Publications

There is growing concern about the health of older US adults who live in rural areas, but little is known about how mortality has changed over time for low-income Medicare beneficiaries residing in rural areas compared with their urban counterparts. We evaluated whether all-cause mortality rates changed for rural and urban low-income Medicare beneficiaries dually enrolled in Medicaid, and we studied disparities between these groups. The study cohort included 11,737,006 unique dually enrolled Medicare beneficiaries. Between 2004 and 2017 all-cause mortality declined from 96.6 to 92.7 per 1,000 rural beneficiaries (relative percentage change: -4.0 percent). Among urban beneficiaries, declines in mortality were more pronounced (from 86.9 to 72.8 per 1,000 beneficiaries, a relative percentage change of -16.2 percent). The gap in mortality between rural and urban beneficiaries increased over time. Rural mortality rates were highest in East North Central states and increased modestly in West North Central states during the study period. Public health and policy efforts are urgently needed to improve the health of low-income older adults living in rural areas.

BACKGROUND: Although the direct toll of COVID-19 in the United States has been substantial, concerns have also arisen about the indirect effects of the pandemic. Hospitalizations for acute cardiovascular conditions have declined, raising concern that patients may be avoiding hospitals because of fear of contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome- coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Other factors, including strain on health care systems, may also have had an indirect toll.

OBJECTIVES: This investigation aimed to evaluate whether population-level deaths due to cardiovascular causes increased during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS: The authors conducted an observational cohort study using data from the National Center for Health Statistics to evaluate the rate of deaths due to cardiovascular causes after the onset of the pandemic in the United States, from March 18, 2020, to June 2, 2020, relative to the period immediately preceding the pandemic (January 1, 2020 to March 17, 2020). Changes in deaths were compared with the same periods in the previous year.

RESULTS: There were 397,042 cardiovascular deaths from January 1, 2020, to June 2, 2020. Deaths caused by ischemic heart disease increased nationally after the onset of the pandemic in 2020, compared with changes over the same period in 2019 (ratio of the relative change in deaths per 100,000 in 2020 vs. 2019: 1.11, 95% confidence interval: 1.04 to 1.18). An increase was also observed for deaths caused by hypertensive disease (1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.09 to 1.26), but not for heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, or other diseases of the circulatory system. New York City experienced a large relative increase in deaths caused by ischemic heart disease (2.39, 95% confidence interval: 1.39 to 4.09) and hypertensive diseases (2.64, 95% confidence interval: 1.52 to 4.56) during the pandemic. More modest increases in deaths caused by these conditions occurred in the remainder of New York State, New Jersey, Michigan, and Illinois but not in Massachusetts or Louisiana.

CONCLUSIONS: There was an increase in deaths caused by ischemic heart disease and hypertensive diseases in some regions of the United States during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings suggest that the pandemic may have had an indirect toll on patients with cardiovascular disease.

The United States currently has one of the highest numbers of cumulative COVID-19 cases globally, and Latino and Black communities have been disproportionately affected. Understanding the community-level factors that contribute to disparities in COVID-19 case and death rates is critical to developing public health and policy strategies. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of U.S. counties and found that a 10% point increase in the Black population was associated with 324.7 additional COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population and 14.5 additional COVID-19 deaths per 100,000. In addition, we found that a 10% point increase in the Latino population was associated with 293.5 additional COVID-19 cases per 100,000 and 7.6 additional COVID-19 deaths per 100,000. Independent predictors of higher COVID-19 case rates included average household size, the share of individuals with less than a high school diploma, and the percentage of foreign-born non-citizens. In addition, average household size, the share of individuals with less than a high school diploma, and the proportion of workers that commute using public transportation independently predicted higher COVID-19 death rates within a community. After adjustment for these variables, the association between the Latino population and COVID-19 cases and deaths was attenuated while the association between the Black population and COVID-19 cases and deaths largely persisted. Policy efforts must seek to address the drivers identified in this study in order to mitigate disparities in COVID-19 cases and deaths across minority communities.

