Audio-Only Telehealth Use Among Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries.

This cross-sectional study analyzes how use of audio-only telehealth services by Medicare beneficiaries changed from 2020 to 2022 and assesses which patients would be most affected by policy reforms.

Clinicians Who Practice Primarily in Nursing Homes and the Quality of End-of-Life Care Among Residents.

Importance: Clinician specialization in the care of nursing home (NH) residents or patients in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) has become increasingly common. It is not known whether clinicians focused on NH care, often referred to as SNFists (ie, physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants concentrating their practice in the NH or SNF setting), are associated with a reduced likelihood of burdensome transitions in the last 90 days of life for residents, which are a marker of poor-quality end-of-life (EOL) care. Objective: To quantify the association between receipt of care from an SNFist and quality of EOL care for NH residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed Medicare fee-for-service claims for a nationally representative 20% sample of beneficiaries to examine burdensome transitions among NH decedents at the EOL from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2019. Statistical analyses were conducted from December 2022 to June 2023. Exposure: Receipt of care from an SNFist, defined as physicians and advanced practitioners who provided 80% or more of their evaluation and management visits in NHs annually. Main Outcomes and Measures: This study used augmented inverse probability weighting in analyses of Medicare fee-for-service claims for a nationally representative 20% sample of beneficiaries. Main outcomes included 4 measures of burdensome transitions: (1) hospital transfer in the last 3 days of life; (2) lack of continuity in NHs after hospitalization in the last 90 days of life; (3) multiple hospitalizations in the last 90 days of life for any reason or any hospitalization for pneumonia, urinary tract infection, dehydration, or sepsis; and (4) any hospitalization in the last 90 days of life for an ambulatory care-sensitive condition. Results: Of the 2 091 954 NH decedents studied (mean [SD] age, 85.4 [8.5] years; 1 470 724 women [70.3%]), 953 722 (45.6%) received care from SNFists and 1 138 232 (54.4%) received care from non-SNFists; 422 575 of all decedents (20.2%) experienced a burdensome transition at the EOL. Receipt of care by an SNFist was associated with a reduced risk of (1) hospital transfer in the last 3 days of life (-1.6% [95% CI, -2.5% to -0.8%]), (2) lack of continuity in NHs after hospitalization (-4.8% [95% CI, -6.7% to -3.0%]), and (3) decedents experiencing multiple hospitalizations for any reason or any hospitalization for pneumonia, urinary tract infection, dehydration, or sepsis (-5.8% [95% CI, -10.1% to -1.7%]). There was not a statistically significant association with the risk of hospitalization for an ambulatory care-sensitive condition in the last 90 days of life (0.0% [95% CI, -14.7% to 131.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that SNFists may be an important resource to improve the quality of EOL care for NH residents.

Use of Clinicians Who Focus on Nursing Home Care Among US Nursing Homes and Unplanned Rehospitalization.

Importance: The number of physicians and advanced practitioners who focus their practice in nursing homes (NHs), often referred to as "SNFists" (ie, physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants concentrating their practice in the nursing home or skilled nursing facility [SNF] setting) has increased dramatically. Little is known about the association of the NH medical care delivery models that use SNFists with the quality of postacute care. Objective: To quantify the association between NH use of SNFists and facility-level, unplanned 30-day rehospitalization rates for patients receiving postacute care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used Medicare fee-for-service claims for all hospitalized beneficiaries discharged to 4482 NHs from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2019. The study sample comprised NHs that did not have patients under the care of SNFists as of 2012. The treatment group included NHs that adopted at least 1 SNFist by the end of the study period. The control group included NHs that did not have patients under the care of a SNFist during the study period. SNFists were defined as generalist physicians and advanced practitioners with 80% or more of their Medicare Part B services delivered in NHs. Statistical analysis was conducted from January 2022 to April 2023. Exposure: Nursing home adoption of 1 or more SNFists. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the NH 30-day unplanned rehospitalization rate. A facility-level analysis was conducted using an event study approach to estimate the association of an NH adopting 1 or more SNFists with its unplanned 30-day rehospitalization rate, adjusting for patient case mix, facility, and market characteristics. Changes in patient case mix were examined in secondary analyses. Results: In this study of 4482 NHs, adoption of SNFists increased from 13.5% of facilities (550 of 4063) in 2013 to 52.9% (1935 of 3656) in 2018. Adjusted rehospitalization rates were not statistically different after SNFist adoption compared with before, with an estimated mean treatment effect of 0.05 percentage points (95% CI, -0.43 to 0.53 percentage points; P = .84). The share of Medicare-covered patients increased by 0.60 percentage points (95% CI, 0.21-0.99 percentage points; P = .003) in the year of SNFist adoption and by 0.54 percentage points (95% CI, 0.12-0.95 percentage points; P = .01) 1 year after adoption compared with NHs that did not adopt SNFists. The number of postacute admissions increased by 13.6 (95% CI, 9.7-17.5; P < .001) after SNFist adoption, but there was no statistically significant change in the acuity index. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study suggests that NH adoption of SNFists was associated with an increase in the number of admissions for postacute care but was not associated with a change in rehospitalization rates. This may represent a strategy by NHs to maintain rehospitalization rates while increasing the volume of patients receiving postacute care, which typically results in higher profit margins.

