Publications by Year: 2020

BACKGROUND: National trends and costs associated with remote and in-office interrogations of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have not been previously described.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate utilization and Medicare spending for remote monitoring and in-office interrogations for pacemakers and ICDs.

METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of claims and spending for remote and in-office interrogations of pacemakers and ICDs for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries from 2012 to 2015. Aggregate and per-beneficiary claims and spending were calculated for each device type.

RESULTS: Among all patients, 41.9% were female and the mean age was 78.3 years. From 2012 to 2015, remote monitoring utilization increased sharply. Aggregate professional remote monitoring claims for pacemakers increased by 61.3% and for ICDs by 5.6%, with an increase in technical claims (combined for pacemakers and ICDs) of 32.8%. Spending on all remote and in-office interrogations for these devices totaled $160 million per year, with remote costs increasing nearly 25% from $45.4 million in 2012 to $56.7 million in 2015. At the beneficiary level, remote interrogations increased for pacemakers from 0.6 to 0.9 per year, and for ICDs from 1.3 to 1.4 per year, whereas in-office interrogations decreased from 2.8 to 2.7 per year and from 3.0 to 2.9 per year, respectively. Beneficiary-level analysis revealed increased expenditures on remote interrogation offset by decreases in in-office expenditures, with total annual spending decreasing by $2 and $5 per beneficiary, respectively.

CONCLUSION: Remote monitoring utilization increased substantially from 2012 to 2015, whereas annual costs per beneficiary decreased.

This study describes demographic characteristics and hospital bed capacities of the 5 New York City boroughs, and evaluates whether differences in testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), hospitalizations, and deaths have emerged as a signal of racial, ethnic, and financial disparities.

IMPORTANCE: Quality of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is commonly assessed by risk-adjusted mortality. However, this metric may result in procedural risk aversion, especially for high-risk patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine correlation and reclassification between hospital-level disease-specific mortality and PCI procedural mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This hospital-level observational cross-sectional multicenter analysis included hospitals participating in the Chest Pain-MI Registry, which enrolled consecutive adult patients admitted with a diagnosis of type I non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and hospitals in the CathPCI Registry, which enrolled consecutive adult patients treated with PCI with an indication of NSTEMI or STEMI, between April 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017.

EXPOSURES: Inclusion into the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Chest Pain-MI and CathPCI registries.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: For each hospital in each registry, a disease-based excess mortality ratio (EMR-D) for AMI was calculated, which represents a risk-adjusted observed to expected rate of mortality for AMI as a disease using the Chest Pain-MI Registry, and a procedure-based excess mortality ratio (EMR-P) for PCI was calculated using the CathPCI Registry.

RESULTS: A subset of 625 sites participated in both registries, with a final count of 776 890 patients from the Chest Pain-MI Registry (509 576 men [65.6%]; 620 981 white [80.0%]; and median age, 64 years [interquartile range, 55-74 years]) and 853 386 patients from the CathPCI Registry (582 701 men [68.3%]; 691 236 white [81.0%]; and median age, 63 years [interquartile range, 54-73 years]). Among the 625 linked hospitals, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient between EMR-D and EMR-P produced a ρ of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.47-0.58), suggesting moderate correlation. Among the highest-performing tertile for disease-based risk-adjusted mortality, 90 of 208 sites (43.3%) were classified into a lower category for procedural risk-adjusted mortality. Among the lowest-performing tertile for disease-based risk-adjusted mortality, 92 of 208 sites (44.2%) were classified into a higher category for procedural risk-adjusted mortality. Bland-Altman plots for the overall linked cohort demonstrate a mean difference between EMR-P and EMR-D of 0.49% (95% CI, -1.61% to 2.58%; P < .001), with procedural mortality higher than disease-based mortality. However, among patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest, the mean difference between EMR-P and EMR-D was -0.64% (95% CI, -4.41% to 3.12%; P < .001), with procedural mortality lower than disease-based mortality.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study suggests that, for hospitals treating patients with AMI, there is only a moderate correlation between procedural outcomes and disease-based outcomes. Nearly half of hospitals in the highest tertile of performance for PCI performance were reclassified into a lower performance tertile when judged by disease-based metrics. Higher rates of mortality were observed when using disease-based metrics compared with procedural metrics when assessing patients with cardiogenic shock and/or cardiac arrest, signifying what appears to be potential risk avoidance among this highest-risk subset of patients.

