Dataset Information

Association of Medicare Mandatory Bundled Payment Program With the Receipt of Elective Hip and Knee Replacement in White, Black, and Hispanic Beneficiaries.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model was designed to reduce the cost and improve the quality of hip or knee replacement among Medicare beneficiaries. Yet whether this model may exacerbate existing racial/ethnic disparities in access to the surgery is unclear.

Objective

To examine the association of the CJR model with the receipt of elective hip or knee replacement across White, Black, and Hispanic Medicare beneficiaries.

Design, setting, and participants

Retrospective cohort study of Medicare claims from 2013 through 2017 among White, Black, and Hispanic Medicare beneficiaries undergoing elective joint replacement in 65 treatment (selected for CJR participation) and 101 control metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs).

Exposures

Starting in April 2016, hospitals in the treatment MSAs were required to participate in the CJR model and were accountable for expenditures occurring during patients' hospitalization for hip or knee replacement and 90 days after the hospital discharge.

Main outcomes and measures

Beneficiary-level elective hip or knee replacement receipt in a given year.

Results

Among 17 243 304 patients, 9 839 996 (57%) were women; 2 107 425 (12%) were age 85 years or older. Of the final sample, 14 632 434 (85%) were White beneficiaries, 1 518 629 (9%) were Black beneficiaries, and 1 092 241 (6%) were Hispanic beneficiaries. The CJR model was associated with an increase of 1.6 elective hip or knee replacements per 1000 beneficiary-years for Hispanic beneficiaries (95% CI, 0.06-2.05) and a decrease of 0.64 replacements for Black beneficiaries (95% CI, -1.25 to -0.02). No evidence was found for any changes for White beneficiaries per 1000 beneficiary-years (0.04 replacements, 95% CI, -0.35 to 0.42 replacements). The Black-White difference in the rate of elective hip or knee replacement per 1000 beneficiary-years further widened by 0.68 replacements (-0.68, 95% CI, -1.20 to -0.15).

Conclusions and relevance

In this cohort study, the CJR model was associated with increased receipt of elective hip or knee replacement among Hispanic beneficiaries, decreased receipt among Black beneficiaries, and no change in receipt among White beneficiaries. The decreased receipt of elective hip or knee replacement among Black beneficiaries may suggest that value-based payment models, including the CJR model, could be monitored for unintended consequences. However, the lack of similar findings among Hispanic beneficiaries suggests that payment models may have differential impacts across racial/ethnic groups.

SUBMITTER: Kim H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7985721 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThere are marked racial/ethnic differences in hip and knee joint replacement care as well as concerns that value-based payments may exacerbate existing racial/ethnic disparities in care.ObjectiveTo examine changes in joint replacement care associated with Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model among White, Black, and Hispanic patients.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study of Medicare claims from 2013 through 2017 among White, Black, and Hispanic patients undergoing joint replacement in 67 treatment (selected for CJR participation) and 103 control metropolitan statistical areas.ExposuresThe CJR model holds hospitals accountable for spending and quality of joint replacement care during care episodes (index hospitalization through 90 days after discharge).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were spending, discharge to institutional postacute care, and readmission during care episodes.ResultsAmong 688 346 patients, 442 163 (64.2%) were women, and 87 286 (12.7%) were 85 years or older. Under CJR, spending decreased by $439 for White patients (95% CI, -$718 to -$161; from pre-CJR spending in treatment metropolitan statistical areas of $25 264) but did not change for Black patients and Hispanic patients. Discharges to institutional postacute care decreased for all groups (-2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to -0.4, from pre-CJR risk of 46.2% for White patients; -6.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -2.2, from pre-CJR risk of 59.5% for Black patients; and -4.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.6 to -1.0, from pre-CJR risk of 54.3% for Hispanic patients). Readmission risk decreased for Black patients by 3.1 percentage points (95% CI, -5.9 to -0.4, from pre-CJR risk of 21.8%) and did not change for White patients and Hispanic patients. Under CJR, Black-White differences in discharges to institutional postacute care decreased by 3.4 percentage points (95% CI, -6.4 to -0.5, from the pre-CJR Black-White difference of 13.3 percentage points). No evidence was found demonstrating that Black-White differences changed for other outcomes or that Hispanic-White differences changed for any outcomes under CJR.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of patients receiving joint replacements, CJR was associated with decreased readmissions for Black patients. Furthermore, Black patients experienced a greater decrease in discharges to institutional postacute care relative to White patients, representing relative improvements despite concerns that value-based payment models may exacerbate existing disparities. Nonetheless, differences between White and Black patients in joint replacement care still persisted even after these changes.

