Bundled payment fails to gain a foothold In California: the experience of the IHA bundled payment demonstration.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ridgely MS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8575503 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the predictive accuracy of two approaches to target price calculations under Bundled Payments for Care Improvement-Advanced (BPCI-A): the traditional Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) methodology and an empirical Bayes approach designed to mitigate the effects of regression to the mean.Data sourcesMedicare fee-for-service claims for beneficiaries discharged from acute care hospitals between 2010 and 2016.Study designWe used data from a baseline period (discharges between January 1, 2010 and September 30, 2013) to predict spending in a performance period (discharges between October 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016). For 23 clinical episode types in BPCI-A, we compared the average prediction error across hospitals associated with each statistical approach. We also calculated an average across all clinical episode types and explored differences by hospital size.Data collection/extraction methodsWe used a 20% sample of Medicare claims, excluding hospitals and episode types with small numbers of observations.Principal findingsThe empirical Bayes approach resulted in significantly more accurate episode spending predictions for 19 of 23 clinical episode types. Across all episode types, prediction error averaged $8456 for the CMS approach versus $7521 for the empirical Bayes approach. Greater improvements in accuracy were observed with increasing hospital size.ConclusionsCMS should consider using empirical Bayes methods to calculate target prices for BPCI-A.
| S-EPMC8313949 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 2011, inclusion of injectable medications into an expanded ESKD payment bundle prompted concerns that dialysis facilities facing higher costs might close, disrupting care delivery and access to care. Whether this policy change influenced dialysis facility closures is unknown.MethodsTo examine whether facility closures increased after 2011 and whether factors influencing closures changed, we analyzed US Renal Data System registry data to identify all patients receiving in-center hemodialysis from 2006 through 2015 and to track dialysis facility closures. We used interrupted time series logistic regression models and estimated marginal effects to examine immediate and longer-term changes in the likelihood of being affected by facility closures following payment reform. We also examined whether associations between selected predictors of closures indicating populations at "high risk" of closure (patient characteristics, facility characteristics, and geography-related characteristics) and closures changed after payment reform.ResultsDialysis facility closures were uncommon over the study period. In adjusted models, the relative odds of experiencing a closure declined by 37% (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.59 to 0.67) immediately after payment reform and declined by an additional 6% (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.97) annually thereafter, corresponding to a 0.3% lower absolute probability of closure in 2015 in association with payment reform. Patients who were black and who dialyzed at small, hospital-based facilities experienced slight increases in closures following payment reform, whereas Hispanic and Medicare/Medicaid dual-eligible patients experienced slight decreases in closures.ConclusionsExpansion of the ESKD payment bundle was not associated with increased closure of dialysis facilities, although the likelihood of closures changed slightly for some higher-risk populations.
| S-EPMC7062226 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Orthopaedic care is shifting to alternative payment models. We examined whether New York University Langone Medical Center achieved savings under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative.This study was a difference-in-differences study of Medicare fee-for-service patients hospitalized from April 2011 to June 2012 and October 2013 to December 2014 for lower extremity joint arthroplasty, cardiac valve procedures, or spine surgery (intervention groups), or for congestive heart failure, major bowel procedures, medical peripheral vascular disorders, medical noninfectious orthopaedic care, or stroke (control group). We examined total episode costs and costs by service category.We included 2,940 intervention episodes and 1,474 control episodes. Relative to the trend in the control group, lower extremity joint arthroplasty episodes achieved the greatest savings: adjusted average episode cost during the intervention period decreased by $3,017 (95% confidence interval [CI], -$6,066 to $31). For cardiac procedures, the adjusted average episode cost decreased by $2,999 (95% CI, -$8,103 to $2,105), and for spinal fusion, it increased by $8,291 (95% CI, $2,879 to $13,703). Savings were driven predominantly by shifting postdischarge care from inpatient rehabilitation facilities to home. Spinal fusion index admission costs increased because of changes in surgical technique.Under bundled payment, New York University Langone Medical Center decreased total episode costs in patients undergoing lower extremity joint arthroplasty. For patients undergoing cardiac valve procedures, evidence of savings was not as strong, and for patients undergoing spinal fusion, total episode costs increased. For all three conditions, the proportion of patients referred to inpatient rehabilitation facilities upon discharge decreased. These changes were not associated with an increase in index hospital length of stay or readmission rate.Opportunities for savings under bundled payment may be greater for lower extremity joint arthroplasty than for other conditions.
