Bundled payments lead to quality improvements in hospitals' skilled nursing facility referral networks.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether hospitals participating in Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program for joint replacement changed their referral patterns to favor higher-quality skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study using 2009-2015 inpatient and outpatient claims from a 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing joint replacement in US hospitals (N = 146,074) linked with data from Medicare's BPCI program and Nursing Home Compare. METHODS: We ran fixed effect regression models regressing BPCI participation on hospital-SNF referral patterns (number of SNF discharges, number of SNF partners, and SNF referral concentration) and SNF quality (facility inspection survey rating, patient outcome rating, staffing rating, and registered nurse staffing rating). RESULTS: We found that BPCI participation was associated with a decrease in the number of SNF referrals and no significant change in the number of SNF partners or concentration of SNF partners. BPCI participation was associated with discharge to SNFs with a higher patient outcome rating by 0.04 stars (95% CI, 0.04-0.26). BPCI participation was not associated with improvements in discharge to SNFs with a higher facility survey rating (95% CI, -0.03 to 0.11), staffing rating (95% CI, -0.07 to 0.04), or registered nurse staffing rating (95% CI, -0.09 to 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: BPCI participation was associated with lower volume of SNF referrals and small increases in the quality of SNFs to which patients were discharged, without narrowing hospital-SNF referral networks.

Physician Group Practices Accrued Large Bonuses Under Medicare's Bundled Payment Model, 2018-20.

The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced Model (BPCI-A), a voluntary Alternative Payment Model for Medicare, incentivizes hospitals and physician group practices to reduce spending for patient care episodes below preset target prices. The experience of physician groups in BPCI-A is not well understood. We found that physician groups earned $421 million in incentive payments during BPCI-A's first four performance periods (2018-20). Target prices were positively associated with bonuses, with a mean reconciliation payment of $139 per episode in the lowest decile of target prices and $2,775 in the highest decile. In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mean bonuses increased from $815 per episode to $2,736 per episode. These findings suggest that further policy changes, such as improving target price accuracy and refining participation rules, will be important as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services continues to expand BPCI-A and develop other bundled payment models.

Early Experiences With Bundled Payments for Care Improvement for Major Bowel Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Bundled Payment (BP) models are becoming more common in surgery. We share our early experiences with Bundled Payments for Care Improvement for major bowel surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing major bowel surgery between January and October 2021 were identified using Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) codes. Major drivers of cost in a BP model are reported and compared to the Fee-For-Service (FFS) payment model. RESULTS: A total of 202 cases (173 FFS vs 29 BP) were analyzed. The mean BP cost per Clinical Episode was $28,340. Eleven patients (38%) in the BP model had costs greater than the Target Price. The drivers of cost in the BP model were 59% acute care facility, 17% physician services, 9% post-acute care facilities, 8% other, and 7% readmissions. Clinical Episode of care costs varied considerably by MS-DRG case complexity. Robotic surgery increased costs by 35% (mean increase $3724, P < .01). The 90-day readmission rate was 17% for a mean cost of $11,332 per readmission. Three patients (10%) were discharged to a skilled nursing facility at an average cost of $11,009, while fifteen patients (52%) received home health services at a mean cost of $2947. Acute care facility costs were similar in the BP vs FFS groups (mean difference $1333, P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing major bowel surgery are a heterogeneous population. Physicians are ideally positioned to deliver high-value, patient-centered care and are crucial to the success of a BP model. The post-acute care setting is a key component of improving efficiency and quality of care.