IMPORTANCE: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) use point estimates of 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) to compare hospitals under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP). An important characteristic of this measure is that it is a point estimate with a margin of error, which may affect the CMS's ability to accurately evaluate and distinguish hospital performance in the program.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the number and percentage of hospitals with a penalty status misclassified under the HRRP.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study used the bayesian deconvolution method to estimate the rate of penalty status misclassification for hospitals participating in the HRRP in fiscal year 2019, using data from the CMS Hospital Compare website that were collected between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2017. Beneficiaries of Medicare fee-for-service coverage who were 65 years or older and hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia in hospitals with 25 or more discharges per condition were included in the data set. Data analysis occurred from November 2019 to July 2020.

EXPOSURES: None.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The rate of penalty status misclassification for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia under the HRRP.

RESULTS: The study included 1633, 2626, and 2705 hospitals for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia, respectively, that participated in the HRRP in fiscal year 2019. The percentages of hospitals that should have been penalized, but were not, were 20.9% (95% CI, 16.0%-25.8%) for acute myocardial infarction, 13.5% (95% CI, 9.8%-17.2%) for heart failure, and 13.2% (95% CI, 10.3%-16.1%) for pneumonia. In contrast, the percentages of hospitals that were incorrectly penalized by the HRRP were 10.1% (95% CI, 5.8%-14.4%) for acute myocardial infarction, 10.9% (95% CI, 7.2%-14.6%) for heart failure, and 12.3% (95% CI, 9.9%-14.6%) for pneumonia.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The margin of error associated with the 30-day RSRRs resulted in the misclassification of condition-specific penalty status for up to 31% of hospitals. These findings suggest that the hospital-level 30-day RSRR measure may not reliably distinguish hospital performance in the HRRP. This has important implications for CMS value-based programs that use risk-standardized outcomes to evaluate and compare hospital performance.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid eligibility allowing low-income individuals greater access to health care. However, the uptake of state Medicaid expansion has been variable. It remains unclear how the Medicaid expansion was associated with the temporal trends in use of evidence-based cardiovascular drugs.

METHODS: We used the publicly available Medicaid Drug Utilization and Current Population Survey to extract filled prescription rates per 1000 Medicaid beneficiaries of statins, antihypertensives, P2Y12 inhibitors, and direct oral anticoagulants. We defined expander states as those who expanded Medicaid on or before January 1, 2014, and nonexpander states as those who had not expanded by December 31, 2018. Difference-in-differences (DID) analyses were performed to compare the association of the Medicaid expansion with per-capita cardiovascular drug prescription rates in expander versus nonexpander states.

RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2018, the total number of prescriptions among all Medicaid beneficiaries increased, with gains of 89.7% in statins (11.0 to 20.8 million), 76% in antihypertensives (35.3 to 62.2 million), and 37% in P2Y12 inhibitors (1.7 to 2.3 million). Medicaid expansion was associated with significantly greater increases in quarterly prescriptions (per 1000 Medicaid beneficiaries) of statins (DID estimate [95% CI]: 22.5 [16.5-28.6], P<0.001), antihypertensives (DID estimate [95% CI]: 63.2 [47.3-79.1], P<0.001), and P2Y12 inhibitors (DID estimate [95% CI]: 1.7 [1.2-2.2], P<0.001). Between 2013 and 2018, >75% of the expander states had increases in prescription rates of both statins and antihypertensives. In contrast, 44% of nonexpander states saw declines in statins and antihypertensives. The Medicaid expansion was not associated with higher direct oral anticoagulants prescription rates (DID estimate [95% CI] 0.9 [-0.3 to 2.1], P=0.142).

CONCLUSIONS: The 2014 Medicaid expansion was associated with a significant increase in per-capita utilization of cardiovascular prescription drugs among Medicaid beneficiaries. These gains in utilization may contribute to long-term cardiovascular benefits to lower-income and previously underinsured populations.