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:BackgroundWe examined whether the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model was associated with changes in the receipt of joint replacement among people with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) as well as spending, health service use, and postsurgical outcomes among people with ADRD who underwent a joint replacement surgery.MethodsRetrospective cohort study using 2013-2017 Medicare claims and Minimum Data Set. We used a difference-in-differences analysis to compare people with ADRD residing in CJR-participating treatment areas versus nonparticipating control areas on the receipt of joint replacement, episode spending during the index hospitalization and subsequent 90-day post-discharge period, discharges to an institutional post-acute care setting, and readmissions within 90 days of hospital discharge.ResultsOur sample included 3,361,950 Medicare enrollees with ADRD (2,156,995 women [64%]; mean [SD] age, 83 [8.0] years; 2,646,405 white [78%], 344,478 black [10%], 224,010 Hispanic [7%]). The receipt of replacement among people with ADRD changed similarly between CJR-participating treatment and control areas after CJR model was implemented, suggesting no association of CJR model with the receipt of replacement. Among people with ADRD who received joint replacement, the CJR model was associated with a $1029 decrease in spending per episode (95% confidence interval [CI] -$1577, -$481, p < 0.001), a 1.62 percentage point decrease in discharges to an institutional post-acute care setting (95% CI -3.17, -0.07, p = 0.04), but no changes in 90-day readmission (95% CI -2.68, 0.00, p = 0.051).ConclusionsDespite concerns that the CJR model could hinder people with ADRD from receiving joint replacement, the receipt of joint replacement did not change among people with ADRD under CJR. The CJR model was associated with decreased spending for people with ADRD who received joint replacements, driven by reduced discharges to an institutional post-acute care setting, without any changes in 90-day readmission.

Project description:PurposeTo examine the relationship between dementia status and receipt of eye care among US Medicare beneficiaries.DesignRetrospective, claims-based analysis.ParticipantsA 20% representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries who received care between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2015.MethodsDementia was identified from diagnosis codes documented in a beneficiary's first 3 years of observed Medicare enrollment. Eye care visits were identified from provider specialty codes on each encounter claim. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models with time-varying covariates to compare the likelihood of receiving eye care between beneficiaries with and without dementia. All models were adjusted for potential confounders, including demographics, urban/rural residence, systemic health (Charlson Index), and ocular comorbidities.Main outcome measuresHazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for (1) being seen by any eye care provider (ophthalmologist or optometrist); (2) being seen by an ophthalmologist specifically; and (3) receiving cataract surgery (among beneficiaries with ophthalmologist encounters).ResultsA total of 4 451 200 beneficiaries met inclusion criteria; 3 805 718 (85.5%) received eye care during the study period, and 391 556 (8.8%) had diagnosed dementia. Some 73.4% of beneficiaries diagnosed with dementia saw an eye care provider during the study period and 55.4% saw an ophthalmologist versus 86.7% and 74.0% of beneficiaries, respectively, without dementia diagnoses. Compared with those without dementia diagnoses, beneficiaries with diagnosed dementia had lower likelihood of seeing any eye care provider (adjusted HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.69-0.70) and were less likely to see an ophthalmologist (adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.55-0.55). Among the subset of beneficiaries who did see ophthalmologists, those with diagnosed dementia were also less likely to receive cataract surgery than beneficiaries without diagnosed dementia (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.62-0.63) and less likely to receive a cataract diagnosis (18% vs. 82%).ConclusionsUS Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with dementia are less likely to receive eye care than those without diagnosed dementia. Depending on visual acuity and functional status, this may have implications for injury prevention, physical and cognitive function, and quality of life. Further work is needed to identify barriers to receiving eye care, determine eye care services and settings that provide greatest value to patients with dementia, and implement measures to improve access to appropriate eye care.

