Financial Effect of Unbundling Moderate Sedation from Procedural Codes in Radiology.

PURPOSE: To assess and quantify the financial effect of unbundling newly unbundled moderate sedation codes across major payors at an academic radiology practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Billing and reimbursement data for 23 months of unbundled moderate sedation codes were analyzed for reimbursement rates and trends. This included 10,481 and 28,189 units billed and $443,257 and $226,444 total receipts for codes 99152 (initial 15 minutes of moderate sedation) and 99153 (each subsequent 15 minute increment of moderate sedation), respectively. Five index procedures-(i) central venous port placement, (ii) endovascular tumor embolization, (iii) tunneled central venous catheter placement, (iv) percutaneous gastrostomy placement, and (v) percutaneous nephrostomy placement-were identified, and moderate sedation reimbursements for Medicare and the dominant private payor were calculated and compared to pre-bundled reimbursements. Revenue variation models across different patient insurance mixes were then created using averages from 4 common practice settings among radiologists (independent practices, all hospitals, safety-net hospitals, and non-safety-net hospitals). RESULTS: Departmental reimbursement for unbundled moderate sedation in FY2018 and FY2019 totaled $669,701.34, with high per-unit variability across payors, especially for code 99153. Across the 5 index procedures, moderate sedation reimbursement decreased 1.3% after unbundling and accounted for 3.9% of procedural revenue from Medicare and increased 11.9% and accounted for 5.5% of procedural revenue from the dominant private payor. Between different patient insurance mix models, estimated reimbursement from moderate sedation varied by as much as 29.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Departmental reimbursement from billing the new unbundled moderate sedation codes was sizable and heterogeneous, highlighting the need for consistent and accurate reporting of moderate sedation. Total collections vary by case mix, patient insurance mix, and negotiated reimbursement rates.

Association of an Acute Myocardial Infarction Readmission-Reduction Program With Mortality and Readmission.

BACKGROUND: Reducing hospital readmission after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has the potential to both improve quality and reduce costs. As such, readmission after AMI has been a target of financial penalties through Medicare. However, substantial concern exists about potential adverse effects and efficacious readmission-reduction strategies are not well validated. METHODS AND RESULTS: We started an AMI readmissions reduction program in November 2017. Between July 2016 and February 2019, hospital billing data were queried to detect all inpatient hospitalizations at the Massachusetts General Hospital for AMI. Thirty-day readmission was identified through hospital billing data, and mortality was extracted from our electronic health record. The data set was merged with claims data for patients in accountable care organizations to detect readmission at other hospitals. We performed segmented linear regression, adjusting for secular trend and case mix, to assess the independent association of our program on both outcome variables. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, the study population included 2020 patients. The overall 30-day readmission rate was higher before the intervention than after the intervention (15.5% versus 10.7%, P=0.002). The overall 30-day mortality rate was similar in both time periods (1.8% versus 1.4%, P=0.457). The program was associated with initial reduction in 30-day readmission (-9.8%, P=0.0002) and 30-day mortality (-2.6%, P=0.041). The program did not change trend in 30-day readmission (+0.19% readmissions/mo, P=0.554) and trend in 30-day mortality (-0.21% deaths/mo, P=0.119). CONCLUSIONS: An AMI readmissions reduction program that increases outpatient and emergency department (ED) access to cardiology care is associated with reduced 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality. Similar statistical techniques can be used to conduct a rigorous, mechanistic program evaluation of other quality improvement initiatives.

Designing a commercial medical bundle for cancer care: Hawaii Medical Service Association's Cancer Episode Model.

