Physician trajectories of abandoning long‐course breast radiotherapy and their cost impact

ObjectiveTo examine variation in trajectories of abandoning conventionally fractionated whole‐breast irradiation (CF‐WBI) for adjuvant breast radiotherapy among physician peer groups and the associated cost implications.Data SourcesMedicare claims data were obtained from the Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse for fee‐for‐service beneficiaries with breast cancer in 2011‐2014.Study DesignWe used social network methods to identify peer groups of physicians that shared patients. For each physician peer group in each time period (T1 = 2011‐2012 and T2 = 2013‐2014), we calculated a risk‐adjusted rate of CF‐WBI use among eligible women, after adjusting for patient clinical characteristics. We applied a latent class growth analysis to these risk‐adjusted rates to identify distinct trajectories of CF‐WBI use among physician peer groups. We further estimated potential savings to the Medicare program by accelerating abandonment of CF‐WBI in T2 using a simulation model.Data Collection/Extraction MethodsUse of conventionally fractionated whole‐breast irradiation was determined from Medicare claims among women ≥ 66 years of age who underwent adjuvant radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery.Principal FindingsAmong 215 physician peer groups caring for 16 988 patients, there were four distinct trajectories of abandoning CF‐WBI: (a) persistent high use (mean risk‐adjusted utilization rate: T1 = 94.3%, T2 = 90.6%); (b) decreased high use (T1 = 81.3%, T2 = 65.3%); (c) decreased medium use (T1 = 60.1%, T2 = 44.0%); and (d) decreased low use (T1 = 31.6%, T2 = 23.6%). Peer groups with a smaller proportion of patients treated at free‐standing radiation facilities and a larger proportion of physicians that were surgeons tended to follow trajectories with lower use of CF‐WBI. If all physician peer groups had practice patterns in T2 similar to those in the “decreased low use” trajectory, the Medicare program could save $83.3 million (95% confidence interval: $58.5 million‐$112.2 million).ConclusionsPhysician peer groups had distinct trajectories of abandoning CF‐WBI. Physician composition and setting of radiotherapy were associated with the different trajectories. Distinct practice patterns across the trajectories had important cost implications.     

Population‐level changes in outcomes and Medicare cost following the introduction of new cancer therapies

ObjectiveTo examine the population‐level impacts of the introduction of novel cancer therapies with high cost in the United States, using immunotherapies in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as an example.Data SourcesSurveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data in 2012‐2015 linked to Medicare fee‐for‐service claims until 2016.Study DesignWe examined population‐level trends in treatment patterns, survival, and Medicare spending in patients diagnosed with advanced NSCLC, the leading cause of cancer death in the United States, between 2012 and 2015. We estimated the percentage of patients who received any antineoplastic therapy within two years of diagnosis, including novel immunotherapies. We compared the trends in overall survival and mean two‐year Medicare spending per each patient before and after the introduction of immunotherapies in 2015.Data Collection/Extraction MethodsNot Applicable.Principal FindingsThe percentage of patients treated with any antineoplastic therapy remained the same at 46.7% in 2012 and 2015, whereas the use of immunotherapies increased from 0% to 15.2%. The two‐year survival rate and median survival increased by 3.3 percentage points (95% CI: 2.0, 4.5) and 0.4 months (CI: 0.0, 0.9), respectively, during the same period. The mean two‐year total Medicare spending and outpatient spending per patient increased by $5735 (CI: 3479, 8040) and $7661 (CI: 5902, 9311), respectively, which were largely attributable to the increases in immunotherapy spending by $5806 (CI: 5165, 6459).ConclusionsThe introduction of lung cancer immunotherapies was accompanied by improvements in survival and increases in spending between 2012 and 2015 in the Medicare population. As novel immunotherapies and other target therapies continue to change the clinical management of various cancers, further efforts are needed to ensure their effective and efficient use, and to understand their population‐level impacts in the United States.     