Association of Hospitals' Experience with Bundled Payment for Care Improvement Model with the Diffusion of Acute Hospital Care at Home.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether hospitals' experience in a prior payment model incentivizing care coordination is associated with their decision to adopt a new payment program for a care delivery innovation. DATA SOURCES: Data were sourced from Medicare fee-for-service claims in 2017, the list of participants in Bundled Payment for Care Improvement initiatives (BPCI and BPCI-Advanced), the list of hospitals approved for Acute Hospital Care at Home (AHCaH) between November 2020 and August 2022, and the American Hospital Association Survey. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. Hospitals' adoption of AHCaH was measured as a function of hospitals' BPCI experiences. Hospitals' BPCI experiences were categorized into five mutually exclusive groups: (1) direct BPCI participation, (2) indirect participation through physician group practices (PGPs) after dropout, (3) indirect participation through PGPs only, (4) dropout only, and (5) no BPCI exposure. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: All data are derived from pre-existing sources. General acute hospitals eligible for both BPCI initiatives and AHCaH are included. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of 3248 hospitals included in the sample, 7% adopted AHCaH as of August 2022. Hospitals with direct BPCI experience had the highest adoption rate (17.7%), followed by those with indirect participation through BPCI physicians after dropout (11.8%), while those with no exposure to BPCI were least likely to participate (3.2%). Hospitals that adopted AHCaH were more likely to be located in communities where more peer hospitals participated in the program (median 10.8% vs. 0%). After controlling for covariates, the association of the adoption of AHCaH with indirect participation through physicians after dropout was as strong as with early BPCI adopter hospitals (average marginal effect: 5.9 vs. 6.2 pp, p < 0.05), but the other categories were not. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals that participated in the bundled payment model either directly or indirectly PGPs were more likely to adopt a care delivery innovation requiring similar competence in the next period.

The effect of a bundle intervention for ambulatory otorhinolaryngology procedures on same-day case cancellation rate and associated costs.

Cancellations within 24 h of planned elective surgical procedures reduce operating theatre efficiency, add unnecessary costs and negatively affect patient experience. We implemented a bundle intervention that aimed to reduce same-day case cancellations. This consisted of communication tools to improve patient engagement and new screening instruments (automated estimation of ASA physical status and case cancellation risk score plus four screening questions) to identify patients in advance (ideally before case booking) who needed comprehensive pre-operative risk stratification. We studied patients scheduled for ambulatory surgery with the otorhinolaryngology service at a single centre from April 2021 to December 2022. Multivariable logistic regression and interrupted time-series analyses were used to analyse the effects of this intervention on case cancellations within 24 h and costs. We analysed 1548 consecutive scheduled cases. Cancellation within 24 h occurred in 114 of 929 (12.3%) cases pre-intervention and 52 of 619 (8.4%) cases post-intervention. The cancellation rate decreased by 2.7% (95%CI 1.6-3.7%, p < 0.01) during the first month, followed by a monthly decrease of 0.2% (95%CI 0.1-0.4%, p < 0.01). This resulted in an estimated $150,200 (£118,755; €138,370) or 35.3% cost saving (p < 0.01). Median (IQR [range]) number of days between case scheduling and day of surgery decreased from 34 (21-61 [0-288]) pre-intervention to 31 (20-51 [1-250]) post-intervention (p < 0.01). Patient engagement via the electronic health record patient portal or text messaging increased from 75.9% at baseline to 90.8% (p < 0.01) post-intervention. The primary reason for case cancellation was patients' missed appointment on the day of surgery, which decreased from 7.2% pre-intervention to 4.5% post-intervention (p = 0.03). An anaesthetist-driven, clinical informatics-based bundle intervention decreases same-day case cancellation rate and associated costs in patients scheduled for ambulatory otorhinolaryngology surgery.

Differential Hospital Participation in Bundled Payments in Communities with Higher Shares of Marginalized Populations.

BACKGROUND: Medicare's voluntary bundled payment programs have demonstrated generally favorable results. However, it remains unknown whether uneven hospital participation in these programs in communities with greater shares of minorities and patients of low socioeconomic status results in disparate access to practice redesign innovations. OBJECTIVE: Examine whether communities with higher proportions of marginalized individuals were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-Advanced). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using ordinary least squares regression controlling for patient and community factors. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service patients enrolled from 2015-2017 (pre-BPCI-Advanced) and residing in 2,058 local communities nationwide defined by Hospital Service Areas (HSAs). Each community's share of marginalized patients was calculated separately for each of the share of beneficiaries of Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, or dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid. MAIN MEASURES: Dichotomous variable indicating whether a given community had at least one hospital that ever participated in BPCI-Advanced from 2018-2022. KEY RESULTS: Communities with higher shares of dual-eligible individuals were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced than communities with the lowest quartile of dual-eligible individuals (Q4: -15.1 percentage points [pp] lower than Q1, 95% CI: -21.0 to -9.1, p < 0.001). There was no consistent significant relationship between community proportion of Black beneficiaries and likelihood of having a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced. Communities with higher shares of Hispanic beneficiaries were more likely to have a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced than those in the lowest quartile (Q4: 19.2 pp higher than Q1, 95% CI: 13.4 to 24.9, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Communities with greater shares of dual-eligible beneficiaries, but not racial or ethnic minorities, were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced Policymakers should consider approaches to incentivize more socioeconomically uniform participation in voluntary bundled payments.

