Geriatric conditions and healthcare utilization among older adults living in subsidized housing.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 2.9 million older Americans with lower incomes live in subsidized housing. While regional and single-site studies show that this group has higher rates of healthcare utilization compared to older adults in the general community, little is known about healthcare utilization nationally nor associated risk factors. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 enrolled in the National Health and Aging Trends Study in 2011, linked to Medicare claims data, including individuals living in subsidized housing and the general community. Participants were followed annually through 2020. Outcomes were hospitalization, short-term skilled nursing facility (SNF) utilization, long-term care utilization, and death. Fine-Gray competing risks regression analysis was used to assess the association of subsidized housing residence with hospitalization and nursing facility utilization, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to assess the association with death. RESULTS: Among 6294 participants (3600 women, 2694 men; mean age, 75.5 years [SD, 7.0]), 295 lived in subsidized housing at baseline and 5999 in the general community. Compared to older adults in the general community, those in subsidized housing had a higher adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] of hospitalization (sHR 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03-1.43), short-term SNF utilization (sHR 1.49; 95% CI, 1.15-1.92), and long-term care utilization (sHR 2.72; 95% CI, 1.67-4.43), but similar hazard of death (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.69-1.08). Individuals with functional impairment had a higher adjusted subdistribution hazard of hospitalization and short-term SNF utilization and individuals with dementia and functional impairment had a higher hazard of long-term care utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults living in subsidized housing have higher hazards of hospitalization and nursing facility utilization compared to those in the general community. Housing-based interventions to optimize aging in place and mitigate risk of nursing facility utilization should consider risk factors including functional impairment and dementia.

State scope of practice restrictions and nurse practitioner practice in nursing homes: 2012-2019.

Increased engagement of nurse practitioners (NPs) has been recommended as a way to address care delivery challenges in settings that struggle to attract physicians, such as primary care and rural areas. Nursing homes also face such physician shortages. We evaluated the role of state scope of practice regulations on NP practice in nursing homes in 2012-2019. Using linear probability models, we estimated the proportion of NP-delivered visits to patients in nursing homes as a function of state scope of practice regulations. Control variables included county demographic, socioeconomic, and health care workforce characteristics; state fixed effects; and year indicators. The proportion of nursing home visits conducted by NPs increased from 24% in 2012 to 42% in 2019. Expanded scope of practice regulation was associated with a greater proportion and total volume of nursing home visits conducted by NPs in counties with at least 1 NP visit. These relationships were concentrated among short-stay patients in urban counties. Removing scope of practice restrictions on NPs may address clinician shortages in nursing homes in urban areas where NPs already practice in nursing homes. However, improving access to advanced clinician care for long-term care residents and for patients in rural locations may require additional interventions and resources.

Association between Timing of Clinical Evaluation by a Physician or Advanced Practitioner and Risk of Rehospitalization in Older Adults Admitted to a Skilled Nursing Facility Following Hospitalization: A Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: How transitional care services are provided to patients receiving post-acute care in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) is not well understood. We aimed to determine the association of timing of physician or advanced practice provider (APP) visit after SNF admission with rehospitalization risk in a national cohort of older adults. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 2,482,616 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged ≥66 years who entered an SNF for post-acute care following hospitalization. METHODS: We measured the relative risk of being rehospitalized within 14 days of SNF admission as a function of time to the first PAP visit, using time to follow-up as a time-dependent covariate, adjusted for patient demographics and clinical characteristics. We also evaluated whether findings extended across groups with different SNF prognosis on admission. RESULTS: Patients seen sooner after admission to an SNF (0-1 days) were less likely to be rehospitalized compared to patients seen later (≥2 days). The relative difference was similar across different risk groups. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Timely evaluation by a physician or APP after SNF admission may protect against rehospitalization. Investment in the workforce such as training programs, practice innovations, and equitable reimbursement for SNF visits after hospital discharge may mitigate labor shortages that were exacerbated by the COVID pandemic.

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.

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.

