Use of instrumental variables for endogenous treatment at the provider level

Impact of skilled nursing facility quality on Medicare beneficiaries with dementia: Evidence from vacancies

INTRODUCTION

People living with dementia are less likely to be admitted to high-rated nursing homes than people without dementia, despite their increased care needs. We investigated the effect of admission to nursing homes with higher staffing ratings on adverse outcomes for individuals with and without dementia post-hospitalization.

METHODS

Among Traditional Medicare beneficiaries discharged to nursing homes between 2011 and 2017, we examined the relationship between facility staffing star-ratings and short-term readmission and mortality using an instrumental variables approach to account for selection bias. The instrumental variables were the number of nearby vacant beds in high-rated facilities.

RESULTS

Admission to a higher-rated nursing home lowered post-discharge mortality risk at 90 days and reduced 30- and 90-day readmission. Point estimates were larger for people with dementia.

DISCUSSION

Findings underscore the need for enhancing direct care staffing in nursing homes and addressing access disparities, particularly for individuals with dementia who benefit significantly from high-quality care.

HIGHLIGHTS

We assessed how admission to nursing homes with higher staffing ratings impacted outcomes for individuals with and without dementia by exploiting variation in local bed vacancies as a source of quasi-random assignment. For both persons with and without dementia, adjusted short-term mortality and readmission rates were lower among those discharged to nursing homes with higher staffing ratings. Effects were larger for persons with dementia, indicating welfare loss from inequitable access to higher-rated nursing homes. Increasing staffing in nursing homes and reducing disparities for persons with dementia is essential for enhancing both equity and value.

Variation in Excess Mortality Across Nursing Homes in the Netherlands During the COVID-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVES

Nursing home residents constituted a vulnerable population during the COVID-19 pandemic, and half of all cause-attributed COVID-19 deaths occurred within nursing homes. Yet, given the low life expectancy of nursing home residents, it is unclear to what extent COVID-19 mortality increased overall mortality within this population. Moreover, there might have been differences between nursing homes in their ability to protect residents against excess mortality. This article estimates the number of excess deaths among Dutch nursing home residents during the pandemic, the variation in excess deaths across nursing homes, and its relationship with nursing home characteristics.

DESIGN

Retrospective, use of administrative register data.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

All residents (N = 194,432) of Dutch nursing homes (n = 1463) in 2016-2021.

METHODS

We estimated the difference between actual and predicted mortality, pooled at the nursing home level, which provided an estimate of nursing home-specific excess mortality corrected for resident case-mix differences. We show the variation in excess mortality across nursing homes and relate this to nursing home characteristics.

RESULTS

In 2020 and 2021, the mortality probability among nursing home residents was 4.0 and 1.6 per 100 residents higher than expected. There was considerable variation in excess deaths across nursing homes, even after correcting for differences in resident case mix and regional factors. This variation was substantially larger than prepandemic mortality and was in 2020 related to prepandemic spending on external personnel and satisfaction with the building, and in 2021 to prepandemic staff absenteeism.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The variation in excess mortality across nursing homes was considerable during the COVID-19 pandemic, and larger compared with prepandemic years. The association of excess mortality with the quality of the building and spending on external personnel indicates the importance of considering differences across nursing home providers when designing policies and guidelines related to pandemic preparedness.

The health effects of nursing home specialization in post-acute care

Nursing homes serve both long-term care and post-acute care (PAC) patients, two groups with distinct financing mechanisms and requirements for care. We examine empirically the effect of nursing home specialization in PAC using 2011-2018 data for Medicare patients admitted to nursing homes following a hospital stay. To address patient selection into specialized nursing homes, we use an instrumental variables approach that exploits variation over time in the distance from the patient's residential ZIP code to the closest nursing home with different levels of PAC specialization. We find that patients admitted to nursing homes more specialized in PAC have lower hospital readmissions and mortality, longer nursing home stays, and higher Medicare spending for the episode of care, suggesting that specialization improves patient outcomes but at higher costs.

Between-Hospital and Between-Physician Variation in Outcomes and Costs in High- and Low-Complex Surgery: A Nationwide Multilevel Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Clinicians and policy makers are increasingly exploring strategies to reduce unwarranted variation in outcomes and costs. Adequately accounting for case mix and better insight into the levels at which variation exists is crucial for such strategies. This nationwide study investigates variation in surgical outcomes and costs at the level of hospitals and individual physicians and evaluates whether these can be reliably compared on performance.

METHODS

Variation was analyzed using 92 330 patient records collected from 62 Dutch hospitals who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer (n = 6640), urinary bladder cancer (n = 14 030), myocardial infarction (n = 31 870), or knee osteoarthritis (n = 39 790) in the period 2018 to 2019. Multilevel regression modeling with and without case-mix adjustment was used to partition variation in between-hospital and between-physician components for in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit admission, length of stay, 30-day readmission, 30-day reintervention, and in-hospital costs. Reliability was calculated for each treatment-outcome combination at both levels.

