Explore the vast range of titles available.

The federal CMMI was created to assess new payment and service delivery models for improving health care nationwide. This review reports that during the agency’s first decade of operation, some of the value-based models saved money and improved quality but most did not. The lessons learned and future directions are discussed.

Institutional special-needs plans could warrant further investigation as a value-based model for financing care provided to long-stay nursing home residents.

There is an active public debate about whether patients' socioeconomic status should be included in the readmission measures used to determine penalties in Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP). Using the current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services methodology, we compared risk-standardized readmission rates for hospitals caring for high and low proportions of patients of low socioeconomic status (as defined by their Medicaid status or neighborhood income). We then calculated risk-standardized readmission rates after additionally adjusting for patients' socioeconomic status. Our results demonstrate that hospitals caring for large proportions of patients of low socioeconomic status have readmission rates similar to those of other hospitals. Moreover, readmission rates calculated with and without adjustment for patients' socioeconomic status are highly correlated. Readmission rates of hospitals caring for patients of low socioeconomic status changed by approximately 0.1 percent with adjustment for patients' socioeconomic status, and only 3-4 percent fewer such hospitals reached the threshold for payment penalty in Medicare's HRRP. Overall, adjustment for socioeconomic status does not change hospital results in meaningful ways.

Background Alternative payment models, such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative, aim to decrease overall costs for hip and knee arthroplasties. Questions/purposes We asked: (1) Is there any difference in the CMS episode-of-care costs, hospital length of stay, and readmission rate from before and after implementation of our bundled-payment program? (2) Is there any difference in reimbursements and resource utilization between revision THA and TKA at our institution? (3) Are there any independent risk factors for patients with high costs who may not be appropriate for a bundled-payment system for revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA)? Methods Between October 2013 and March 2015, 218 patients underwent revision TKA or THA in one health system. Two hundred seventeen patients were reviewed as part of this study, and one patient with hemophilia was excluded from the analysis as an outlier. Our institution began a BPCI program for revision TJA during this study period. Patients’ procedures done before January 1, 2014 at one hospital and January 1, 2015 at another hospital were not included in the bundled-care arrangement (70 revision TKAs and 56 revision THAs), whereas 50 revision TKAs and 41 revision THAs were performed under the BPCI initiative. Patient demographics, medical comorbidities, episode-of-care reimbursement data derived directly from CMS, length of stay, and readmission proportions were compared between the bundled and nonbundled groups. Results Length of stay in the group that underwent surgery before the bundled-care arrangement was longer than for patients whose procedures were done under the BPCI (mean 4.02 [SD, 3.0 days] versus mean 5.27 days [SD, 3.6 days]; p = 0.001). Index hospitalization reimbursement for the bundled group was less than for the nonbundled group (mean USD 17,754 [SD, USD 2741] versus mean USD 18,316 [SD, USD 4732]; p = 0.030). There was no difference, with the numbers available, in total episode-of-care CMS costs between the two groups (mean USD 38,107 [SD, USD 18,328] versus mean USD 37,851 [SD, USD 17,208]; p = 0.984). There was no difference, with the numbers available, in the total episode-of-care CMS costs between revision hip arthroplasties and revision knee arthroplasties (mean USD 38,627 [SD, USD 18,607] versus mean USD 37,414 [SD, USD 16,884]; p = 0.904). Disposition to rehabilitation (odds ratio [OR], 5.49; 95% CI, 1.97–15.15; p = 0.001), length of stay 4 days or greater (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 1.60–8.38; p = 0.002), and readmission within 90 days (OR, 6.99; 95% CI, 2.58–18.91; p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for high-cost episodes. Conclusions Bundled payments have the potential to be a viable reimbursement model for revision TJA. Owing to the unpredictable nature of the surgical procedures, inherent high risks of complications, and varying degrees of surgical complexity, future studies are needed to determine whether bundling patients having revision TJA will result in improved care and decreased costs. Level of Evidence Level IV, economic and decision analysis.

