Dataset Information

Organizational integration, practice capabilities, and outcomes in clinically complex medicare beneficiaries.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the association between clinical integration and financial integration, quality-focused care delivery processes, and beneficiary utilization and outcomes.

Data sources

Multiphysician practices in the 2017-2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (response rate 47%) and 2017 Medicare claims data.

Study design

Cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries attributed to physician practices, focusing on two domains of integration: clinical (coordination of patient services, use of protocols, individual clinician measures, access to information) and financial (financial management and planning across operating units). We examined the association between integration domains, the adoption of quality-focused care delivery processes, beneficiary utilization and health-related outcomes, and price-adjusted spending using linear regression adjusting for practice and beneficiary characteristics, weighting to account for sampling and nonresponse.

Data collection/extraction methods

1 604 580 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 or older attributed to 2113 practices. Of these, 414 209 beneficiaries were considered clinically complex (frailty or 2 + chronic conditions).

Principal findings

Financial integration and clinical integration were weakly correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.19). Clinical integration was associated with significantly greater adoption of quality-focused care delivery processes, while financial integration was associated with lower adoption of these processes. Integration was not generally associated with reduced utilization or better beneficiary-level health-related outcomes, but both clinical integration and financial integration were associated with lower spending in both the complex and noncomplex cohorts: (clinical complex cohort: -$2518, [95% CI: -3324, -1712]; clinical noncomplex cohort: -$255 [95% CI: -413, -97]; financial complex cohort: -$997 [95% CI: -$1320, -$679]; and financial noncomplex cohort: -$143 [95% CI: -210, -$76]).

Conclusions

Higher levels of financial integration were not associated with improved care delivery or with better health-related beneficiary outcomes. Nonfinancial forms of integration deserve greater attention, as practices scoring high in clinical integration are more likely to adopt quality-focused care delivery processes and have greater associated reductions in spending in complex patients.

SUBMITTER: Colla C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7720705 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatient-centered medical home (PCMH) models of primary care have the potential to expand access, improve population health, and lower costs. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) were early adopters of PCMH models.ObjectiveWe measured PCMH capabilities in a diverse nationwide sample of FQHCs and assessed the relationship between PCMH capabilities and Medicare beneficiary outcomes.DesignCross-sectional, propensity score-weighted, multivariable regression analysis.ParticipantsA convenience sample of 804 FQHC sites that applied to a nationwide FQHC PCMH initiative and 231,163 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who received a plurality of their primary care services from these sites.Main measuresPCMH capabilities were self-reported using the National Committee for Quality Assurance's (NCQA's) 2011 application for PCMH recognition. Measures of utilization, continuity of care, quality, and Medicare expenditures were derived from Medicare claims covering a 1-year period ending October 2011.Key resultsNearly 88% of sites were classified as having PCMH capabilities equivalent to NCQA Level 1, 2, or 3 PCMH recognition. These more advanced sites were associated with 228 additional FQHC visits per 1000 Medicare beneficiaries (95% CI: 176, 278), compared with less advanced sites; 0.02 points higher practice-level continuity of care (95% CI: 0.01, 0.03); and a greater likelihood of administering two of four recommended diabetes tests. However, more advanced sites were also associated with 181 additional visits to specialists per 1000 beneficiaries (95% CI: 124, 232) and 64 additional visits to emergency departments (95% CI: 35, 89)-but with no differences in inpatient utilization. More advanced sites had higher Part B expenditures ($111 per beneficiary [95% CI: $61, $158]) and total Medicare expenditures of $353 [95% CI: $65, $614]).ConclusionsImplementation of PCMH models in FQHCs may be associated with improved primary care for Medicare beneficiaries. Expanded access to care, in combination with slower development of key PCMH capabilities, may explain higher Medicare expenditures and other types of utilization.

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.

