ICD-10 anaphylaxis algorithm and the estimate of vaccine-attributable anaphylaxis incidence in Medicare

BackgroundAnaphylaxis is a rare, serious allergic reaction. Its identification in large healthcare databases can help better characterize this risk.ObjectiveTo create an ICD-10 anaphylaxis algorithm, estimate its positive predictive values (PPVs) in a post-vaccination risk window, and estimate vaccination-attributable anaphylaxis rates in the Medicare Fee For Service (FFS) population.MethodsAn anaphylaxis algorithm with core and extended portions was constructed analyzing ICD-10 anaphylaxis claims data in Medicare FFS from 2015 to 2017. Cases of post-vaccination anaphylaxis among Medicare FFS beneficiaries were then identified from October 1, 2015 to February 28, 2019 utilizing vaccine relevant anaphylaxis ICD-10 codes. Information from medical records was used to determine true anaphylaxis cases based on the Brighton Collaboration’s anaphylaxis case definition. PPVs were estimated for incident anaphylaxis and the subset of vaccine-attributable anaphylaxis within a 2-day post-vaccination risk window. Vaccine-attributable anaphylaxis rates in Medicare FFS were also estimated.ResultsThe study recorded 66,572,128 vaccinations among 21,685,119 unique Medicare FFS beneficiaries. The algorithm identified a total of 190 suspected anaphylaxis cases within the 2-day post-vaccination window; of these 117 (62%) satisfied the core algorithm, and 73 (38%) additional cases satisfied the extended algorithm. The core algorithm’s PPV was 66% (95% CI [56%, 76%]) for identifying incident anaphylaxis and 44% (95% CI [34%, 56%]) for vaccine-attributable anaphylaxis. The vaccine-attributable anaphylaxis incidence rate after any vaccination was 0.88 per million doses (95% CI [0.67, 1.16]).ConclusionThe ICD-10 claims algorithm for anaphylaxis allows the assessment of anaphylaxis risk in real-world data. The algorithm revealed vaccine-attributable anaphylaxis is rare among vaccinated Medicare FFS beneficiaries.     

Does Medicaid coverage of Medicare cost sharing affect physician care for dual‐eligible Medicare beneficiaries?

ObjectiveTo assess changes in physicians’ provision of care to duals (low‐income individuals with Medicare and Medicaid) in response to a policy that required Medicaid to fully pay Medicare''s cost sharing for office visits with these patients. This policy—a provision of the Affordable Care Act—effectively increased payments for office visits with duals by 0%‐20%, depending on the state, in 2013 and 2014.Data SourcesFee‐for‐service claims for a 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries in 2010‐2016.Study DesignWe conducted a difference‐in‐differences analysis to compare changes in office visits among Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries (QMBs)—the largest subpopulation of duals for whom payment rates were affected by this policy—to changes among other low‐income Medicare beneficiaries for whom payment rates were unaffected (pooled across all states). Next, we conducted a triple‐differences analysis that compared changes between QMBs and other low‐income beneficiaries in 33 states with payment rate increases of approximately 20% to analogous changes in 14 states without payment increases.Data CollectionThe study included administrative Medicare enrollment and claims data for QMBs and a comparison group of other low‐income Medicare beneficiaries (1 914 073 beneficiary‐years from 2010 to 2016).Principal FindingsNationally, we did not find a differential increase in office visits among QMBs versus other low‐income beneficiaries that coincided with this payment change. In the triple‐differences analysis, we did not observe a greater increase in visits among QMBs vs other low‐income beneficiaries in states where the policy resulted in large (approximately 20%) increases in payment rates vs states where payment rates were unaffected (triple‐differences estimate: −0.12 annual visits, 95% CI: −0.28, 0.04; P = 0.15).ConclusionsPhysicians’ provision of care to low‐income Medicare beneficiaries may not be responsive to short‐run payment changes.     