Factors Associated with Potentially Harmful Medication Prescribing in Nursing Homes: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize current evidence regarding facility and prescriber characteristics associated with potentially harmful medication (PHM) use by residents in nursing homes (NHs), which could inform the development of interventions to reduce this potentially harmful practice. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Studies conducted in the United States that described facility and prescriber factors associated with PHM use in NHs. METHODS: Electronic searches of PubMed/MEDLINE were conducted for articles published in English between April 2011 and November 2021. PHMs were defined based on the Beers List criteria. Studies testing focused interventions targeting PHM prescribing or deprescribing were excluded. Studies were characterized by the strengths and weaknesses of the analytic approach and generalizability. RESULTS: Systematic search yielded 1253 articles. Of these, 29 were assessed in full text and 20 met inclusion criteria. Sixteen examined antipsychotic medication (APM) use, 2 anticholinergic medications, 1 sedative-hypnotics, and 2 overall PHM use. APM use was most commonly associated with facilities with a higher proportion of male patients, younger patients, and patients with severe cognitive impairment, anxiety, depression, and aggressive behavior. The use of APM and anticholinergic medications was associated with low registered nurse staffing ratios and for-profit facility status. No studies evaluated prescriber characteristics. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Included studies primarily examined APM use. The most commonly reported facility characteristics were consistent with previously reported indicators of poor NH quality and NHs with patient case mix more likely to use PHMs.

Benzodiazepine and antipsychotic use among hospitalized older adults before versus after restricting visitation: March to May 2020.

BACKGROUND: Hospital visitation restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic prompted concerns about unintended consequences for older patients, including an increased incidence of delirium and agitation. While first-line interventions for these conditions are non-pharmacologic, a lack of family support could result in increased use of benzodiazepines and antipsychotics, which are associated with poor outcomes in older adults. Little is known about the association of visitation policies with use of these medications among older adults. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study among adults aged ≥65 hospitalized from March 1 through May 31, 2020 at four hospitals in the Mid-Atlantic. The dates of onset of visitation restrictions (i.e., hospital-wide guidelines barring visitors) were collected from hospital administrators. Outcomes were use of benzodiazepines and antipsychotics, assessed using patient-level electronic health record data. Using multivariable logistic regression with hospital and study-day fixed effects, the quasi-experimental study design leveraged the staggered onset of visitation restrictions across the hospitals to measure the odds of receiving each medication when visitors were versus were not allowed. RESULTS: Among 2931 patients, mean age was 76.6 years (SD, 8.3), 51.6% were female, 58.6% white, 32.5% black, and 2.6% Hispanic. Overall, 924 (31.5%) patients received a benzodiazepine and 298 (10.2%) an antipsychotic. The adjusted odds of benzodiazepine use was lower on days when visitors were versus were not allowed (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39, 0.99). Antipsychotic use did not significantly differ between days when visitors were versus were not allowed (AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.43, 2.21). CONCLUSIONS: Among older patients hospitalized during the first wave of the pandemic, benzodiazepine use was lower on days when visitors were allowed. These findings suggest that the presence of caregivers impacts use of potentially inappropriate medications among hospitalized older adults, supporting efforts to recognize caregivers as essential members of the care team.

Older adults' access to primary care: Gender, racial, and ethnic disparities in telemedicine.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, primary care practices adopted telemedicine as an alternative to in-person visits. Little is known about whether access to telemedicine was equitable, especially among older patients. Our objectives were to (1) examine older adults' use of telemedicine versus in-person primary care visits and (2) compare hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) between the groups. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study of 17,103 patients aged ≥65 years seen at 32 clinics in the Mid-Atlantic, primary care patients were classified into two groups-telemedicine versus in person-based on the first visit between March and May 2020 and followed up for 14 days. Using multivariable logistic regression, we measured the odds of being seen via telemedicine versus in person as a function of patient demographics, comorbidities, and week of study period. We then measured the odds of ACSC hospitalization by visit modality. RESULTS: Mean age was 75.1 years (SD, 7.5), 60.6% of patients were female, 64.6% white, 28.1% black, and 2.0% Hispanic. Overall, 60.3% of patients accessed primary care via telemedicine. Black (vs. white) patients had higher odds of using telemedicine (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.14-1.47) and Hispanic (vs. not Hispanic) patients had lower odds (aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42-0.92). Compared with the in-person group, patients in the telemedicine group had lower odds of ACSC hospitalization (aOR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61-1.00). Among patients who used telemedicine, black patients had 1.43 higher odds of ACSC hospitalization (95% CI, 1.02-2.01) compared with white patients. Patients aged 85 or older seen via telemedicine had higher odds of an ACSC hospitalization (aOR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.03-2.47) compared with patients aged 65-74. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the use of telemedicine for primary care access for older adults. However, the observed disparities highlight the need to improve care quality and equity regardless of visit modality.

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.

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.

Characterizing Physician Practice in Nursing Homes Using Claims-Based Measures: Correlation With Nursing Home Administrators' Perceptions.

