Hospice for nursing home residents: does ownership type matter?

Quality of Nonprofit Hospice Affiliated With Integrated Healthcare Systems

CONTEXT

Research shows hospice primary caregivers report better quality of care at Nonprofit (NP) than For-Profit (FP) hospices, but there is variation in quality across NP hospices.

OBJECTIVE

Examine bereaved caregiver reports of the quality as a factor of whether NP hospices are part of an integrated healthcare system that included an acute care hospital.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of NP Hospices used star ratings and adjusted hospice composite quality scores May 2023 publicly data reported on the Care Compare website. Using organizational website information, we compared hospices part of an integrated healthcare system with at least one acute care hospital to hospices without that affiliation. Primary outcomes were overall hospice adjusted CAHPs score and star ratings.

RESULTS

Nearly one-half (44.5%) of 645 NP hospices were part of integrated healthcare systems. Overall hospice CAHPs scores did not differ by organizational affiliation, mean score 82 [95% CI 82.8-83.6] for hospice part of integrated system vs 83.3 [95% CI 82.9-83.7] those without that affiliation), nor did mean star ratings (3.7 [ 95% CI 3.6-3.8] vs. 3.8[ 95% CI 3.7-3.8]) and CAHPs scores 3 points or more below the national average (29.5%[95% CI 24.3-35.1] vs 30.8%[ 95% CI 26.0-35.9]). State fixed-effects models showed a trend towards lower quality among hospice in integrated systems but did not reach conventional statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

CAHPs hospice scores did not differ if a hospice was part of integrated healthcare system or not. Further research is needed on variation in quality in NP hospices.

Perspectives on Transfusions for Hospice Patients With Blood Cancers: A Survey of Hospice Providers

CONTEXT

Patients with blood cancers have low rates of hospice use. While lack of transfusion access in hospice is posited to substantially contribute to these low rates, little is known about the perspectives of hospice providers regarding transfusion access in hospice.

OBJECTIVES

To characterize hospice providers' perspectives regarding care for patients with blood cancers and transfusions in the hospice setting.

METHODS

In 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of a sample of hospices in the United States regarding their experience caring for patients with blood cancers, perceived barriers to hospice use, and interventions to increase enrollment.

RESULTS

We received 113 completed surveys (response rate = 23.5%). Of the cohort, 2.7% reported that their agency always offers transfusions, 40.7% reported sometimes offering transfusions, and 54.9% reported never offering transfusions. In multivariable analyses, factors associated with offering transfusions included nonprofit ownership (OR 5.93, 95% CI, 2.2-15.2) and daily census >50 patients (OR 3.06, 95% CI, 1.19-7.87). Most respondents (76.6%) identified lack of transfusion access in hospice as a barrier to hospice enrollment for blood cancer patients. The top intervention considered as "very helpful" for increasing enrollment was additional reimbursement for transfusions (72.1%).

CONCLUSION

In this national sample of hospices, access to palliative transfusions was severely limited and was considered a significant barrier to hospice use for blood cancer patients. Moreover, hospices felt increased reimbursement for transfusions would be an important intervention. These data suggest that hospice providers are supportive of increasing transfusion access and highlight the critical need for innovative hospice payment models to improve end-of-life care for patients with blood cancers.

Hospice agency characteristics associated with benzodiazepine and antipsychotic prescribing

BACKGROUND

Benzodiazepine and antipsychotic medications are routinely prescribed for symptom management in hospice patients, but have significant risks for older adults. We explored the extent to which patient and hospice agency characteristics are associated with variations in their prescribing.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of hospice-enrolled Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years in 2017 (N = 1,393,622 in 4219 hospice agencies). The main outcome was the hospice agency-level rate of enrollees with benzodiazepine and antipsychotic prescription fills divided into quintiles. Rate ratios were used to compare the agencies with the highest and lowest prescription across patient and agency characteristics.

