Dataset Information

Can vertically integrated health systems provide greater value: The case of hospitals under the comprehensive care for joint replacement model?

ABSTRACT:

Objective

We aim to assess whether system providers perform better than nonsystem providers under an alternative payment model that incentivizes high-quality, cost-efficient care. We posit that the payment environment and the incentives it provides can affect the relative performance of vertically integrated health systems. To examine this potential influence, we compare system and nonsystem hospitals participating in Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model.

Data sources

We used hospital cost and quality data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services linked to data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Compendium of US Health Systems and hospital characteristics from secondary sources. The data include 706 hospitals in 67 metropolitan areas.

Study design

We estimated regressions that compared system and nonsystem hospitals' 2017 cost and quality performance providing lower joint replacements among hospitals required to participate in CJR.

Principal findings

Among CJR hospitals, system hospitals that provided comprehensive services in their local market had 5.8 percent ($1612) lower episode costs (P = .01) than nonsystem hospitals. System hospitals that did not provide such services had 3.5 percent ($967) lower episode costs (P = .14). Quality differences between system hospitals and nonsystem hospitals were mostly small and statistically insignificant.

Conclusions

When operating under alternative payment model incentives, vertical integration may enable hospitals to lower costs with similar quality scores.

SUBMITTER: Machta RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7375995 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMedicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model rewards or penalizes hospitals on the basis of meeting spending benchmarks that do not account for patients' preexisting social and medical complexity or high expenses associated with serving disadvantaged populations such as dual-eligible patients (ie, those enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid). The CJR model may have different implications for hospitals serving a high percentage of dual-eligible patients (termed high-dual) and hospitals serving a low percentage of dual-eligible patients (termed low-dual).ObjectiveTo examine changes associated with the CJR model among high-dual or low-dual hospitals in 2016 to 2017.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study comprised 3 analyses of high-dual or low-dual hospitals (n = 1165) serving patients with hip or knee joint replacements (n = 768 224) in 67 treatment metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) selected for CJR participation and 103 control MSAs. The study used Medicare claims data and public reports from 2012 to 2017. Data analysis was conducted from February 1, 2019, to August 31, 2019.ExposuresThe CJR model holds participating hospitals accountable for the spending and quality of care during care episodes for patients with hip or knee joint replacement, including hospitalization and 90 days after discharge.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were total episode spending, discharge to institutional postacute care facility, and readmission within the 90-day postdischarge period; bonus and penalty payments for each hospital; and reductions in per-episode spending required to receive a bonus for each hospital.ResultsIn total, 1165 hospitals (291 high-dual and 874 low-dual) and 768 224 patients with joint replacement (494 013 women [64.3%]; mean [SD] age, 76 [7] years) were included. An episode-level triple-difference analysis indicated that total spending under the CJR model decreased at high-dual hospitals (by $851; 95% CI, -$1556 to -$146; P = .02) and low-dual hospitals (by $567; 95% CI, -$933 to -$202; P = .003). The size of decreases did not differ between the 2 groups (difference, -$284; 95% CI, -$981 to $413; P = .42). Discharge to institutional postacute care settings and readmission did not change among both hospital groups. High-dual hospitals were less likely to receive a bonus compared with low-dual hospitals (40.3% vs 59.1% in 2016; 56.9% vs 76.0% in 2017). To receive a bonus, high-dual hospitals would be required to reduce spending by $887 to $2231 per episode, compared with only $89 to $215 for low-dual hospitals.Conclusions and relevanceThe study found that high- and low-dual hospitals made changes in care after CJR implementation, and the magnitude of these changes did not differ between the 2 groups. However, high-dual hospitals were less likely to receive a bonus for spending cuts. Spending benchmarks for CJR would require high-dual hospitals to reduce spending more substantially to receive a financial incentive.

Project description:The volume of joint replacement surgery has risen steadily in recent years, because the population is aging and increasingly wishes to reserve a high functional status onward into old age. Infection is among the more common complications of joint replacement surgery, arising in 0.2% to 2% of patients, or as many as 9% in special situations such as the implantation of megaprostheses. The associated morbidity and mortality are high. It is thus very important to minimize risk factors for infection and to optimize the relevant diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed, including current guidelines and expert recommendations.The crucial diagnostic step is joint biopsy for the identification of the pathogenic organism, which succeeds with over 90% sensitivity and specificity. If the prosthesis is firmly anchored in bone, the pathogen is of a type that responds well to treatment, and symptomatic infection has been present only for a short time, then rapidly initiated treatment can save the prosthesis in 35-90% of cases. The pillars of treatment are thorough surgical care (radical débridement) and targeted antibiotic therapy. On the other hand, if the prosthesis is loose or the pathogen is of a poorly treatable type, the infection can generally only be cured by a change of the prosthesis. This can be performed in either one or two procedures, always in conjunction with systemic antibiotic therapy tailored to the specific sensitivity and resistance pattern of the pathogen.The risk of infection of an artificial joint is low, but the overall prevalence of such infections is significant, as the number of implanted joints is steadily rising. Artificial joint infections should be treated by a standardized algorithm oriented toward the recommendations of current guidelines. Many of these recommendations, however, are based only on expert opinion, as informative studies providing high-grade evidence are lacking. Thus, for any particular clinical situation, there may now be multiple therapeutic approaches with apparently comparable efficacy. Randomized trials are urgently needed.