Association of Bundled Payments for Joint Replacement Surgery and Patient Outcomes With Simultaneous Hospital Participation in Accountable Care Organizations

Association between mandatory bundled payments and changes in socioeconomic disparities for joint replacement outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether mandatory participation by hospitals in bundled payments for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) was associated with changes in outcome disparities for patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

We used Medicare claims data for beneficiaries undergoing LEJR in the United States between 2011 and 2017.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective observational study using a differences-in-differences method to compare changes in outcome disparities between dual-eligible and non-dual eligible beneficiaries after hospital participation in the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program. The primary outcome was LEJR complications. Secondary outcomes included 90-day readmissions and mortality.

DATA EXTRACTION METHODS

We identified hospitals in the US market areas eligible for CJR. We included beneficiaries in the intervention group who received joint replacement at hospitals in markets randomized to participate in CJR. The comparison group included patients who received joint replacement at hospitals in markets who were eligible for CJR but randomized to control.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The study included 1,603,555 Medicare beneficiaries (mean age, 74.6 years, 64.3% women, 11.0% dual-eligible). Among participant hospitals, complications decreased between baseline and intervention periods from 11.0% to 10.1% for dual-eligible and 7.0% to 6.4% for non-dual-eligible beneficiaries. Among nonparticipant hospitals, complications decreased from 10.3% to 9.8% for dual-eligible and 6.7% to 6.0% for non-dual-eligible beneficiaries. In adjusted analysis, CJR participation was associated with a reduced difference in complications between dual-eligible and non-dual-eligible beneficiaries (-0.9 percentage points, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.1). The reduction in disparities was observed among hospitals without prior experience in a voluntary LEJR bundled payment model. There were no differential changes in 90-day readmissions or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Mandatory participation in a bundled payment program was associated with reduced disparities in joint replacement complications for Medicare beneficiaries with low income. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence of reduced socioeconomic disparities in outcomes under value-based payments.

Medicare's Post-Acute Care Reimbursement Models as of 2023: Past, Present, and Future

ABSTRACT

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is continually working to mitigate unnecessary expenditures, particularly in post-acute care (PAC). Medicare reimburses for orthopaedic surgeon services in varied models, including fee-for-service, bundled payments, and merit-based incentive payment systems. The goal of these models is to improve the quality of care, reduce health-care costs, and encourage providers to adopt innovative and efficient health-care practices.This article delves into the implications of each payment model for the field of orthopaedic surgery, highlighting their unique features, incentives, and potential impact in the PAC setting. By considering the historical, current, and future Medicare reimbursement models, we hope to provide an understanding of the optimal payment model based on the specific needs of patients and providers in the PAC setting.

Trends in Post-Acute Care use in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

OBJECTIVES

We sought to describe national trends in hospitalization and post-acute care utilization rates in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and home health (HH) for both Medicare Advantage (MA) and Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries, reaching up to the COVID-19 pandemic (2015-2019).

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational using 100% sample of Medicare Provider Analysis and Review file (MedPAR), the Medicare Beneficiary Summary File, the Minimum Data Set (MDS), and the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS).

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 and older enrolled in MA or TM who were hospitalized and discharged alive.

METHODS

We first calculated the proportions of MA and TM beneficiaries who were hospitalized and who used any post-acute care, as well as the total number of days of post-acute care used. We also calculated the size of the post-acute care network used by TM and MA beneficiaries within each hospital in our sample and the measured quality (star ratings) of the post-acute care providers used.

RESULTS

We found hospitalizations, SNF stays, and HH stays were all decreasing over time in both populations. Although similar proportions of MA and TM beneficiaries received SNF or HH care, MA beneficiaries received fewer days. The largest difference we found was in the number of post-acute care providers used in TM and MA, with MA using far fewer; however, quality ratings were similar among post-acute care providers used in each program.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Together, these results suggest MA beneficiaries have fewer days in post-acute care, receive care from fewer providers of similar measured quality to TM, but have a similar number of days outside the hospital or SNF in the first 100 days after hospital discharge.

Association between physician-hospital integration and inpatient care delivery in accountable care organizations: An instrumental variable analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship between physician-hospital integration within accountable care organizations (ACOs) and inpatient care utilization and expenditure.

DATA SOURCES

The primary data were Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database (2009-2013).

STUDY SETTING

Fifteen provider organizations that entered a commercial ACO contract with a major private payer in Massachusetts between 2009 and 2013.