RESULTS

In 2017, hospice agency prescribing rates varied widely: for benzodiazepines, from a median of 11.9% (IQR 5.9,22.2) in the lowest-prescribing quintile to 80.0% (IQR 76.9,84.2) in the highest-prescribing quintile; for antipsychotics, it ranged from 5.5% (IQR 2.9,7.7) in the lowest to 63.9% (IQR 56.1,72.0) in the highest. Among the highest benzodiazepine- and antipsychotic- prescribing hospice agencies, there was a smaller proportion of patients from minoritized populations (benzodiazepine: non-Hispanic Black rate ratio [RR] [Q5/Q1] 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.7, Hispanic RR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.5; antipsychotic: non-Hispanic Black RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.8, Hispanic RR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.5). A greater proportion of rural beneficiaries were in the highest benzodiazepine-prescribing quintile (RR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.4), whereas this relationship was not present for antipsychotics. Larger hospice agencies were over-represented in the highest prescribing quintile for both benzodiazepines (RR 2.6, 95% CI 2.5-2.7) and antipsychotics (RR 2.7, 95% CI 2.6-2.8), as were for-profit agencies (benzodiazepine: RR 2.4, 95% CI 2.3-2.4; antipsychotic: RR 2.3, 95% CI 2.2-2.4). Prescribing rates varied widely across Census regions.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribing in hospice settings varies markedly across factors other than the clinical characteristics of enrolled patients.

Association of Hospice Profit Status With Family Caregivers' Reported Care Experiences

Importance

Expansive growth in the US hospice market has been driven almost exclusively by an increase in for-profit hospices. Prior research found that, in contrast to not-for-profit hospices, for-profit hospices focus on delivering care to patients in nursing homes, provide fewer nursing visits, and use less skilled staff. However, prior studies have not reported on the associations of these differences in care patterns with hospice care quality. Patient- and family-centeredness is a core element of hospice care quality that is measured through surveys of care experiences.

Objective

To examine whether differences in profit status are associated with family caregivers' reports of hospice care experiences and assess factors that may be associated with observed differences in care experiences by profit status.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Hospice Survey data from 653 208 caregiver respondents, reflecting care received from 3107 hospices between April 2017 and March 2019, were used for a cross-sectional examination of hospice care experiences by profit status. Data analysis was performed from January 2020 to November 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes were case-mix-adjusted and mode-adjusted top-box scores for 8 measures of hospice care experiences, including communication, timely care, symptom management, and emotional and religious support, as well as a summary score averaging across measures. Linear regression examined the association between profit status and hospice-level scores, adjusting for other organizational and structural hospice characteristics.

Results

There were 906 not-for-profit and 1761 for-profit hospices with mean (SD) time in operation of 25.7 (7.8) years and 13.8 (8.0) years, respectively. Mean (SD) decedent age at death was 82.8 (2.3) years, similar for not-for-profit and for-profit hospices. The mean proportion of patients who were Black, Hispanic, and White was 4.9%, 0.9%, and 91.4% for not-for-profit hospices and 9.0%, 2.2%, and 85.4% for for-profit hospices, respectively. Family caregivers reported worse care experiences at for-profit hospices than at not-for-profit hospices for all measures. Significant differences in average hospice performance by profit status remained after adjusting for hospice characteristics. However, for-profit hospice performance varied, with 548 of 1761 (31.1%) for-profit hospices scoring 3 or more points below the national hospice average of overall performance and 386 of 1761 (21.9%) scoring 3 or more points above the average. In contrast, only 113 of 906 (12.5%) not-for-profit hospices scored 3 or more points below the average, and 305 of 906 (33.7%) scored 3 or more points above the average.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of CAHPS Hospice Survey data, caregivers of patients receiving hospice care reported substantially worse care experiences in for-profit than in not-for-profit hospices; however, there was variation in reported experiences among both types of hospices. Public reporting of hospice quality is important.

Will For-Profits Keep Up the Pace in the United States? The Future of the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly and Implications for Other Programs Serving Medically Vulnerable Populations

The Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) has provided, for more than 4 decades, high-quality, cost-effective medical and social care to older people in the United States under nonprofit ownership. Recent rulings by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), however, will fundamentally change the initial intent and operation of the program. CMS's final rule (4168-F) removes the provision that PACE operators be nonprofit. This article provides the legislative background for the final ruling and critiques the study that was used to justify the removal of the nonprofit provision. Although the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 listed a number of requirements for evaluating for-profit PACE programs, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services did not follow them before establishing for-profit PACE sites as permanent providers. It also argues that the ruling was made without much evidence that for-profit compared to nonprofit operators can provide a similar level of quality of care, access, and cost-effectiveness and urges policymakers to increase regulatory accountability, given what we know about other shifts in profit status and health care.

Systematic review of the hospice performance literature

BACKGROUND

Hospice is the key provider of end-of-life care to patients. As the number of U.S. hospice agencies has rapidly increased, the performance has been scrutinized more deeply.

PURPOSE

To foster understanding of how hospice performance is measured and what factors are associated with performance, we conducted a systematic review of empirical research on hospice performance in the United States.