Examining Black-White Disparities Among Medicare Beneficiaries in Assisted Living Settings in 2014

ObjectiveAssisted living (AL) provides housing and personal care to residents who need assistance with daily activities. Few studies have examined black-white disparities in larger (25 + beds) ALs; therefore, little is known about black residents, their prior residential settings, and how they compare to whites in AL. We examined racial differences among a national cohort of AL residents and how the racial variation among AL Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) beneficiaries compared to differences among community-dwelling and nursing home cohorts.Study designRetrospective cohort study.ParticipantsWe included (1) a prevalence sample of 442,018 white and black Medicare beneficiaries residing in large AL settings, (2) an incidence sample of new residents (n = 94,741), and (3) 10% random samples of Medicare FFS community-dwelling and nursing home beneficiaries in 2014.MeasuresThe Medicare Master Summary Beneficiary File was used to identify AL residents and provided demographic, entitlement, chronic condition, and health care utilization information. We used the American Community Survey and prior ZIP code tabulation areas of residents to examine differences in prior neighborhoods. Medicare claims and the Minimum Data Set yielded samples of Medicare FFS community-dwelling older adults and nursing home residents.ResultsBlacks were disproportionately represented in AL, younger, more likely to be Medicaid eligible, had higher levels of acuity, and more often lived in ALs with fewer whites and more duals. New black residents entered AL with higher rates of acute care hospitalizations and skilled nursing facility utilization. Across the 3 cohorts, blacks had higher rates of dual-eligibility.ConclusionsBlack-white differences observed among AL residents indicate a need for future work to examine how disparities manifest in differences in care received and residents’ outcomes, as well as the pathways to AL. More research is needed to understand the implications of inequities in AL as they relate to quality and experiences of residents.     

Patient selection in the ESRD managed care demonstration

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service's (CMS') end stage renal disease (ESRD) managed care demonstration offered an opportunity to assess patient selection among a chronically ill and inherently costly population. Patient selection refers to the phenomenon whereby those Medicare beneficiaries who choose to enroll or stay in health maintenance organizations (HMOs) are, on average, younger, healthier, and less costly to treat than beneficiaries who remain in the traditional Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) sector. The results presented in this article show that enrollees into the demonstration were generally younger and healthier than a representative group of comparison patients from the same geographic areas.     

Potentially Preventable Hospitalizations Among Older Adults: 2010-2014

PURPOSEWe undertook a study to examine national trends in potentially preventable hospitalizations—those for ambulatory care–sensitive conditions that could have been avoided if patients had timely access to primary care—across 3,200 counties and various subpopulations of older adults in the United States.METHODSWe used 2010-2014 Medicare claims data to examine trends in potentially preventable hospitalizations among beneficiaries aged 65 years and older and developed heat maps to examine county-level variation. We used a generalized estimating equation and adjusted the model for demographics, comorbidities, dual eligibility (Medicare and Medicaid), ZIP code–level income, and county-level number of primary care physicians and hospitals.RESULTSAcross the 3,200 study counties, potentially preventable hospitalizations decreased in 327 counties, increased in 123 counties, and did not change in the rest. At the population level, the adjusted rate of potentially preventable hospitalizations declined by 3.45 percentage points from 19.42% (95% CI, 18.4%-20.5%) in 2010 to 15.97% (95% CI, 15.3%-16.6%) in 2014; it declined by 2.93, 2.87, and 3.33 percentage points among White, Black, and Hispanic patients to 14.96% (95% CI, 14.67%-15.24%), 17.92% (95% CI, 17.27%-18.58%), and 17.10% (95% CI, 16.25%-18.0%), respectively. Similarly, the rate for dually eligible patients fell by 3.71 percentage points from 21.62% (95% CI, 20.5%-22.8%) in 2010 to 17.91% (95% CI, 17.2%-18.7%) in 2014. (P <.001 for all).CONCLUSIONSDuring 2010-2014, rates of potentially preventable hospitalization did not change in the majority of counties. At the population level, although the rate declined among all subpopulations, dually eligible patients and Black and Hispanic patients continued to have substantially higher rates compared with non–dually eligible and White patients, respectively.Key words: Medicare, potentially preventable hospitalization, prevention quality indicators, trends, health care use, vulnerable populations, healthcare disparities, access to health care, health services     

Medicare beneficiaries rate their medical care: new data from the MCBS (Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey)

The Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) contains a wealth of information about the people whose care is financed by the program. This article examines their satisfaction with medical care received and explores the relationship of these attitudes with the characteristics of subgroups of the enrolled population. Satisfaction with medical care among Medicare beneficiaries is found to be generally high (80-90 percent). Disabled Medicare beneficiaries are less satisfied than the aged, and health maintenance organization (HMO) enrollees less satisfied than fee-for-service (FFS) patients. Others with lower-than-average satisfaction are people with poorer health status, those covered by Medicaid, and those without supplementary insurance.     

