Association of Medicaid Eligibility With Surgical Readmission Among Medicare Beneficiaries

Healthcare Market-Level and Hospital-Level Disparities in Access to and Utilization of High-Quality Hip and Knee Replacement Hospitals Among Medicare Beneficiaries

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to determine whether healthcare markets with higher social vulnerability have lower access to high-quality hip and knee replacement hospitals and whether hospitals that serve a higher percentage of low-income patients are less likely to be designated as high-quality.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used 2021 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services outcome measures and 2022 Joint Commission (JC) process-of-care measures to identify hospitals performing high-quality hip and knee replacement. A total of 2,682 hospitals and 304 healthcare markets were included. For the market-level analysis, we assessed the association of social vulnerability with the presence of a high-quality hip and knee replacement center. For the hospital-level analysis, we assessed the association of disproportionate share hospital (DSH) percentage with each high-quality designation. Healthcare markets were approximated by hospital referral regions. All associations were assessed with fractional regressions using generalized linear models with binomial family and logit links.

RESULTS

We found that healthcare markets in the most vulnerable quartile were less likely to have a hip and knee replacement hospital that did better than the national average (odds ratio [OR] 0.22, P = 0.02) but not more or less likely to have a hospital certified as advanced by JC (OR 0.41, P = 0.16). We found that hip and knee replacement hospitals in the highest DSH quartile were less likely to be designated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as better than the national average (OR 0.18, P = 0.001) but not more or less likely to be certified as advanced by JC (OR 1.40, P = 0.28).

DISCUSSION

Geographic distribution of high-quality hospitals may contribute to socioeconomic disparities in patients' access to and utilization of high-quality hip and knee replacement. Equal access to and utilization of hospitals with high-quality surgical processes does not necessarily indicate equitable access to and utilization of hospitals with high-quality outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

The Hand Surgeon's Practice and the Evolving Merit-Based Incentive Payment System

The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System began scoring physicians in 2017, with implementation of payment adjustments started in 2019. The program continues to evolve, with adjustments to measures, score weighting and consideration of patient complexity. However, there remain concerns about unintended consequences of this latest value-based payment program. This review summarizes the roll-out of the program in the first performance year (2017) and changes that will have an impact on payment adjustments in the 2022 performance year. Further, it explains the need for policy informed by clinical experience to protect access for vulnerable patients.

Similar hospital profits with robotic-assisted paraesophageal hiatal hernia repair, despite higher or supply costs

INTRODUCTION

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery has emerged as an alternative to traditional laparoscopy and may offer some clinical benefits when performing complex hiatal hernia repairs. Many institutions may choose to not invest in robotic surgery because of perceived higher costs, and when they already have proficient laparoscopic surgeons. We hypothesized that the robotic approach would yield lower profits overall due to higher supply costs, while offering comparable outcomes to the traditional laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

Financial and outcomes data from a single quaternary academic center was retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively collected database from July 2020 to May 2021. Laparoscopic hiatal hernia repairs and robotic-assisted repairs were compared for metrics including length of stay, operative time, hospital and supply cost, payments, and profits. Metrics of these two groups were compared using t-test analyses with significance set to p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients were included with 31 in the robotic group (42.5%) and 42 in the laparoscopic group (57.5%). There were no significant differences in length of stay (robotic mean 2.0 days, laparoscopic 2.55 days, p = 0.09) or operative time (257.6 min vs 256.7 min, p = 0.48) between the two approaches. The robotic approach was associated with higher supply costs ($2,655 vs $2,028, p < 0.001) and patient charges ($63,997 vs $56,276, p < 0.05). Despite higher costs associated with robotics, hospital profits were not different between the two groups ($7,462 vs $7,939, p = 0.42).

CONCLUSION

Despite higher supply costs and charges for robotic-assisted hiatal hernia repair, hospital profits were similar when comparing robotic and laparoscopic approaches. Short-term clinical outcomes were also similar. Programs should do their own analysis to understand their individual cost issues.

Neighborhood deprivation and Medicare expenditures for common surgical procedures

INTRODUCTION

The Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services valued based payments for inpatient surgical hospitalizations are adjusted for clinical but not social risk factors. While research has shown that social risk is associated with worse surgical patient outcomes, it is unknown if inpatient surgical episode Medicare payments are affected by social risk factors.

METHODS

Retrospective review of Medicare beneficiaries, age 65-99, undergoing appendectomy, colectomy, hernia repair, or cholecystectomy between 2014 and 2018. Neighborhood deprivation measured by Area Deprivation Index for beneficiary census tract. We evaluated Medicare payments for a total episode of surgical care comprised of index hospitalization, physician fees, post-acute care, and readmission by beneficiary neighborhood deprivation.