Project description:ImportanceBundled payments are an increasingly common alternative payment model for Medicare, yet there is limited evidence regarding their effectiveness.ObjectiveTo report interim outcomes from the first year of implementation of a bundled payment model for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR).Design, setting, and participantsAs part of a 5-year, mandatory-participation randomized trial by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, eligible metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) were randomized to the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) bundled payment model for LEJR episodes or to a control group. In the first performance year, hospitals received bonus payments if Medicare spending for LEJR episodes was below the target price and hospitals met quality standards. This interim analysis reports first-year data on LEJR episodes starting April 1, 2016, with data collection through December 31, 2016.ExposureRandomization of MSAs into the CJR bundled payment model group (75 assigned; 67 included) or to the control group without the CJR model (121 assigned; 121 included). Instrumental variable analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between inclusion of MSAs in the CJR model and outcomes.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was share of LEJR admissions discharged to institutional postacute care. Secondary outcomes included the number of days in institutional postacute care, discharges to other locations, Medicare spending during the episode (overall and for institutional postacute care), net Medicare spending during the episode, LEJR patient volume and patient case mix, and quality-of-care measures.ResultsAmong the 196 MSAs and 1633 hospitals, 131 285 eligible LEJR procedures were performed during the study period (mean volume, 110 LEJR episodes per hospital) among 130 343 patients (mean age, 72.5 [SD, 0.91] years; 65% women; 90% white). The mean percentage of LEJR admissions discharged to institutional postacute care was 33.7% (SD, 11.2%) in the control group and was 2.9 percentage points lower (95% CI, -4.95 to -0.90 percentage points) in the CJR group. Mean Medicare spending for institutional postacute care per LEJR episode was $3871 (SD, $1394) in the control group and was $307 lower (95% CI, -$587 to -$27) in the CJR group. Mean overall Medicare spending per LEJR episode was $22 872 (SD, $3619) in the control group and was $453 lower (95% CI, -$909 to $3) in the CJR group, a statistically nonsignificant difference. None of the other secondary outcomes differed significantly between groups.Conclusions and relevanceIn this interim analysis of the first year of the CJR bundled payment model for LEJR among Medicare beneficiaries, MSAs covered by CJR, compared with those that were not, had a significantly lower percentage of discharges to institutional postacute care but no significant difference in total Medicare spending per LEJR episode. Further evaluation is needed as the program is more fully implemented.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03407885; American Economic Association Registry Identifier: AEARCTR-0002521.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes are essential to demonstrate the value of hip and knee arthroplasty, a common target for payment reforms. We compare patient-reported global and condition-specific outcomes after hip and knee arthroplasty based on hospital participation in Medicare's bundled payment programs.MethodsWe performed a prospective observational study using the Comparative Effectiveness of Pulmonary Embolism Prevention after Hip and Knee Replacement trial. Differences in patient-reported outcomes through 6 months were compared between bundle and nonbundle hospitals using mixed-effects regression, controlling for baseline patient characteristics. Outcomes were the brief Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score or the brief Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Health Score, and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, measures of joint function, overall health, and pain, respectively.ResultsRelative to nonbundled hospitals, arthroplasty patients at bundled hospitals had slightly lower improvement in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (-1.8 point relative difference at 6 months; 95% confidence interval -3.2 to -0.4; P = .011) and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (-2.3 point relative difference at 6 months; 95% confidence interval -4.0 to -0.5; P = .010). However, these effects were small, and the proportions of patients who achieved a minimum clinically important difference were similar. Preoperative to postoperative change in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Health Score and Numeric Pain Rating Scale demonstrated a similar pattern of slightly worse outcomes at bundled hospitals with similar rates of achieving a minimum clinically important difference.ConclusionsPatients receiving care at hospitals participating in Medicare's bundled payment programs do not have meaningfully worse improvements in patient-reported measures of function, health, or pain after hip or knee arthroplasty.