Practice‐site‐level measures of primary care comprehensiveness and their associations with patient outcomes

ObjectivesTo develop two practice‐site‐level measures of comprehensiveness and examine their associations with patient outcomes, and how their performance differs from physician‐level measures.Data SourcesMedicare fee‐for‐service claims.Study DesignWe calculated practice‐site‐level comprehensiveness measures (new problem management and involvement in patient conditions) across 5286 primary care physicians (PCPs) at 1339 practices in the Comprehensive Primary Care initiative evaluation in 2013. We assessed their associations with practices’ attributed beneficiaries’ 2014 total Medicare expenditures, hospitalization rates, ED visit rates. We also examined variation in PCPs’ comprehensiveness across PCPs within practices versus between primary care practices. Finally, we compared associations of practice‐site and PCP‐level measures with outcomes.Principal FindingsThe measures had good variation across primary care practices, strong validity, and high reliability. Receiving primary care from a practice at the 75th versus 25th percentile on the involvement in patient conditions measure was associated with $21.93 (2.8%) lower total Medicare expenditures per beneficiary per month (P < .01). Receiving primary care from a practice at the 75th versus 25th percentile on the new problem management measure was associated with $14.77 (1.9%) lower total Medicare expenditures per beneficiary per month (P < .05); 8.84 (3.0%) fewer hospitalizations (P < .001), and 21.27 (3.1%) fewer ED visits per thousand beneficiaries per year (P < .01). PCP comprehensiveness varied more within than between practices.ConclusionsMore comprehensive primary care practices had lower Medicare FFS expenditures, hospitalization, and ED visit rates. Both PCP and practice‐site level comprehensiveness measures had strong construct and predictive validity; PCP‐level measures were more precise.     

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.     

Medicare breast surgery fees and treatment received by older women with localized breast cancer

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether area-level Medicare physician fees for mastectomy and breast conserving surgery were associated with treatment received by Medicare beneficiaries with localized breast cancer and to compare these results with an earlier analysis conducted using small areas (three-digit zip codes) as the unit of observation. DATA SOURCE: Medicare claims and physician survey data for a national sample of elderly (aged 67 or older) Medicare beneficiaries with localized breast cancer treated in 1994 (unweighted n = 1,787). STUDY DESIGN: Multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to estimate a model of treatment received as a function of Medicare fees, controlling for other area economic factors, patient demographic and clinical characteristics, physician experience, and region. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In 1994, average Medicare fees (adjusted for the effects of modifiers and procedure mix) for mastectomy (MST) and breast conserving surgery (BCS) were 904 dollars and 305 dollars, respectively. Holding other fees and factors fixed, a 10 percent increase in the BCS fee increased the odds of breast conserving surgery with radiation therapy relative to mastectomy to 1.34 (p = 0.02), while a 10 percent decrease in the MST fee increased the odds of breast conserving surgery with radiation therapy to 1.86 (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Among older women with localized breast cancer, financial incentives appear to influence the use of mastectomy and breast conserving surgery with radiation therapy. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that physicians are responsive to financial incentives when the alternative procedures have clinically equivalent outcomes and the patient's clinical condition does not dominate the treatment choice. We also find that the fee effects derived from this analysis of individual data with more precise measurement of both diagnosis and treatment are qualitatively similar to the results of the small-area analysis. This suggests that the earlier study was not severely affected by ecological bias or other data limitations inherent in Medicare claims data.     

Quality and Cost of Care by Hospital Teaching Status: What Are the Differences?

Policy Points

• In two respects, quality of care tends to be higher at major teaching hospitals: process of care and long‐term survival of cancer patients following initial diagnosis. There is also evidence that short‐term (30‐day) mortality is lower on average at such hospitals, although the quality of evidence is somewhat lower.
• Quality of care is mulitdimensional. Empirical evidence by teaching status on dimensions other than survival is mixed.
• Higher Medicare payments for care provided by major teaching hospitals are partially offset by lower payments to nonhospital providers. Nevertheless, the payment differences between major teaching and nonteaching hospitals for hospital stays, especially for complex cases, potentially increase prices other insurers pay for hospital care.

