Hospital-physician integration and Medicare's site-based outpatient payments.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To determine the relationship between Medicare's site-based outpatient billing policy and hospital-physician integration.Data sources
National Medicare claims data from 2010 to 2016.Study design
For each physician-year, we calculated the disparity between Medicare reimbursement under hospital ownership and under physician ownership. Using logistic regression analysis, we estimated the relationship between these payment differences and hospital-physician integration, adjusting for region, market concentration, and time fixed effects. We measured integration status using claims data and legal tax names.Data collection
The study included integrated and non-integrated physicians who billed Medicare between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016 (n = 2 137 245 physician-year observations).Principal findings
Medicare reimbursement for physician services would have been $114 000 higher per physician per year if a physician were integrated compared to being non-integrated. Primary care physicians faced a 78% increase, medical specialists 74%, and surgeons 224%. These payment differences exhibited a modest positive relationship to hospital-physician vertical integration. An increase in this outpatient payment differential equivalent to moving from the 25th to 75th percentile was associated with a 0.20 percentage point increase in the probability of integrating with a hospital (95% CI: 0.0.10-0.30). This effect was slightly larger among primary care physicians (0.27, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.35) and medical specialists (0.26, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.48), while not significantly different from zero among surgeons (-0.02; 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.22).Conclusions
The payment differences between outpatient settings were large and grew over time. Even routine annual outpatient payment updates from Medicare may prompt some hospital-physician vertical integration, particularly among primary care physicians and medical specialists.
SUBMITTER: Post B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7839648 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:We analyze Medicare's influence on private insurers' payments for physicians' services. Using a large administrative change in reimbursements for surgical versus medical care, we find that private prices follow Medicare's lead. A $1.00 increase in Medicare's fees increases corresponding private prices by $1.16. A second set of Medicare fee changes, which generates area-specific payment shocks, has a similar effect on private reimbursements. Medicare's influence is strongest in areas with concentrated insurers and competitive physician markets, consistent with insurer-doctor bargaining. By echoing Medicare's pricing changes, these payment spillovers amplify Medicare's impact on specialty choice and other welfare-relevant aspects of physician practices.
| S-EPMC5509075 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To examine whether decreases in Medicare outpatient payment rates under the Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) caused outpatient care to shift toward the inpatient setting. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING:Hospital inpatient and outpatient discharge files from the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration from 1997 through 2008. STUDY DESIGN:This study focuses on inguinal hernia repair surgery, one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures in the United States. We estimate multivariate regressions of inguinal hernia surgery counts in the outpatient setting and in the inpatient setting. The key explanatory variable is the time-varying Medicare payment rate specific to the procedure and hospital. Control variables include time-varying hospital and county characteristics and hospital and year-fixed effects. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Outpatient hernia surgeries fell in response to OPPS-induced rate cuts. The volume of inpatient hernia repair surgeries did not increase in response to reductions in the outpatient reimbursement rate. CONCLUSIONS:Potential substitution from the outpatient setting to the inpatient setting does not pose a serious threat to Medicare's efforts to contain hospital outpatient costs.
| S-EPMC3796103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare commercial insurance payments for outpatient total knee and hip replacement surgeries performed in hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) and in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs).Data sourcesA large national claims database that contains information on actual prices paid to providers over the period 2014-2017.Data collectionWe identified all patients receiving total knee replacement surgery and total hip replacement surgery in HOPDs and in ASCs for each of the 4 years.Study designFor each year, we conducted descriptive and statistical patient-level analyses of the facility component of payments to HOPDs and to ASCs.Principal findingsFor each procedure and for each year, ASC payments exceeded HOPD payments by a wide margin; however, the gap across settings declined over time. In 2014, knee replacement payments to HOPDs (n = 67) were $6016 compared to $23 244 in ASCs (n = 68). By 2017, payments to HOPDs (n = 223) had grown to $10 060 compared to $18 234 in ASCs (n = 602). Similarly, for hip replacements, HOPD payments (n = 43) rose from $6980 in 2014 to $11 139 in 2017 (n = 206) and in ASCs fell from $28 485 in 2014 (n = 82) to $18 595 in 2017 (n = 465).ConclusionsResults suggest that for total joint replacement, common perceptions of cost savings from transition of services from hospitals to ASCs may be misguided.