BACKGROUND: Oncology care is expensive and exhibits substantial variation in cost and quality across clinicians and patients. Unlike many conditions with established bundled payment programs, cancer care includes a mix of inpatient and outpatient care that precludes hospital-based designs. In 2018, we worked with Hawaii Medical Service Association (HMSA), the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Hawaii, to design a novel commercial bundle for cancer care, the Cancer Episode Model. METHODS: Descriptive analysis of HMSA's Cancer Episode Model, including its inclusion criteria, episode definitions, suite of enhanced services, shared savings model, and incentivized quality metrics. We also compare HMSA's Cancer Episode Model to Medicare's Oncology Care Model and three major commercial oncologic alternative payment models offered by Anthem, UnitedHealthcare, and Aetna. RESULTS: HMSA's Cancer Episode Model builds upon the successes and limitations of Medicare's Oncology Care Model and existing commercial alternative payment models. Compared to Medicare's Oncology Care Model, HMSA's Cancer Episode Model has stricter inclusion criteria, fewer incentivized quality metrics, a higher proportion of regional pricing, a different risk-adjustment model, and first-dollar shared savings. Compared to the majority of existing commercial models, HMSA's Cancer Episode Model includes total cost of care and a different risk-adjustment model. CONCLUSIONS: Reviewing features of the Cancer Episode Model in comparison to other programs is intended to provide guidance to health plans and health policymakers in the design of programs and policies aimed at improving cancer care value. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Simulating Episode-Based Bundled Payments for Cranial Neurosurgical Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Episode-based bundled payments were introduced by Medicare in 2013 as the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) in order to improve care coordination and cost efficiency. BPCI has not yet been applied to cranial neurosurgical procedures. OBJECTIVE: To determine projected values of episode-based bundled payments when applied to common cranial neurosurgical procedures using retrospective data from a large database. METHODS: We performed a large retrospective observational study using the MarketScan administrative database to project bundled payment payments for 4 groups of common cranial neurosurgical procedures. RESULTS: We identified 15 276 procedures that met our inclusion criteria. We observed significant variability between groups, with 90-d bundle projected payments ranging from $ 58,200 for craniotomy for meningioma to $ 102,073 for craniotomy for malignant glioma. We also found significant variability in projected bundled payments within each class of operation. On average, payment for the index hospitalization accounted for 85% of projected payments for a 30-d bundle and 70.5% of projected payments for a 90-d bundle. Multivariable analysis showed that hospital readmission, discharge to postacute care facilities, venous-thrombo-embolism, medical comorbidities, adjuvant therapies, and payer status significantly contributed to projected cranial bundle payments. CONCLUSION: For the first time, to our knowledge, we project the values of episode-based bundled payments for common vascular and tumor cranial operations. As previously identified in orthopedic procedures, there is significant variability in total bundle payments within each cranial procedure. Compared to spine and orthopedic procedures, postdischarge care significantly impacts total bundle payments in cranial neurosurgery.

Primary Care: the New Frontier for Reducing Readmissions.

To date, efforts to reduce hospital readmissions have centered largely on hospitals. In a recently published environmental scan, we examined the literature focusing on primary care-based efforts to reduce readmissions. While rigorous studies on interventions arising from primary care are limited, we found that multi-component care transitions programs that are initiated early in the hospitalization and are part of broader primary care practice transformation appear most promising. However, policy changes are necessary to spur innovation and support effective primary care-led transitions interventions. Though more rigorous research is needed, our findings suggest that primary care can and should lead future efforts for reducing hospital readmissions.

Recent progress in perioperative management of patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Esophagectomy remains the mainstay of curative intent treatment for esophageal cancer. Oncologic esophagectomy is a highly invasive surgery and both morbidity and mortality rates still remain high. Recently, it has been revealed that multidisciplinary perioperative management can decrease the postoperative complications after esophagectomy. In this review, we summarized the recent progress in each component of multidisciplinary perioperative care bundle, including oral hygiene, cessation of smoking and alcohol, respiratory training, measurement of physical fitness, swallowing evaluation and rehabilitation, nutritional support, pain control and management of delirium. The accumulation of evidence and the popularization of knowledge will increase safety of esophagectomy and thus improve the outcome of patients with esophageal cancer.