Reconciliation Payments in the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced Program and Reductions in Clinical Spending Needed for CMS to Avoid Financial Losses.

This study examines the magnitude of reconciliation payments and clinical spending reductions necessary for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to break even in the first 4 performance periods of the BPCI-A (Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced) program.

Association of Hospital Participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced With Medicare Spending and Hospital Incentive Payments.

Importance: Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-A) is a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) initiative that aims to produce financial savings by incentivizing decreases in clinical spending. Incentives consist of financial bonuses from CMS to hospitals or penalties paid by hospitals to CMS. Objective: To investigate the association of hospital participation in BPCI-A with spending, and to characterize hospitals receiving financial bonuses vs penalties. Design, Setting, and Participants: Difference-in-differences and cross-sectional analyses of 4 754 139 patient episodes using 2013-2019 US Medicare claims at 694 participating and 2852 nonparticipating hospitals merged with hospital and market characteristics. Exposures: BPCI-A model years 1 and 2 (October 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019). Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitals' per-episode spending, CMS gross and net spending, and the incentive allocated to each hospital. Results: The study identified 694 participating hospitals. The analysis observed a -$175 change in mean per-episode spending (95% CI, -$378 to $28) and an aggregate spending change of -$75.1 million (95% CI, -$162.1 million to $12.0 million) across the 428 670 episodes in BPCI-A model years 1 and 2. However, CMS disbursed $354.3 million (95% CI, $212.0 million to $496.0 million) more in bonuses than it received in penalties. Hospital participation in BPCI-A was associated with a net loss to CMS of $279.2 million (95% CI, $135.0 million to $423.0 million). Hospitals in the lowest quartile of Medicaid days received a mean penalty of $0.41 million; (95% CI, $0.09 million to $0.72 million), while those in the highest quartile received a mean bonus of $1.57 million; (95% CI, $1.09 million to $2.08 million). Similar patterns were observed for hospitals across increasing quartiles of Disproportionate Share Hospital percentage and of patients from racial and ethnic minority groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among US hospitals measured between 2013 and 2019, participation in BPCI-A was significantly associated with an increase in net CMS spending. Bonuses accrued disproportionately to hospitals providing care for marginalized communities.

Patient selection in the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement model.

OBJECTIVE: To understand whether the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program induces participating hospitals to (1) preferentially select lower risk patients, (2) reduce 90-day episode-of-care costs, (3) improve quality of care, and (4) achieve greater cost reduction during its second year, when downside financial risk was applied. DATA SOURCES: We identified beneficiaries of age 65 years or older undergoing hip or knee joint replacement in the 100% sample of Medicare fee-for-service inpatient (Part A) claims from January 1, 2013 to August 31, 2017. Cases were linked to subsequent outpatient, Part B, home health agency, and skilled nursing facility claims, as well as publicly available participation status for CJR. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated the effect of CJR for hospitals in the 67 metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) selected to participate in CJR (785 hospitals), compared to those in 104 non-CJR MSAs (962 hospitals; maintaining fee-for-service). A difference-in-differences approach was used to detect patient selection, as well as to compare 90-day episode-of-care costs and quality of care between CJR and non-CJR hospitals over the first two performance years. DATA COLLECTION: We excluded 172 hospitals from our analysis due to their preexisting BPCI participation. We focused on elective admissions in the main analysis. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: While reductions in 90-day episode-of-care costs were greater among CJR hospitals (-$902, 95% CI: -$1305, -$499), largely driven by a 16.8% (p < 0.01) decline in 90-day spending in skilled nursing facilities, CJR hospitals significantly reduced the 90-day readmission rate (-3.9%; p < 0.05) and preferentially avoided patients aged 85 years or older (-5.9%; p < 0.01) and Black (-7.0%; p < 0.01). Cost reduction was greater in 2017 than in 2016, corresponding to the start of downside risk. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in CJR was associated with a modest cost reduction and a reduction in 90-day readmission rates; however, we also observed evidence of preferential avoidance of older patients perceived as being higher risk among CJR hospitals.

