CMS Hospital Value-Based Programs: Refinements Are Needed To Reduce Health Disparities And Improve Outcomes.

Several Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) programs aim to transform how health care is delivered by adjusting Medicare inpatient hospital payments through a system of rewards and penalties based on performance on measures of quality. These programs are the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program, and the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program. We analyzed value-based program penalty results for various groups of hospitals across these three programs and assessed the impact of patient and community health equity risk factors on hospital penalties. We found statistically significant positive relationships between hospital penalties and several factors that affect hospital performance but that hospitals cannot control-namely, medical complexity (as measured by Hierarchical Condition Categories scores), uncompensated care, and the portion of hospital catchment area populations who live alone. Moreover, these environmental conditions can be worse for hospitals that operate in areas with historically underserved populations. This suggests that the CMS programs might not adequately account for health equity factors at the community level. Refinements to these programs (including an explicit incorporation of patient and community health equity risk factors) and continued monitoring will help ensure that the programs work as intended in a fair and equitable fashion.

Early Initiation of non-invasive ventilation at home improves survival and reduces healthcare costs in COPD patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: While non-invasive ventilation at home (NIVH) is gaining wider acceptance as a treatment option for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with chronic respiratory failure (COPD-CRF), uncertainty remains about the optimal time to begin NIVH, whether a specific phenotype of COPD-CRF predicts improved outcomes, and how NIVH affects healthcare costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using 100% research identifiable fee-for-service Medicare claims from 2016 through 2020, we designed an observational, retrospective, cohort study to determine how NIVH use in COPD-CRF patients stratified by CRF phenotype and by timing of initiation affected mortality, healthcare utilization, and total healthcare costs compared to a matched control group. RESULTS: In hypercapnic COPD-CRF patients starting NIVH within the first week following diagnosis, risk of death was reduced by 43% (HR, 0.57; 95% CI 0.51-0.63, p < .0001), those starting 8-15 days following diagnosis had mortality reduction of 31% (HR, 0.69; 95% CI 0.62-0.77, p < .0001), and those starting 16-30 days following diagnosis showed mortality reduction of 16% (HR 0.84, CI 0.073-0.096, p < .01) compared to controls. Medicare spending was also associated with timing of NIVH initiation in hypercapnic COPD-CRF. Those beginning treatment 0-7 days and 0-15 days following diagnosis had a $5484 and a $3412 reduction in Medicare expenditures respectively the next year. NIVH was not associated with improved clinical outcomes or decreased Medicare spending in COPD-CRF patients who were not hypercapnic. CONCLUSION: In this study, early initiation of NIVH for hypercapnic COPD-CRF patients was associated with reductions in the risk of death and in total Medicare spending.

Impact of liposomal bupivacaine and provider choice on opioid use and service outcomes in Medicare outpatient surgical patients.

AIMS: There is wide variation in opioid prescribing patterns after common surgical procedures. This study examines outcomes for beneficiaries undergoing hospital outpatient department (HOPD) procedures using liposomal bupivacaine (LB) for control of post-surgical pain. As a non-opioid surgical analgesic, LB may afford beneficial outcomes for reducing subsequent opioid use and improving post-surgical service use outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective cohort comparison study analyzed 100% Medicare claims data from 2014-2019. HOPD claims were matched to approximately 100 of the most common surgical procedures where LB was utilized. Within these procedures, a one-to-many, with replacement propensity score matching model was used to control for possible selection bias. By procedure, those claims which were identified as using LB for control of post-surgical pain were matched to those not receiving LB. Outcomes were the probability of a subsequent Part D opioid prescription fill, emergency department (ED) visit, and short-term acute care hospital admission. RESULTS: Higher provider use rates of LB are significantly correlated with a decrease in post-HOPD opioid use and a reduction in post-operative ED visits. For each 10% increase in LB use rate by a given provider, Part D opioid events by Day 30 decreased by 2.6 percentage points and by 2.1 percentage points by day 90 (p < .01). Similarly, for each 10% increase in provider LB use rate, there is a 0.4 percentage point reduction in post-operative ED use by day 30 (p < .01) and a 0.3 percentage point reduction by day 90 (p < .05). LIMITATIONS: Part D data only indicate that a prescription was filled, not whether the drug was taken. CONCLUSIONS: Increased provider use of LB is correlated with improved patient outcomes in real-world provider experience with the Medicare population for many outpatient procedures. Policies that support increased provider use of LB should reduce reliance on opioid drugs for post-surgical pain management.

Economic value of orthotic and prosthetic services among medicare beneficiaries: a claims-based retrospective cohort study, 2011-2014.