Project description:The Medicare accountable care organization (ACO) programs rely on delivery system integration and health care provider risk sharing to lower spending while improving quality of care.To compare spending and quality between larger and smaller provider groups and examine how size-related differences vary by 2 factors considered central to ACO performance: group primary care orientation and financial risk sharing by health care providers.Using 2009 Medicare claims and linked American Medical Association Group Practice data, we assigned 4.29 million beneficiaries to health care provider groups based on primary care use. We categorized group size according to eligibility thresholds for the Shared Savings (?5000 assigned beneficiaries) and Pioneer (?15,000) ACO programs and distinguished hospital-based from independent groups. We assessed the primary care orientation of larger groups' specialty mix and used health maintenance organization market penetration and data from the Community Tracking Study to measure the extent of financial risk accepted by different types of provider groups in different areas for managed care patients. We estimated linear regression models comparing spending and quality between larger and smaller health care provider groups, allowing size-related differences to vary by measures of group primary care orientation and risk sharing. Spending and quality measures included total medical spending, spending by type of service, 5 process measures of quality, and 30-day readmissions, all adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.Compared with smaller groups, larger hospital-based groups had higher total per-beneficiary spending in 2009 (mean difference, +$849), higher 30-day readmission rates (+1.3 percentage points), and similar performance on 4 of 5 process measures of quality. In contrast, larger independent physician groups performed better than smaller groups on all process measures and exhibited significantly lower per-beneficiary spending in counties where risk sharing by these groups was more common (-$426). Among all groups sufficiently large to participate in ACO programs, a strong primary care orientation was associated with lower spending, fewer readmissions, and better quality of diabetes care.Spending was lower and quality of care better for Medicare beneficiaries served by larger independent physician groups with strong primary care orientations in environments where health care providers accepted greater risk.

Project description:ImportanceAccountable care contracts hold physician groups financially responsible for the quality and cost of health care delivered to patients. Focusing on clinically vulnerable patients, those with serious conditions who are responsible for the greatest proportion of spending, may result in the largest effects on both patient outcomes and financial rewards for participating physician groups.ObjectiveTo estimate the effect of Medicare accountable care organization (ACO) contracts on spending and high-cost institutional use for all Medicare beneficiaries and for clinically vulnerable beneficiaries.Design, setting, and participantsFor this cohort study, 2 study populations were defined: the overall Medicare population and the clinically vulnerable subgroup of Medicare beneficiaries. The overall Medicare population was based on a random 40% sample drawn from continuously enrolled fee-for-service beneficiaries with at least 1 evaluation and management visit in a calendar year. The clinically vulnerable study population included all Medicare beneficiaries 66 years or older who had at least 3 Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCCs). Beneficiaries entered the cohort during the quarter between January 2009 to December 2011 when they first had at least 3 HCCs and remained in the cohort until death. Cohort entry was restricted to the preperiod to account for potential changes in coding practices after ACO implementation. Difference-in-difference estimations were used to compare changes in health care outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries attributed to physicians in ACOs with those attributed to non-ACO physicians from January 2009 to December 2013.ExposuresMedicare ACOs beginning contracts in January 2012, April 2012, July 2012, and January 2013 through the Pioneer and Medicare Shared Savings Programs.Main outcomes and measuresTotal spending per beneficiary-quarter, spending categories, use of hospitals and emergency departments, ambulatory care sensitive admissions, and 30-day readmissions.ResultsTotal spending decreased by $34 (95% CI, -$52 to -$15) per beneficiary-quarter after ACO contract implementation across the overall Medicare population (n = 15 592 600) and decreased $114 in clinically vulnerable patients (n = 8 673 823) (95% CI, -$178 to -$50). In the overall Medicare cohort, hospitalizations and emergency department visits decreased by 1.3 and 3.0 events per 1000 beneficiaries per quarter, respectively (95% CIs: -2.1 to -0.4 and -4.8 to -1.3), and hospitalizations and emergency department visits decreased in the clinically vulnerable cohort by 2.9 and 4.1 events per 1000 beneficiaries per quarter, respectively (95% CIs: -5.2 to -0.7 and -7.1 to -1.2). Changes in total spending associated with ACOs did not vary by clinical condition of beneficiaries.Conclusions and relevanceMedicare ACO programs are associated with modest reductions in spending and use of hospitals and emergency departments. Savings were realized through reductions in use of institutional settings in clinically vulnerable patients.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The purpose of this study was to examine the association of 30-day payments for an episode of heart failure (HF) care at the hospital level with patient outcomes. BACKGROUND:There is increased focus among policymakers on improving value for HF care, given its rising prevalence and associated financial burden in the United States; however, little is known about the relationship between payments and mortality for a 30-day episode of HF care. METHODS:Using Medicare claims data for all fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized for HF between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2014, we examined the association between 30-day Medicare payments at the hospital level (beginning with a hospital admission for HF and across multiple settings following discharge) and patient 30-day mortality using mixed-effect logistic regression models. RESULTS:We included 1,343,792 patients hospitalized for HF across 2,948 hospitals. Mean hospital-level 30-day Medicare payments per beneficiary were $15,423 ± $1,523. Overall observed mortality in the cohort was 11.3%. Higher hospital-level 30-day payments were associated with lower patient mortality after adjustment for patient characteristics (odds ratio per $1,000 increase in payments: 0.961; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.954 to 0.967). This relationship was slightly attenuated after accounting for hospital characteristics and HF volume, but remained significant (odds ratio per $1,000 increase: 0.968; 95% CI: 0.962 to 0.975). Additional adjustment for potential mediating factors, including cardiac service capability and post-acute service use, did not significantly affect the relationship. CONCLUSIONS:Higher hospital-level 30-day episode payments were associated with lower patient mortality following a hospitalization for HF. This has implications for policies that incentivize reduction in payments without considering value. Further investigation is needed to understand the mechanisms that underlie this relationship.