STUDY DESIGN

Using an instrumental variable approach, the study compared inpatient care delivery between patients of ACOs demonstrating high versus low integration. We measured physician-hospital integration within ACOs by the proportion of primary care physicians in an ACO who billed for outpatient services with a place-of-service code indicating employment or practice ownership by a hospital. The study sample comprised non-elderly adults who had continuous insurance coverage and were attributed to one of the 15 ACOs. Outcomes of interest included total medical expenditure during an episode of inpatient care, length of stay (LOS) of the index hospitalization, and 30-day readmission. An inpatient episode was defined as 30, 45, and 60 days from the admission date.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Not applicable.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The study examined 33,535 admissions from patients served by the 15 ACOs. Average medical expenditure within 30 days of admission was $24,601, within 45 days was $26,447, and within 60 days was $28,043. Average LOS was 3.5 days, and 5.4% of patients were readmitted within 30 days. Physician-hospital integration was associated with a 10.6% reduction in 30-day expenditure (95% CI, -15.1% to -5.9%). Corresponding estimates for 45 and 60 days were - 9.7% (95%CI, -14.2% to -4.9%) and - 9.6% (95%CI, -14.3% to -4.7%). Integration was associated with a 15.7% decrease in LOS (95%CI, -22.6% to -8.2%) but unrelated to 30-day readmission rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Our instrumental variable analysis shows physician-hospital integration with ACOs was associated with reduced inpatient spending and LOS, with no evidence of elevated readmission rates.

Increased Neighborhood Deprivation Is Associated with Prolonged Hospital Stays After Surgical Fixation of Traumatic Pelvic Ring Injuries

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to understand the role of social determinants of health assessed by the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) on hospital length of stay and discharge destination following surgical fixation of pelvic ring fractures.

METHODS

A retrospective chart analysis was performed for all patients who presented to our level-I trauma center with pelvic ring injuries that were treated with surgical fixation. Social determinants of health were determined via use of the ADI, a comprehensive metric of socioeconomic status, education, income, employment, and housing quality. ADI values range from 0 to 100 and are normalized to a U.S. mean of 50, with higher scores representing greater social deprivation. We stratified our cohort into 4 ADI quartiles. Statistical analysis was performed on the bottom (25th percentile and below, least deprived) and top (75th percentile and above, most deprived) ADI quartiles. Significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

There were 134 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Patients in the most deprived group were significantly more likely to have a history of smoking, to self-identify as Black, and to have a lower mean household income (p = 0.001). The most deprived ADI quartile had a significantly longer mean length of stay (and standard deviation) (19.2 ± 19 days) compared with the least deprived ADI quartile (14.7 ± 11 days) (p = 0.04). The least deprived quartile had a significantly higher percentage of patients who were discharged to a resource-intensive skilled nursing facility or inpatient rehabilitation facility compared with those in the most deprived quartile (p = 0.04). Race, insurance, and income were not significant predictors of discharge destination or hospital length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients facing greater social determinants of health had longer hospital stays and were less likely to be discharged to resource-intensive facilities when compared with patients of lesser social deprivation. This may be due to socioeconomic barriers that limit access to such facilities.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Performance of Physician Groups and Hospitals Participating in Bundled Payments Among Medicare Beneficiaries

Importance

Hospital participation in bundled payment initiatives has been associated with financial savings and stable quality of care. However, how physician group practices (PGPs) perform in bundled payments compared with hospitals remains unknown.

Objectives

To evaluate the association of PGP participation in the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative with episode outcomes and to compare these with outcomes for participating hospitals.

Design, Settings, and Participants

This cohort study with a difference-in-differences analysis used 2011 to 2018 Medicare claims data to compare the association of BPCI participation with episode outcomes for PGPs vs hospitals providing medical and surgical care to Medicare beneficiaries. Data analyses were conducted from January 1, 2020, to May 31, 2022.

Exposures

Hospitalization for any of the 10 highest-volume episodes (5 medical and 5 surgical) included in the BPCI initiative for Medicare patients of participating PGPs and hospitals.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was 90-day total episode spending. Secondary outcomes were 90-day readmissions and mortality.