BACKGROUND: There are few studies of the economic value of orthotic and prosthetic services. A prior cohort study of orthotic and prosthetic Medicare beneficiaries based on Medicare Parts A and B claims from 2007 to 2010 concluded that patients who received timely orthotic or prosthetic care had comparable or lower total health care costs than a comparison group of untreated patients. This follow-up study reports on a parallel analysis based on Medicare claims from 2011 to 2014 and includes Part D in addition to Parts A and B services and expenditures. Its purpose is to validate earlier findings on the extent to which Medicare patients who received select orthotic and prosthetic services had less health care utilization, lower Medicare payments, and potentially fewer negative outcomes compared to matched patients not receiving these services. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of 78,707 matched pairs of Medicare beneficiaries with clinical need for orthotic and prosthetic services (N = 157,414) using 2011-2014 Medicare claims data. It uses propensity score matching techniques to control for observable selection bias. Economically, a cost-consequence evaluation over a four-year time horizon was performed. RESULTS: Patients who received lower extremity orthotics had 18-month episode costs that were $1939 lower than comparable patients who did not receive orthotic treatment ($22,734 vs $24,673). Patients who received spinal orthotic treatment had 18-month episode costs that were $2094 lower than comparable non-treated patients ($23,560 vs $25,655). Study group beneficiaries receiving both types of orthotics had significantly lower Part D spending than those not receiving treatment (p < 0.05). Patients who received lower extremity prostheses had comparable 15-month episode payments to matched beneficiaries not receiving prostheses ($68,877 vs $68,893) despite the relatively high cost of the prosthesis. CONCLUSIONS: These results were consistent with those found in the prior study and suggest that orthotic and prosthetic services provide value to the Medicare program and to the patient.

Comparing the Affordable Care Act's Financial Impact on Safety-Net Hospitals in States That Expanded Medicaid and Those That Did Not.

Issue: Safety-net hospitals play a vital role in delivering health care to Medicaid enrollees, the uninsured, and other vulnerable patients. By reducing the number of uninsured Americans, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was also expected to lower these hospitals' significant uncompensated care costs and shore up their financial stability. Goal: To examine how the ACA's Medicaid expansion affected the financial status of safety-net hospitals in states that expanded Medicaid and in states that did not. Methods: Using Medicare hospital cost reports for federal fiscal years 2012 and 2015, the authors compared changes in Medicaid inpatient days as a percentage of total inpatient days, Medicaid revenues as a percentage of total net patient revenues, uncompensated care costs as a percentage of total operating costs, and hospital operating margins. Findings and Conclusions: Medicaid expansion had a significant, favorable financial impact on safety-net hospitals. From 2012 to 2015, safety-net hospitals in expansion states, compared to those in nonexpansion states, experienced larger increases in Medicaid inpatient days and Medicaid revenues as well as reduced uncompensated care costs. These changes improved operating margins for safety-net hospitals in expansion states. Margins for safety-net hospitals in nonexpansion states, meanwhile, declined.

What is the best setting for receiving dialysis vascular access repair and maintenance services?

INTRODUCTION: Advances in dialysis vascular access (DVA) management have changed where beneficiaries receive this care. The effectiveness, safety, quality, and economy of different care settings have been questioned. This study compares patient outcomes of receiving DVA services in the freestanding office-based center (FOC) to those of the hospital outpatient department (HOPD). It also examines whether outcomes differ for a centrally managed system of FOCs (CMFOC) compared to all other FOCs (AOFOC). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of clinically and demographically similar patients within Medicare claims available through United States Renal Data System (USRDS) (2010-2013) who received at least 80% of DVA services in an FOC (n = 80,831) or HOPD (n = 133,965). Separately, FOC population is divided into CMFOC (n = 20,802) and AOFOC (n = 80,267). Propensity matching was used to control for clinical, demographic, and functional characteristics across populations. RESULTS: FOC patients experienced significantly better outcomes, including lower annual mortality (14.6% vs. 17.2%, p<0.001) and DVA-related infections (0.16 vs. 0.20, p<0.001), fewer hospitalizations (1.65 vs. 1.91, p<0.001), and lower total per-member-per-month (PMPM) payments ($5042 vs. $5361, p<0.001) than HOPD patients. CMFOC patients had lower annual mortality (12.5% vs. 13.8%, p<0.001), PMPM payments (DVA services) ($1486 vs. $1533, p<0.001) and hospitalizations ($1752 vs. $1816, p<0.001) than AOFOC patients. CONCLUSIONS: Where nephrologists send patients for DVA services can impact patient clinical and economic outcomes. This research confirmed that patients who received DVA care in the FOC had better outcomes than those treated in the HOPD. The organizational culture and clinical oversight of the CMFOC may result in more favorable outcomes than receiving care in AOFOC.

