Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility Use and Spending Before and After Introduction of the Public Health Emergency Waiver During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Medicare introduced a public health emergency (PHE) waiver in March 2020, removing a 3-day hospitalization requirement before fee-for-service beneficiaries could receive skilled nursing facility (SNF) care benefits. Objective: To assess whether there were changes in SNF episode volume and Medicare spending on SNF care before and during the PHE among long-term care (LTC) residents and other Medicare beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used Medicare fee-for-service claims and the Minimum Data Set for Medicare beneficiaries who were reimbursed for SNF care episodes from January 2018 to September 2021 in US SNFs. Exposures: The prepandemic period (January 2018-February 2020) vs the PHE period (March 2020-September 2021). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were SNF episode volume, characteristics, and costs. Episodes were defined as standard (with a preceding 3-day hospitalization) or waiver (with other or no acute care use). Results: Skilled nursing facility care was provided to 4 299 863 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Medicare beneficiaries had on average 130 400 monthly SNF episodes in the prepandemic period (mean [SD] age of beneficiaries, 78.9 [11.0] years; 59% female) and 108 575 monthly episodes in the PHE period (mean [SD] age of beneficiaries, 79.0 [11.1] years; 59% female). All waiver episodes increased from 6% to 32%, and waiver episodes without preceding acute care increased from 3% to 18% (from 4% to 49% among LTC residents). Skilled nursing facility episodes provided for LTC residents increased by 77% (from 15 538 to 27 537 monthly episodes), primarily due to waiver episodes provided for residents with COVID-19 in 2020 and early 2021 (62% of waiver episodes without preceding acute care). Skilled nursing facilities in the top quartile of waiver episodes were more often for-profit (80% vs 68%) and had lower quality ratings (mean [SD] overall star rating, 2.7 [1.4] vs 3.2 [1.4]; mean [SD] staffing star rating, 2.5 [1.1] vs 3.0 [1.2]) compared with SNFs in the other quartiles. Monthly Medicare spending on SNF care was $2.1 billion before the pandemic and $2.0 billion during the PHE. For LTC residents, monthly SNF spending increased from $301 million to $585 million while spending on hospitalizations remained relatively stable. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that the PHE waiver for SNF care was associated with a marked increase in the prevalence of SNF episodes without a preceding hospitalization, especially in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The waiver was used primarily among certain types of facilities and for LTC residents with COVID-19. Although the effect of the waiver cannot be differentiated from that of the pandemic, overall SNF care costs did not increase substantially; for LTC residents, the waiver was applied primarily for COVID-19 care, suggesting the waiver's successful implementation.

Care Disruption During COVID-19: a National Survey of Hospital Leaders.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused massive disruption in usual care delivery patterns in hospitals across the USA, and highlighted long-standing inequities in health care delivery and outcomes. Its effect on hospital operations, and whether the magnitude of the effect differed for hospitals serving historically marginalized populations, is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the perspectives of hospital leaders on the effects of COVID-19 on their facilities' operations and patient outcomes. METHODS: A survey was administered via print and electronic means to hospital leaders at 588 randomly sampled acute-care hospitals participating in Medicare's Inpatient Prospective Payment System, fielded from November 2020 to June 2021. Summary statistics were tabulated, and responses were adjusted for sampling strategy and non-response. RESULTS: There were 203 responses to the survey (41.6%), with 20.7% of respondents representing safety-net hospitals and 19.7% representing high-minority hospitals. Over three-quarters of hospitals reported COVID testing shortages, about two-thirds reported staffing shortages, and 78.8% repurposed hospital spaces to intensive care units, with a slightly higher proportion of high-minority hospitals reporting these effects. About half of respondents felt that non-COVID inpatients received worsened quality or outcomes during peak COVID surges, and almost two-thirds reported worsened quality or outcomes for outpatient non-COVID patients as well, with few differences by hospital safety-net or minority status. Over 80% of hospitals participated in alternative payment models prior to COVID, and a third of these reported decreasing these efforts due to the pandemic, with no differences between safety-net and high-minority hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 significantly disrupted the operations of hospitals across the USA, with hospitals serving patients in poverty and racial and ethnic minorities reporting relatively similar care disruption as non-safety-net and lower-minority hospitals.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patients Without COVID-19 With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Heart Failure.

Background Excess mortality from cardiovascular disease during the COVID-19 pandemic has been reported. The mechanism is unclear but may include delay or deferral of care, or differential treatment during hospitalization because of strains on hospital capacity. Methods and Results We used emergency department and inpatient data from a 12-hospital health system to examine changes in volume, patient age and comorbidities, treatment (right- and left-heart catheterization), and outcomes for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF) during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with pre-COVID-19 (2018 and 2019), controlling for seasonal variation. We analyzed 27 427 emergency department visits or hospitalizations. Patient volume decreased during COVID-19 for both HF and AMI, but age, race, sex, and medical comorbidities were similar before and during COVID-19 for both groups. Acuity increased for AMI as measured by the proportion of patients with ST-segment elevation. There were no differences in right-heart catheterization for patients with HF or in left heart catheterization for patients with AMI. In-hospital mortality increased for AMI during COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% CI, 1.21-1.76), particularly among the ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction subgroup (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 2.24-2.96), but was unchanged for HF (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.16). Conclusions Cardiovascular volume decreased during COVID-19. Despite similar patient age and comorbidities and in-hospital treatments during COVID-19, mortality increased for patients with AMI but not patients with HF. Given that AMI is a time-sensitive condition, delay or deferral of care rather than changes in hospital care delivery may have led to worse cardiovascular outcomes during COVID-19.

Changes In Non-COVID-19 Emergency Department Visits By Acuity And Insurance Status During The COVID-19 Pandemic.

Prior studies suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with decreases in emergency department (ED) volumes, but it is not known whether these decreases varied by visit acuity or by demographic and socioeconomic risk factors. In this study of more than one million non-COVID-19 visits to thirteen EDs in a large St. Louis, Missouri, health system, we observed an overall 35 percent decline in ED visits. The decrease in medical and surgical visits ranged from 40 percent to 52 percent across acuity levels, with no statistically significant differences between higher- and lower-acuity visits after correction for multiple comparisons. Mental health visits saw a smaller decrease (-32 percent), and there was no decrease for visits due to substance use. Medicare patients had the smallest decrease in visits (-31 percent) of the insurance groups; privately insured (-46 percent) and Medicaid (-44 percent) patients saw larger drops. There were no observable differences in ED visit decreases by race. These findings can help inform interventions to ensure that people requiring timely ED care continue to seek it and to improve access to lower-risk alternative settings of care where appropriate.