Shifting the paradigm: monitoring access in Medicare managed care

Medicare managed care enrollment growth points to the need to develop an approach for monitoring access to care for the increasing number of beneficiaries who use these arrangements. This article describes the issues to be addressed in designing a system for monitoring managed care plan enrollees' ability to obtain needed medical care on a timely basis. We review components of the monitoring approach used for traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare, including the conceptual framework, data, measures, and subgroups targeted in monitoring efforts, and discuss the adaptation of that approach for monitoring access in Medicare managed care.     

Do dual eligible beneficiaries experience better health care in special needs plans?

ObjectiveDual Eligible Special Needs Plans (D‐SNPs) were intended to provide better care for beneficiaries eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid through better coordination of these two programs.Data Sources671 913 dual eligible (DE) respondents to the 2009‐2019 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey.Study DesignWe compared the 2015‐2019 experiences of DE beneficiaries in D‐SNPs relative to fee‐for‐service Medicare (FFS) and non‐SNP Medicare Advantage (MA) using propensity‐score weighted linear regression. Comparisons were made to 2009‐2014. 12 patient experience measures were considered.Data Collection MethodsAnnual mail survey with telephone follow‐up of non‐respondents.Principal FindingsMore than 65% of DE beneficiaries enrolled in FFS. Of 12 measures, D‐SNP performance was higher than non‐SNP MA on two (P < .05), lower than non‐SNP MA on two (P < .05), and higher than FFS on four (P < .01). DE beneficiaries did not report better coordination of care in D‐SNPs. D‐SNP performance was often worse than other coverage types in prior periods.ConclusionsRelative to FFS Medicare, DE beneficiaries report higher immunization rates in D‐SNPs, but slight or no better performance on other dimensions of patient experience. New requirements in 2021 may help D‐SNPs attain their goal of better care coordination.     

Growth of Fee-for-Service Medicare Home-Based Medical Care Within Private Residences and Domiciliary Care Settings in the U.S., 2012–2019

ObjectivesHome-based medical care (HBMC) delivers physician or advanced practice provider–led medical services for patients in private residences and domiciliary settings (eg, assisted living facilities, group/boarding homes). We aimed to examine the time trends in HBMC utilization by care settings.DesignAnalyses of HBMC utilization at the national and state levels during the years 2012–2019.Setting and ParticipantsWith Medicare public use files, we calculated the state-level utilization rate of HBMC among fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries, measured by visits per 1000 FFS enrollees, in private residences and domiciliary settings, both separately and combined.MethodsWe assessed the trend of HBMC utilization over time via linear mixed models with random intercept for state, adjusting for the following state-level markers of HBMC supply and demand: number of HBMC providers, state ranking of total assisted living and residential care capacity, and the proportion of FFS beneficiaries with dementia, dual eligibility for Medicaid, receiving home health services, and Medicare Advantage.ResultsTotal HBMC visits in the United States increased from 3,911,778 in 2012 to 5,524,939 in 2019. The median (interquartile range) state-level HBMC utilization rate per 1000 FFS population was 67.6 (34.1–151.3) visits overall, 17.3 (7.9–41.9) visits in private residences, and 47.7 (23.1–86.6) visits in domiciliary settings. The annual percentage increase of utilization rates was significant for all care settings in crude models (3%–8%), and remained significant for overall visits and visits in domiciliary settings (2%–4%), but not in private residences.Conclusions and ImplicationsThe national-level growth in HBMC from 2012–2019 was largely driven by a growth of HBMC occurring in domiciliary settings. To meet the needs of a growing aging population, future studies should focus efforts on policy and payment issues to address inequities in access to HBMC services for homebound older adults, and examine drivers of HBMC growth at regional and local levels.     

