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.

Patient Characteristics and Costs Associated With COVID-19-Related Medical Care Among Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: New cases of COVID-19 continue to occur daily in the United States, and the need for medical treatments continues to grow. Knowledge of the direct medical costs of COVID-19 treatments is limited. OBJECTIVE: To examine the characteristics of older adults with COVID-19 and their costs for COVID-19-related medical care. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Medical claims for Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries. PATIENTS: Medicare FFS beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who had a COVID-19-related medical encounter during April through December 2020. MEASUREMENTS: Patient characteristics and direct medical costs of COVID-19-related hospitalizations and outpatient visits. RESULTS: Among 28.1 million Medicare FFS beneficiaries, 1 181 127 (4.2%) sought COVID-19-related medical care. Among these patients, 23.0% had an inpatient stay and 4.2% died during hospitalization. The majority of the patients were female (57.0%), non-Hispanic White (79.6%), and residents of an urban county (77.2%). Medicare FFS costs for COVID-19-related medical care were $6.3 billion; 92.6% of costs were for hospitalizations. The mean hospitalization cost was $21 752, and the mean length of stay was 9.2 days; hospitalization cost and length of stay were higher if the patient needed a ventilator ($49 441 and 17.1 days) or died ($32 015 and 11.3 days). The mean cost per outpatient visit was $164. Patients aged 75 years or older were more likely to be hospitalized, but their hospitalizations were associated with lower costs than for younger patients. Male sex and non-White race/ethnicity were associated with higher probability of being hospitalized and higher medical costs. LIMITATION: Results are based on Medicare FFS patients. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in substantial disease and economic burden among older Americans, particularly those of non-White race/ethnicity. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

THE MOST FAVORED NATIONS MODEL INTERIM FINAL RULE IS FATALLY FLAWED AND MUST BE RESCINDED-YET THE PROBLEM IT ADDRESSES DEMANDS A SOLUTION.

DISCLOSURES: No funding supported the writing of this letter. The author has nothing to disclose.

Medicare's Stewardship Role to Improve Care Delivery: Opportunities for the Biden Administration.

Medicare initiatives have been instrumental in improving care delivery and payment as exemplified by its role in broadly expanding the use of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Medicare innovations have been adopted or adapted in Medicaid and by private payers, while Medicare Advantage plans successfully compete with traditional Medicare only because their payment rates are tied by regulation to those in the traditional Medicare program. However, Medicare has not succeeded in implementing new, value-based payment approaches that also would serve as models for other payers, nor has Medicare succeeded in improving quality by relying on public reporting of measured performance. It is increasingly clear that burdensome attention to measurement and reporting distracts from what could be successful efforts to actually improve care through quality improvement programs, with Medicare leading in partnership with providers, other payers, and patients. Although Congress is unlikely to adopt President Biden's proposals to decrease the eligibility age for Medicare or to adopt a public option based on Medicare prices and payment methods in the marketplaces, the Biden administration has an opportunity to provide overdue, strategic direction to the pursuit of value-based payments and to replace failed pay-for-performance with provider-managed projects to improve quality and reduce health disparities.

Nearly One In Five Skilled Nursing Facilities Awarded Positive Incentives Under Value-Based Purchasing.

Medicare's Skilled Nursing Facility Value-Based Purchasing Program, which awards value-based incentive payments based on hospital readmissions, distributed its first two rounds of incentives during fiscal years 2019 and 2020. Incentive payments were based on achievement or improvement scores-whichever was better. Incentive payments were as low as -2.0 percent in both program years and as high as +1.6 percent in FY 2019 and +3.1 percent in FY 2020. In FY 2019, 26 percent of facilities earned positive incentives and 72 percent earned negative incentives, compared with 19 percent positive and 65 percent negative incentives in FY 2020. Larger, rural, and not-for-profit facilities were more likely to earn positive incentives, as were those with the highest registered nurse staffing levels. Although these findings indicate the potential to reward high-quality care at skilled nursing facilities, intended and unintended outcomes of this new value-based purchasing program should be monitored closely for possible program refinements, particularly in light of the disproportionate impacts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on nursing facilities.

Pricing Universal Health Care: How Much Would The Use Of Medical Care Rise?

The return of a Democratic administration to the White House, coupled with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic-induced contractions of job-based insurance, may reignite debate over public coverage expansion and its costs. Decades of research demonstrate that uninsured people and people with copays and deductibles use less care than people with first-dollar coverage. Hence, most economic analyses of Medicare for All proposals and other coverage expansions project increased utilization and associated costs. We review the utilization surges that such analyses have predicted and contrast them with the more modest utilization increments observed after past coverage expansions in the US and other affluent nations. The discrepancy between predicted and observed utilization changes suggests that analysts underestimate the role of supply-side constraints-for example, the finite number of physicians and hospital beds. Our review of the utilization effects of past coverage expansions suggests that a first-dollar universal coverage expansion would increase ambulatory visits by 7-10 percent and hospital use by 0-3 percent. Modest administrative savings could offset the costs of such increases.

The U.S. Health Care System on the Eve of the Covid-19 Epidemic: A Summary of Recent Evidence on Its Impaired Performance.

Four decades of neoliberal health policies have left the United States with a health care system that prioritizes the profits of large corporate actors, denies needed care to tens of millions, is extraordinarily fragmented and inefficient, and was ill prepared to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The payment system has long rewarded hospitals for providing elective surgical procedures to well-insured patients while penalizing those providing the most essential and urgent services, causing hospital revenues to plummet as elective procedures were cancelled during the pandemic. Before the recession caused by the pandemic, tens of millions of Americans were unable to afford care, compromising their physical and financial health; deep-pocketed corporate interests were increasingly dominating the hospital industry and taking over physicians' practices; and insurers' profits hit record levels. Meanwhile, yawning class-based and racial inequities in care and health outcomes remain and have even widened. Recent data highlight the failure of policy strategies based on market models and the need to shift to a nonprofit social insurance model.