Project description:Importance:In 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services introduced mandatory bundled payments for knee and hip replacement surgical procedures among traditional Medicare (TM) patients in randomly selected areas. The association of bundled payments with outcomes among patients enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) is not known. Objective:To determine the association of bundled payments for joint replacement surgical procedures with the use of postacute care (PAC) services among MA patients. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cohort study used difference-in-differences analysis to evaluate changes in PAC use among patients enrolled in Medicare who underwent joint replacement operations before and after the introduction of bundled payments (ie, from January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2017). A total of 75 metropolitan statistical areas were randomized to participate in the bundled payment program, with 121 areas serving as controls. Data were analyzed between September 15, 2018, and October 1, 2019. Exposure:Bundled payments for hip and knee joint replacement operations, in which hospitals received a single payment to cover all costs associated with a joint replacement and associated care for the 90 days after surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcomes were discharge to any institutional PAC setting and days spent in institutional PAC within 90 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included discharge and days spent in specific PAC settings (ie, home health, skilled nursing facility, inpatient rehabilitation). Results:Of 1 536 387 individuals who underwent hip and knee join replacement surgery, 493 977 (32.2%) were enrolled in MA (mean [SD] age, 73.3 [8.4] years; 386 699 [63.5%] women; 55 078 [6.4%] black) and 1 042 410 (67.8%) were enrolled in TM (mean [SD] age, 73.3 [8.7] years, 829 014 [65.2%] women; 82 890 [9.4%] black). Among MA patients, bundled payments were associated with a reduction of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.0-2.0) percentage points in discharge to an institutional PAC setting (P < .001) and an estimated reduction of 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2-0.5) days spent in an institutional PAC setting (P < .001), a 5.6% relative reduction. Among TM patients, bundled payments were associated with a reduction of 2.6 (95% CI, 2.2-2.9) percentage points in institutional PAC discharge (P < .001) and a reduction of 0.8 (95% CI, 0.7-0.9) days spent in an institutional PAC setting (P < .001), a 2.5% relative reduction. These changes were larger in hospitals with greater proportions of TM patients. In hospitals with low concentrations of MA patients, time spent in institutional PAC settings decreased by 0.9 days among TM patients and 0.8 days among MA patients; in hospitals with high MA concentrations, time spent in institutional PAC settings decreased by 0.6 days for TM patients and 0.2 days for MA patients. Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, the first 18 months of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services bundled payment program for joint replacement surgery were associated with reductions in the use of institutional PAC among MA patients. Past evaluations of bundled payments that focused on TM patients may not have measured the full consequences of this alternative payment model.

Project description:BackgroundCompetition-promoting reforms and economic incentives are increasingly being introduced worldwide to improve the performance of healthcare delivery. This study considers such a reform which was initiated in 2009 for elective hip replacement surgery in Stockholm, Sweden. The reform involved patient choice of provider, free establishment of new providers and a bundled payment model. The study aimed to examine its effects on hip replacement surgery quality as captured by patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) of health gain (as indicated by the EQ-5D index and a visual analogue scale (VAS)), pain reduction (VAS) and patient satisfaction (VAS) one and six years after the surgery.MethodsUsing patient-level data collected from multiple national registers, we applied a quasi-experimental research design. Data were collected for elective primary total hip replacements that were carried out between 2008 and 2012, and contain information on patient demography, the surgery and PROMs at baseline and at one- and six-years follow-up. In total, 36,627 observations were included in the analysis. First, entropy balancing was applied in order to reduce differences in observable characteristics between treatment groups. Second, difference-in-difference analyses were conducted to eliminate unobserved time-invariant differences between treatment groups and to estimate the causal treatment effects.ResultsThe entropy balancing was successful in creating balance in all covariates between treatment groups. No significant effects of the reform were found on any of the included PROMs at one- and six-years follow-up. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust.ConclusionsCompetition and bundled payment had no effects on the quality of hip replacement surgery as captured by post-surgery PROMs of health gain, pain reduction and patient satisfaction. The study provides important insights to the limited knowledge on the effects of competition and economic incentives on PROMs.