7] years; 39.7% female) cared for at 271 outpatient practices. At practices serving the highest proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients (group 5), compared with practices serving the lowest proportion (group 1), there was no significant difference in the likelihood of prescription of antiplatelet therapy (odds ratio [OR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.69-1.27]), β-blocker therapy if prior myocardial infarction or left ventricular ejection fraction <40% (OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.69-1.35]), ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker if left ventricular ejection fraction <40% and/or diabetes mellitus (OR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.74-1.19]), statin therapy (OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.68-1.14]), or cardiac rehabilitation (OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.20-1.00]). Patients cared for at the most disadvantaged-serving practices (group 5) were more likely to be admitted for unstable angina (adjusted OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.04-2.05]). There was no significant difference in the likelihood of emergency department presentation for chest pain or hospital admission for AMI between practices. Thirty day mortality rates after AMI were higher among patients at the most disadvantaged-serving practices (aOR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.02-1.68]), but 30-day readmission rates did not differ. All associations were attenuated after additional adjustment for patient-level area deprivation index.

Conclusions

Physician outpatient practices that serve the most socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with CAD perform worse on some clinical outcomes, despite providing similar guideline-recommended care as other practices, and consequently could fare poorly under value-based payment programs. Social factors beyond care provided by outpatient practices may partly explain worse outcomes. Policymakers should consider accounting for socioeconomic disadvantage in value-based payment programs initiatives that target outpatient practices.

SUBMITTER: Wadhera RK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7259485 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:ImportanceCoronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is scheduled to become a mandatory Medicare bundled payment program in January 2018. A contemporary understanding of 90-day CABG episode payments and their drivers is necessary to inform health policy, hospital strategy, and clinical quality improvement activities. Furthermore, insight into current CABG payments and their variation is important for understanding the potential effects of bundled payment models in cardiac care.ObjectiveTo examine CABG payment variation and its drivers.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used Medicare and private payer claims to identify patients who underwent nonemergent CABG surgery from January 1, 2012, through October 31, 2015. Ninety-day price-standardized, risk-adjusted, total episode payments were calculated for each patient, and hospitals were divided into quartiles based on the mean total episode payments of their patients. Payments were then subdivided into 4 components (index hospitalization, professional, postacute care, and readmission payments) and compared across hospital quartiles. Seventy-six hospitals in Michigan representing a diverse set of geographies and practice environments were included.Main outcomes and measuresNinety-day CABG episode payments.ResultsA total of 5910 patients undergoing nonemergent CABG surgery were identified at 33 of the 76 hospitals; of these, 4344 (73.5%) were men and mean (SD) age was 68.0 (9.3) years. At the patient level, risk-adjusted, 90-day total episode payments for CABG varied from $11 723 to $356 850. At the hospital level, the highest payment quartile of hospitals had a mean total episode payment of $54 399 compared with $45 487 for the lowest payment quartile (16.4% difference, P < .001). The highest payment quartile hospitals compared with the lowest payment quartile hospitals had 14.6% higher index hospitalization payments ($34 992 vs $30 531, P < .001), 33.9% higher professional payments ($8060 vs $6021, P < .001), 29.6% higher postacute care payments ($7663 vs $5912, P < .001), and 35.1% higher readmission payments ($3576 vs $2646, P = .06). The drivers of this variation are diagnosis related group distribution, increased inpatient evaluation and management services, higher utilization of inpatient rehabilitation, and patients with multiple readmissions.Conclusions and relevanceWide variation exists in 90-day CABG episode payments for Medicare and private payer patients in Michigan. Hospitals and clinicians entering bundled payment programs for CABG should work to understand local sources of variation, with a focus on patients with multiple readmissions, inpatient evaluation and management services, and postdischarge outpatient rehabilitation care.

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing recognition of the contribution of the social determinants of health to the burden of many infectious diseases. However, the relationship between socioeconomic status and the incidence and outcome of melioidosis is incompletely defined.MethodsAll residents of Far North Queensland, tropical Australia with culture-proven melioidosis between January 1998 and December 2020 were eligible for the study. Their demographics, comorbidities and socioeconomic status were correlated with their clinical course. Socioeconomic status was determined using the Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage score, a measure of socioeconomic disadvantage developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Socioeconomic disadvantage was defined as residence in a region with a SEIFA score in the lowest decile in Australia.Results321 eligible individuals were diagnosed with melioidosis during the study period, 174 (54.2%) identified as Indigenous Australians; 223/321 (69.5%) were bacteraemic, 85/321 (26.5%) required Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission and 37/321 (11.5%) died. 156/321 (48.6%) were socioeconomically disadvantaged, compared with 56603/269002 (21.0%) of the local general population (p<0.001). Socioeconomically disadvantaged patients were younger, more likely to be female, Indigenous, diabetic or have renal disease. They were also more likely to die prior to hospital discharge (26/156 (16.7%) versus 11/165 (6.7%), p = 0.002) and to die at a younger age (median (IQR) age: 50 (38-68) versus 65 (59-81) years, p = 0.02). In multivariate analysis that included age, Indigenous status, the presence of bacteraemia, ICU admission and the year of hospitalisation, only socioeconomic disadvantage (odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval (CI)): 2.49 (1.16-5.35), p = 0.02) and ICU admission (OR (95% CI): 4.79 (2.33-9.86), p<0.001) were independently associated with death.ConclusionMelioidosis is disease of socioeconomic disadvantage. A more holistic approach to the delivery of healthcare which addresses the social determinants of health is necessary to reduce the burden of this life-threatening disease.

Project description:Background Over 180 000 coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedures are performed annually, accounting for $7 to $10 billion in episode expenditures. Assessing tradeoffs between spending and quality contributing to value during 90-day episodes has not been conducted but is essential for success in bundled reimbursement models. We, therefore, identified determinants of variability in hospital 90-day episode value for CABG. Methods Medicare and private payor admissions for isolated CABG from 2014 to 2016 were retrospectively linked to clinical registry data for 33 nonfederal hospitals in Michigan. Hospital composite risk-adjusted complication rates (≥1 National Quality Forum-endorsed, Society of Thoracic Surgeons measure: deep sternal wound infection, renal failure, prolonged ventilation >24 hours, stroke, re-exploration, and operative mortality) and 90-day risk-adjusted, price-standardized episode payments were used to categorize hospitals by value by defining the intersection between complications and spending. Results Among 2573 total patients, those at low- versus high-value hospitals had a higher percentage of prolonged length of stay >14 days (9.3% versus 2.4%, P=0.006), prolonged ventilation (17.6% versus 4.8%, P<0.001), and operative mortality (4.8% versus 0.6%, P=0.001). Mean total episode payments were $51 509 at low-compared with $45 526 at high-value hospitals (P<0.001), driven by higher readmission ($3675 versus $2177, P=0.005), professional ($7462 versus $6090, P<0.001), postacute care ($7315 versus $5947, P=0.031), and index hospitalization payments ($33 474 versus $30 800, P<0.001). Among patients not experiencing a complication or 30-day readmission (1923/2573, 74.7%), low-value hospitals had higher inpatient evaluation and management payments ($1405 versus $752, P<0.001) and higher utilization of inpatient rehabilitation (7% versus 2%, P<0.001), but lower utilization of home health (66% versus 73%, P=0.016) and emergency department services (13% versus 17%, P=0.034). Conclusions To succeed in emerging bundled reimbursement programs for CABG, hospitals and physicians should identify strategies to minimize complications while optimizing inpatient evaluation and management spending and use of inpatient rehabilitation, home health, and emergency department services.