ContextThe relative performance of teaching hospitals has been discussed for decades. For private and public insurers with provider networks, an issue is whether having a major teaching hospital in the network is a “must.” For traditional fee‐for‐service Medicare, there is an issue of adequacy of payment of hospitals with various attributes, including graduate medical education (GME) provision. Much empirical evidence on relative quality and cost has been published. This paper aims to (1) evaluate empirical evidence on relative quality and cost of teaching hospitals and (2) assess what the findings indicate for public and private insurer policy.MethodsComplementary approaches were used to select studies for review. (1) Relevant studies highly cited in Web of Science were selected. (2) This search led to studies cited by these studies as well as studies that cited these studies. (3) Several literature reviews were helpful in locating pertinent studies. Some policy‐oriented papers were found in Google under topics to which the policy applied. (4) Several papers were added based on suggestions of reviewers.FindingsQuality of care as measured in process of care studies and in longitudinal studies of long‐term survival of cancer patients tends to be higher at major teaching hospitals. Evidence on survival at 30 days post admission for common conditions and procedures also tends to favor such hospitals. Findings on other dimensions of relative quality are mixed. Hospitals with a substantial commitment to graduate medical education, major teaching hospitals, are about 10% to 20% more costly than nonteaching hospitals. Private insurers pay a differential to major teaching hospitals at this range''s lower end. Inclusive of subsidies, Medicare pays major teaching hospitals substantially more than 20% extra, especially for complex surgical procedures.ConclusionsBased on the evidence on quality, there is reason for patients to be willing to pay more for inclusion of major teaching hospitals in private insurer networks at least for some services. Medicare payment for GME has long been a controversial policy issue. The actual indirect cost of GME is likely to be far less than the amount Medicare is currently paying hospitals.     

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.     

Shared decision‐making in standardized cancer patient pathways in Norway—Narratives of patient experiences

BackgroundCancer patient pathways (CPPs) were implemented in Norway in 2015–2017 to advance cancer diagnostics and treatment initiation. The aim of CPPs is to ensure standardized waiting times, but also to strengthen patient participation and shared decision‐making. This study investigates how patients enrolled in a CPP experienced shared decision‐making.MethodsThis study comprised of 19 individual semistructured interviews with patients who had been enrolled in a CPP at three hospitals in Norway. Twelve patients had breast cancer, four patients had prostate cancer and three patients had malignant melanoma. We analyzed their experiences using a narrative approach.FindingsThis study showed how participating in a standardized CPP provided different possibilities for shared decision‐making. The patients'' narratives of shared decision‐making in CPPs included stories from the three cancer diagnoses through the following themes: (1) The predictable safeness of standardizations, (2) the ambivalence of making decisions and (3) opposing standardizations and pushing for action.ConclusionStandardized CPPs provided patients with predictability and safety. Shared decision‐making was possible when the cancer diagnoses supported preference‐sensitive treatment options. Balancing standardizations with individualized care is necessary to facilitate patient participation in CPPs, and the possibility of shared decision‐making needs to be discussed for each specific CPP.Patient or Public ContributionA service user representative from the Norwegian Cancer Society participated in designing this study.     

Appropriateness of Long-Term Acute Care Hospital Transfer: A Multicenter Study of Medicare ACO Beneficiaries