This study uses data from the publicly available Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Inventory Tool to determine the proportion of CMS quality measures that are used or finalized for use in a CMS program, under development or consideration for use, or not in use.

BACKGROUND: Medicare patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) have been a significant focus of value-based payment programs for outpatient practices. Physicians and policymakers, however, have voiced concern that value-based payment programs may penalize practices that serve vulnerable populations. This study evaluated whether outpatient practices that serve socioeconomically disadvantaged populations have worse CAD outcomes, and if this reflects the delivery of lower-quality care or rather, patient and community factors beyond the care provided by physician practices.

METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service patients ≥65 years with CAD at outpatient practices participating in the the Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence registry from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2015. Outpatient practices were stratified into quintiles by the proportion of most disadvantaged patients-defined by an area deprivation score in the highest 20% nationally-served at each practice site. Prescription of guideline recommended therapies for CAD as well as clinical outcomes (emergency department presentation for chest pain, hospital admission for unstable angina or acute myocardial infarction [AMI], 30-day readmission after AMI, and 30-day mortality after AMI) were evaluated by practice-level socioeconomic disadvantage with hierarchical logistic regression models, using practices serving the fewest socioeconomically disadvantaged patients as a reference. The study included 453 783 Medicare fee-for-service patients ≥65 years of age with CAD (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [7.7] years; 39.7% female) cared for at 271 outpatient practices. At practices serving the highest proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients (group 5), compared with practices serving the lowest proportion (group 1), there was no significant difference in the likelihood of prescription of antiplatelet therapy (odds ratio [OR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.69-1.27]), β-blocker therapy if prior myocardial infarction or left ventricular ejection fraction <40% (OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.69-1.35]), ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker if left ventricular ejection fraction <40% and/or diabetes mellitus (OR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.74-1.19]), statin therapy (OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.68-1.14]), or cardiac rehabilitation (OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.20-1.00]). Patients cared for at the most disadvantaged-serving practices (group 5) were more likely to be admitted for unstable angina (adjusted OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.04-2.05]). There was no significant difference in the likelihood of emergency department presentation for chest pain or hospital admission for AMI between practices. Thirty day mortality rates after AMI were higher among patients at the most disadvantaged-serving practices (aOR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.02-1.68]), but 30-day readmission rates did not differ. All associations were attenuated after additional adjustment for patient-level area deprivation index.

CONCLUSIONS: Physician outpatient practices that serve the most socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with CAD perform worse on some clinical outcomes, despite providing similar guideline-recommended care as other practices, and consequently could fare poorly under value-based payment programs. Social factors beyond care provided by outpatient practices may partly explain worse outcomes. Policymakers should consider accounting for socioeconomic disadvantage in value-based payment programs initiatives that target outpatient practices.

IMPORTANCE: Medicare beneficiaries who are also enrolled in Medicaid (dually enrolled beneficiaries) have drawn the attention of policy makers because they comprise the poorest subset of the Medicare population; however, it is unclear how their outcomes have changed over time compared with those only enrolled in Medicare (nondually enrolled beneficiaries).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate annual changes in all-cause mortality, hospitalization rates, and hospitalization-related mortality among dually enrolled beneficiaries and nondually enrolled beneficiaries.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Serial cross-sectional study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older between January 2004 and December 2017. The final date of follow-up was September 30, 2018.

EXPOSURES: Dual vs nondual enrollment status.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Annual all-cause mortality rates; all-cause hospitalization rates; and in-hospital, 30-day, 1-year hospitalization-related mortality rates.

