Does investor-ownership of nursing homes compromise the quality of care?

Quality problems have long plagued the nursing home industry. While two-thirds of U.S. nursing homes are investor-owned, few studies have examined the impact of investor-ownership on the quality of care. The authors analyzed 1998 data from inspections of 13,693 nursing facilities representing virtually all U.S. nursing homes. They grouped deficiency citations issued by inspectors into three categories ("quality of care," "quality of life," and "other") and compared deficiency rates in investor-owned, nonprofit, and public nursing homes. A multivariate model was used to control for case mix, percentage of residents covered by Medicaid, whether the facility was hospital-based, whether it was a skilled nursing facility for Medicare only, chain ownership, and location by state. The study also assessed nurse staffing. The authors found that investor-owned nursing homes provide worse care and less nursing care than nonprofit or public homes. Investor-owned facilities averaged 5.89 deficiencies per home, 46.5 percent higher than nonprofit and 43.0 percent higher than public facilities, and also had more of each category of deficiency. In the multivariate analysis, investor-ownership predicted 0.679 additional deficiencies per home; chain-ownership predicted an additional 0.633 deficiencies per home. Nurse staffing ratios were markedly lower at investor-owned homes.     

Timing of new black box warnings and withdrawals for prescription medications

CONTEXT: Recently approved drugs may be more likely to have unrecognized adverse drug reactions (ADRs) than established drugs, but no recent studies have examined how frequently postmarketing surveillance identifies important ADRs. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and timing of discovery of new ADRs described in black box warnings or necessitating withdrawal of the drug from the market. DESIGN AND SETTING: Examination of the Physicians' Desk Reference for all new chemical entities approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between 1975 and 1999, and all drugs withdrawn from the market between 1975 and 2000 (with or without a prior black box warning). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of and time to a new black box warning or drug withdrawal. RESULTS: A total of 548 new chemical entities were approved in 1975-1999; 56 (10.2%) acquired a new black box warning or were withdrawn. Forty-five drugs (8.2%) acquired 1 or more black box warnings and 16 (2.9%) were withdrawn from the market. In Kaplan-Meier analyses, the estimated probability of acquiring a new black box warning or being withdrawn from the market over 25 years was 20%. Eighty-one major changes to drug labeling in the Physicians' Desk Reference occurred including the addition of 1 or more black box warnings per drug, or drug withdrawal. In Kaplan-Meier analyses, half of these changes occurred within 7 years of drug introduction; half of the withdrawals occurred within 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Serious ADRs commonly emerge after Food and Drug Administration approval. The safety of new agents cannot be known with certainty until a drug has been on the market for many years.     

The deteriorating administrative efficiency of the U.S. health care system

BACKGROUND AND METHODS. In 1983 the proportion of health care expenditures consumed by administration in the United States was 60 percent higher than in Canada and 97 percent higher than in Britain. To assess the effects of recent health policy initiatives on the administrative efficiency of health care, we examined four components of administrative costs in the United States and Canada for 1987: insurance overhead, hospital administration, nursing home administration, and physicians' billing and overhead expenses. Most data were provided by the two nations' federal health and statistics agencies, supplemented by state and provincial data and published sources. Because data on physicians' billing costs were limited, we estimated a range for these costs by two methods that rely on different sources of data. All figures are reported in 1987 U.S. dollars. RESULTS. In 1987 health care administration cost between $96.8 billion and $120.4 billion in the United States, amounting to 19.3 to 24.1 percent of total spending on health care, or $400 to $497 per capita. In Canada, between 8.4 and 11.1 percent of health care spending ($117 to $156 per capita) was devoted to administration. Administrative costs in the United States increased 37 percent in real dollars between 1983 and 1987, whereas in Canada they declined. The proportion of health care spending consumed by administration is now at least 117 percent higher in the United States than in Canada and accounts for about half the total difference in health care spending between the two nations. If health care administration in the United States had been as efficient as in Canada, $69.0 billion to $83.2 billion would have been saved in 1987. CONCLUSIONS. The administrative structure of the U.S. health care system is increasingly inefficient as compared with that of Canada's national health program. Recent health policies with the avowed goal of improving the efficiency of care have imposed substantial new bureaucratic costs and burdens.     