ObjectivesThere is wide variation in long-term acute care hospital (LTACH) use nationwide, the most intensive and expensive post-acute care setting, although appropriateness of use is uncertain. Therefore, we examined the appropriateness and reasons for transfer in a high-use region, and how Medicare criteria for LTACH payment identifies appropriate transfers.DesignMulticenter retrospective observational cohort.Setting and ParticipantsConsecutive hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries transferred to an LTACH from 2017 to 2018 from an accountable care organization in Texas.MethodsThe primary outcome was clinical appropriateness of transfer ascertained by 2 physician reviewers. We abstracted patients’ characteristics and primary reasons for transfer. We examined the positive predictive value (PPV) of meeting Medicare criteria for full LTACH payment [preceding intensive care unit (ICU) stay ≥3 days or prolonged mechanical ventilation] for identifying appropriate transfers, and how this differed if Medicare adopted an 8-day minimum ICU stay criterion recommended by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).ResultsOf 105 LTACH transfers, 33 (31.4%) were clinically appropriate. The most common reason among appropriate transfers was respiratory care (58%), but 42% had other indications. Inappropriate transfers most commonly were for wound care (28%), intravenous medication infusions (28%), or patient (17%) and physician preference (26%). The PPV for meeting Medicare LTACH payment criteria was 55%. The PPV improved to 77% if Medicare adopted the 8-day minimum ICU stay criterion, with only a modest absolute increase in appropriate transfers not meeting the more stringent criteria (12% to 17%).Conclusions and ImplicationsTwo-thirds of LTACH transfers in a high-LTACH-use region are clinically inappropriate, and are most commonly transferred for wound care, intravenous infusions, or patient and physician preference. Medicare payment criteria modestly distinguished between appropriate and inappropriate transfers. Adoption of MedPAC's recommended 8-day minimum ICU stay criterion could safely reduce inappropriate transfers, although generalizability to low LTACH-use regions is uncertain.     

Trust,medical expertise and humaneness: A qualitative study on people with cancer’ satisfaction with medical care

BackgroundUnderstanding peoples’ evaluations of their health care is important to ensure appropriate health‐care services.ObjectivesTo understand what factors influence peoples’ satisfaction with care and how interpersonal trust is established between doctors and cancer patients in Germany.DesignA narrative interview study that included women with a diagnosis of breast cancer and men with a diagnosis of prostate cancer. A question‐focused analysis was conducted.Setting and participantsInterviewees were sought across Germany through self‐help organizations, clinics, rehabilitation facilities, physicians and other health‐care professionals, in order to develop modules on experiencing cancer for the website krankheitserfahrungen.de (illness experiences.de).ResultsSatisfaction was related to the perception of having a knowledgeable and trusted physician. Trust was developed through particular interactions in which ‘medical expertise’ and ‘humaneness’ were enacted by physicians. Humaneness represents the ability of physicians to personalize medical expertise and thereby to convey working in the individual''s best interest and to treat the patient as an individual and unique human being. This was fostered through contextual and relational factors including among others setting, time, information transfer, respect, availability, profoundness, sensitivity and understanding.ConclusionIt was the ability to make oneself known to and know the patient in particular ways that allowed for satisfying care experiences by establishing interpersonal trust. This suggests the importance of conceptualizing the doctor‐patient relationship as a fundamentally reciprocal human interaction of caregiving and care‐receiving. At the core of the satisfying care experiences lies a doctor‐patient relationship with a profoundly humane quality.     

The Role of Value-Based Payment in Promoting Innovation to Address Social Risks: A Cross-Sectional Study of Social Risk Screening by US Physicians

Policy Points

• One of the most important possibilities of value‐based payment is its potential to spur innovation in upstream prevention, such as attention to social needs that lead to poor health. Screening patients for social risks such as housing instability and food insecurity represents an early step physician practices can take to address social needs.
• At present, adoption of social risk screening by physician practices is linked with having high innovation capacity and focusing on low‐income populations, but not exposure to value‐based payment.
• Expanding social risk screening by physician practices may require standardization and technical assistance for practices that have less innovative capacity.