Impact of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation (NMES) on 90-Day Episode Costs and Post-Acute Care Utilization in Total Knee Replacement Patients with Disuse Atrophy.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated differences in: 1) total episode payments, 2) probability of hospital readmission, 3) probability of inpatient rehab facility (IRF) and utilization, and 4) probability of skilled nursing care facility (SNF) utilization in patients who had disuse atrophy and underwent a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and either did, or did not, receive preoperative home-based neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the Medicare limited dataset for a 5% sample of beneficiaries from 2014 and 2015 to construct episodes-of-care for TKA (DRG-470) patients with disuse atrophy who underwent a TKA during the 30 days prior to hospital admission and 90 days post-discharge. Patients were stratified into those who either did or did not receive pre- and postoperative NMES therapy. An ordinary least square (OLS) model was used to estimate the impact of NMES on total episode. Linear probability models were used to estimate the impact of NMES on SNF or IRF utilization and readmission. RESULTS: A $3,274 reduction in episode payments for patients who used preoperative NMES versus those who did not (p<0.001) was demonstrated. The probability of readmission was 12.7% lower for those who used preoperative NMES therapy versus those who did not (p=0.609). The probability of utilizing IRF and SNF was 56.7% (p=0.061) and 46.4% (p=<0.001) lower for those who used pre- and postoperative NMES versus those who did not, respectively. CONCLUSION: Significant reduction in total episode payments and SNF utilization for TKA patients with disuse atrophy who had NMES therapy was demonstrated.

For Disproportionate-Share Hospitals, Taxes And Fees Curtail Medicaid Payments.

After accounting for supplemental payments, we found that in 2011, disproportionate-share hospitals, on average, received gross Medicaid payments that totaled 108 percent of their costs for treating Medicaid patients but only 89 percent of their costs for Medicaid and uninsured patients combined. However, these payments were reduced by approximately 4-11 percent after we accounted for provider taxes and local government contributions that are used to help finance Medicaid payments.

Economic Value of Prosthetic Services Among Medicare Beneficiaries: A Claims-Based Retrospective Cohort Study.

CONTEXT: There are few studies of the economic impact or value of lower extremity prosthetic services. Results from this study can inform the value proposition concerning prosthetic services within military health, where over 40,000 Veterans with limb-loss receive care for their amputations through the Veterans Administration health care system. PURPOSE: To determine the extent to which Medicare patients who received selected prosthetic services had less health care utilization, lower Medicare payments, and/or fewer negative outcomes compared to matched patients not receiving these services. METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis using Medicare claims data (2007-2010) and propensity score matching techniques to control for observable selection bias based on etiological diagnosis, comorbidities, patient characteristics, and historical health care utilization one year before the etiological diagnosis. FINDINGS: Patients who received lower extremity prostheses had comparable Medicare episode payments ($6,099 per-member-per-month for study group, $6,015 per-member-per-month for comparison group) and better outcomes than patients who did not receive prostheses. Study group patients were more likely to receive extensive outpatient therapy than comparison group patients (p < 0.05). Receiving physical therapy is associated with fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits, and less facility-based care (p < 0.05), essentially offsetting the cost of the prosthetic over a 12-month time frame.

Clinical and economic value of performing dialysis vascular access procedures in a freestanding office-based center as compared with the hospital outpatient department among Medicare ESRD beneficiaries.

Dialysis vascular access (DVA) care is being increasingly provided in freestanding office-based centers (FOC). Small-scale studies have suggested that DVA care in a FOC results in favorable patient outcomes and lower costs. To further evaluate this issue, data were drawn from incident and prevalent ESRD patients within a 4-year sample (2006-2009) of Medicare claims (USRDS) on cases who receive at least 80% of their DVA care in a FOC or a hospital outpatient department (HOPD). Using propensity score matching techniques, cases with a similar clinical and demographic profile from these two sites of service were matched. Medicare utilization, payments, and patient outcomes were compared across the matched cohorts (n = 27,613). Patients treated in the FOC had significantly better outcomes (p < 0.001), including fewer related or unrelated hospitalizations (3.8 vs. 4.4), vascular access-related infections (0.18 vs. 0.29), and septicemia-related hospitalizations (0.15 vs. 0.18). Mortality rate was lower (47.9% vs. 53.5%) as were PMPM payments ($4,982 vs. $5,566). This study shows that DVA management provided in a FOC has multiple advantages over that provided in a HOPD.

Efficient rehabilitation care for joint replacement patients: skilled nursing facility or inpatient rehabilitation facility?