The Current and Projected Taxpayer Shares of US Health Costs

Objectives. We estimated taxpayers’ current and projected share of US health expenditures, including government payments for public employees’ health benefits as well as tax subsidies to private health spending.Methods. We tabulated official Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services figures on direct government spending for health programs and public employees’ health benefits for 2013, and projected figures through 2024. We calculated the value of tax subsidies for private spending from official federal budget documents and figures for state and local tax collections.Results. Tax-funded health expenditures totaled $1.877 trillion in 2013 and are projected to increase to $3.642 trillion in 2024. Government’s share of overall health spending was 64.3% of national health expenditures in 2013 and will rise to 67.1% in 2024. Government health expenditures in the United States account for a larger share of gross domestic product (11.2% in 2013) than do total health expenditures in any other nation.Conclusions. Contrary to public perceptions and official Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates, government funds most health care in the United States. Appreciation of government’s predominant role in health funding might encourage more appropriate and equitable targeting of health expenditures.The United States has the world’s highest per capita health care costs—about double those of other wealthy nations.1 According to both official figures and public perception, most health care funding in the United States comes from private payers. For instance, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimates that federal, state, and local governments accounted for 43% of health expenditures in 2013.2These official figures reflect an accounting framework based on who wrote the final check as money flowed from households or employers to health care providers, and exclude many indirect government health expenditures. Thus, when government pays for veterans’ care, CMS classifies it as a public expenditure because government writes the checks that fund the Veterans Health Administration. But CMS classifies government-paid health benefits for senators or Federal Bureau of Investigation agents as “private” expenditures because a private insurer pays the claims. Moreover, the tax subsidies that fund a significant share of private health expenditures (e.g., private-employer spending) are not counted by CMS as government health spending, although the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) tabulates these subsidies as “tax expenditures” in official budget documents.3In a previous study, we estimated that the public share of US health spending—after inclusion of these tax subsidies and government payments for public employees’ health benefits—amounted to 59.8% of the total in 1999, nearly double the 1965 figure.4 The current study provides detailed estimates of direct and indirect government health spending in 2013, as well as projected figures through 2024.     

Access to Care and Chronic Disease Outcomes Among Medicaid-Insured Persons Versus the Uninsured

Objectives. We sought to determine the association between Medicaid coverage and the receipt of appropriate clinical care.Methods. Using the 1999 to 2012 National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys, we identified adults aged 18 to 64 years with incomes below the federal poverty level, and compared outpatient visit frequency, awareness, and control of chronic diseases between the uninsured (n = 2975) and those who had Medicaid (n = 1485).Results. Respondents with Medicaid were more likely than the uninsured to have at least 1 outpatient physician visit annually, after we controlled for patient characteristics (odds ratio [OR] = 5.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.8, 6.6). Among poor persons with evidence of hypertension, Medicaid coverage was associated with greater awareness (OR = 1.83; 95% CI = 1.26, 2.66) and control (OR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.32, 2.27) of their condition. Medicaid coverage was also associated with awareness of being overweight (OR = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.67), but not with awareness or control of diabetes or hypercholesterolemia.Conclusions. Among poor adults nationally, Medicaid coverage appears to facilitate outpatient physician care and to improve blood pressure control.Lack of health insurance is associated with lower rates of preventive care, delays in necessary care, forgone care, medical bankruptcy, and increased mortality.1–5 The Affordable Care Act (ACA; Pub L No. 111–148) expanded Medicaid insurance for people with low incomes (< 138% of the federal poverty level [FPL]) in 31 states. However, whether Medicaid coverage improves health outcomes remains controversial. Several studies described differences in chronic disease prevalence and control between uninsured persons and those with Medicaid, but have not been designed or powered to explore whether Medicaid coverage might cause these differences.6–8Some have suggested that Medicaid’s low reimbursement rates discourage physician acceptance of Medicaid patients, limiting access to care and resulting in poor health outcomes.9,10 Recently, the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment (OHIE), a randomized, controlled trial, found that Medicaid coverage increased health care use, improved patients’ financial security and self-reported health, lowered depression rates, and raised diabetes diagnosis rates.11–13 However, the OHIE did not find improvements in other important health outcomes such as control of other chronic diseases, fueling Medicaid’s critics.14,15The rigorous design of the OHIE provides strong evidence on the impact of Medicaid in the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area where it was conducted. However, Portland’s relatively robust medical safety net for the uninsured16,17 may have attenuated the potential for health improvements from Medicaid expansion compared with other locales, or the United States as a whole.We used the nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to compare outpatient physician visit frequency among the uninsured and comparable persons with Medicaid coverage. We also assessed whether individuals with major chronic conditions had been previously diagnosed with the condition, and whether it was under control.     