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) has penalized hospitals with higher 30-day readmission rates more than $3 billion to date. Clinicians and policy experts have raised concerns that the 30-day readmission measure used in this program provides an incomplete picture of performance because it does not capture all hospital encounters that may occur after discharge. In contrast, the excess days in acute care (EDAC) measure, which currently is not used in the HRRP, captures the full spectrum of hospital encounters (emergency department, observation stay, inpatient readmission) and their associated lengths of stay within 30 days of discharge. This study of 3173 hospitals that participated in the HRRP in fiscal year 2019 compared performance on the readmission and EDAC measures and evaluated whether using the EDAC measure would change hospitals' penalty status for 3 conditions targeted by the HRRP. Overall, only moderate agreement was found on hospital performance rankings by using the readmission and EDAC measures (weighted κ statistic: heart failure, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.47]; acute myocardial infarction [AMI], 0.37 [CI, 0.35 to 0.40]; and pneumonia, 0.50 [CI, 0.47 to 0.52]). Under the HRRP, the penalty status of 769 (27.0%) of 2845 hospitals for heart failure, 581 (28.3%) of 2055 for AMI, and 724 (24.9%) of 2911 for pneumonia would change if the EDAC measure were used instead of the readmission measure to evaluate performance. Fewer small and rural hospitals would receive penalties. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should consider using the EDAC measure, which provides a more comprehensive picture of postdischarge hospital use, rather than the 30-day readmission measure to evaluate health care system performance under federal quality, reporting, and value-based programs.

BACKGROUND: The inclusion of Z-codes for social determinants of health (SDOH) in the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) may offer an opportunity to improve data collection of SDOH, but no characterization of their utilization exists on a national all-payer level.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of SDOH Z-codes and compare characteristics of patients with and without Z-codes and hospitals that do and do not use Z-codes.

RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using 2016 and 2017 National Inpatient Sample.

PARTICIPANTS: Total of 14,289,644 inpatient hospitalizations.

MEASURES: Prevalence of SDOH Z-codes (codes Z55-Z65) and descriptive statistics of patients and hospitals.

RESULTS: Of admissions, 269,929 (1.9%) included SDOH Z-codes. Average monthly SDOH Z-code use increased across the study period by 0.01% per month (P<0.001). The cumulative number and proportion of hospitals that had ever used an SDOH Z-code also increased, from 1895 hospitals (41%) in January 2016 to 3210 hospitals (70%) in December 2017. Hospitals that coded at least 1 SDOH Z-code were larger, private not-for-profit, and urban teaching hospitals. Compared with admissions without an SDOH Z-code, admissions with them were for patients who were younger, more often male, Medicaid recipients or uninsured. A higher proportion of admissions with SDOH Z-codes were for mental health (44.0% vs. 3.3%, P<0.001) and alcohol and substance use disorders (9.6% vs. 1.1%, P<0.001) compared with those without.

CONCLUSIONS: The uptake of SDOH Z-codes has been slow, and current coding is likely poorly reflective of the actual burden of social needs experienced by hospitalized patients.

To understand how clinicians with high caseloads of socially at-risk patients fare under Medicare's new outpatient Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), we examined the first (2019) round of MIPS performance data for 510,020 clinicians. Compared with clinicians with the lowest socially at-risk caseloads, those with the highest had 13.4 points lower MIPS performance scores, were 99 percent more likely to receive a negative payment adjustment, and were 52 percent less likely to receive an exceptional performance bonus payment. The lower performance scores were partly explained by lower clinician reporting of and performance on technology-dependent measures, which may reflect a lack of practice-level technological capability. If the Complex Patient Bonus were in effect, the performance scores and likelihood of receiving an exceptional performance bonus (payment of clinicians with the highest socially at-risk caseloads) would have increased by 4.7 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively; however, the proportion receiving negative payment adjustments would have remained unchanged. The Complex Patient Bonus appears unlikely to mitigate the most regressive effects of MIPS.