| S-EPMC7080380 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate whether greater experience and success with performance incentives among physician practices are related to increased participation in Medicare's voluntary value-based payment reforms.Data sources/study settingPublicly available data from Medicare's Physician Compare (n = 1,278; January 2012 to November 2013) and nationally representative physician practice data from the National Survey of Physician Organizations 3 (NSPO3; n = 907,538; 2013).Study designWe used regression analysis to examine practice-level relationships between prior exposure to performance incentives and participation in key Medicare value-based payment reforms: accountable care organization (ACO) programs, the Physician Quality Reporting System ("Physician Compare"), and the Meaningful Use of Health Information Technology program ("Meaningful Use"). Prior experience and success with financial incentives were measured as (1) the percentage of practices' revenue from financial incentives for quality or efficiency; and (2) practices' exposure to public reporting of quality measures.Data collection/extraction methodsWe linked physician participation data from Medicare's Physician Compare to the NSPO3 survey.Principal findingsThere was wide variation in practices' exposure to performance incentives, with 64 percent exposed to financial incentives, 45 percent exposed to public reporting, and 2.2 percent of practice revenue coming from financial incentives. For each percentage-point increase in financial incentives, there was a 0.9 percentage-point increase in the probability of participating in ACOs (standard error [SE], 0.1, p < .001) and a 0.8 percentage-point increase in the probability of participating in Meaningful Use (SE, 0.1, p < .001), controlling for practice characteristics. Financial incentives were not associated with participation in Physician Compare. Among ACO participants, a 1 percentage-point increase in incentives was associated with a 0.7 percentage-point increase in the probability of being "very well" prepared to utilize cost and quality data (SE, 0.1, p < .001).ConclusionsPhysicians organizations' prior experience and success with performance incentives were related to participation in Medicare ACO arrangements and participation in the meaningful use criteria but not to participation in Physician Compare. We conclude that Medicare must complement financial incentives with additional efforts to address the needs of practices with less experience with such incentives to promote value-based payment on a broader scale.
| S-EPMC6056599 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedicare's Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is a major value-based purchasing program. Little is known about how physician practice leaders view the program and its benefits and challenges.ObjectiveTo understand practice leaders' perceptions of MIPS.Design and participantsInterviews were conducted from December 12, 2019, to June 23, 2020, with leaders of 30 physician practices of various sizes and specialties across the USA. Practices were randomly selected using the Medical Group Management Association's membership database. Practices included small primary care and general surgery practices (1-9 physicians); medium primary care and general surgery practices (10-25 physicians); and large multispecialty practices (50 or more physicians). Participants were asked about their perceptions of MIPS measures; the program's effect on patient care; administrative burden; and rationale for participation.Main measuresMajor themes related to practice participation in MIPS.Key resultsInterviews were conducted with 30 practices representing all US census regions. Six major themes emerged: (1) MIPS is understood as a continuation of previous value-based payment programs and a precursor to future programs; (2) measures are more relevant to primary care practices than other specialties; (3) leaders are conflicted on whether the program improves patient care; (4) MIPS creates a substantial administrative burden, exacerbated by annual programmatic changes; (5) incentives are small relative to the effort needed to participate; and (6) external support for participation can be helpful. Many participants indicated that their practice only participated in MIPS to avoid financial penalties; some reported that physicians cared for fewer patients due to the program's administrative burden.ConclusionsPractice leaders reported several challenges related to MIPS, including irrelevant measures, administrative burden, frequent programmatic changes, and small incentives. They held mixed views on whether the program improves patient care. These findings may be useful to policymakers hoping to improve MIPS.