| S-EPMC6046256 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Policy Points Evidence suggests that bundled payment contracting can slow the growth of payer costs relative to fee-for-service contracting, although bundled payment models may not reduce absolute costs. Bundled payments may be more effective than fee-for-service payments in containing costs for certain medical conditions. For the most part, Medicare's bundled payment initiatives have not been associated with a worsening of quality in terms of readmissions, emergency department use, and mortality. Some evidence suggests a worsening of other quality measures for certain medical conditions. Bundled payment contracting involves trade-offs: Expanding a bundle's scope and duration may better contain costs, but a more comprehensive bundle may be less attractive to providers, reducing their willingness to accept it as an alternative to fee-for-service payment.ContextBundled payments have been promoted as an alternative to fee-for-service payments that can mitigate the incentives for service volume under the fee-for-service model. As Medicare has gained experience with bundled payments, it has widened their scope and increased their duration. However, there have been few reviews of the empirical literature on the impact of Medicare's bundled payment programs on cost, resource use, utilization, and quality.MethodsWe examined the history and features of 16 of Medicare's bundled payment programs involving hospital-initiated episodes of care and conducted a literature review of articles about those programs. Database and additional searches yielded 1,479 articles. We evaluate the studies' methodological quality and summarize the quantitative findings about Medicare expenditures and quality of care from 37 studies that used higher-quality research designs.FindingsMedicare's bundled payment initiatives have varied in their design features, such as episode scope and duration. Many initiatives were associated with little to no reduction in Medicare expenditures, unless large pricing discounts for providers were negotiated in advance. Initiatives that included post-acute care services were associated with lower expenditures for certain conditions. Hospitals may have been able to reduce internal production costs with help from physicians via gainsharing. Most initiatives were not associated with significant changes in quality of care, as measured by readmission and mortality rates. Of the significant changes in readmission rates, the results were mixed, showing increases and decreases associated with bundled payments. Some evidence suggested that worse patient outcomes were associated bundled payments, although most results were not statistically significant. Results on case-mix selection were mixed: Several initiatives were associated with reductions in episode severity, whereas others were associated with little change.ConclusionsBundled payments for hospital-initiated episodes may be a good alternative to fee-for-service payments. Bundled payments can help slow the growth of payer spending, although they do not necessarily reduce absolute spending. They are associated with lower provider production costs, and there is no overwhelming evidence of compromised quality. However, designing a bundled payment contract that is attractive to both providers and payers proves to be a challenge.
| S-EPMC7482383 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate whether participation in Medicare's voluntary Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) model was associated with changes in discharge referral patterns to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), specifically number of SNF partners and discharge concentration.Study designRetrospective observational study using difference-in-differences analysis.MethodsWe used Medicare claims data from 2010 to 2015 to identify admissions for lower joint replacement surgery and the following medical conditions: congestive heart failure, renal failure, sepsis, pneumonia, urinary tract and kidney infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and stroke. We used difference-in-differences analyses to assess changes in discharge patterns among BPCI-participating hospitals compared with matched control hospitals.ResultsOur analytic sample included 3078 acute care hospitals and 14,866 Medicare-certified SNFs in the United States, encompassing more than 47 million hospital discharges. Of these hospitals, 416 participated in BPCI, with the majority selecting into joint replacement episodes (n = 295). BPCI participation was not associated with any change in number of SNF partners (increase by 0.8 SNFs among BPCI hospitals relative to non-BPCI hospitals; 95% CI, -0.2 to 1.9; P = .11) or in discharge concentration (increase in Herfindahl-Hirschman Index of 0.2 among BPCI hospitals relative to non-BPCI hospitals; 95% CI, -68.7 to 69.1; P = .36). Results did not vary across clinical conditions and were robust across duration of BPCI participation and with different comparison groups.ConclusionsHospital participation in BPCI was not associated with changes in the number of SNF partners or in discharge concentration relative to non-BPCI hospitals. More research is needed to understand how hospitals are responding to bundled payment incentives and specific practices that contribute to improvements in cost and quality.