Managing the economic challenges in the treatment of heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of heart failure is complex and inherently challenging. Patients traverse multiple practice settings as inpatients and outpatients, often resulting in fragmented care. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services is implementing payment programs that reward delivery of high-quality, cost-effective care, and one of the newer programs, the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement Advanced program, attempts to improve the coordination of care across practices for a hospitalization episode and post-acute care. The quality and cost of care contribute to its value, but value may be defined in different ways by different entities. CONCLUSIONS: The rapidly changing world of digital health may contribute to or detract from the quality and cost of care. Health systems, payers, and patients are all grappling with these issues, which were reviewed at a symposium at the Heart Failure Society of America conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on September 14, 2019. This article constitutes the proceedings from that symposium.

Dissecting the Perioperative Care Bundle.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are comprehensive perioperative care pathways designed to mitigate the physiologic stressors associated with surgery and, in turn, improve clinical outcomes and lead to health care cost savings. Although individual components may differ, ERAS protocols are typically organized as multimodal care "bundles" that, when followed closely and in their entirety, are meant to generate amplified cumulative benefits. This manuscript examines some of the critical components, describes some areas where the science is weak (but dogma may be strong), and provides some of the evidence or lack thereof behind components of a standard ERAS protocol.

Patient Health Outcomes following Dialysis Facility Closures in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Ongoing changes to reimbursement of United States dialysis care may increase the risk of dialysis facility closures. Closures may be particularly detrimental to the health of patients receiving dialysis, who are medically complex and clinically tenuous. METHODS: We used two separate analytic strategies-one using facility-based matching and the other using propensity score matching-to compare health outcomes of patients receiving in-center hemodialysis at United States facilities that closed with outcomes of similar patients who were unaffected. We used negative binomial and Cox regression models to estimate associations of facility closure with hospitalization and mortality in the subsequent 180 days. RESULTS: We identified 8386 patients affected by 521 facility closures from January 2001 through April 2014. In the facility-matched model, closures were associated with 9% higher rates of hospitalization (relative rate ratio [RR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.03 to 1.16), yielding an absolute annual rate difference of 1.69 hospital days per patient-year (95% CI, 0.45 to 2.93). Similarly, in a propensity-matched model, closures were associated with 7% higher rates of hospitalization (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.13; P=0.04), yielding an absolute rate difference of 1.08 hospital days per year (95% CI, 0.04 to 2.12). Closures were associated with nonsignificant increases in mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.18; P=0.05 for the facility-matched comparison; HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.17; P=0.08 for the propensity-matched comparison). CONCLUSIONS: Patients affected by dialysis facility closures experienced increased rates of hospitalization in the subsequent 180 days and may be at increased risk of death. This highlights the need for effective policies that continue to mitigate risk of facility closures.

Year 1 of the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement-Advanced Model.

BACKGROUND: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation launched the Medicare Bundled Payments for Care Improvement-Advanced (BPCI-A) program for hospitals in October 2018. Information is needed about the effects of the program on health care utilization and Medicare payments. METHODS: We conducted a modified segmented regression analysis using Medicare claims and including patients with discharge dates from January 2017 through September 2019 to assess differences between BPCI-A participants and two control groups: hospitals that never joined the BPCI-A program (nonjoining hospitals) and hospitals that joined the BPCI-A program in January 2020, after the conclusion of the intervention period (late-joining hospitals). The primary outcomes were the differences in changes in quarterly trends in 90-day per-episode Medicare payments and the percentage of patients with readmission within 90 days after discharge. Secondary outcomes were mortality, volume, and case mix. RESULTS: A total of 826 BPCI-A participant hospitals were compared with 2016 nonjoining hospitals and 334 late-joining hospitals. Among BPCI-A hospitals, the mean baseline 90-day per-episode Medicare payment was $27,315; the change in the quarterly trends in the intervention period as compared with baseline was -$78 per quarter. Among nonjoining hospitals, the mean baseline 90-day per-episode Medicare payment was $25,994; the change in quarterly trends as compared with baseline was -$26 per quarter (difference between nonjoining hospitals and BPCI-A hospitals, $52 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 34 to 70] per quarter; P<0.001; 0.2% of the baseline payment). Among late-joining hospitals, the mean baseline 90-day per-episode Medicare payment was $26,807; the change in the quarterly trends as compared with baseline was $4 per quarter (difference between late-joining hospitals and BPCI-A hospitals, $82 [95% CI, 41 to 122] per quarter; P<0.001; 0.3% of the baseline payment). There were no meaningful differences in the changes with regard to readmission, mortality, volume, or case mix. CONCLUSIONS: The BPCI-A program was associated with small reductions in Medicare payments among participating hospitals as compared with control hospitals. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.).

