Performance of health care service area definitions for capturing variation in inpatient care and social determinants of health.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the degree to which health care service area (HCSA) definitions captured hospitalizations and heterogeneity in social determinants of health (SDOH). DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Geospatial data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Census Bureau, and the Dartmouth Institute. Drive-time isochrones from MapBox. Area Deprivation Index (ADI) data. 2017 inpatient discharge data from Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin, State Emergency Department Databases and State Inpatient Databases, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; and Fee-For-Service Medicare data in 48 states. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, descriptive analysis. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The capture rate was the percentage of inpatient discharges occurring in the same HCSA as the hospital. We compared capture rates for each HCSA definition for different populations and by hospital type. We measured SDOH heterogeneity using the coefficient of variation of the ADI among ZIP codes within each HCSA. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: HCSA definitions captured a wide range of inpatient discharges, ranging from 20% to 50% for Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) to 93%-97% for Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). Three-quarters of inpatient discharges were from facilities within the same county as the patient's residential ZIP code, while nearly two-thirds were within the same Hospital Service Area. From the hospital perspective, 74.7% of inpatient discharges originated from within a 30-min drive and 90.1% within a 60-min drive. Capture rates were the lowest for teaching hospitals. PUMAs and drive-time-based HCSAs encompassed more homogenous populations while MSAs, Commuting Zones, and Hospital Referral Regions captured the most variation. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of hospital discharges captured by each HCSA varied, with MSAs capturing the highest proportion of discharges and PUMAs capturing the lowest. Additionally, researchers face a trade-off between capture rate and population homogeneity when deciding which HCSA to use.

Primary Care Physician Network Overlap Between Medicaid and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Marketplace.

This cross-sectional study quantifies Medicaid and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace overlap among primary care physicians.

The Past Decade of Paying for Value : From the Affordable Care Act to COVID-19.

The Affordable Care Act played a major role in transitioning American health care away from fee-for-service payment. We explore the spread of payment reforms since the implementation of the ACA, both nationally and in North Carolina; the corresponding effects on health care costs and quality; and further steps needed to achieve greater transformation.

Improving Cardiovascular Drug and Device Development and Evidence Through Patient-Centered Research and Clinical Trials: A Call to Action From the Value in Healthcare Initiative's Partnering With Regulators Learning Collaborative.

The pipeline of new cardiovascular drugs is relatively limited compared with many other clinical areas. Challenges causing lagging drug innovation include the duration and expense of cardiovascular clinical trials needed for regulatory evaluation and approvals, which generally must demonstrate noninferiority to existing standards of care and measure longer-term outcomes. By comparison, there has been substantial progress in cardiovascular device innovation. There has also been progress in cardiovascular trial participation equity in recent years, especially among women, due in part to important efforts by Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, American Heart Association, and others. Yet women and especially racial and ethnic minority populations remain underrepresented in cardiovascular trials, indicating much work ahead to continue recent success. Given these challenges and opportunities, the multistakeholder Partnering with Regulators Learning Collaborative of the Value in Healthcare Initiative, a collaboration of the American Heart Association and the Robert J. Margolis, MD, Center for Health Policy at Duke University, identified how to improve the evidence generation process for cardiovascular drugs and devices. Drawing on a series of meetings, literature reviews, and analyses of regulatory options, the Collaborative makes recommendations across four identified areas for improvement. First, we offer strategies to enhance patient engagement in trial design, convenient participation, and meaningful end points and outcomes to improve patient recruitment and retention (major expenses in clinical trials). Second, new digital technologies expand the potential for real-world evidence to streamline data collection and reduce cost and time of trials. However, technical challenges must be overcome to routinely leverage real-world data, including standardizing data, managing data quality, understanding data comparability, and ensuring real-world evidence does not worsen inequities. Third, as trials are driven by evidence needs of regulators and payers, we recommend ways to improve their collaboration in trial design to streamline and standardize efficient and innovative trials, reducing costs and delays. Finally, we discuss creative ways to expand the minuscule proportion of sites involved in cardiovascular evidence generation and medical product development. These actions, paired with continued policy research into better ways to pay for and equitably develop therapies, will help reduce the cost and complexity of drug and device research, development, and trials.

North Carolina's Health Care Transformation to Value: Progress to Date and Further Steps Needed.

North Carolina has received national attention for its approach to health care payment and delivery reform. Importantly, payment reform alone is not enough to drive systematic changes in care delivery. We highlight the importance of progress in four complementary areas to achieve system-wide payment and care reform.

Advancing Value-Based Models for Heart Failure: A Call to Action From the Value in Healthcare Initiative's Value-Based Models Learning Collaborative.

Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of hospitalizations and readmissions in the United States. Particularly among the elderly, its prevalence and costs continue to rise, making it a significant population health issue. Despite tremendous progress in improving HF care and examples of innovation in care redesign, the quality of HF care varies greatly across the country. One major challenge underpinning these issues is the current payment system, which is largely based on fee-for-service reimbursement, leads to uncoordinated, fragmented, and low-quality HF care. While the payment landscape is changing, with an increasing proportion of all healthcare dollars flowing through value-based payment models, no longitudinal models currently focus on chronic HF care. Episode-based payment models for HF hospitalization have yielded limited success and have little ability to prevent early chronic disease from progressing to later stages. The available literature suggests that primary care-based longitudinal payment models have indirectly improved HF care quality and cardiovascular care costs, but these models are not focused on addressing patients' longitudinal chronic disease needs. This article describes the efforts and vision of the multi-stakeholder Value-Based Models Learning Collaborative of The Value in Healthcare Initiative, a collaboration of the American Heart Association and the Robert J. Margolis, MD, Center for Health Policy at Duke University. The Learning Collaborative developed a framework for a HF value-based payment model with a longitudinal focus on disease management (to reduce adverse clinical outcomes and disease progression among patients with stage C HF) and prevention (an optional track to prevent high-risk stage B pre-HF from progressing to stage C). The model is designed to be compatible with prevalent payment models and reforms being implemented today. Barriers to success and strategies for implementation to aid payers, regulators, clinicians, and others in developing a pilot are discussed.

ACO Serious Illness Care: Survey And Case Studies Depict Current Challenges And Future Opportunities.

Care for people living with serious illness is suboptimal for many reasons, including underpayment for key services (such as care coordination and social supports) in fee-for-service reimbursement. Accountable care organizations (ACOs) have potential to improve serious illness care because of their widespread dissemination, strong financial incentives for care coordination in downside-risk models, and flexibility in shared savings spending. Through a national survey we found that 94 percent of ACOs at least partially identify their seriously ill beneficiaries, yet only 8-21 percent have widely implemented serious illness initiatives such as advance care planning or home-based palliative care. We selected six diverse ACOs with successful programs for case studies and interviewed fifty-three leaders and front-line personnel. Cross-cutting themes include the need for up-front investment beyond shared savings to build serious illness infrastructure and workforce; supporting the business case for organizational buy-in; how ACO contract specifications affect savings for serious illness populations; and using data and health information technology to manage populations. We discuss the implications of the recent Medicare ACO regulatory overhaul and other policies related to serious illness quality measures, risk adjustment, attribution methods, supporting rural ACOs, and enhancing timely data access.