Seasonal influenza vaccination is associated with reduced risk of death among Medicare beneficiaries☆

BackgroundInfluenza causes substantial mortality, especially among older persons. Influenza vaccines are rarely more than 50% effective and rarely reach more than half of the US Medicare population, which is primarily an aged population. We wished to estimate the association between vaccination and mortality reduction.MethodWe used the US Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) DataLink Project to determine vaccination status and timing during the 2017–2018 influenza season for more than 26 million Medicare enrollees. Patient-level demographic, health, co-morbidity, hospitalization, vaccination, and healthcare utilization claims data were supplied as covariates to general linear models in order to isolate and estimate the association between participation in the vaccination program and relative risk of death.FindingsThe 2017–2018 seasonal influenza vaccine reduced (Relative Risk Ratio [RRR] 0.936 [95% CI = 0.918–0.954]) the risk of all-cause death among beneficiaries following a hospitalization for sepsis and moreover the risk of death without a prior hospitalization during the 2.5-month outcome window (RRR 0.870 [95% CI = 0.853–0.887]). We estimate the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent a death in the ten-week outcome window is between 1,515 beneficiaries (95% CI = 1,351–1,754; derived from the average treatment effect of augmented inverse probability weighting) and 1,960 beneficiaries (95% CI = 1,695–2,381; derived from the average marginal effect of logistic regression). Among beneficiaries requiring hospitalization, the greatest death risk reduction accrued to those 85 + years of age who were hospitalized with sepsis, RRR 0.92 [95% CI = 0.89–0.95]. No apparent benefit was realized by beneficiaries who required custodial (nursing home) care.InterpretationSeasonal influenza immunization is associated with relative reduction of death risk among non-institutionalized Medicare beneficiaries.FundingAll authors are full-time or contractual employees of the United States Federal Government, Department of Health and Human Services, the funding agency.     

Using Medicare Enrollment Data to Identify Beneficiaries in Assisted Living

ObjectivesDevelop an approach for identifying Medicare beneficiaries residing in US assisted living (AL) communities in calendar year 2018.DesignWe used the following data sources: national directory of licensed ALs, file of US addresses and their associated 9-digit ZIP codes (ZIP+4), Medicare Enrollment Database (EDB), Master Beneficiary Summary File (MBSF), and the Minimum Data Set (MDS).Setting and ParticipantsA total of 412,723 Medicare beneficiaries who lived in ZIP+4 codes associated with an AL were identified as residents. Approximately 28% of the 16,682 ALs in which these beneficiaries resided were smaller communities (<25 beds).MethodsFor each AL, we identified ZIP+4 codes associated with its address. Using this ZIP+4 file, we searched through the Medicare EDB to identify beneficiaries who lived in each ZIP+4 code. The MBSF and MDS were used to exclude beneficiaries who died before 2018 and those whose AL and nursing home stays overlapped. We identified 3 cohorts of Medicare beneficiaries: (1) residents of a specific AL (one AL address per ZIP+4), (2) most likely AL residents, and (3) not likely AL residents. Comparisons across these cohorts were used to examine construct validity of our approach. Additional comparisons were made to AL residents based on the National Survey of Long-Term Care Providers (NSLTCP) and to fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare community-dwelling and long-stay nursing home residents.ResultsThe cohorts of beneficiaries identified as AL residents exhibited good construct validity. AL residents also showed similarity in demographic characteristics to the 2018 sample from the NSLTCP, and as expected were different from FFS community and nursing home beneficiaries.Conclusion and ImplicationsWe developed a methodology for identifying Medicare beneficiaries who reside in ALs. As this residential setting continues to grow, future studies will need effective approaches for identifying AL residents in order to evaluate the quality of care they receive.     

Medicare immunosuppressant coverage and access to kidney transplantation: A retrospective national cohort study

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In December 2000, Medicare eliminated time limitations in immunosuppressant coverage after kidney transplant for beneficiaries age [GREATER-THAN OR EQUAL TO]65 and those who were disabled. This change did not apply to younger non-disabled beneficiaries who qualified for Medicare only because of their end-stage renal disease (ESRD). We sought to examine access to waitlisting for kidney transplantation in a cohort spanning this policy change. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of 241,150 Medicare beneficiaries in the United States Renal Data System who initiated chronic dialysis between 1/1/96 and 11/30/03. We fit interrupted time series Cox proportional hazard models to compare access to kidney transplant waitlist within 12 months of initiating chronic dialysis by age/disability status, accounting for secular trends. RESULTS: Beneficiaries age <65 who were not disabled were less likely to be waitlisted after the policy change (hazard ratio (HR) for the later vs. earlier period, 0.93, p = 0.002), after adjusting for sociodemographic factors, co-morbid conditions, income, and ESRD network. There was no evidence of secular trend in this group (HR per year, 1.00, p = 0.989). Likelihood of being waitlisted among those age [GREATER-THAN OR EQUAL TO]65 or disabled increased steadily throughout the study period (HR per year, 1.04, p < 0.001), but was not clearly affected by the policy change (HR for the immediate effect of policy change, 0.93, p = 0.135). CONCLUSIONS: The most recent extension in Medicare immunosuppressant coverage appears to have had little impact on the already increasing access to waitlisting among [GREATER-THAN OR EQUAL TO]65/ disabled beneficiaries eligible for the benefit but may have decreased access for younger, non-disabled beneficiaries who were not. The potential ramifications of policies on candidacy appeal for access to kidney transplantation should be considered.     