Results

The total sample comprised data from 1 288 781 Medicare beneficiaries, of whom 696 710 (mean [SD] age, 76.2 [10.8] years; 432 429 [59.7%] women; 619 655 [85.5%] White individuals) received care through 379 BPCI-participating hospitals and 1441 propensity-matched non-BPCI-participating hospitals, and 592 071 (mean [SD] age, 75.4 [10.9] years; 527 574 [86.6%] women; 360 835 [59.3%] White individuals) received care from 6405 physicians in BPCI-participating PGPs and 24 758 propensity-matched physicians in non-BPCI-participating PGPs. For PGPs, BPCI participation was associated with greater reductions in episode spending for surgical (difference, -$1368; 95% CI, -$1648 to -$1088) but not for medical episodes (difference, -$101; 95% CI, -$410 to $206). Hospital participation in BPCI was associated with greater reductions in episode spending for both surgical (-$1010; 95% CI, -$1345 to -$675) and medical (-$763; 95% CI, -$1139 to -$386) episodes.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study and difference-in-differences analysis of PGPs and hospital participation in BPCI found that bundled payments were associated with cost savings for surgical episodes for PGPs, and savings for both surgical and medical episodes for hospitals. Policy makers should consider the comparative performance of participant types when designing and evaluating bundled payment models.

The Association between Bundled Payment Participation and Changes in Medical Episode Outcomes among High-Risk Patients

Background: Bundled payments for medical conditions are associated with stable quality and savings through shorter skilled nursing facility (SNF) length of stay. However, effects among clinically higher-risk patients remain unknown. Objective: To evaluate whether the association between participation in bundled payments for medical conditions and episode outcomes differed for clinically high-risk versus other patients. Design: Retrospective difference-in-differences analysis; Participants: 471,421 Medicare patients hospitalized at bundled payment and propensity-matched non-participating hospitals. Exposures were 5 measures of clinically high-risk groups: advanced age (>85 years old), high case-mix, disabled, frail, and prior institutional post-acute care provider utilization. Main Measures: Primary outcomes were SNF length of stay and 90-day unplanned readmissions. Secondary outcomes included quality, utilization, and spending measures. Key Results: SNF length of stay was differentially lower among frail patients (aDID −0.4 days versus non-frail patients, 95% CI −0.8 to −0.1 days), patients with advanced age (aDID −0.8 days versus younger patients, 95% CI −1.2 to −0.3 days), and those with prior institutional post-acute care provider utilization (aDID −1.1 days versus patients without prior utilization, 95% CI −1.6 to −0.6 days), compared to non-frail, younger, and patients without prior utilization, respectively. BPCI participation was also associated with differentially greater SNF LOS among disabled patients (aDID 0.8 days versus non-disabled patients, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.2 days, p < 0.001). Bundled payment participation was not associated with differential changes in readmissions in any high-risk group but was associated with changes in secondary outcomes for some groups. Conclusions: Changes under medical bundles affected, but did not indiscriminately apply to, high-risk patient groups.

The Effect of Hospital Safety Net Status on the Association Between Bundled Payment Participation and Changes in Medical Episode Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Under Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program, hospitals have maintained quality and achieved savings for medical conditions. However, safety net hospitals may perform differently owing to financial constraints and organizational challenges.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether hospital safety net status affected the association between bundled payment participation and medical episode outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This observational difference-in-differences analysis was conducted in safety net and non-safety net hospitals participating in BPCI for medical episodes (BPCI hospitals) using data from 2011-2016 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, congestive heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

EXPOSURE(S)

Hospital BPCI participation and safety net status.

MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S)

The primary outcome was postdischarge spending. Secondary outcomes included quality and post-acute care utilization measures.

RESULTS

Our sample consisted of 803 safety net and 2263 non-safety net hospitals. Safety net hospitals were larger and located in areas with more low-income individuals than non-safety net hospitals. Among BPCI hospitals, safety net status was not associated with differential postdischarge spending (adjusted difference-in-differences [aDID], $40; 95% CI, -$254 to $335; P = .79) or quality (mortality, readmissions). However, BPCI safety net hospitals had differentially greater discharge to institutional post-acute care (aDID, 1.06 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.37-1.76; P = .003) and lower discharge home with home health (aDID, -1.15 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.73 to -0.58; P < .001) than BPCI non-safety net hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Under medical condition bundles, safety net hospitals perform differently from other hospitals in terms of post-acute care utilization, but not spending. Policymakers could support safety net hospitals and consider safety net status when evaluating bundled payment programs.

Association of Patient Outcomes With Bundled Payments Among Hospitalized Patients Attributed to Accountable Care Organizations

Question

Is receiving care simultaneously under a Medicare accountable care organization (ACO) and bundled payments associated with better patient outcomes compared with bundled payments alone?