Perspectives of Physicians with Experience in Nursing Home Care on Telehealth Use During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.

BACKGROUND: Despite expanded access to telehealth services for Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes (NHs) during the COVID-19 public health emergency, information on physicians' perspectives on the feasibility and challenges of telehealth provision for NH residents is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To examine physicians' perspectives on the appropriateness and challenges of providing telehealth in NHs. PARTICIPANTS: Medical directors or attending physicians in NHs. APPROACH: We conducted 35 semistructured interviews with members of the American Medical Directors Association from January 18 through January 29, 2021. Outcomes of the thematic analysis reflected perspectives of physicians experienced in NH care on telehealth use. MAIN MEASURES: The extent to which participants used telehealth in NHs, the perceived value of telehealth for NH residents, and barriers to telehealth provision. KEY RESULTS: Participants included 7 (20.0%) internists, 8 (22.9%) family physicians, and 18 (51.4%) geriatricians. Five common themes emerged: (1) direct care is needed to adequately care for residents in NHs; (2) telehealth may allow physicians to reach NH residents more flexibly during offsite hours and other scenarios when physicians cannot easily reach patients; (3) NH staff and other organizational resources are critical to the success of telehealth, but staff time is a major barrier to telehealth provision; (4) appropriateness of telehealth in NHs may be limited to certain resident populations and/or services; (5) conflicting views about whether telehealth use will be sustained over time in NHs. Subthemes included the role of resident-physician relationships in facilitating telehealth and the appropriateness of telehealth for residents with cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Participants had mixed views on the effectiveness of telehealth in NHs. Staff resources to facilitate telehealth and the limitations of telehealth for NH residents were the most raised issues. These findings suggest that physicians in NHs may not view telehealth as a suitable substitute for most in-person services.

The Role Of Real Estate Investment Trusts In Staffing US Nursing Homes.

In 2021 real estate investment trusts (REITs) held investments in 1,806 US nursing homes. REITs are for-profit public or private corporations that invest in income-producing properties. We created a novel database of REIT investments in US nursing homes, merged it with Medicare cost report data (2013-19), and used a difference-in-differences approach within an event study framework to compare staffing before and after a nursing home received REIT investment with staffing in for-profit nursing homes that did not receive REIT investment. REIT investment was associated with average relative staffing increases of 2.15 percent and 1.55 percent for licensed practical nurses (LPNs) and certified nursing assistants (CNAs), respectively. During the postinvestment period, registered nurse (RN) staffing was unchanged, but event study results showed a 6.25 percent decrease in years 2 and 3 after REIT investment. After the three largest REIT deals were excluded, REIT investments were associated with an overall 6.25 percent relative decrease in RN staffing and no changes in LPN and CNA staffing. Larger deals resulted in increases in LPN and CNA staffing, with no changes in RN staffing; smaller deals appeared to replace more expensive and skilled RN staffing with less expensive and skilled staff.

The Association of Teamlets and Teams with Physician Burnout and Patient Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Primary care "teamlets" in which a staff member and physician consistently work together might provide a simple, cost-effective way to improve care, with or without insertion within a team. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and performance of teamlets and teams. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study linking survey responses to Medicare claims. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred eighty-eight general internists and family physicians. INTERVENTIONS: Based on survey responses, physicians were assigned to one of four teamlet/team categories (e.g., teamlet/no team) and, in secondary analyses, to one of eight teamlet/team categories that classified teamlets into high, medium, and low collaboration as perceived by the physician (e.g., teamlet perceived-high collaboration/no team). MAIN MEASURES: Descriptive: percentage of physicians in teamlet/team categories. OUTCOME MEASURES: physician burnout; ambulatory care sensitive emergency department and hospital admissions; Medicare spending. KEY RESULTS: 77.4% of physicians practiced in teamlets; 36.7% in teams. Of the four categories, 49.1% practiced in the teamlet/no team category; 28.3% in the teamlet/team category; 8.4% in no teamlet/team; 14.1% in no teamlet/no team. 15.7%, 47.4%, and 14.4% of physicians practiced in perceived high-, medium-, and low-collaboration teamlets. Physicians who practiced neither in a teamlet nor in a team had significantly lower rates of burnout compared to the three teamlet/team categories. There were no consistent, significant differences in outcomes or Medicare spending by teamlet/team or teamlet perceived-collaboration/team categories compared to no teamlet/no team, for Medicare beneficiaries in general or for dual-eligible beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: Most general internists and family physicians practice in teamlets, and some practice in teams, but neither practicing in a teamlet, in a team, or in the two together was associated with lower physician burnout, better outcomes for patients, or lower Medicare spending. Further study is indicated to investigate whether certain types of teamlet, teams, or teamlets within teams can achieve higher performance.