RESULTS

A total of 809,059 patients (Women, 56.0%) and mean (SD) age of 75.7 (7.4 years were included. A total of 145,351 beneficiaries lived in the least deprived neighborhoods and 134,188 who lived in the most deprived neighborhoods. Total surgical episode spending was $2654 higher among beneficiaries from the most deprived neighborhoods compared to those from the least after risk adjustment for clinical and hospital factors. These differences were driven in part by higher rates of readmissions (12.9% vs 10.8%, P < 0.001) and post-acute care (67.8% vs. 61.2%, P < 0.001) among beneficiaries living in the most deprived neighborhoods.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that value-based payment models with inclusion of social risk adjustment may be needed for surgical cohorts. Moreover, efforts focused on investing in deprived communities may be aligned with surgical quality improvement.

Association of Dual Medicare and Medicaid Eligibility With Outcomes and Spending for Cancer Surgery in High-Quality Hospitals

IMPORTANCE

Although dual eligibility (DE) status for Medicare and Medicaid has been used for social risk stratification in value-based payment programs, little is known about the interplay between hospital quality and disparities in outcomes and spending by social risk.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether treatment at high-quality hospitals mitigates DE-associated disparities in outcomes and spending for cancer surgery.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort study from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018, evaluating inpatient surgery at acute care hospitals. A total of 119 757 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who underwent colectomy, rectal resection, lung resection, or pancreatectomy were evaluated. Data were analyzed between November 1, 2020, and April 30, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Medicare and Medicaid DE status and hospital quality.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Postoperative complications, readmission, and mortality by DE status and hospital quality.

RESULTS

Overall, 119 757 Medicare beneficiaries underwent colectomy, rectal resection, lung resection, or pancreatectomy. The mean (SD) age was 75.3 (6.7) years, 61 617 (51.5%) were women, 7677 (6.4%) were Black, 106 099 (88.6%) were White, and 5981 (5.0%) identified as another race or ethnicity; 11.3% had DE status. Dually eligible patients were more likely to be discharged to a facility (colectomy, 15.0% [95% CI, 14.7%-15.3%] vs 23.9% [95% CI, 22.9%-24.9%]; proctectomy, 18.7% [95% CI, 18.0%-19.3%] vs 26.9% [95% CI, 24.9%-28.9%]; lung resection, 11.0% [95% CI, 10.7%-11.3%] vs 17.9% [95% CI, 16.8%-18.9%]; pancreatectomy, 23.5% [95% CI, 22.5%-24.4%] vs 30.0% [95% CI, 26.5%-33.5%]). Differences in postacute care use persisted even after accounting for postoperative complications and contributed to variation in spending. Compared with the lowest-quality hospitals, DE patients had improved rates of discharge to a facility (22.7% vs 19.3%) and spending ($22 577 vs $20 100) but rates remained increased compared with Medicare patients even at the highest-quality hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this study indicate that, even among the highest-quality hospitals, DE patients had poorer outcomes and higher spending. Dually eligible patients were more likely to be discharged to a facility and therefore incurred higher postacute care costs. Although treatment at high-quality hospitals is associated with reduced differences in outcomes, DE patients remain at high risk for adverse postoperative outcomes and increased readmissions and postacute care use.

Medicaid Payer Status Is Associated With Increased 90-Day Resource Utilization, Reoperation, and Infection Following Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Background

Prior literature has demonstrated increased resource utilization and perioperative complications in patients with a Medicaid payor status undergoing primary total hip and knee arthroplasty. This relationship has yet to be explored in patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA).

Methods

The National Readmissions Database was queried from 2010 to 2015 for all patients undergoing aseptic rTHA. 90-day complication data were collected, and patients were separated into two cohorts based on insurance payor type: Medicaid and non-Medicaid. Patients were propensity score matched 2:1 on a number of comorbid and operative characteristics. The relationship between Medicaid payor status and postoperative outcomes was then assessed using binomial logistic regression analysis.

Results

3,110 Medicaid patients were identified and matched to 6,175 non-Medicaid patients. Medicaid patients had increased odds of an early prosthetic joint infection (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.29, p=0.019), superficial surgical site infection (OR: 1.48, p=0.003), and early reoperation (OR: 1.18, p=0.045). Medicaid patients also experienced higher odds of readmissions, extended length of stay, non-home discharge status, and medical complications. Finally, the Medicaid cohort had a $3,332 (95% CI: 2,412-4,253, p<0.001) increased adjusted total cost of care when compared to the non-Medicaid cohort.

Conclusion

This study identifies the Medicaid payor status as an independent risk factor for increased resource utilization, reoperation, and infection in the early postoperative period for patients undergoing rTHA. This relationship is likely due to an interplay of multiple variables, including socioeconomic status and access to care. Level of Evidence: IV.

Intensity of end-of-life care for dual-eligible beneficiaries with cancer and the impact of delivery system affiliation

BACKGROUND

Dual-eligible beneficiaries, who qualify for Medicare and Medicaid, are a vulnerable population with much to gain from efforts to improve quality. Integrated delivery networks and cancer centers, with their emphasis on care coordination and communication, may improve quality of care for dual-eligible patients with cancer at the end of life.

METHODS

This study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry data linked with Medicare claims to evaluate quality for beneficiaries who died of cancer and were diagnosed from 2009 to 2014. High-intensity care was evaluated with 7 end-of-life quality measures according to dual-eligible status with multivariable logistic regression models. Regression-based techniques were used to assess the effect of delivery system affiliation (ie, cancer center or integrated delivery network vs no affiliation).