RESULTS

Across outcomes, hospital-level variation relative to total variation ranged between ≤ 1% and 15%, and given the high caseloads, this typically yielded high reliability (> 0.9). In contrast, physician-level variation components were typically ≤ 1%, with limited opportunities to make reliable comparisons. The impact of case-mix adjustment was limited, but nonnegligible.

CONCLUSIONS

It is not typically possible to make reliable comparisons among physicians due to limited partitioned variation and low caseloads. Nevertheless, for hospitals, the opposite often holds. Although variation-reduction efforts directed at hospitals are thus more likely to be successful, this should be approached cautiously, partly because level-specific variation and the impact of case mix vary considerably across treatments and outcomes.

The Impact of Nurse Practitioner-Led Primary Care on Quality and Cost for Medicaid-Enrolled Patients in States With Pay Parity

Studies have established that nurse practitioners (NPs) deliver primary care comparable to physicians in quality and cost, but most focus on Medicare, a program that reimburses NPs less than physicians. In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated the quality and cost implications of receiving primary care from NPs compared to physicians in 14 states that reimburse NPs at the Medicaid fee-for-service (FFS) physician rate (i.e., pay parity). We linked national provider and practice data with Medicaid data for adults with diabetes and children with asthma (2012-2013). We attributed patients to primary care NPs and physicians based on 2012 evaluation & management claims. Using 2013 data, we constructed claims-based primary care quality measures and condition-specific costs of care for FFS enrollees. We estimated the effect of NP-led care on quality and costs using: (1) weighting to balance observable confounders and (2) an instrumental variable (IV) analysis using differential distance from patients' residences to primary care practices. Adults with diabetes received comparable quality of care from NPs and physicians at similar cost. Weighted results showed no differences between NP- and physician-attributed patients in receipt of recommended care or diabetes-related hospitalizations. For children with asthma, costs of NP-led care were lower but quality findings were mixed: NP-led care was associated with lower use of appropriate medications and higher rates of asthma-related emergency department visits but similar rates of asthma-related hospitalization. IV analyses revealed no evidence of differences in quality between NP- and physician-led care. Our findings suggest that in states with Medicaid pay parity, NP-led care is comparable to physician-led care for adults with diabetes, while associations between NP-led care and quality were mixed for children with asthma. Increased use of NP-led primary care may be cost-neutral or cost-saving, even under pay parity.

The Impact of Payment Reforms on the Safety Net: Examining Effects of the New Jersey Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment Program on Quality of Care Among Medicaid Beneficiaries

The Medicaid Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment (DSRIP) program has been among the most widely adopted value-based payment strategies to drive improved population health management among safety net populations. Using comprehensive claims data from New Jersey and difference-in-differences modeling, the authors examine the impact of DSRIP pay-for-performance disease management programs on outcomes related to targeted chronic conditions. The authors find DSRIP reduced asthma hospitalizations and emergency department visits, pneumonia readmissions, and improved alcohol and drug treatment. Positive program-specific findings are encouraging for future DSRIP-like initiatives and demonstrate provider ability to successfully adapt to payment reforms.

Are Spaniards Happier When the Bars Are Open? Using Life Satisfaction to Evaluate COVID-19 Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs)

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged governments worldwide with the design of appropriate policies that maximize health outcomes while minimizing economic and mental health consequences. This paper explores sources of individuals' life satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic, paying special attention to the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). We studied the specific case of Spanish regions and focused on bar and restaurant closures using data from a continuous voluntary web survey that we merged with information about region-specific policies that identified when and where bars and restaurants were closed. We estimated an endogenous binary-treatment-regression model and found that closing bars and restaurants had a significant negative impact on happiness. The results were statistically significant after controlling for the pandemic context, health, income, work, and other personal characteristics and circumstances. We interpreted the results in terms of the positive effect of socialization, individuals' feelings of freedom, and the comparative nature of life satisfaction.

Do independent treatment centers offer more value than general hospitals? The case of cataract care

OBJECTIVE

To identify differences between independent treatment centers (ITCs) and general hospitals (GHs) regarding costs, quality of care, and efficiency.

DATA SOURCES

Anonymous claims data (2013-2015) were used. We also obtained quality indicators from a semipublic platform.

STUDY DESIGN

This study uses a comparative multilevel analysis, controlling for case mix, to evaluate the performance of ITCs and GHs for patients diagnosed with cataract.

DATA COLLECTION

Reimbursement claims were extracted from existing claims databases of the largest Dutch health insurer. Quality indicators were obtained by external agencies through a mixed-mode survey.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

There are no stark differences in complexity of cases for cataract care. ITCs seem to perform surgeries more frequently per care pathway, but conduct a lower number of health care activities per surgical claim. Total average costs are lower in ITCs compared with GHs, but when adjusted for case mix, the differences in costs are lower. The findings with the adjusted quality differences suggest that ITCs outperform GHs on patient satisfaction, but patients' outcomes are similar.

CONCLUSION

This finding supports the postulation-based on the focus factory theory-that ITCs can provide more value for cataract care than GHs.