Findings

In this cohort study of 9 850 080 Medicare beneficiaries, simultaneous inclusion in both ACOs and bundled payments was associated with lower spending on institutional postacute care, fewer readmissions for medical episodes, and fewer readmissions only for surgical episodes compared with inclusion in bundled payments alone.

Meaning

These findings suggest that receiving care under models such as ACOs may improve patient outcomes under bundled payments.

Importance

It is unknown how outcomes are affected when patients receive care under bundled payment and accountable care organization (ACO) programs simultaneously.

Objective

To evaluate whether outcomes in the Medicare Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program differed depending on whether patients were attributed to ACOs in the Medicare Shared Savings Program.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study was conducted using Medicare claims data from January 1, 2011, to September 30, 2016, and difference-in-differences analysis to compare episode outcomes for patients admitted to BPCI vs non-BPCI hospitals. Outcomes were stratified for patients who were and were not attributed to an ACO. Participants included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries receiving care for medical and surgical episodes at US hospitals. Data were analyzed between October 1, 2018, and June 10, 2021.

Exposures

Hospitalization for any of the 48 episodes (24 medical, 24 surgical) included in the BPCI at US hospitals participating in the BPCI for those episodes.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was change in 90-day postdischarge institutional spending, and secondary outcomes included changes in quality and utilization.

Results

A total of 7 108 146 beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 76.9 [12.2] years; 4 101 081 women [58%]) received care for medical episodes, and 3 675 962 beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 74.8 [10.1] years; 2 074 921 women [56%]) received care for surgical episodes. Compared with patients who were not attributed to ACOs, the association between bundled payments and changes in postdischarge institutional spending was larger among patients attributed to ACOs (–$323 difference; 95% CI, –$607 to –$39; P = .03) for medical episodes, but not surgical episodes. Attribution to an ACO also increased the strength of the association between bundled payments and changes in 90-day readmissions for both medical episodes (−0.98 percentage point difference; 95% CI, –1.55 to –0.41; P = .001) and surgical episodes (−0.84 percentage point difference; 95% CI, −1.32 to −0.35; P = .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, compared with inclusion in bundled payments alone, simultaneous inclusion in both ACOs and bundled payment programs was associated with lower institutional postacute care spending and readmissions for medical episodes and lower readmissions but not spending for surgical episodes. Receiving care under models such as ACOs may improve episode outcomes under bundled payments.

Organizational Capacity of Hospitals Co-Participating in Accountable Care Organizations and Bundled Payments

Building organizational capacity is critical for hospitals participating in payment models such as bundled payments and accountable care organizations, particularly "co-participant" hospitals with experience in both models. This study used a national survey of American Hospital Association member hospitals with bundled payment experience, with (co-participant hospitals) or without (bundled payment hospitals) accountable care organization experience. Questions examined capacity in 4 domains: performance feedback, postacute care provider utilization, care management, and health information technology. Of 424 hospitals, 38% responded. Both co-participant and bundled payment hospitals reported high capacity for performance feedback and risk stratification and predictive risk assessment using health information technology systems. The hospital groups did not differ in care management capacity, but bundled payment hospitals reported higher postacute care provider utilization capacity. Experience with multiple payment models may prompt hospitals to make different investments or adopt different strategies than hospitals with experience in a single model.

The Impact of Simultaneous Hospital Participation in Accountable Care Organizations and Bundled Payments on Episode Outcomes

Among hospitals accepting bundled payments, simultaneous "co-participation" in accountable care organizations (ACOs) could impact episode outcomes compared to bundled payment participation alone. Difference-in-differences (DID) analysis of 1 857 653 ACO-attributed Medicare beneficiaries. The study exposure was hospitalization for 24 procedure-based and 24 condition-based episodes at hospitals participating in bundled payments and ACOs (co-participant) versus only bundled payments. Study outcomes included episode quality, postacute utilization, and spending. For procedure-based episodes, patients hospitalized at co-participant and bundled payment hospitals did not exhibit differential changes in risk-adjusted mortality (DID 0.04 percentage points [p.p.], 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.28 p.p. to 0.37 p.p., P = 0.79), readmissions (DID -0.32 p.p., 95% CI -1.5 p.p. to 0.82 p.p., P = 0.59), postdischarge institutional spending (DID $119, 95% CI -$216 to $455, P = 0.49), or postacute utilization. Similarly, outcomes for condition-based episodes did not vary between co-participant and bundled payment hospitals. Payment model co-participation may produce neither synergistic benefits nor negative effects for patients.