Early Effects of Medicare's Bundled Payment for Care Improvement Program for Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Medicare claims linked to hospital participation in the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation's episode-based Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) program for lumbar fusion. OBJECTIVE: To describe the early effects of BPCI participation for lumbar fusion on 90-day reimbursement, procedure volume, reoperation, and readmission. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Initiated on January 1, 2013, BPCI's voluntary bundle payment program provides a predetermined payment for services related to a Diagnosis-Related Group-defined "triggering event" over a defined time period. As an alternative to fee-for-service, these reforms shift the financial risk of care on to hospitals. METHODS: We identified fee-for-service beneficiaries over age 65 undergoing a lumbar fusion in 2012 or 2013, corresponding to the years before and after BPCI initiation. Hospitals were grouped based on program participation status as nonparticipants, preparatory, or risk-bearing. Generalized estimating equation models adjusting for patient age, sex, race, comorbidity, and hospital size were used to compare changes in episode costs, procedure volume, and safety indicators based on hospital BPCI participation. RESULTS: We included 89,605 beneficiaries undergoing lumbar fusion, including 36% seen by a preparatory hospital and 7% from a risk-bearing hospital. The mean age of the cohort was 73.4 years, with 59% women, 92% White, and 22% with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 2 or more. Participant hospitals had greater procedure volume, bed size, and total discharges. Relative to nonparticipants, risk-bearing hospitals had a slightly increased fusion procedure volume from 2012 to 2013 (3.4% increase vs. 1.6% decrease, P = 0.119), did not reduce 90-day episode of care costs (0.4% decrease vs. 2.9% decrease, P = 0.044), increased 90-day readmission rate (+2.7% vs. -10.7%, P = 0.043), and increased repeat surgery rates (+30.6% vs. +7.1% points, P = 0.043). CONCLUSION: These early, unintended trends suggest an imperative for continued monitoring of BPCI in lumbar fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

The Past, Present, and Future of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Quality Measure SEP-1: The Early Management Bundle for Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock.

SEP-1, the new national quality measure on sepsis, resulted from an undertaking to standardize care for severe sepsis and septic shock regardless of the size of the emergency department where the patient is being treated. SEP-1 does not necessarily follow the best current evidence available. Nevertheless, a thorough understanding of SEP-1 is crucial because all hospitals and emergency providers will be accountable for meeting the requirements of this measure. SEP-1 is the first national quality measure on early management of sepsis care. This article provides a review of SEP-1 and all its potential implications on sepsis care in the United States.

Bundling of Reimbursement for Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement Resulted in Significantly Decreased Utilization between 2012 and 2014.

BACKGROUND: On January 1, 2012, reimbursement for inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) became bundled by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This resulted in ICVF placement (CPT code 37191) now yielding 4.71 relative value units (RVUs), a decrease from 15.6 RVUs for placement and associated procedures (CPT codes 37620, 36010, 75825-26, 75940-26). Our hypothesis was that IVCF utilization would decrease in response to this change as other procedures had done once they had become bundled. METHODS: Including data from 2010 to 2011 (before bundling) and 2012 to 2014 (after bundling), we utilized 5% inpatient, outpatient, and carrier files of Medicare limited data sets and analyzed IVCF utilization before and after bundling across specialty types, controlling for total diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) (ICD-9 codes 453.xx and 415.xx, respectively) and placement location. RESULTS: In 2010 and 2011, the rates/10,000 DVT/PE diagnoses were 918 and 1,052, respectively (average 985). In 2012, 2013, and 2014, rates were 987, 877, and 605, respectively (average 823). Comparing each year individually, there is a significant difference (P < 0.0001) with 2012, 2013, and 2014 having lower rates of ICVF utilization. Comparing averages in the 2010-2011 and 2012-2014 groups, there is also a significant decrease in utilization after bundling (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Following the bundling of reimbursement for IVCF placement, procedural utilization decreased significantly. More data from subsequent years will be needed to show if this decrease utilization continues to persist.

Possible consequences of regionally based bundled payments for diabetic amputations for safety net hospitals in Texas.