ContextOne of the most important possibilities of value‐based payment is its potential to spur innovation in upstream prevention, such as attention to social needs that lead to poor health. However, there is uncertainty about the conditions under which value‐based payment will encourage health care providers to innovate to address upstream social risks.MethodsWe used the 2017‐2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (NSHOS), a nationally representative survey of physician practices (n = 2,178), to ascertain (1) the number of social risks for which practices systematically screen patients; (2) the extent of practices’ participation in value‐based payment models; and (3) measures of practices’ capacity for innovation. We used multivariate regression models to examine predictors of social risk screening.FindingsOn average, physician practices systematically screened for 2.4 out of 7 (34%) social risks assessed by the survey. In the fully adjusted model, implementing social risk screening was not associated with the practices’ overall exposure to value‐based payment. Being in the top quartile on any of three innovation capacity scales, however, was associated with screening for 0.95 to 1.00 additional social risk (p < 0.001 for all three results) relative to the bottom quartile. In subanalysis examining specific payment models, participating in a Medicaid accountable care organization was associated with screening for 0.37 more social risks (p = 0.015). Expecting more exposure to accountable care in the future was associated with greater social risk screening, but the effect size was small compared with practices’ capacity for innovation.ConclusionsOur results indicate that implementation of social risk screening—an initial step in enhancing awareness of social needs in health care—is not associated with overall exposure to value‐based payment for physician practices. Expanding social risk screening by physician practices may require standardized approaches and implementation assistance to reduce the level of innovative capacity required.     

Reducing administrative costs in US health care: Assessing single payer and its alternatives

ObjectiveExcess administrative costs in the US health care system are routinely referenced as a justification for comprehensive reform. While there is agreement that these costs are too high, there is little understanding of what generates administrative costs and what policy options might mitigate them.Data SourcesLiterature review and national utilization and expenditure data.Study DesignWe developed a simulation model of physician billing and insurance‐related (BIR) costs to estimate how certain policy reforms would generate savings. Our model is based on structural elements of the payment process in the United States and considers each provider''s number of health plan contracts, the number of features in each health plan, the clinical and nonclinical processes required to submit a bill for payment, and the compliance costs associated with medical billing.Data ExtractionFor several types of visits, we estimated fixed and variable costs of the billing process. We used the model to estimate the BIR costs at a national level under a variety of policy scenarios, including variations of a single payer “Medicare‐for‐All” model that extends fee‐for‐service Medicare to the entire population and policy efforts to reduce administrative costs in a multi‐payer model. We conducted sensitivity analyses of a wide variety of model parameters.Principal FindingsOur model estimates that national BIR costs are reduced between 33% and 53% in Medicare‐for‐All style single‐payer models and between 27% and 63% in various multi‐payer models. Under a wide range of assumptions and sensitivity analyses, standardizing contracts generates larger savings with less variance than savings from single‐payer strategies.ConclusionAlthough moving toward a single‐payer system will reduce BIR costs, certain reforms to payer‐provider contracts could generate at least as many administrative cost savings without radically reforming the entire health system. BIR costs can be meaningfully reduced without abandoning a multi‐payer system.     

Talking about breast symmetry in the breast cancer clinic: What can we learn from an examination of clinical interaction?

BackgroundBreast asymmetry is a common post‐operative outcome for women with breast cancer. Quality of cosmetic result is viewed clinically as a critical endpoint of surgery. However, research suggests that aesthetic standards governing breast reconstruction can be unrealistic and may problematically enforce feminine appearance norms. The aim of reconstructive procedures is to help women live well with and beyond breast cancer. Therefore, understanding how patients and clinicians talk about surgical outcomes is important. However, we lack evidence about such discussions.ObjectiveTo examine clinical communication about breast symmetry in real‐time consultations in a breast cancer clinic.DesignSeventy‐three consultations between 16 clinicians and 47 patients were video‐recorded, transcribed and analysed using conversation analysis.ResultsIn most cases, patients do considerable interactional work to persuade clinicians of the validity of their concerns regarding breast asymmetry, and clinicians legitimize these concerns, aligning with patients. In a significant minority of cases, patients appear more accepting of their treatment outcome, but clinicians prioritize symmetry or treat symmetry with the presence of breast tissue as normative, generating misalignment between clinician and patient.ConclusionCurrent clinical communication guidelines and practices may inadvertently reinforce culturally normative assumptions regarding the desirability of full, symmetrical breasts that are not held by all women. Clinicians and medical educators may benefit from detailed engagement with recordings of clinical communication like those analysed here, to reflect on which communicative practices may work best to attend to a patient''s individual stance on breast symmetry, and optimize doctor‐patient alignment.     