To study the temporal distribution and causes of hospitalizations after heart failure (HF) diagnosis. Hospitalizations were studied in 1972 Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents with incident HF from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2011. All hospitalizations were examined for the 2 years following incident HF, and each was categorized as due to HF, other cardiovascular causes, or noncardiovascular causes. Negative binomial regression examined associations between time periods (0-30, 31-182, 183-365, and 366-730 days after diagnosis) and hospitalizations. During the 2 years after diagnosis, 3495 hospitalizations were observed among 1336 of the 1972 patients with HF. The age- and sex-adjusted rates of hospitalizations were highest in the first 30 days after diagnosis (3.33 per person-year vs 1.33, 1.07, and 1.00 per person-year for 31-182 days, 183-365 days, and 366-730 days, respectively). The rates of hospitalizations were similar across sex, presentation of HF (inpatient or outpatient), and type of HF (preserved or reduced ejection fraction). Patients diagnosed as inpatients who had long hospital stays (>5 days) experienced more than a 30% increased risk of rehospitalization within 30 days of dismissal. Importantly, most hospitalizations (2222 of 3495 [63.6%]) were due to noncardiovascular causes, and a minority (440 of 3495 [12.6%]) were due to HF. The rates of noncardiovascular hospitalizations were higher than those for HF or other cardiovascular hospitalizations across all follow-up for all time periods after HF. Patients with HF experience high rates of hospitalizations, particularly within the first 30 days, and mostly for noncardiovascular causes. To reduce hospitalizations in patients with HF, an integrated approach focusing on comorbidities is required.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Financial Alignment Initiative represents the largest effort to date to move beneficiaries who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid-known as dual eligibles-into a coordinated care model by the use of passive (automatic) enrollment. Thirteen states are testing integrated payment and delivery demonstration programs in which an estimated 1.3 million dual eligibles are qualified to participate. As of October 2016, passive enrollment had brought over 300,000 dual eligibles into nine capitated programs in eight states. However, program participation levels remained relatively low. Across the eight states, only 26.7 percent of dual eligibles who were qualified to participate were enrolled, ranging from 5.3 percent for the two New York programs together to 62.4 percent in Ohio. Although the exact causes of the high rates of opting out and disenrolling that we observed among passively enrolled dual eligibles are unknown, experience to date suggests that administrative challenges were combined with demand- and supply-side barriers to enrollment. These early findings draw into question whether passive enrollment can encourage dual eligibles to participate in integrated care models.

Hospital Compare, Medicare's public reporting initiative, began reporting measures of hospital quality for almost all US acute care hospitals in 2005. The impact of this public reporting initiative on patient mortality is unknown. We used Medicare claims data from the period 2000-08 to estimate the effect of Hospital Compare on thirty-day mortality for heart attack, heart failure, and pneumonia. Our analysis indicates that the fact that hospitals had to report quality data under Hospital Compare led to no reductions in mortality beyond existing trends for heart attack and pneumonia and led to a modest reduction in mortality for heart failure. We conclude that Medicare's public reporting initiative for hospitals has had a minimal impact on patient mortality. Adapted from the source document.

Supplemental payment programmes can increase access to new technologies, but Timothy Judson and colleagues find that some payments are made without clear evidence of safety and effectiveness

Background: Recent reports of the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) expressed significant concern with overall fiscal sustainability of Medicare and exponential increase in costs for interventional pain management techniques. Interventional pain management (IPM) is an evolving specialty amenable to multiple influences. Evaluation and isolation of appropriate factors for increasing growth patterns have not been performed. Study Design: Analysis of the growth of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in Medicare beneficiaries from 1997 to 2006. Objective: To evaluate the use of all interventional techniques. Methods: The standard 5% national sample of the CMS carrier claim record data for 1997, 2002, and 2006 was utilized. This data set provides information on Medicare enrollees in the feefor-service Medicare program. Current procedural technology (CPT) codes for 1997, 2002, and 2006 were used to identify the number of procedures performed each year, and trends in expenditures. Results: Interventional techniques increased significantly in Medicare beneficiaries from 1997 to 2006. Overall, there was an increase of 137% in patients utilizing IPM services with an increase of 197% in IPM services, per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries. The majority of the increases were attributed to exponential growth in the performance of facet joint interventions. There was a 13.9-fold difference in the increase between the state with the lowest rate and the state with the highest rate in utilization patterns of interventional techniques (California 37% vs. Connecticut 514%), with an 11.6-fold difference between Florida and California (431% vs. 37% increase). In 2006, Florida showed a 12.7-fold difference compared to Hawaii with the lowest utilization rate. Hospital outpatient department (HOPD) expenses constituted the highest increase with fewer patients treated either in an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) or in-office setting. Overall HOPD payments constituted 5% of total 2006 Medicare payments, in contrast to 57% of total IPM payments, an 11.4-fold difference. Limitations: The limitations of this study include a lack of inclusion of Medicare participants in Medicare Advantage plans and potential documentation, coding, and billing errors. Conclusion: This study shows an overall increase of IPM services of 197% compared to an increase of 137% in patients utilizing IPM services from 1997 to 2006. Key words: Interventional techniques, interventional pain management, facet joint injections, epidural steroid injections, sacroiliac joint injections, chronic pain, chronic spinal pain, ambulatory surgery center (ASC), hospital outpatient department (HOPD)

COVID-19 has delayed the transition to Oncology Care First, but the forthcoming model could help.