US Generalist Physicians and Groups That Focused Practice in a Single Care Setting: 2014-2017.

BACKGROUND: Some generalist physicians whose training prepared them for primary care practice increasingly practice in a facility (eg, hospitals, nursing homes); however, whether this trend was accompanied by a complimentary rise in generalist physicians who focused their practice on office-based care is unknown. OBJECTIVES: Our objective in this study was to examine trends in the prevalence of generalist physicians and physician groups that practice in a single setting. RESEARCH DESIGN: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of generalist physicians trained in family medicine, internal medicine, or geriatrics. We used 2014-2017 billing data for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries to measure the proportion of all patient visits made by physicians in the following care settings: office, outpatient hospital department, inpatient hospital, and other sites. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2017, the proportion of generalist physicians who narrowed their practice to a single setting increased by 6.69% (from 62.80% to 67.00%, p for trend <0.001). In 2017, 4.63% of physician groups included more than 1 type of setting-based physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Generalist physicians treating older adults increasingly narrowed their practice focus to a single type of health care setting. This trend was not accompanied by growth among physician groups that included different types of setting-based physicians. Further evaluation of the consequences of these trends on the fragmentation of primary care delivery across different health care settings and primary care outcomes is needed.

Defining the Role and Value of Physicians Who Primarily Practice in Nursing Homes: Perspectives of Nursing Home Physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the perceptions of physicians with expertise in nursing home care on the value of physicians who primarily practice in nursing homes, often referred to as "SNFists," with the goal of enriching our understanding of specialization in nursing home care. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Virtual interviews conducted January 18-29, 2021. Participants included 35 physicians across the United States, who currently or previously served as medical directors or attending physicians in nursing homes. METHODS: Interviews were conducted virtually on Zoom and professionally transcribed. Outcomes were themes resulting from thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants had a mean 19.5 (SD = 11.3) years of experience working in nursing homes; 17 (48.6%) were female; the most common medical specializations were geriatrics (18; 51.4%), family medicine (8; 22.9%), internal medicine (7; 20.0%), physiatry (1; 2.9%), and pulmonology (1; 2.9%). Ten (28.6%) participants were SNFists. We identified 6 themes emphasized by participants: (1) An unclear definition and loose qualifications for SNFists may affect the quality of care; (2) Specific competencies are needed to be a "good SNFist"; (3) SNFists are distinguished by their unique practice approach and often provide services that are unbillable or underreimbursed; (4) SNFists achieve better outcomes, but opinions varied on performance measures; (5) SNFists may contribute to discontinuity of care; (6) SNFists remained in nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: There is a strong consensus among physicians with expertise in nursing home care that SNFists provide higher quality care for residents than other physicians. However, a uniform definition of a SNFist based on competencies in addition to standardized performance measures are needed. Unbillable and underreimbursed services create disincentives to physicians becoming SNFists. Policy makers may consider modifying Medicare reimbursements to incentivize more physicians to specialize in nursing home care.

Characterizing the direct care health workforce in the United States, 2010-2019.

BACKGROUND: To describe the growth and characteristics of the direct care health workforce, encompassing home health aides, personal care aides, nursing assistants, and orderlies and psychiatric aides from 2010 to 2019 in the United States. METHODS: Using nationally representative data from the 2010 to 2019 American Community Survey, we described the growth in the direct care health workforce overall and by type of direct care health worker. In addition, we examined the distribution of direct care workers by geographic region of the country, age categories, citizenship, world area of birth, income, health insurance status, and other characteristics. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2019, the number of direct care health workers in the United States per 10,000 individuals decreased slightly from 135.81 in 2010 to 133.78 in 2019. Personal care aides made up 42.1% of the direct care health workforce in 2019, followed by nursing assistants (39.5%) and home health aides (16.3%). In 2019, the number of direct care health workers who were not U.S. citizens accounted for roughly 10% of all workers in each year. The relative percentage of direct care health workers that were not a citizen of the United States was highest among home health aides (16.3%). Among workers born outside of the United States, the majority were from Latin America, followed by Asia. CONCLUSION: From 2010 to 2019, there was little growth in the direct care health workforce despite growing demand for direct care health workers. In the midst of the current and projected shortage of direct care health workers-particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, longer-term solutions to improve retention of direct care health workers and increase the supply of direct care health workers may be needed.