| S-EPMC8034038 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMedicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) is a voluntary pilot program evaluating bundled payments for several common cardiovascular conditions. Evaluating the external validity of this program is important for understanding the effects of bundled payments on cardiovascular care.ObjectiveTo determine whether participants in BPCI cardiovascular bundles are representative of US acute care hospitals and identify factors associated with participation.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cross-sectional study of hospitals participating in BPCI model 2 bundles for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure (CHF), coronary artery bypass graft, and percutaneous coronary intervention and nonparticipating control hospitals (October 2013 to January 2017). The BPCI participants were identified using data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and controls were identified using the 2013 American Hospital Association's Survey of US Hospitals. Hospital structural characteristics and clinical performance data were obtained from the American Heart Association survey and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. One hundred fifty-nine hospitals participating in BPCI model 2 cardiac bundles and 1240 nonparticipating control hospitals were compared, and a multivariable logistic regression was estimated to identify predictors of BPCI participation.ExposuresBundled payments.Main outcomes and measuresHospital-level structural characteristics and 30-day risk-adjusted readmission and mortality rates for AMI and CHF.ResultsCompared with nonparticipants, BPCI participants were larger, more likely to be privately owned or teaching hospitals, had lower Medicaid bed day ratios (ratio of Medicaid inpatient days to total inpatient days: 17.0 vs 19.3; P < .001), and were less likely to be safety net hospitals (2.5% vs 12.3%; P < .001). The BPCI participants had higher AMI and CHF discharge volumes, were more likely to have cardiac intensive care units and catheterization laboratories, and had lower risk-standardized 30-day mortality rates for AMI (13.7% vs 16.6%; P = .001) and CHF (11.3 vs 12.4; P = .005). In multivariable analysis, larger hospital size and access to a cardiac catheterization laboratory were positively associated with participation. Being a safety net hospital was negatively associated with participation (odds ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.7; P = .001).Conclusions and relevanceHospitals participating in BPCI model 2 cardiac bundles differed in significant ways from nonparticipating hospitals. The BPCI outcomes may therefore have limited external validity, particularly among small and safety net hospitals with limited clinical cardiac services.
| S-EPMC6583871 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo improve the predictions provided by Medicare's Hospital Compare (HC) to facilitate better informed decisions regarding hospital choice by the public.Data sources/settingMedicare claims on all patients admitted for Acute Myocardial Infarction between 2009 through 2011.Study designCohort analysis using a Bayesian approach, comparing the present assumptions of HC (using a constant mean and constant variance for all hospital random effects), versus an expanded model that allows for the inclusion of hospital characteristics to permit the data to determine whether they vary with attributes of hospitals, such as volume, capabilities, and staffing. Hospital predictions are then created using directly standardized estimates to facilitate comparisons between hospitals.Data collection/extraction methodsMedicare fee-for-service claims.Principal findingsOur model that included hospital characteristics produces very different predictions from the current HC model, with higher predicted mortality rates at hospitals with lower volume and worse characteristics. Using Chicago as an example, the expanded model would advise patients against seeking treatment at the smallest hospitals with worse technology and staffing.ConclusionTo aid patients when selecting between hospitals, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should improve the HC model by permitting its predictions to vary systematically with hospital attributes such as volume, capabilities, and staffing.