Beneficiary characteristics and vaccinations in the end-stage renal disease Medicare beneficiary population,an analysis of claims data 2006–2015

BackgroundThe Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) routinely recommends three vaccines – influenza, hepatitis B, and pneumococcal vaccines – for End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) dialysis patients.MethodsWe sought to assess vaccination coverage among fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD who received Part B dialysis services at any point from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2015 (through June 30, 2016 for influenza). To assess influenza vaccination rates in a given influenza season, we restricted the population to beneficiaries who were continuously enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B throughout all twelve months of that season. To assess hepatitis B and pneumococcal vaccine coverage following dialysis initiation, we developed a Kaplan-Meier curve for all patients who began dialysis between 2006 and 2015.ResultsFor influenza vaccination, we identified an average of approximately 325,000 ESRD dialysis beneficiaries enrolled through each influenza season from 2006–2015. Seasonal influenza vaccination rates steadily increased during the 10-year period, from 52% in 2006–2007 to 71% in 2015–2016. The greatest increases in influenza vaccination appear in non-white beneficiaries with overall utilization in non-whites higher than in whites (p < .001). For the hepatitis B and pneumococcal vaccinations, we identified over 350,000 ESRD dialysis beneficiaries who began dialysis over the 10-year study window. The probability of receiving a hepatitis B vaccine within the first three years of entering into the ESRD program was higher (77%) than the probability of receiving any pneumococcal vaccine (53%). 45% of ESRD patients completed at least one dose of the two hepatitis B series (three-dose or four-dose) at any time during the study period.ConclusionsOpportunities exist at regional and facility levels to improve vaccination coverage. Compliance to ACIP recommendations may directly affect risk for ESRD dialysis patients for complications from diseases that can be mitigated by vaccination.     

Continuity of primary care and prenatal care adequacy among women with disabilities in Ontario: A population-based cohort study

BackgroundWomen with disabilities experience elevated risks for pregnancy complications and report barriers accessing prenatal care. Emerging evidence highlights the significant role primary care providers play in promoting preventive services like prenatal care.ObjectiveTo examine the relationship between continuity of primary care (COC) and prenatal care adequacy among women with disabilities.MethodsWe conducted a population-based study using health administrative data in Ontario, Canada. The study population included 15- to 49-year-old women with physical (n = 106,555), sensory (n = 32,194), intellectual/developmental (n = 1515), and multiple (n = 6543) disabilities who had a singleton livebirth or stillbirth in 2003–2017 and ≥ 3 primary care visits < 2 years before conception. COC was measured using the Usual Provider of Care Index. Nominal logistic regression was used to compute adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for prenatal care adequacy, measured using the Revised-Graduated Prenatal Care Utilization Index, for women with low versus moderate/high COC, controlling for other social and medical characteristics.ResultsWomen with disabilities with low COC, versus those with moderate/high COC, had increased odds of no (aOR 1.42, 95% CI 1.29–1.56), inadequate (aOR 1.19, 95% CI 1.16–1.23), and intensive prenatal care (aOR 1.22, 95% CI 1.19–1.25) versus adequate. In additional analyses, women with low COC and no/inadequate prenatal care were the most socially disadvantaged among the cohort, and those with low COC and intensive prenatal care had the greatest medical need.ConclusionImproving primary care access for women with disabilities, particularly those experiencing social disadvantage, could lead to better prenatal care access.     

Access and satisfaction within the disabled Medicare population

Little is known about variations in the levels of access and satisfaction within the disabled Medicare population. Based on the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS), beneficiaries under 65 years of age were classified by original reason for disability (mental versus physical). Those with a mental disability were less likely to have a private physician as a usual source; were less satisfied with the overall quality of care, availability of after-hours care, followup care, and coordination of care; and were more likely to report unmet need, owing in large part to supply barriers. Implications for the current delivery system and for design of managed care programs are discussed.     

