Publications

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.

BACKGROUND: Recent policy initiatives aim to improve the value of care for patients hospitalized with pneumonia. It is unclear whether higher 30-day episode spending at the hospital level is associated with any difference in patient mortality among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries.

METHODS: This retrospective cohort study assessed the association between hospital-level spending and patient-level mortality for a 30-day episode of care. The study used data for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized at an acute care hospital with a principal diagnosis of pneumonia from July 2011 to June 2014. Analysis was conducted by using Medicare payment data made publicly available by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on the Hospital Compare website combined with Medicare Part A claims data to identify patient outcomes.

RESULTS: A total of 1,017,353 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries were hospitalized for pneumonia across 3,021 US hospitals during the study period. Mean ± SD 30-day spending for an episode of pneumonia care was $14,324 ± $1,305. The observed 30-day all-cause mortality rate was 11.9%. After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, no association was found between higher 30-day episode spending at the hospital level and 30-day patient mortality (adjusted OR, 1.00 for every $1,000 increase in spending; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01).

CONCLUSIONS: Higher hospital-level spending for a 30-day episode of care for pneumonia was not associated with any difference in patient mortality.

IMPORTANCE: Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of death among homeless adults, with mortality rates that are substantially higher than in the general population. It is unknown whether differences in hospitalization-related care contribute to these disparities in cardiovascular outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in intensity of care and mortality between homeless and nonhomeless individuals hospitalized for cardiovascular conditions (ie, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiac arrest, or heart failure).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cross-sectional study included all hospitalizations for cardiovascular conditions among homeless adults (n = 24 890) and nonhomeless adults (n = 1 827 900) 18 years or older in New York, Massachusetts, and Florida from January 1, 2010, to September 30, 2015. Statistical analysis was performed from February 6 to July 16, 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Risk-standardized diagnostic and therapeutic procedure rates and in-hospital mortality rates.

RESULTS: Of the 1 852 790 total hospitalizations for cardiovascular conditions across 525 hospitals, 24 890 occurred among patients who were homeless (11 452 women and 13 438 men; mean [SD] age, 65.1 [14.8] years) and 1 827 900 occurred among patients who were not homeless (850 660 women and 977 240 men; mean [SD] age, 72.1 [14.6] years). Most hospitalizations among homeless individuals were primarily concentrated among 11 hospitals. Homeless adults were more likely than nonhomeless adults to be black (38.6% vs 15.6%) and insured by Medicaid (49.3% vs 8.5%). After accounting for differences in demographics (age, sex, and race/ethnicity), insurance payer, and clinical comorbidities, homeless adults hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction were less likely to undergo coronary angiography compared with nonhomeless adults (39.5% vs 70.9%; P < .001), percutaneous coronary intervention (24.8% vs 47.4%; P < .001), and coronary artery bypass graft (2.5% vs 7.0%; P < .001). Among adults hospitalized with stroke, those who were homeless were less likely than nonhomeless individuals to undergo cerebral angiography (2.9% vs 9.5%; P < .001) but were as likely to receive thrombolytic therapy (4.8% vs 5.2%; P = .28). In the cardiac arrest cohort, homeless adults were less likely than nonhomeless adults to undergo coronary angiography (10.1% vs 17.6%; P < .001) and percutaneous coronary intervention (0.0% vs 4.7%; P < .001). Risk-standardized mortality was higher for homeless persons with ST-elevation myocardial infarction compared with nonhomeless persons (8.3% vs 6.2%; P = .04). Mortality rates were also higher for homeless persons than for nonhomeless persons hospitalized with stroke (8.9% vs 6.3%; P < .001) or cardiac arrest (76.1% vs 57.4%; P < .001) but did not differ for heart failure (1.6% vs 1.6%; P = .83).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There are significant disparities in in-hospital care and mortality between homeless and nonhomeless adults with cardiovascular conditions. There is a need for public health and policy efforts to support hospitals that care for homeless persons to reduce disparities in hospital-based care and improve health outcomes for this population.