Impact of the Medicare Shared Savings Program on utilization of mental health and substance use services by eligibility and race/ethnicity

ObjectiveTo assess the impact of the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) ACOs on mental health and substance use services utilization and racial/ethnic disparities in care for these conditions.Data sourcesFive percent random sample of Medicare claims from 2009 to 2016.Study designWe compared Medicare beneficiaries in MSSP ACOs to non‐MSSP beneficiaries, stratifying analyses by Medicare eligibility (disability vs age 65+). We estimated difference‐in‐difference models of MSSP ACOs on mental health and substance use visits (outpatient and inpatient), medication fills, and adequate care for depression adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, region, and chronic medical and behavioral health conditions. To examine the differential impact of MSSP on our outcomes by race/ethnicity, we used a difference‐in‐difference‐in‐differences (DDD) design.Data collection/extraction methodsNot applicable.Principal findingsMSSP ACOs were associated with small reductions in outpatient mental health (Coeff: −0.012, P < .001) and substance use (Coeff: −0.001, P < .01) visits in the disability population, and in adequate care for depression for both the disability‐ and age‐eligible populations (Coeff: −0.028, P < .001; Coeff: −0.012, P < .001, respectively). MSSP ACO''s were also associated with increases in psychotropic medications (Coeff: 0.007 and Coeff: 0.0213, for disability‐ and age‐eligible populations, respectively, both P < .001) and reductions in inpatient mental health stays (Coeff:‐0.004, P < .001, and Coeff:‐0.0002, P < .01 for disability‐ and age‐eligible populations, respectively) and substance use‐related stays for disability‐eligible populations (Coeff:‐0.0005, P<.05). The MSSP effect on disparities varied depending on type of service.ConclusionsWe found small reductions in outpatient and inpatient stays and in rates of adequate care for depression associated with MSSP ACOs. As MSSP ACOs are placed at more financial risk for population‐based treatment, it will be important to include more robust behavioral health quality measures in their contracts and to monitor disparities in care.     

The effect of direct cognitive assessment in the Medicare annual wellness visit on dementia diagnosis rates

ObjectiveTo evaluate the relationship between direct cognitive assessment introduced with the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit (AWV) and new diagnoses of dementia, and to determine if effects vary by race.Data SourcesMedicare Limited Data Set 5% sample claims 2003‐2014 and the HRSA Area Health Resources Files.Study DesignInstrumental Variable approach estimating the relationship between AWV utilization and new diagnoses of dementia using county‐level Welcome to Medicare Visit rates as an instrument.Data Collection/Extraction MethodsThree hundred twenty‐four thousand three hundred and eighty‐five fee‐for‐service Medicare beneficiaries without dementia when the AWV was introduced in 2011.Principal FindingsAnnual Wellness Visit utilization was associated with an increased probability of new dementia diagnosis with effects varying by racial group (categorized as white, black, Hispanic/Latino, or Asian based on Social Security Administration data). Hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for new dementia diagnosis within 6 months of AWV utilization were as follows: 2.34 (2.13, 2.58) white, 2.22 (1.71, 2.89) black, 4.82 (2.94, 7.89) Asian, and 6.14 (3.70, 10.19) Hispanic (P < .001 for each). Our findings show that estimates that do not control for selection underestimate the effect of AWV on new diagnoses.ConclusionsDementia diagnosis rates increased with AWV implementation with heterogenous effects by race and ethnicity. Current recommendations by the United States Preventive Services Task Force state that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against screening for cognitive impairment in older adults.     

Patients as team members: Factors affecting involvement in treatment decisions from the perspective of patients with a chronic condition