| S-EPMC6788623 | biostudies-literature
Project description:STUDY DESIGN:Retrospective analysis of Medicare claims linked to hospital participation in the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation's episode-based Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) program for lumbar fusion. OBJECTIVE:To describe the early effects of BPCI participation for lumbar fusion on 90-day reimbursement, procedure volume, reoperation, and readmission. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:Initiated on January 1, 2013, BPCI's voluntary bundle payment program provides a predetermined payment for services related to a Diagnosis-Related Group-defined "triggering event" over a defined time period. As an alternative to fee-for-service, these reforms shift the financial risk of care on to hospitals. METHODS:We identified fee-for-service beneficiaries over age 65 undergoing a lumbar fusion in 2012 or 2013, corresponding to the years before and after BPCI initiation. Hospitals were grouped based on program participation status as nonparticipants, preparatory, or risk-bearing. Generalized estimating equation models adjusting for patient age, sex, race, comorbidity, and hospital size were used to compare changes in episode costs, procedure volume, and safety indicators based on hospital BPCI participation. RESULTS:We included 89,605 beneficiaries undergoing lumbar fusion, including 36% seen by a preparatory hospital and 7% from a risk-bearing hospital. The mean age of the cohort was 73.4 years, with 59% women, 92% White, and 22% with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 2 or more. Participant hospitals had greater procedure volume, bed size, and total discharges. Relative to nonparticipants, risk-bearing hospitals had a slightly increased fusion procedure volume from 2012 to 2013 (3.4% increase vs. 1.6% decrease, P?=?0.119), did not reduce 90-day episode of care costs (0.4% decrease vs. 2.9% decrease, P?=?0.044), increased 90-day readmission rate (+2.7% vs. -10.7%, P?=?0.043), and increased repeat surgery rates (+30.6% vs. +7.1% points, P?=?0.043). CONCLUSION:These early, unintended trends suggest an imperative for continued monitoring of BPCI in lumbar fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:3.
| S-EPMC5839918 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImplementation of payment reform for breast reconstruction following mastectomy demands a comprehensive understanding of costs related to the complex process of reconstruction. Bundled payments for services to women with breast cancer may profoundly impact reimbursement and access to breast reconstruction. The authors' objectives were to determine the contribution of cancer therapies, comorbidities, revisions, and complications to costs following immediate reconstruction and the optimal duration of episodes to incentivize cost containment for bundled payment models.MethodsThe cohort was composed of women who underwent immediate breast reconstruction between 2009 and 2016 from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database. Continuous enrollment for 3 months before and 24 months after reconstruction was required. Total costs were calculated within predefined episodes (30 days, 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years). Multivariable models assessed predictors of costs.ResultsAmong 15,377 women in the analytic cohort, 11,592 (75 percent) underwent tissue expander, 1279 (8 percent) underwent direct-to-implant, and 2506 (16 percent) underwent autologous reconstruction. Adjuvant therapies increased costs at 1 year [tissue expander, $39,978 (p < 0.001); direct-to-implant, $34,365 (p < 0.001); and autologous, $29,226 (p < 0.001)]. At 1 year, most patients had undergone tissue expander exchange (76 percent) and revisions (81 percent), and a majority of complications had occurred (87 percent). Comorbidities, revisions, and complications increased costs for all episode scenarios.ConclusionsEpisode-based bundling should consider separate bundles for medical and surgical care with adjustment for procedure type, cancer therapies, and comorbidities to limit the adverse impact on access to reconstruction. The authors' findings suggest that a 1-year time horizon may optimally capture reconstruction events and complications.