Do Skilled Nursing Facilities That Provide More Rehabilitation Therapy Have Lower Rehospitalization Rates?

This study examines whether skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) that consistently provided more rehabilitation therapy than other SNFs had lower 30-day rehospitalization rates. A cross-sectional analysis of 11 866 SNFs in the United States compared 30-day rehospitalization rates of SNFs that consistently provided more rehabilitation therapy to other SNFs using linear regression models. High-billing SNFs were defined as the 10% of SNFs with the highest proportions of Medicare fee-for-service claims that just surpassed the therapy minute threshold for the highest payment category. After controlling for patient and facility characteristics, high-billing SNFs had higher 30-day rehospitalization rates as well as longer median length of stay and greater mean cost per stay. Small reductions in the amount of therapy provided are unlikely to increase 30-day rehospitalization rates in SNFs. This has important consequences for the recently implemented patient-driven payment model, which incentivizes SNFs to provide less rehabilitation therapy.

Characteristics of Nursing Homes by COVID-19 Cases Among Staff: March to August 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the association between nursing home (NH) characteristics and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevalence among NH staff. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 database for US NHs between March and August 2020, linked to NH facility characteristics (LTCFocus database) and local COVID-19 prevalence (USA Facts). METHODS: We estimated the associations between NH characteristics, local infection rates, and other regional characteristics and COVID-19 cases among NH staff (nursing staff, clinical staff, aides, and other facility personnel) measured per 100 beds, controlling for the hospital referral regions in which NHs were located to account for local infection control practices and other unobserved characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 11,858 NHs in our sample, 78.6% reported at least 1 staff case of COVID-19. After accounting for local COVID-19 prevalence, NHs in the highest quartile of confirmed resident cases (413.5 to 920.0 cases per 1000 residents) reported 18.9 more staff cases per 100 beds compared with NHs that had no resident cases. Large NHs (150 or more beds) reported 2.6 fewer staff cases per 100 beds compared with small NHs (<50 beds) and for-profit NHs reported 0.8 fewer staff cases per 100 beds compared with nonprofit NHs. Higher occupancy and more direct-care hours per day were associated with more staff cases (0.4 more cases per 100 beds for a 10% increase in occupancy, and 0.7 more cases per 100 beds for an increase in direct-care staffing of 1 hour per resident day, respectively). Estimates associated with resident demographics, payer mix, or regional socioeconomic characteristics were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: These findings highlight the urgent need to support facilities with emergency resources such as back-up staff and protocols to reduce resident density within the facility, which may help stem outbreaks.

Association of Private Equity Investment in US Nursing Homes With the Quality and Cost of Care for Long-Stay Residents.

Importance: Private equity firms have been acquiring US nursing homes; an estimated 5% of US nursing homes are owned by private equity firms. Objective: To examine the association of private equity acquisition of nursing homes with the quality and cost of care for long-stay residents. Design Setting and Participants: In this cohort study of 302 private equity nursing homes with 9632 residents and 9562 other for-profit homes with 249 771 residents, a novel national database of private equity nursing home acquisitions was merged with Medicare claims and Minimum Data Set assessments for the period from 2012 to 2018. Changes in outcomes for residents in private equity-acquired nursing homes were compared with changes for residents in other for-profit nursing homes. Analyses were performed from March 25 to June 23, 2021. Exposure: Private equity acquisitions of 302 nursing homes between 2013 and 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: This study used difference-in-differences analysis to examine the association of private equity acquisition of nursing homes with outcomes. Primary outcomes were quarterly measures of emergency department visits and hospitalizations for ambulatory care-sensitive (ACS) conditions and total quarterly Medicare costs. Antipsychotic use, pressure ulcers, and severe pain were examined in secondary analyses. Results: Of the 259 403 residents in the study (170 687 women [65.8%]; 211 154 White residents [81.4%]; 204 928 residents [79.0%] dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid; mean [SD] age, 79.3 [5.6] years), 9632 residents were in 302 private equity-acquired nursing homes and 249 771 residents were in 9562 other for-profit homes. The mean quarterly rate of ACS emergency department visits was 14.1% (336 072 of 2 383 491), and the mean quarterly rate of ACS hospitalizations was 17.3% (412 344 of 2 383 491); mean (SD) total quarterly costs were $8050.00 ($9.90). Residents of private equity nursing homes experienced relative increases in ACS emergency department visits of 11.1% (1.7 of 15.3; 1.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.3-3.0 percentage points; P = .02) and in ACS hospitalizations of 8.7% (1.0 of 11.5; 1.0 percentage point; 95% CI, 0.2-1.1 percentage points; P = .003) compared with residents in other for-profit homes; quarterly costs increased 3.9% (270.37 of 6972.04; $270.37; 95% CI, $41.53-$499.20; P = .02) or $1081 annually per resident. Private equity acquisition was not significantly associated with antipsychotic use (-0.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.7 to 1.4 percentage points; P = .83), severe pain (0.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.1 to 1.4 percentage points; P = .79), or pressure ulcers (0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.4 to 1.3 percentage points; P = .30). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study with difference-in-differences analysis found that private equity acquisition of nursing homes was associated with increases in ACS emergency department visits and hospitalizations and higher Medicare costs.

