Dataset Information

Evolution of the home health care market: The expansion and quality performance of multi-agency chains.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine the growth and evolution of the home health agency (HHA) market and to compare quality performance across HHA ownership categories.

Data source

Agency characteristics were extracted from Medicare cost reports and Provider of Services file. Quality of care and patient characteristics were extracted from Quality of Patient Care Star Ratings and HHA Public Use File.

Study design

Agency- and state-level analyses were conducted to describe HHA market trends. Patient characteristics and quality measures were compared across ownership categories of interest.

Data collection/extraction methods

All Medicare-certified HHAs in operation, 2005-2018.

Principal findings

Over the study period, the HHA sector grew substantially, increasing from 7899 to 10 818 agencies, and chain-owned HHAs doubled in number from 903 (11.4% of all agencies) to 1841 (17.0%). In 2018, across agency types, for-profit nonchain agencies were the largest category both in the number of agencies (67.8%) and the number of Medicare enrollees served (40.7%). Additionally, for-profit nonchain agencies grew most in total number, from 4293 (54.3%) to 7337 (67.8%), while for-profit chain agencies grew most in the number of Medicare enrollees served, from 439 998 (12.9%) to 1 082 385 (28.3%). Regarding patient composition, for-profit nonchain agencies served the highest proportion of dual eligible beneficiaries (42.2%) and African-Americans (27.9%) among all agency types. Regarding quality performance, a higher star rating is significantly (P < .01) associated with chain agency status. Moreover, chain HHAs performed better on self-reported process measures, and risk-adjusted self-reported outcome measures; however, they performed worse on risk-adjusted claims-based outcome measures. These results were similar across for-profit and nonprofit chain agencies.

Conclusion

Chains play a growing role in the home health sector. Substantial differences in geographic distribution, patient composition, and quality performance were observed between chain- and nonchain HHAs. Examining the growth and performance of multi-agency chains can help inform quality reporting and monitoring, assess payment adequacy, and facilitate greater transparency and accountability within the HHA marketplace.

SUBMITTER: Geng F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7720704 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:One way of measuring the quality of home care are quality indicators (QIs) derived from data collected with the Resident Assessment Instrument-Home Care (RAI-HC). In order to produce meaningful results for quality improvement and quality comparisons across home care organizations (HCOs) and over time, RAI-HC QIs must be valid and reliable. The aim of this systematic review was to identify currently existing RAI-HC QIs and to summarize the scientific knowledge on the validity and reliability of these QIs. METHODS:A systematic review was performed using the electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library. Studies describing the development process or the psychometric characteristics of RAI-HC QIs were eligible. The data extraction involved a general description of the included studies as well as the identified RAI-HC QIs and information on validity and reliability. The methodological quality of the identified RAI-HC QI sets was assessed using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. RESULTS:Four studies out of 659 initial hits met the inclusion criteria. The included studies described the development and validation process of three RAI-HC QI sets comprising 48 unique RAI-HC QIs, which predominantly refer to outcome of care. Overall, the validity and reliability of the identified RAI-HC QIs were not sufficiently tested. The methodological quality of the three identified RAI-HC QI sets varied across the four AIRE instrument domains. None of the QI sets reached high methodological quality, defined as scores of 50% and higher in all four AIRE instrument domains. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first review that systematically summarized and appraised the available scientific evidence on the validity and reliability of RAI-HC QIs. It identified insufficient reporting of RAI-HC QIs validation processes and reliability as well as missing state-of-the-art methodologies. The review provides guidance as to what additional validity and reliability testing are needed to strengthen the scientific soundness of RAI-HC QIs. Considering that RAI-HC QIs are already implemented and used to measure and compare quality of home care, further investigations on RAI-HC QIs reliability and validity is recommended.