RESULTS

Among 100,549 beneficiaries who died during the study interval, 22% were dually eligible. Inferior outcomes were identified for dual-eligible beneficiaries in comparison with nondual beneficiaries across nearly every quality measure assessed, including >1 hospitalization in the last 30 days (12.6% vs 11.3%; P < .001) and a greater proportion of deaths occurring in a hospital setting (30.2% vs 26.2%; P < .001). Receipt of care in an affiliated delivery system was associated with reduced deaths in a hospital setting and increased hospice utilization for dual-eligible beneficiaries.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual-eligible status is associated with higher intensity care at the end of life. Delivery system affiliation has a modest impact on quality at the end of life, and this suggests that targeted efforts may be needed to optimize quality for this group of vulnerable patients.

Evaluation of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System and Surgeons Caring for Patients at High Social Risk

Importance

The latest step in the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare transformation to pay-for-value is the Medicare Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Value-based payment designs often do not account for uncaptured clinical status and social determinants of health in patients at high social risk, and the consequences for clinicians and patients associated with their use have not been explored.

Objective

To evaluate MIPS scoring of surgeons caring for patients at high social risk to determine whether this implementation threatens disadvantaged patients' access to surgical care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective cohort study of US general surgeons participating in MIPS during its first year in outpatient surgical practices across the US and territories. The study was conducted from September 1, 2020, to May 1, 2021. Data were analyzed from November 1, 2020, to March 30, 2021 (although data were collected during the 2017 calendar year and reported ahead of 2019 payment adjustments).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Characteristics of surgeons participating in MIPS, overall MIPS score assigned to clinician. and practice-level disadvantage measures. The MIPS scores can range from 0 to 100. For the first year, a score of less than 3 led to negative payment adjustment; a score of greater than 3 but less than 70 to a positive adjustment; and a score of 70 or higher to the exceptional performance bonus.

Results

Of 20 593 general surgeons, 10 252 participated in the first year of MIPS. Surgeons with complete patient data (n = 9867) were evaluated and a wide range of dual-eligible patient caseloads from 0% to 96% (mean [SD], 27.1% [14.5%]) was identified. Surgeons in the highest quintile of dual eligibility cared for a Medicare patient caseload ranging from 37% to 96% dual eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. Surgeons caring for the patients at highest social risk had the lowest final mean (SD) MIPS score compared with the surgeons caring for the patients at least social risk (66.8 [37.3] vs 71.2 [35.9]; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this cohort study suggest that implementation of MIPS value-based care reimbursement without adjustment for caseload of patients at high social risk may penalize surgeons who care for patients at highest social risk.

Adjusting Quality Measures For Social Risk Factors Can Promote Equity In Health Care

Risk adjustment of quality measures using clinical risk factors is widely accepted; risk adjustment using social risk factors remains controversial. We argue here that social risk adjustment is appropriate and necessary in defined circumstances and that social risk adjustment should be the default option when there are valid empirical arguments for and against adjustment for a given measure. Social risk adjustment is an important way to avoid exacerbating inequity in the health care system.

Assessment of Potentially Preventable Hospital Readmissions After Major Surgery and Association With Public vs Private Health Insurance and Comorbidities

IMPORTANCE

Rehospitalization after major surgery is common and represents a significant cost to the health care system. Little is known regarding the causes of these readmissions and the degree to which they may be preventable.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the degree to which readmissions after major surgery are potentially preventable.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study used a weighted sample of 1 937 354 patients from the 2017 National Readmissions Database to evaluate all adult inpatient hospitalizations for 1 of 7 common major surgical procedures. Statistical analysis was performed from January 14 to November 30, 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The study calculated 90-day readmission rates as well as rates of readmissions that were considered potentially preventable. Potentially preventable readmissions (PPRs) were defined as those with a primary diagnosis code for superficial surgical site infection, acute kidney injury, aspiration pneumonitis, or any of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-defined ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with PPRs.

RESULTS

A total weighted sample of 1 937 354 patients (1 048 046 women [54.1%]; mean age, 66.1 years [95% CI, 66.0-66.3 years]) underwent surgical procedures; 164 755 (8.5%) experienced a readmission within 90 days. Potentially preventable readmissions accounted for 29 321 (17.8%) of all 90-day readmissions, for an estimated total cost to the US health care system of approximately $296 million. The most common reasons for PPRs were congestive heart failure exacerbation (34.6%), pneumonia (12.0%), and acute kidney injury (22.5%). In a multivariable model of adults aged 18 to 64 years, patients with public health insurance (Medicare or Medicaid) had more than twice the odds of PPR compared with those with private insurance (adjusted odds ratio, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.94-2.25). Among patients aged 65 years or older, patients with private insured had 18% lower odds of PPR compared with patients with Medicare as the primary payer (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.90).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study suggests that nearly 1 in 5 readmissions after surgery are potentially preventable and account for nearly $300 million in costs. In addition to better inpatient care, improved access to ambulatory care may represent an opportunity to reduce costly readmissions among surgical patients.