Project description:ImportancePrevious assessments of practice patterns and reimbursements for female urologists relied on surveys or board certification logs. A current evaluation of the geographic distribution and practice patterns by female urologists would reveal contemporary patterns of access for Medicare beneficiaries.ObjectiveTo characterize the variation in practice patterns and reimbursements by urologist sex and the regional deficiencies in care provided by female urologists.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based cohort study used the publicly available Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider Payment database to evaluate payments for US urologists. The cohort (n = 8665) included urologists who provided and were paid for 11 or more services to Medicare beneficiaries in 2016. Data collection and analysis were performed from October 3, 2018, through June 19, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresProportion of female-specific services, payments per beneficiary, and payments per work relative value unit (wRVU) by urologist sex were assessed. Density of female urologists across hospital markets was also identified.ResultsAmong the 8665 urologists who received payments in 2016, 7944 (91.7%) were men and 721 (8.3%) were women. Female urologists, compared with male urologists, saw a lower proportion of patients with cancer (mean [SD], 16.3% [9.2%] vs 22.7% [8.8%]; P < .001) and a greater proportion of female Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD], 52.8% [23.2%] vs 24.4% [10.3%]; P < .001). Female urologists generated a greater proportion of wRVU from urodynamics (median [IQR], 2.88% [1.26%-4.84%] vs 1.07% [0.31%-2.26%]; P < .001) and gynecological operations (median [IQR], 0.68% [0.45%-1.07%] vs 0.41% [0.20%-0.81%]; P < .001) than male urologists. In addition, female urologists, compared with their male counterparts, received lower median payments per beneficiary seen ($70.12 [interquartile range (IQR), $60.00-$84.81] vs $72.37 [IQR, $59.63-$89.29]; P = .03) and lower payments per wRVU ($58.25 [IQR, $48.39-65.26] vs $60.04 [IQR, $51.93-$67.88]; P < .001). One-third (103 [33.7%]) of 306 hospital referral regions had 0 female urologists, and 80 (26.1%) had only 1 female urologist.Conclusions and relevanceFemale urologists were more likely to provide care for female Medicare beneficiaries, to receive lower payments per wRVU generated and beneficiaries seen, and to be difficult to access in certain geographic areas; these findings have policy-related implications and highlight the regional deficiencies in urological care and reimbursement discrepancies according to urologist sex.