BackgroundActive patient involvement in treatment decisions is seen as a feature of patient‐centred care that will ultimately lead to better healthcare services and patient outcomes. Although many factors have been identified that influence patient involvement in treatment decisions, little is known about the different views that patients have on which factors are most important.ObjectiveThis study explores the views of patients with a chronic condition on factors influencing their involvement in treatment decisions.DesignQ‐methodology was used to study the views of patients. Respondents were asked to rank a set of 42 statements from the least important to the most important for active patient involvement in treatment decision‐making. The set of 42 statements was developed based on a literature search and a pilot in which two external researchers, 15 patients and four healthcare professionals participated. A total of 136 patients with one of three major chronic conditions were included: diabetes types 1 and 2, respiratory disease (i.e., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma) and cancer (i.e., breast cancer and prostate cancer). Data were collected in a face‐to‐face interview setting in the Netherlands.ResultsFour distinct views on the factors influencing active patient involvement were identified among patients with a chronic condition. (1) Enabled involvement: the extent to which patients are facilitated and empowered to participate will lead to patient involvement. (2) Relationship‐driven involvement: the relationship between patients and healthcare professionals drives patient involvement. (3) Disease impact‐driven involvement: the severity of disease drives patient involvement. (4) Cognition‐driven involvement: knowledge and information drive patient involvement.Discussion and ConclusionFrom the patients'' perspective, this study shows that there is no one‐size‐fits‐all approach to involving patients more actively in their healthcare journey. Strategies aiming to enhance active patient involvement among patients with a chronic condition should consider this diversity in perspectives among these patients.Patient ContributionPatients are the respondents as this study researches their perspective on factors influencing patient involvement. In addition, patients were involved in pilot‐testing the statement set.     

Development of claims‐based measures of unplanned acute care with superior power for assessing the effectiveness of interventions following acute care

ObjectiveTo develop outcome measures that are more sensitive than current measures for evaluating primary or transitional care after hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, or observation stays.Data SourcesMedicare claims data from January 1, 2015, to October 31, 2017, for 1 261 707 Medicare fee‐for‐service beneficiaries served by (a) primary care practices participating in Track 1 of the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) initiative, and (b) their matched comparison practices.Study DesignGiven the poor statistical power in many studies to detect effects on readmissions, we developed two novel claims‐based measures of unplanned acute care (UAC) following an index acute care event. The first measure assesses the proportion of hospitalizations followed by an unplanned readmission, ED visit, or observation stay within 30 days of discharge; the second assesses the proportion of ED visits and observation stays followed by a hospitalization, ED visit, or observation stay within 30 days. We calculate minimum detectable effects (MDEs) for both measures and for a conventional measure of 30‐day unplanned readmissions, using CPC+ data.Principal FindingsRepeat UAC events are common among Medicare beneficiaries served by the CPC+ practices. In 2017, 22% of discharges and 21% of ED visits and observation stays had a UAC event within 30 days. Readmissions were the most common UAC event following discharge, whereas ED visits were most common following index ED visits or observation stays. MDEs are 25%‐40% lower for the new measures than for the standard 30‐day readmissions measure, indicating better statistical power to detect impacts of primary or transitional care interventions.ConclusionsThis study introduces two new claims‐based measures to assess quality of care during a patient''s vulnerable period following acute care. The new measures complement existing measures, covering a broader range of UAC events than the standard 30‐day readmissions measure, and yielding greater statistical power.     

Comparing the Cost of Caring for Medicare Beneficiaries in Federally Funded Health Centers to Other Care Settings

Objective

To compare total annual costs for Medicare beneficiaries receiving primary care in federally funded health centers (HCs) to Medicare beneficiaries in physician offices and outpatient clinics.

Data Sources/Study Settings

Part A and B fee‐for‐service Medicare claims from 14 geographically diverse states. The sample was restricted to beneficiaries residing within primary care service areas (PCSAs) with at least one HC.

Study Design

We modeled separately total annual costs, annual primary care costs, and annual nonprimary care costs as a function of patient characteristics and PCSA fixed effects.

Data Collection

Data were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Principal Findings

Total median annual costs (at $2,370) for HC Medicare patients were lower by 10 percent compared to patients in physician offices ($2,667) and by 30 percent compared to patients in outpatient clinics ($3,580). This was due to lower nonprimary care costs in HCs, despite higher primary care costs.

Conclusions

HCs may offer lower total cost practice style to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers Medicare. Future research should examine whether these lower costs reflect better management by HC practitioners or more limited access to specialty care by HC patients.