Heterogeneity in physician practice within nursing homes (NHs) may explain variations in quality. However, data on physician practice organization in NHs are hard to obtain. We characterized NH physician practice using two claims-based measures: (a) concentration of NH care among physicians (measured by Herfindahl-Hirschman index of visits); and (b) physician NH practice specialization (measured by the proportion of a physician's visits to NHs). We examined the relationship between the measures and NH administrator perceptions of physician practice reported in the Shaping Long-Term Care in America (SLTCA) Survey. All 2011 Part B claims from 13,718 physicians who treated Medicare fee-for-service patients in 2,095 NHs in the SLTCA survey were analyzed. The median Herfindahl-Hirschman index was 0.44 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.28-0.70), and the median specialization was 38.1% (IQR 19.9% to 60.9%). NHs with higher physician specialization reported more frequent physician participation in care coordination activities. Claims-based measures could inform the study of NH physician practice.

Expectations and experiences with physician care among patients receiving post-acute care in US skilled nursing facilities.

BACKGROUND: In the US, post-acute care in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) is common and outcomes vary greatly across facilities. Little is known about the expectations of patients and their caregivers about physician care during the hospital to SNF transition. Our objectives were to (1) describe the experiences and expectations of patients and their caregivers with SNF physicians in SNFs, and (2) identify patterns that differed between patients with vs. without cognitive impairment. METHODS: This qualitative study used grounded theory approach to analyze data collected from semi-structured interviews at five SNFs in January-August 2018. Patients admitted for short-term SNF care 5-10 days prior were eligible to participate. Thematic analysis was performed to detect recurrent themes with a focus on modifiable aspects of physician care. Analysis was stratified by patient cognitive impairment (measured by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment at the time of the interview). RESULTS: Fifty patients and six caregivers were interviewed. Major themes were: (1) patients had poor awareness of the physician in charge of their care; (2) they were dissatisfied with the frequency of interaction with the physician; and (3) participants valued the perception of receiving individualized care from the physician. Less cognitively impaired patients were more concerned about limited interactions with the physicians and were more likely to report attempts to seek out the physician. CONCLUSION: Patient and caregiver expectations of SNF physicians were not well aligned with their experiences. SNFs aiming to improve satisfaction with care may focus efforts in this area, such as facilitating frequent communication between physicians, patients and caregivers.

Hospital and ICU patient volume per physician at peak of COVID pandemic: State-level estimates.

BACKGROUND: In anticipation of patient surge due to COVID-19, many states are working to increase the available healthcare workforce. To help inform state policies and initiatives aimed at physician deployment during COVID-19, we used predictions of peak patient volume for hospitals and intensive care units (ICU) and regional physician workforce estimates to measure patient to physician ratios at the peak of the pandemic for each state. METHODS: We estimated the number of potentially available physicians based on Medicare Part B billings for the care of hospitalized and critically ill patients in 2017, adjusted for attrition due to exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and relevant experience. We used estimates from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation to determine the number of hospitalized and ICU patients expected at the peak of the pandemic in each state. We then determined the expected ratio of patients per physician for each state at the peak of the pandemic. RESULTS: The median number of hospitalized patients per physician was 13 (low estimate) to 18 (high estimate). At the high estimate of hospitalized patients, 35 states would have a patient to physician ratio of more than 15:1 (patient to physician ratios above 15:1 have been associated with poor outcomes). For ICU patients, the median number of patients each physician would treat across states would be 8-11 patients. Nine states would experience patient to physician ratios above 15:1 at the higher end of estimates. Patient-physician ratios decreased if the available physician pool was broadened to include physicians without recent experience treating hospitalized patients, and physicians in surgical specialties with experience treating acutely hospitalized patients. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: We estimate that most states will have sufficient physician capacity to manage hospitalized patients at the peak of the pandemic. However, at the high estimates of hospitalized patients, some Midwestern states will experience high patient to provider ratios that may adversely affect patient outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: State.

Long-Term Care, Residential Facilities, and COVID-19: An Overview of Federal and State Policy Responses.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected residents and staff at long-term care (LTC) and other residential facilities in the United States. The high morbidity and mortality at these facilities has been attributed to a combination of a particularly vulnerable population and a lack of resources to mitigate the risk. During the first wave of the pandemic, the federal and state governments received urgent calls for help from LTC and residential care facilities; between March and early June of 2020, policymakers responded with dozens of regulatory and policy changes. In this article, we provide an overview of these responses by first summarizing federal regulatory changes and then reviewing state-level executive orders. The policy and regulatory changes implemented at the federal and state levels can be categorized into the following 4 classes: (1) preventing virus transmission, which includes policies relating to visitation restrictions, personal protective equipment guidance, and testing requirements; (2) expanding facilities' capacities, which includes both the expansion of physical space for isolation purposes and the expansion of workforce to combat COVID-19; (3) relaxing administrative requirements, which includes measures enacted to shift the attention of caretakers and administrators from administrative requirements to residents' care; and (4) reporting COVID-19 data, which includes the reporting of cases and deaths to residents, families, and administrative bodies (such as state health departments). These policies represent a snapshot of the initial efforts to mitigate damage inflicted by the pandemic. Looking ahead, empirical evaluation of the consequences of these policies-including potential unintended effects-is urgently needed. The recent availability of publicly reported COVID-19 LTC data can be used to inform the development of evidence-based regulations, though there are concerns of reporting inaccuracies. Importantly, these data should also be used to systematically identify hot spots and help direct resources to struggling facilities.