OBJECTIVE: There has been lengthy debate as to which setting, skilled nursing facility (SNF) or inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF), is more efficient in treating joint replacement patients. This study aims to determine the efficiency of rehabilitation care provided by SNF and IRF to joint replacement patients with respect to both payment and length of stay (LOS). METHODS: This study used a prospective multisite observational cohort design. Tobit models were used to examine the association between setting of care and efficiency. The study enrolled 948 knee replacement patients and 618 hip replacement patients from 11 IRFs and 7 SNFs between February 2006 and February 2007. Output was measured by motor functional independence measure (FIM) score at discharge. Efficiency was measured in 3 ways: payment efficiency, LOS efficiency, and stochastic frontier analysis efficiency. RESULTS: IRF patients incurred higher expenditures per case but also achieved larger motor FIM gains in shorter LOS than did SNF patients. Setting of care was not a strong predictor of overall efficiency of rehabilitation care. Great variation in characteristics existed within IRFs or SNFs and severity groups. Medium-volume facilities among both SNFs and IRFs were most efficient. Early rehabilitation was consistently predictive of efficient treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The advantage of either setting is not clear-cut. Definition of efficiency depends in part on preference between cost and time. SNFs are more payment efficient; IRFs are more LOS efficient. Variation within SNFs and IRFs blurred setting differences; a simple comparison between SNF and IRF may not be appropriate.

A retrospective comparison of clinical outcomes and Medicare expenditures in skilled nursing facility residents with chronic wounds.

Medicare skilled nursing facility (SNF) residents with chronic wounds require more resources and have relatively high healthcare expenditures compared to Medicare patients without wounds. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using 2006 Medicare Chronic Condition Warehouse claims data for SNF, inpatient, outpatient hospital, and physician supplier settings along with 2006 Long-Term Care Minimum Data Set (MDS) information to compare Medicare expenditures between two groups of SNF residents with a diagnosis of pressure, venous, ischemic, or diabetic ulcers whose wounds healed during the 10-month study period. The study group (n = 372) was managed using a structured, comprehensive wound management protocol provided by an external wound management team. The matched comparison group consisted of 311 SNF residents who did not receive care from the wound management team. Regression analyses indicate that after controlling for resident comorbidities and wound severity, study group residents experienced lower rates of wound-related hospitalization per day (0.08% versus 0.21%, P < 0.01) and shorter wound episodes (94 days versus 115 days, P < 0.01) than comparison group patients. Total Medicare costs were $21,449.64 for the study group and $40,678.83 for the comparison group (P < 0.01) or $229.07 versus $354.26 (P < 0.01) per resident episode day. Additional studies including wounds that do not heal are warranted. Increasing the number of SNF residents receiving the care described in this study could lead to significant Medicare cost savings. Incorporating wound clinical outcomes into a pay-for-performance measures for SNFs could increase broader SNF adoption of comprehensive wound care programs to treat chronic wounds.

How a new 'public plan' could affect hospitals' finances and private insurance premiums.

Two key health reform bills in the House of Representatives and Senate include the option of a "public plan" as an additional source of health coverage. At least initially, the plan would primarily be structured to cover many of the uninsured and those who now have individual coverage. Because it is possible, and perhaps even likely, that this new public payer would pay less than private payers for the same services, such a plan could negatively affect hospital margins. Hospitals may attempt to recoup losses by shifting costs to private payers. We outline the financial pressures that hospitals and private payers could experience under various assumptions. High uninsured enrollment in a public plan would bolster hospital margins; however, this effect is reversed if the privately insured enter a public plan in large proportions, potentially stressing the hospital industry and increasing private insurance premiums.

Use of rehabilitation and other health care services by patients with joint replacement after discharge from skilled nursing and inpatient rehabilitation facilities.

OBJECTIVE: To compare use of rehabilitation and other health services among patients with knee and hip replacement after discharge from a skilled nursing facility (SNF) or an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF). DESIGN: Follow-up interview study at 7.5 months after discharge. SETTING: Five freestanding SNFs, 1 hospital-based SNF, and 6 IRFs from across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=856): patients with knee replacement (n=561) and patients with hip replacement (n=295). INTERVENTIONS: No interventions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of home and outpatient therapy visits, physician visits, emergency room visits, rehospitalizations, and medical complications. RESULTS: After discharge from postacute care, the vast majority of patients received home rehabilitation, outpatient rehabilitation, or both. Patients with knee replacement received an average of 19 home and/or outpatient rehabilitation visits; patients with hip replacement received almost 15 visits. There were no statistically significant differences in rates of emergency room use and rehospitalization except that patients with hip replacement discharged from IRFs had higher rates of rehospitalization than those discharged from freestanding SNFs (15.8% vs 3.1%). Multivariate analyses did not find any SNF/IRF effects. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with joint replacement from both SNFs and IRFs receive considerable amounts of follow-up rehabilitation care. Study uncovered no setting effects related to rehospitalization or medical complications. Looking only at care rendered in the initial postacute setting provides an incomplete picture of all care received and how it may affect follow-up outcomes.