Savings and outcomes under Medicare's bundled payments initiative for skilled nursing facilities.

BACKGROUND: Model 3 of Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) was a voluntary alternative payment model that held participating skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) accountable for 90-day costs of care. Its overall impact on Medicare spending and clinical outcomes is unknown. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using Medicare claims from 2012 to 2017. We used an interrupted time-series design to compare participating vs matched control SNFs on total 90-day Medicare payments and payment components (initial SNF stay, readmissions, and outpatient/clinician), case mix (volume, proportion Medicaid, proportion black, number of comorbidities), and clinical outcomes (90-day readmission, mortality and healthy days at home, and length of initial SNF stay), overall and among key subgroups with frailty or dementia, for 47 of the 48 conditions in the program (excluding major lower extremity joint replacement). RESULTS: Our sample included 1001 participating and 3873 matched control SNFs. At baseline, total Medicare institutional payments were increasing at BPCI SNFs at a rate of $121 per episode per quarter; during the intervention period, payments decreased at a rate of -$398/episode/quarter. Among controls, payments were stable in the baseline period (+$17/episode/quarter) but decreased at -$424/episode/quarter during the intervention period, yielding a nonsignificant difference in slope changes of -$79/episode/quarter (95% confidence interval [CI] -$188, $31, p = 0.16). However, among patients with frailty, spending declined by $620/episode/quarter in the BPCI group, compared with $330/episode/quarter in the non-BPCI group, for a difference in slope changes of -$289 (95% CI -$482, -$96, p = 0.003). There were no differences in the change in slopes in case selection or clinical outcomes overall or in any clinical subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: SNF participation in BPCI was associated with no overall differential change in total Medicare payments per episode, case selection, or clinical outcomes. Exploratory analyses revealed a decrease in Medicare payments in patients with frailty that may warrant further study.

Using decision trees to determine participation in bundled payments in sepsis cases.

RATIONALE: The purpose of this research is to determine and develop a valid analytical method that can be easily implemented by providers to evaluate whether they should join the bundled payments for care improvement (BPCI) advanced bundled payment program, and analyze the projected impacts of BPCI advanced payment on their margins. METHODS: We have developed a decision tree model that incorporates the types of sepsis encountered and the resultant typical complications and associated costs. RESULTS: The initial cost of a sepsis episode was $30,386. Since Medicare requires that there is a 3% cost reduction under BPCI, we applied the model with a 3% cost reduction across the board. Since the model considers probabilities of the complications and readmission, there was actually a 3.36% reduction in costs when the 3% reduction was added to the model. We applied 2-way sensitivity analysis to the intensive care unit (ICU) long and short costs. We used the unbundled cost at the high end, and a 10% reduction at the low end. Per patient episode cost varied between $28,117 and $29,658. This is a 5.2% difference between low and high end. Next, we looked at varying the hospital bed (non-ICU) costs. Here the resultant cost varied between $28,708 and $29,099. This is only a 1.34% difference between low and high ends. Finally, we applied a sensitivity analysis varying the attending physician and the intensivist reimbursement fees. The result was a cost that varied between $29,191 and $29,366 which is a difference of only 0.595%. CONCLUSION: This is the precise environment where decision tree analysis modeling is essential. This analysis can guide the hospital in just how to allocate resources in light of the new BPCI advanced payment model.