Disabled Medicare beneficiaries by dual eligible status: California, 1996-2001

This highlight describes the characteristics and inpatient utilization of under age 65 disabled California Medicare beneficiaries by dual eligible status (i.e., Medicaid State buy-in coverage or not). More disabled dually eligible beneficiaries are younger, non-White, and in fee-for-service (FFS) than non-dually eligible beneficiaries. Disabled dually eligible beneficiaries experienced consistently higher hospitalization rates and average length of stay (LOS) than nondually eligible beneficiaries from 1996 to 2001. Inpatient days remain higher among dually eligible beneficiaries when stratified by the system of care, age, sex, or race. In addition, the hospitalization rate of disabled dually eligible beneficiaries was higher for most diagnoses, but how much higher varied by condition.     

The effect of HMOs on the inpatient utilization of medicare beneficiaries

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of joining HMOs (health maintenance organizations) on the inpatient utilization of Medicare beneficiaries. DATA SOURCES: We linked enrollment data on Medicare beneficiaries to patient discharge data from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) for 1991-1995. DESIGN AND SAMPLE: A quasi-experimental design comparing inpatient utilization before and after switching from fee-for-service (FFS) to Medicare HMOs; with comparison groups of continuous FFS and HMO beneficiaries to adjust for aging and secular trends. The sample consisted of 124,111 Medicare beneficiaries who switched from FFS to HMOs in 1992 and 1993, and random samples of 108,966 continuous FFS beneficiaries and 18,276 continuous HMO enrollees yielding 1,227,105 person-year observations over five years. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE: Total inpatient days per thousand per year. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: When beneficiaries joined a group/staff HMO, their total days per year were 18 percent lower (95 percent confidence interval, 15-22 percent) than if the beneficiaries had remained in FFS. Total days per year were reduced less for beneficiaries joining an IPA (independent practice association) HMO (11 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 4-19 percent). Medicare group/staff and IPA-model HMO enrollees had roughly 60 percent of the inpatient days per thousand beneficiaries in 1995 as did FFS beneficiaries (976 and 928 versus 1,679 days per thousand, respectively). In the group/staff model HMOs, our analysis suggests that managed care practices accounted for 214 days of this difference, and the remaining 489 days (70 percent) were due to favorable selection. In IPA HMOs, managed care practices appear to account for only 115 days, with 636 days (85 percent) due to selection. CONCLUSIONS: Through the mid-nineties, Medicare HMOs in California were able to reduce inpatient utilization beyond that attributable to the high level of favorable selection, but the reduction varied by type of HMO.     

Association of Race and Poverty With Mortality Among Nursing Home Residents on Maintenance Dialysis

ObjectivesThe association of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic factors with survival rates of nursing home (NH) residents with treated end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is unclear. We examined whether race/ethnicity, ZIP code–level, and individual-level indicators of poverty relate to mortality of NH residents on dialysis.DesignRetrospective cohort study.Participants/SettingUsing the United States Renal Data System database, we identified 56,194 nursing home residents initiated on maintenance dialysis from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2013, followed until May 31, 2014.MeasurementsWe evaluated baseline characteristics of the NH cohort on dialysis, including race and ethnicity. We assessed the Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility status as an indicator of individual-level poverty and ZIP code–level median household income (MHI) data. We conducted Cox regression analyses with all-cause mortality as the outcome variable, adjusted for clinical and sociodemographic factors including end-of-life preferences.ResultsAdjusted Cox analysis showed a significantly lower risk of death among black vs nonblack NH residents [adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89, 0.94]. Dual-eligibility status was significantly associated with lower risk of death compared to those with Medicare alone (AHR 0.80, 95% CI 0.78, 0.82). Compared to those in higher MHI quintile levels, NH ESRD patients in the lowest quintile were significantly associated with higher risk of death (AHR 1.09, 95% CI 1.06, 1.13).Conclusions/ImplicationsBlack and Hispanic NH residents on dialysis had an apparent survival advantage. This “survival paradox” occurs despite well-documented racial/ethnic disparities in ESRD and NH care and warrants further exploration that could generate new insights into means of improving survival of all NH residents on dialysis. Area-level indicator of poverty was independently associated with mortality, whereas dual-eligibility status for Medicare and Medicaid was associated with lower risk of death, which could be partly explained by improved access to care.