| S-EPMC4874942 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation launched the Bundled Payments for Care Initiative (BPCI) in 2013. Its effect on payments and outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is unknown.Methods and resultsWe used Medicare inpatient files to identify index admissions for PCI and CABG from 2013 through 2016 at BPCI hospitals and matched control hospitals and difference in differences models to compare the 2 groups. Our primary outcome was the change in standardized Medicare-allowed payments per 90-day episode. Secondary outcomes included changes in patient selection, discharge to postacute care, length of stay, emergency department use, readmissions, and mortality. Forty-two hospitals joined BPCI for PCI and 46 for CABG. There were no differential changes in patient selection between BPCI and control hospitals. Baseline Medicare payments per episode for PCI were $20 164 at BPCI hospitals and $19 955 at control hospitals. For PCI, payments increased at both BPCI and control hospitals during the intervention period, such that there was no significant difference in differences (BPCI hospitals +$673, P=0.048; control hospitals +$551, P=0.022; difference in differences $122, P=0.768). For CABG, payments at both BPCI and control hospitals decreased during the intervention period (BPCI baseline, $36 925, change -$2918, P<0.001; control baseline, $36 877, change -$2618, P<0.001; difference in differences, $300; P=0.730). For both PCI and CABG, BPCI participation was not associated with changes in mortality, readmissions, or length of stay. Among BPCI hospitals, emergency department use differentially increased for patients undergoing PCI and decreased for patients undergoing CABG.ConclusionsParticipation in episode-based payment for PCI and CABG was not associated with changes in patient selection, payments, length of stay, or clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC7660588 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn October 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented the Sepsis CMS Core Measure (SEP-1) program, requiring hospitals to report data on the quality of care for their patients with sepsis.ObjectiveWe sought to understand hospital perceptions of and responses to the SEP-1 program.DesignA thematic content analysis of semistructured interviews with hospital quality officials.SettingA stratified random sample of short-stay, nonfederal, general acute care hospitals in the United States.PatientsHospital quality officers, including nurses and physicians.MeasurementsWe completed 29 interviews before reaching content saturation.ResultsHospitals reported a variety of actions in response to SEP-1, including new efforts to collect data, improve sepsis diagnosis and treatment, and manage clinicians' attitudes toward SEP-1. These efforts frequently required dedicated resources to meet the program's requirements for treatment and documentation, which were thought to be complex and not consistently linked to patient-centered outcomes. Most respondents felt that SEP-1 was likely to improve sepsis outcomes. At the same time, they described specific changes that could improve its effectiveness, including allowing hospitals to focus on the treatment processes most directly associated with improved patient outcomes and better aligning the measure's sepsis definitions with current clinical definitions.ConclusionsHospitals are responding to the SEP-1 program across a number of domains and in ways that consistently require dedicated resources. Hospitals are interested in further revisions to the program to alleviate the burden of the reporting requirements and help them optimize the effectiveness of their investments in quality-improvement efforts.
| S-EPMC5830093 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDespite great expense and little evidence supporting use over corticosteroids, prescriptions for repository corticotropin (H. P. Acthar Gel; Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals) have increased markedly. Aggressive sales tactics and payments from the manufacturer may influence prescribing behavior for this expensive medication.ObjectiveTo characterize industry payments to physician specialists who prescribe corticotropin in the Medicare program.Design, setting, and participantsThis study was a cross-sectional analysis of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2015 Part D prescribing data linked to 2015 Open Payments data. Nephrologists, neurologists, and rheumatologists with more than 10 corticotropin prescriptions (frequent prescribers) in 2015 were included.ExposuresFrequency, category, and magnitude of corticotropin-related payments from Mallinckrodt recorded in the Open Payments database.Main outcomes and measuresFrequency, category, and magnitude of corticotropin-related payments from Mallinckrodt, as well as corticotropin prescriptions and expenditures for Medicare beneficiaries.ResultsOf the 235 included physicians, 65 were nephrologists; 59, neurologists; and 111, rheumatologists. A majority of frequent corticotropin prescribers (207 [88%]) received corticotropin-related payments from Mallinckrodt. The median (range) total payment for 2015 was $189 ($11-$138 321), with the highest payments ranging from $56 549 to $138 321 across the specialties. More than 20% of frequent prescribers received more than $10 000 and the top quartile of recipients received a median (range) of $33 190 ($9934-$138 321) in total payments per prescriber. Payments for compensation for services other than consulting contributed the most to the total amount. Mallinckrodt payments were positively associated with greater Medicare spending on corticotropin (β = 1.079; 95% CI, 1.044-1.115; P < .001), with every $10 000 in payments associated with a 7.9% increase (approximately $53 000) in Medicare spending on corticotropin. There was no association between corticotropin-related payments and spending on prescriptions for synthetic corticosteroids.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, most nephrologists, neurologists, and rheumatologists who frequently prescribe corticotropin received corticotropin-related payments from Mallinckrodt. These findings suggest that financial conflicts of interest may be driving use of corticotropin in the Medicare program.
| S-EPMC6324413 | biostudies-literature