RESULTS: There were 71 017 608 unique Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older (mean age, 75.6 [SD, 9.2] years; 54.9% female) enrolled in Medicare for at least 1 month from 2004 through 2017. Of these beneficiaries, 11 697 900 (16.5%) were dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid for at least 1 month. After adjusting for age, sex, and race, annual all-cause mortality rates declined from 8.5% (95% CI, 8.45%-8.56%) in 2004 to 8.1% (95% CI, 8.05%-8.13%) in 2017 among dually enrolled beneficiaries and from 4.1% (95% CI, 4.08%-4.13%) in 2004 to 3.8% (95% CI, 3.76%-3.79%) in 2017 among nondually enrolled beneficiaries. The difference in annual all-cause mortality between dually and nondually enrolled beneficiaries increased between 2004 (adjusted odds ratio, 2.09 [95% CI, 2.08-2.10]) and 2017 (adjusted odds ratio, 2.22 [95% CI, 2.21-2.23]) (P < .001 for interaction between dual enrollment status and time). All-cause hospitalizations per 100 000 beneficiary-years declined from 49 888 in 2004 to 41 121 in 2017 among dually enrolled beneficiaries (P < .001) and from 29 000 in 2004 to 22 601 in 2017 among nondually enrolled beneficiaries (P < .001); however, the difference between these groups widened between 2004 (adjusted risk ratio, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.71-1.73]) and 2017 (adjusted risk ratio, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.82-1.83]) (P < .001 for interaction). Among hospitalized beneficiaries, the risk-adjusted 30-day mortality rates declined from 10.3% (95% CI, 10.22%-10.33%) in 2004 to 10.1% (95% CI, 10.02%-10.20%) in 2017 among dually enrolled beneficiaries and from 8.5% (95% CI, 8.50%-8.56%) in 2004 to 8.1% (95% CI, 8.06%-8.13%) in 2017 among nondually enrolled beneficiaries. In contrast, 1-year mortality increased among hospitalized beneficiaries from 23.1% (95% CI, 23.05%-23.20%) in 2004 to 26.7% (95% CI, 26.58%-26.84%) in 2017 among dually enrolled beneficiaries and from 18.1% (95% CI, 18.11%-18.17%) in 2004 to 20.3% (95% CI, 20.21%-20.31%) in 2017 among nondually enrolled beneficiaries. The difference in hospitalization-related outcomes between dually and nondually enrolled beneficiaries persisted during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, dually enrolled beneficiaries had higher annual all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalizations, and hospitalization-related mortality compared with nondually enrolled beneficiaries. Between 2004 and 2017, these differences did not decrease.

IMPORTANCE: The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have implemented national value-based programs that incentivize hospitals to deliver better cardiovascular care. However, it is unclear how hospitals recognized for high-quality cardiovascular care by American Heart Association (AHA) and American College of Cardiology (ACC) national quality improvement initiatives (termed award hospitals) have performed under value-based programs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if hospitals that received awards for high-quality cardiovascular care from the AHA/ACC were less likely to be penalized under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program (VBP) compared with other hospitals.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This national cross-sectional study included data from short-term acute care hospitals in the United States that were participating in the HRRP or VBP in fiscal year 2018.

EXPOSURES: Recognition awards for high-quality care from the AHA's Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure and ACC's Chest Pain-MI (myocardial infarction) Registry national quality improvement initiatives.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of hospitals that received a financial penalty or financial reward under the HRRP or VBP, median payment adjustments, and hospital-level 30-day mortality rates.

RESULTS: This study included 3175 hospitals participating in the HRRP and 2781 hospitals participating in the VBP in fiscal year 2018. Under the HRRP, a higher proportion of award hospitals received financial penalties compared with other hospitals (419 [85.5%] vs 2112 [78.7%]; P < .001), although payment reductions were similar (median, 0.39% [interquartile range (IQR), 0.08%-0.84%] vs 0.33% [IQR, 0.03%-0.89%]; P = .17). Under the VBP, a higher proportion of award hospitals received penalties compared with other hospitals (250 [51.7%] vs 950 [41.4%]; P < .001), and fewer award hospitals received financial rewards (234 [48.4%] vs 1347 [58.6%]; P < .001). Median payment reductions were higher for award hospitals than other hospitals (0.01% [IQR, 0.00%-0.38%] vs 0.0% [IQR, 0.00%-0.28%]; P < .001), and median payment increases were lower (0.0% [IQR, 0.00%-0.34%] vs 0.13% [IQR, 0.00%-0.60%]; P < .001). Thirty-day mortality at award hospitals was similar (acute myocardial infarction, 13.2% vs 13.2%; P = .76) or slightly lower (heart failure, 11.3% vs 11.7%; P = .001) compared with other hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hospitals that received awards for high-quality cardiovascular care from the AHA/ACC were more likely to be penalized and less likely to be financially rewarded by federal value-based programs. These findings highlight the potential need to standardize measurement of cardiovascular care quality.