OBJECTIVE: Ongoing health reform in the United States encourages quality-based reimbursement methods such as bundled payments for surgery. The effect of such changes on high-risk procedures is unknown, especially at safety net hospitals. This study quantified the burden of diabetes-related amputation and the potential financial effect of bundled payments at safety net hospitals in Texas. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of diabetic amputation burden and charges using publically available data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid and the Texas Department of Health from 2008 to 2012. Using hospital referral region (HRR)-level analysis, we categorized the proportion of safety net hospitals within each region as very low (0%-9%), low (10%-20%), average (20%-33%), and high (>33%) and compared amputation rates across regions using nonparametric tests of trend. We then used charge data to create reimbursement rates based on HRR to estimate financial losses. RESULTS: We identified 51 adult hospitals as safety nets in Texas. Regions varied in the proportion of safety net hospitals from 0% in Victoria to 65% in Harlingen. Among beneficiaries aged >65, amputation rates correlated to the proportion of safety net hospitals in each region; for example, patients in the lowest quartile of safety net had a yearly rate of 300 amputations per 100,000 beneficiaries, whereas those in the highest quartile had a yearly rate of 472 per 100,000 (P = .007). Charges for diabetic amputation-related admissions varied almost 200-fold, from $5000 to $1.4 million. Using reimbursement based on HRR to estimate a bundled payment, we noted net losses would be higher at safety net vs nonsafety net hospitals ($180 million vs $163 million), representing a per-hospital loss of $1.6 million at safety nets vs $700,000 at nonsafety nets (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Regions with a high proportion of safety net hospitals perform almost half of the diabetic amputations in Texas. Changes to traditional payment models should account for the disproportionate burden of high-risk procedures performed by these hospitals.

Medicare's New Bundled Payment For Joint Replacement May Penalize Hospitals That Treat Medically Complex Patients.

In an effort to reduce episode payment variation for joint replacement at US hospitals, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently implemented the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement bundled payment program. Some stakeholders are concerned that the program may unintentionally penalize hospitals because it lacks a mechanism (such as risk adjustment) to sufficiently account for patients' medical complexity. Using Medicare claims for patients in Michigan who underwent lower extremity joint replacement in the period 2011-13, we applied payment methods analogous to those CMS intends to use in determining annual bonuses or penalties (reconciliation payments) to hospitals. We calculated the net difference in reconciliation payments with and without risk adjustment. We found that reconciliation payments were reduced by $827 per episode for each standard-deviation increase in a hospital's patient complexity. Moreover, we found that risk adjustment could increase reconciliation payments to some hospitals by as much as $114,184 annually. Our findings suggest that CMS should include risk adjustment in the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement program and in future bundled payment programs.

Bundled payment.

Bundled payment (BP) is defined as a single aggregate payment for all health care services for clinically defined episodes of care. Some results suggest that transitioning from a fee-for-service model to BP resulted in a <10% decline in spending and a 5% to 15% decrease in the utilization of services in the bundle. However, future BPs will need to account for how individual providers will be compensated for their services, and acceptance of BP as a viable health care payment model will depend on the ability of payers and providers to collaborate in a new way to address several operational and implementation challenges.

Developing an argument for bundled interventions to reduce surgical site infection in colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) remains a costly and morbid complication after colectomy. The primary objective of this study was to investigate whether a group of perioperative care measures previously shown to be associated with reduced SSI would have an additive effect in SSI reduction. If so, this would support the use of an "SSI prevention bundle" as a quality improvement intervention. METHODS: Data from 24 hospitals participating in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative were included in the study. The main outcome measure was SSI. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to account for clustering of patients within hospitals. RESULTS: In total, 4,085 operations fulfilled inclusion criteria for the study (Current Procedural Terminology codes 44140, 44160, 44204, and 44205). A "bundle score" was assigned to each operation, based on the number of perioperative care measures followed (appropriate Surgical Care Improvement Project-2 antibiotics, postoperative normothermia, oral antibiotics with bowel preparation, perioperative glycemic control, minimally invasive surgery, and short operative duration). There was a strong stepwise inverse association between bundle score and incidence of SSI. Patients who received all 6 bundle elements had risk-adjusted SSI rates of 2.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.9-0.5%), whereas patients who received only 1 bundle measure had SSI rates of 17.5% (95% CI, 27.1-10.8%). CONCLUSION: This multi-institutional study shows that patients who received all 6 perioperative care measures attained a very low, risk-adjusted SSI rate of 2.0%. These results suggest the promise of an SSI reduction intervention for quality improvement; however, prospective research are required to confirm this finding.