Diabetes and cardiovascular disease among asian indians in the united states

CONTEXT: Studies, mostly from outside the United States, have found high prevalence of diabetes, coronary heart disease (CHD), and hypertension among Asian Indians, despite low rates of associated risk factors. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the prevalence of obesity, diabetes, CHD, hypertension, and other associated risk factors among Asian Indians in the United States compared to non-Hispanic whites. DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS: Cross-sectional study using data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) for 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. We analyzed 87,846 non-Hispanic whites and 555 Asian Indians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether a subject reported having diabetes, CHD, or hypertension. RESULTS: Asian Indians had lower average body mass indices (BMIs) than non-Hispanic whites and lower rates of tobacco use, but were less physically active. In multivariate analysis controlling for age and BMI, Asian Indians had significantly higher odds of borderline or overt diabetes (adjusted OR [AOR], 2.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.72 to 4.23). Multivariate analysis also showed that Asian Indians had nonsignificantly lower odds ratios for CHD (AOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.25 to 1.35) and significantly lower odds of reporting hypertension (AOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.82) compared to non-Hispanic whites. CONCLUSION: Asian Indians in the United States have higher odds of being diabetic despite lower rates of obesity. Unlike studies on Asian Indians in India and the United Kingdom, we found no evidence of an elevated risk of CHD or hypertension. We need more reliable national data on Asian Indians to understand their particular health behaviors and cardiovascular risks. Research and preventive efforts should focus on reducing diabetes among Asian Indians.     

Reducing unnecessary referrals for colposcopy in hrHPV-positive women within the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme: A modelling study

BackgroundWith the implementation of primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) screening in the Netherlands, an increase was observed in the number of unnecessary referrals (≤Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia (CIN) 1) to colposcopy. We aimed to investigate which alternative triage strategies safely reduce unnecessary referrals in HPV-based cervical cancer screening programmes.MethodsMicrosimulation model MISCAN was used to simulate an unvaccinated cohort of ten million 30-year old Dutch women. We calculated unnecessary referrals, cervical cancer incidence, mortality, costs and QALYs for 24 triage strategies. Condition for direct referral (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US), low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL), high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL), conditional on HPV-genotype 16/18/other high risk (OHR)), type of triage test (cytology alone or combined with hrHPV) and time to triage test (6 or 12 months) was varied.ResultsThe 24 triage strategies had varying effects on the number of unnecessary referrals ranging from ?72% to +35%. Adjusting conditions for referral to ‘HPV16/18+ and ASC-US+’ and ‘HPVOHR+ and HSIL+’ and extending the interval between tests to 12 months resulted in a reduction in unnecessary referrals of 40% (incidence +0%, mortality ?1%). Reduction in unnecessary referrals without genotyping was achieved by adjusting conditions for direct referral to LSIL (12 months to repeat test) (unnecessary referrals ?37%, incidence +2%, mortality +0%).ConclusionsTo reduce the number of unnecessary referrals without increasing incidence and mortality by more than 2% in the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme, genotyping for HPV16 or HPV16/18 should be implemented with 12 months to repeat testing.     

Costs and outcomes of Lynch syndrome screening in the Australian colorectal cancer population

Background and Aim

Individuals with Lynch syndrome (LS) are at increased risk of LS‐related cancers including colorectal cancer (CRC). CRC tumor screening for mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency is recommended in Australia to identify LS, although its cost‐effectiveness has not been assessed. We aim to determine the cost‐effectiveness of screening individuals with CRC for LS at different age‐at‐diagnosis thresholds.

Methods

We developed a decision analysis model to estimate yield and costs of LS screening. Age‐specific probabilities of LS diagnosis were based on Australian data. Two CRC tumor screening pathways were assessed (MMR immunohistochemistry followed by MLH1 methylation (MLH1‐Pathway) or BRAF V600E testing (BRAF‐Pathway) if MLH1 expression was lost) for four age‐at‐diagnosis thresholds—screening < 50, screening < 60, screening < 70, and universal screening.

Results

Per 1000 CRC cases, screening < 50 identified 5.2 LS cases and cost $A7041 per case detected in the MLH1‐Pathway. Screening < 60 increased detection by 1.5 cases for an incremental cost of $A25 177 per additional case detected. Screening < 70 detected 1.6 additional cases at an incremental cost of $A40 278 per additional case detected. Compared with screening < 70, universal screening detected no additional LS cases but cost $A158 724 extra. The BRAF‐Pathway identified the same number of LS cases for higher costs.

Conclusions

The MLH1‐Pathway is more cost‐effective than BRAF‐Pathway for all age‐at‐diagnosis thresholds. MMR immunohistochemistry tumor screening in individuals diagnosed with CRC aged < 70 years resulted in higher LS case detection at a reasonable cost. Further research into the yield of LS screening in CRC patients ≥ 70 years is needed to determine if universal screening is justified.