Trends in sepsis and pneumonia during COVID-19: lessons from BPCIA.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic affected care delivery nationwide for all patients, influencing cost and utilization for patients both with and without COVID-19. Our first analysis assessed changes in utilization for patients with sepsis without COVID-19 prior to vs during the pandemic. Our second analysis assessed cost and utilization changes during the pandemic for patients with sepsis or pneumonia both with and without COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case-control study was utilized to determine differences in cost and utilization for patients with sepsis or pneumonia, relative to a COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS: Claims data from 8 teaching hospitals participating in sepsis and pneumonia episodes in the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCIA) model were utilized. BPCIA is a Medicare value-based care bundled payment program that aims to decrease costs and increase quality of care through a 90-day total cost of care model. RESULTS: The first analysis (N = 1092) found that non-COVID-19 patients with sepsis had 26% higher hospice utilization (P < .05) and 38% higher mortality (P < .0001) during the pandemic vs the prepandemic period. The second analysis (N = 640) found that during the pandemic, patients with sepsis or pneumonia with COVID-19 had 70% more skilled nursing facility (SNF) use (P < .0001), 132% higher SNF costs (P < .0001), and 21% higher total episode costs (P < .0001) compared with patients without COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has affected care patterns for all patients. Patients without COVID-19 postponed care and used lower-acuity care settings, whereas patients with COVID-19 were more costly and utilized postacute care at a higher rate. These analyses inform future care coordination initiatives, given the ongoing pandemic.

Evaluating the Addition of Clinical and Staging Data to Improve the Pricing Methodology of the Oncology Care Model.

PURPOSE: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is the largest value-based care model focusing on oncology, but the current pricing methodology excludes relevant data on the cancer stage and current clinical status, limiting the precision of the risk adjustment. METHODS: This analysis evaluated 15,580 episodes of breast cancer, lung cancer, and multiple myeloma, starting between July 1, 2016, and January 1, 2020, with data from a cohort of OCM practices affiliated with academic medical centers. The authors merged clinical data with claims for OCM episodes defined by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to identify potential quality improvement opportunities. The regression model evaluated the association of the cancer stage at initial diagnosis and current clinical status with variance to the OCM target price. RESULTS: Cancer stage at the time of initial diagnosis was significant for breast and lung cancers, with stage IV episodes having the highest losses of -$6,700 (USD) for breast cancer (P < .001) and -$18,470 (USD) for lung cancer (P < .001). Current clinical status had a significant impact for all three cancers in the analysis, with losses correlated with clinical complexity. Breast cancer and multiple myeloma episodes categorized as recurrent or progressive disease had significantly higher losses than stable episodes, at -$6,755 (USD) for breast (P < .001) and -$19,448 (USD) for multiple myeloma (P < .001). Lung cancer episodes categorized as initial diagnosis had significantly fewer losses than stable episodes, at -$3,751 (USD) (P = .001). CONCLUSION: As the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation designs and launches new oncology-related models, the agency should adopt methodologies that more accurately set target prices, by incorporating relevant clinical data within cancer types to minimize penalizing practices that provide guideline-concordant cancer care.

Health Literacy and Emergency Department Utilization Among Community Adults With Mental and Chronic Health Conditions.

Reducing unnecessary emergency department (ED) utilization is a national health care priority. Low health literacy is a little explored but suggested cause of excess ED utilization. This study investigated the association between health literacy and ED utilization among a community sample of adults with common mental and chronic health conditions. Cross-sectional health interview survey data from Schenectady, New York, were used. Adults (aged ≥18 years) who were diagnosed with anxiety/emotional disorders, depression, asthma, or diabetes were included in the study. Health literacy was assessed using the three-question screener developed and validated by L. D. Chew et al. (2004). ED visits in the previous 12 months specific to these health conditions were analyzed. Multivariable regression models were fitted for each condition with incremental covariate adjustments of demographics, health care access, and number of comorbidities. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. Sample sizes were 404, 509, 409, and 237 for anxiety/emotional disorders, depression, asthma, and diabetes, respectively. Inadequate health literacy was significantly higher among individuals who had depression and visited an ED compared with individuals with depression without an ED visit (28.1% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.029). Significant and independent associations between inadequate health literacy and ED utilization was found among adults with anxiety/emotional disorder (fully-adjusted OR 2.22 [CI: 1.03, 4.76]) and among adults with depression (fully-adjusted OR 2.29 [CI: 1.18, 4.44]). No significant association was found among adults with asthma or diabetes. This study presented evidence that inadequate health literacy is common and independently associated with ED utilization among adults with mental health conditions. It supports an initiative to prioritize individuals with mental health conditions, and systematically screen, identify, and provide assistance to those with inadequate health literacy to reduce excess ED utilization. Several existing health literacy screening tools suitable for an emergency care setting are suggested.

Multiple Myeloma Cost of Care Under the Oncology Care Model: The Influence of High-Cost Therapies.

PURPOSE: As expenditures for cancer care continue to grow substantially, value-based payment models are being tested to control costs. The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is the largest value-based payment program in oncology. The primary objective of this analysis was to determine the impact of high-cost novel agents on total cost of care for multiple myeloma (MM) episodes of care in the OCM. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis using Medicare claims data for 258 MM OCM episodes initiated between July 1, 2016, and July 1, 2017. Patients were organized into 3 cohorts: those who received pomalidomide (cohort A), those who received lenalidomide (cohort B), and those who did not receive either drug but had received another chemotherapy agent (cohort C). We compared the actual episode expenditures and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid target price to create an observed versus expected (O/E) ratio. RESULTS: The average O/E for cohort A (n = 73) was 1.73, compared with 1.31 for cohort B (n = 84) and 1.01 for cohort C (n = 101). The difference the in O/E ratio among the groups was statistically significant (P < .001). The average episode target price for cohorts A, B, and C was $66,149, $63,483, and $63,937, respectively. Despite the high cost of pomalidomide and lenalidomide, there was no significant difference in the average episode target prices of the cohorts. CONCLUSION: The O/E ratio and target prices of the cohorts demonstrate a lack of adequate adjustment to the OCM target price for episodes in which pomalidomide and lenalidomide were used to treat patients with MM.