Association of Mandatory Bundled Payments for Joint Replacement With Postacute Care Outcomes Among Medicare and Medicaid Dual Eligible Patients

IMPORTANCE

The Medicare comprehensive care for joint replacement (CJR) model, a mandatory bundled payment program started in April 2016 for hospitals in randomly selected metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), may help reduce postacute care (PAC) use and episode costs, but its impact on disparities between Medicaid and non-Medicaid beneficiaries is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine effects of the CJR program on differences (or disparities) in PAC use and outcomes by Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility status.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Observational cohort study of 2013-2017, based on difference-in-differences (DID) analyses on Medicare data for 1,239,452 Medicare-only patients, 57,452 dual eligibles with full Medicaid benefits, and 50,189 dual eligibles with partial Medicaid benefits who underwent hip or knee surgery in hospitals of 75 CJR MSAs and 121 control MSAs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Risk-adjusted differences in rates of institutional PAC [skilled nursing facility (SNF), inpatient rehabilitation, or long-term hospital care] use and readmissions; and for the subgroup of patients discharged to SNF, risk-adjusted differences in SNF length of stay, payments, and quality measured by star ratings, rate of successful discharge to community, and rate of transition to long-stay nursing home resident.

RESULTS

The CJR program was associated with reduced institutional PAC use and readmissions for patients in all 3 groups. For example, it was associated with reductions in 90-day readmission rate by 1.8 percentage point [DID estimate=-1.8; 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.6 to -0.9; P<0.001] for Medicare-only patients, by 1.6 percentage points (DID estimate=-1.6; 95% CI, -3.1 to -0.1; P=0.04) for full-benefit dual eligibles, and by 2.0 percentage points (DID estimate=-2.0; 95% CI, -3.6 to -0.4; P=0.01) for partial-benefit dual eligibles. These CJR-associated effects did not differ between dual eligibles (differences in above DID estimates=0.2; 95% CI, -1.4 to 1.7; P=0.81 for full-benefit patients; and -0.3; 95% CI, -1.9 to 1.3; P=0.74 for partial-benefit patients) and Medicare-only patients. Among patients discharged to SNF, the CJR program showed no effect on successful community discharge, transition to long-term care, or their persistent disparities.

CONCLUSIONS

The CJR program did not help reduce persistent disparities in readmissions or SNF-specific outcomes related to Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility, likely due to its lack of financial incentives for reduced disparities and improved SNF outcomes.

Spending and quality after three years of Medicare's bundled payments for medical conditions: quasi-experimental difference-in-differences study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether longer term participation in the bundled payments for care initiative (BPCI) for medical conditions in the United States, which held hospitals financially accountable for all spending during an episode of care from hospital admission to 90 days after discharge, was associated with changes in spending, mortality, or health service use.

DESIGN

Quasi-experimental difference-in-differences analysis.

SETTING

US hospitals participating in bundled payments for acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or pneumonia, and propensity score matched to non-participating hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

238 hospitals participating in the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative (BPCI) and 1415 non-BPCI hospitals. 226 BPCI hospitals were matched to 700 non-BPCI hospitals.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were total spending on episodes and death 90 days after discharge. Secondary outcomes included spending and use by type of post-acute care. BPCI and non-BPCI hospitals were compared by patient, hospital, and hospital market characteristics. Market characteristics included population size, competitiveness, and post-acute bed supply.

RESULTS

In the 226 BPCI hospitals, episodes of care totaled 261 163 in the baseline period and 93 562 in the treatment period compared with 211 208 and 78 643 in the 700 matched non-BPCI hospitals, respectively, with small differences in hospital and market characteristics after matching. Differing trends were seen for some patient characteristics (eg, mean age change -0.3 years at BPCI hospitals v non- BPCI hospitals, P<0.001). In the adjusted analysis, participation in BPCI was associated with a decrease in total episode spending (-1.2%, 95% confidence interval -2.3% to -0.2%). Spending on care at skilled nursing facilities decreased (-6.3%, -10.0% to -2.5%) owing to a reduced number of facility days (-6.2%, -9.8% to -2.6%), and home health spending increased (4.4%, 1.4% to 7.5%). Mortality at 90 days did not change (-0.1 percentage points, 95% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.2 percentage points).

CONCLUSIONS

In this longer term evaluation of a large national programme on medical bundled payments in the US, participation in bundles for four common medical conditions was associated with savings at three years. The savings were generated by practice changes that decreased use of high intensity care after hospital discharge without affecting quality, which also suggests that bundles for medical conditions could require multiple years before changes in savings and practice emerge.