Practice Trends and Characteristics of US Hospitalists From 2012 to 2018.

This cohort study uses Medicare data to assess trends and characteristics among hospitalists who shift practice to settings outside of the hospital.

Medical Care Delivery in U.S. Nursing Homes: Current and Future Practice.

The delivery of medical care services in U.S. nursing homes (NHs) is dependent on a workforce that comprises physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. Each of these disciplines operates under a unique regulatory framework while adhering to common standards of care. NH provider characteristics and their roles in NH care can illuminate potential links to clinical outcomes and overall quality of care with important policy and cost implications. This perspective provides an overview of what is currently known about medical provider practice in NH and organizational models of practice. Links to quality, both conceptual and established, are presented as is a research and policy agenda that addresses the gaps in the evidence base within the context of our ever-changing health care landscape.

Comparative Performance of Private Equity-Owned US Nursing Homes During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: It is not known whether nursing homes with private equity (PE) ownership have performed better or worse than other nursing homes during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Objective: To evaluate the comparative performance of PE-owned nursing homes on COVID-19 outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of 11 470 US nursing homes used the Nursing Home COVID-19 Public File from May 17, 2020, to July 2, 2020, to compare outcomes of PE-owned nursing homes with for-profit, nonprofit, and government-owned homes, adjusting for facility characteristics. Exposure: Nursing home ownership status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported number of COVID-19 cases and deaths and deaths by any cause per 1000 residents; possessing 1-week supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE); staffing shortages. Results: Of 11 470 nursing homes, 7793 (67.9%) were for-profit; 2523 (22.0%), nonprofit; 511 (5.3%), government-owned; and 543 (4.7%), PE-owned; with mean (SD) COVID-19 cases per 1000 residents of 88.3 [2.1], 67.0 [3.8], 39.8 [7.6] and 110.8 [8.1], respectively. Mean (SD) COVID-19 deaths per 1000 residents were 61.9 [1.6], 66.4 [3.0], 56.2 [7.3], and 78.9 [5.9], respectively; mean deaths by any cause per 1000 residents were 78.1 [1.3], 91.5 [2.2], 67.6 [4.5], and 87.9 [4.8], respectively. In adjusted analyses, government-owned homes had 35.5 (95% CI, -69.2 to -1.8; P = .03) fewer COVID-19 cases per 1000 residents than PE-owned nursing homes. Cases in PE-owned nursing homes were not statistically different compared with for-profit and nonprofit facilities; nor were there statistically significant differences in COVID-19 deaths or deaths by any cause between PE-owned nursing homes and for-profit, nonprofit, and government-owned facilities. For-profit, nonprofit, and government-owned nursing homes were 10.5% (9.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.8 to 16.3 percentage points; P = .006), 15.0% (13.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 5.5 to 20.6 percentage points; P < .001), and 17.0% (14.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 6.5 to 23.0 percentage points; P < .001), respectively, more likely to have at least a 1-week supply of N95 masks than PE-owned nursing homes. They were 24.3% (21.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 11.8 to 30.8 percentage points; P < .001), 30.7% (27.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 17.7 to 36.2 percentage points; P < .001), and 29.2% (25.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 16.1 to 35.3 percentage points; P < .001) more likely to have a 1-week supply of medical gowns than PE-owned nursing homes. Government nursing homes were more likely to have a shortage of nurses (6.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.0 to 13.9 percentage points; P = .049) than PE-owned nursing homes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, PE-owned nursing homes performed comparably on staffing levels, resident cases, and deaths with nursing homes with other types of ownership, although their shortages of PPE may warrant monitoring.