Patient and Caregiver Perceptions of Nursing Home Physicians: Insight from Yelp Reviews, 2009-2018.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the content of reviews submitted on Yelp that pertain to nursing home (NH) physicians. DESIGN: Retrospective qualitative study. SETTING: NHs in the United States reviewed on Yelp from 2009 to 2018 with reviews that discussed NH physicians. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians in 375 NHs in 31 states. MEASUREMENTS: Content analysis was performed to detect recurrent themes and divergent ideas about NH physicians perceived by reviewers. RESULTS: Average rating among NHs with physician reviews was 2.0 (standard deviation = 1.5; range = 1-5). The major themes from content analysis of reviews that discussed physicians were perceived attitudes of clinicians toward patients and caregivers, physician communication with patients or caregivers, and perceived clinical expertise of the physicians. CONCLUSION: Unsolicited online reviews of NHs that comment on patient and caregiver perceptions of physician care represent a small but growing number of online comments about NHs. These reviews contain important information about aspects of physician care valued by NH patients and caregivers. However, the sample of comments about physicians represents a small proportion of online reviews and is not representative of all NHs. As online reviews grow in number and become more representative, these data could be used by physicians to improve perceptions of their care by NH patients and their families, and by NHs to inform expectations of their medical director and attending physicians.

Association of Online Consumer Reviews of Skilled Nursing Facilities With Patient Rehospitalization Rates.

Importance: There are areas of skilled nursing facility (SNF) experience of importance to the public that are not currently included in public reporting initiatives on SNF quality. Whether patients, hospitals, and payers can leverage the information available from unsolicited online reviews to reduce avoidable rehospitalizations from SNFs is unknown. Objectives: To assess the association between rehospitalization rates and online ratings of SNFs; to compare the association of rehospitalization with ratings from a review website vs Medicare Nursing Home Compare (NHC) ratings; and to identify specific topics consistently reported in reviews of SNFs with the highest vs lowest rehospitalization rates using natural language processing. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cross-sectional study of 1536 SNFs with online reviews on Yelp (a website that allows consumers to rate and review businesses and services, scored on a 1- to 5-star rating scale, with 1 star indicating the lowest rating and 5 stars indicating the highest rating) posted between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. The combined data set included 1536 SNFs with 8548 online reviews, NHC ratings, and readmission rates. Main Outcomes and Measures: A mean rating from the review website was calculated through the end of each year. Risk-standardized rehospitalization rates were obtained from NHC. Linear regression was used to measure the association between the rehospitalization rate of a SNF and the online ratings. Natural language processing was used to identify topics associated with reviews of SNFs in the top and bottom quintiles of rehospitalization rates. Results: The 1536 SNFs in the sample had a median of 6 reviews (interquartile range, 3-13 reviews), with a mean (SD) review website rating of 2.7 (1.1). The SNFs with the highest rating on both the review website and NHC had 2.0% lower rehospitalization rates compared with the SNFs with the lowest rating on both websites (21.3%; 95% CI, 20.7%-21.8%; vs 23.3%; 95% CI, 22.7%-24.0%; P = .04). Compared with the NHC ratings alone, review website ratings were associated with an additional 0.4% of the variation in rehospitalization rates across SNFs (adjusted R2 = 0.009 vs adjusted R2 = 0.013; P = .003). Thematic analysis of qualitative comments on the review website for SNFs with high vs low rehospitalization rates identified several areas of importance to the reviewers, such as the quality of physical infrastructure and equipment, staff attitudes and communication with caregivers. Conclusions and Relevance: Skilled nursing facilities with the best rating on both a review website and NHC had slightly lower rehospitalization rates than SNFs with the best rating on NHC alone. However, there was marked variation in the volume of reviews, and many SNF characteristics were underrepresented. Further refinement of the review process is warranted.