| S-EPMC8503817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBundled payment models for lower extremity total joint arthroplasty (TJA) aim to improve value by decreasing costs via efficient care pathways. It is unclear how such models affect patient-centered outcomes such as functional recovery. We aimed to determine whether participation in bundled payment for TJA negatively affects patients' functional recovery.MethodsAll patients, regardless of payer, undergoing elective TJA between July 2014 and December 2016 were identified retrospectively and categorized into prebundle (n = 680) and postbundle (n = 1216) cohorts. Mixed-effects linear regression and Wald postests were used to test for differences in patients' functional recovery during the hospital period and over 12 months after TJA between cohorts. We also used multivariate regression to test for differences in hospital length of stay (LOS) and postacute care (PAC) facility use between cohorts.ResultsCompared with the prebundle cohort, patients in the postbundle cohort demonstrated a small and nonmeaningful difference in the trajectory of functional recovery in the hospital [χ2(3) = 31.3, P < .01] and no difference in the 12 months after TJA [χ2(3) = 3.9, P = .28]. They had a 0.4-day shorter hospital LOS (95% confidence interval: -0.5, -0.3) and decreased odds for PAC facility use (adjusted odds ratio = 0.3; 95% confidence interval: 0.2, 0.4).ConclusionsParticipation in bundled payment for TJA was not associated with significant changes in patients' functional recovery, an important patient-centered outcome. For the postbundle cohort, hospital LOS and PAC facility use were decreased, consistent with previous studies describing cost-saving strategies in bundled payment. These findings support the need for an ongoing study of the long-term sustainability of these value-based payment models.
| S-EPMC6470353 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9489623 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDistal radius fractures are the most common fracture of childhood, occurring in ∼1 per 100 children annually. Given the high incidence of these fractures, we explored feasibility of a bundled payment model. We determined the total treatment costs for each child and identified components of fracture management that contributed to variations in cost.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed all hospital and physician costs related to the treatment of closed distal radius fractures at a large academic children's hospital. We included all children age 2 to 15 years treated by an orthopaedic surgeon for an isolated closed distal radius fracture between 2013 and 2015. We compared total treatment costs by fracture management approach. We then estimated the contribution of each component of fracture management to total treatment costs using linear regression.ResultsWe identified 5640 children meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 4602 (81.6%) received closed treatment without manipulation, 922 (16.3%) underwent closed reduction in the clinic, emergency department, or radiology procedure suite, and 116 (2.1%) underwent treatment in the operating room. The median cost for closed treatment without manipulation was $1390 [interquartile range (IQR) 1029 to 1801], compared with $4263 (IQR, 3740 to 4832) for closed reduction and $9389 (IQR, 8272 to 11,119) for closed reduction and percutaneous pinning (P<0.001). In multivariable regression analysis, fracture management approach and use of the operating room environment were the largest cost drivers (P<0.001, R=0.88). Closed reduction in the clinic or emergency department added $894 (95% confidence interval, 819-969) to treatment costs, while closed reduction in the operating room added $5568 (95% confidence interval, 5224-6297). Location of the initial clinical evaluation, number of radiographic imaging series obtained, and number of orthopaedic clinic visits also contributed to total costs.ConclusionsClosed pediatric distal radius fractures treated without manipulation show small variations in treatment costs, making them well suited for bundled payment. Bundled payments for these fractures could reduce costs by encouraging adoption of existing evidence-based practices.Level of evidenceLevel III-therapeutic.
| S-EPMC6226020 | biostudies-literature