METHODS

Both structure-process-outcome and structure-conduct-performance frameworks were applied to categorize and summarize the hospice performance literature. A total of 36 studies were included in the systematic review.

RESULTS

Hospice agencies adopted different strategies (e.g., service provision strategy and staffing strategy) to improve performance. Two strategic approaches (innovation and volunteer usage) were associated with better outcomes. Hospice organizational factors, market environment, and patient characteristics were related to hospice strategic conduct and performance. Majority of hospice performance studies have examined the relationship between hospice structure and strategic conduct/process, with fewer studies focusing on structure performance and even fewer concentrating on strategy performance.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Patient, organizational, and market factors are associated with hospice strategic conduct and performance. The majority of the literature considered the impact of hospice organizational characteristics, whereas only a few studies included patient and market factors. The summarization of factors that may influence hospice performance provides insight to different stakeholders.

The Effect of Residential Aged Care Size, Ownership Model, and Multichain Affiliation on Resident Comfort and Symptom Management at the End of Life

CONTEXT

In most resource-rich countries, a large and growing proportion of older adults with complex needs will die while in a residential aged care (RAC) facility.

OBJECTIVES

This study describes the impact of facility size (small/large), ownership model (profit/nonprofit) and provider (independent/chain) on resident comfort, and symptom management as reported by RAC staff.

METHODS

This retrospective "after-death" study collected decedent resident data from a subsample of 51 hospital-level RAC facilities in New Zealand. Symptom Management at the End-of-Life in Dementia and Comfort Assessment in Dying at End of life with Dementia (SM-EOLD and CAD-EOLD, respectively) scales were used by RAC staff who were closely associated with 217 deceased residents. Data collection occurred from January 2016 to February 2017.

RESULTS

Results indicated that residents of large, nonprofit facilities experienced greater comfort at the end of life (CAD-EOLD) as indicated by a higher mean score of 37.21 (SD = 4.85, 95% CI = 34.4, 40.0) than residents of small for-profit facilities who recorded a lower mean score of 31.56 (SD = 6.20, 95% CI = 29.6, 33.4). There was also evidence of better symptom management for residents of chain facilities, with a higher mean score for symptom management (SM-EOLD total score) recorded for residents of chain facilities (mean = 28.07, SD = 7.64, 95% CI = 26.47, 29.66) than the mean score for independent facilities (mean = 23.93, SD = 8.72, 95% CI = 21.65, 26.20).

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that there are differences in the quality of end-of-life care given in RAC based on size, ownership model, and chain affiliation.

Black And Hispanic Patients Receive Hospice Care Similar To That Of White Patients When In The Same Hospices

Little is known about racial and ethnic variation in the quality of hospice care. We used data on 292,516 respondents for 2015-16 from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Hospice Survey to assess how the patient and family experience of hospice care differed among black, Hispanic, and white patients. We found that, on average, black and Hispanic patients received care from poorer quality hospices. Within a given hospice, we found that friends and relatives who served as caregivers of black and Hispanic patients reported significantly better hospice care experiences than their peers serving as caregivers of white patients on five of seven outcomes. However, caregivers of black and Hispanic patients reported receiving their desired level of emotional and religious support less often than caregivers of white patients did. As more black and Hispanic patients enroll in hospice care, it is critical to ensure that they have access to high-quality, culturally competent hospice services.

A Focus on the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE)

For over four decades, the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) has been operated by nonprofit organizations. Research has demonstrated that nonprofit PACE provides quality, cost-effective community-based care to older adults who would otherwise require a nursing home level of care. Recently, the U.S. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services has authorized for-profit entities to operate PACE, contingent on their ability to demonstrate that they can provide care that is similar to nonprofit PACE with regard to access to care, quality of care, and cost-effectiveness. In 2013, a study was conducted to evaluate how PACE operates under for-profit versus nonprofit status. The results were presented to Congress which, in turn, authorized for-profit PACE providers. This article critiques the 2013 study, offers a comparison to for-profit hospice, and argues that at best there is not enough evidence to conclude that for-profit PACE provides the same quality of care as existing nonprofit operators.

Nearly half of all Medicare hospice enrollees received care from agencies owned by regional or national chains

Analyses of ownership in the US hospice sector have focused on the growth of for-profit hospice care and on aggregate differences in patient populations and service use patterns between for-profit and not-for-profit agencies. Such comparisons, although useful, do not offer insights about the types of organizations within the hospice sector, including the emergence of multiagency chains. Using Medicare cost report data for the period 2000-11, we tracked the evolution of the US hospice industry. We not only describe the market's composition by profit status but also provide new information about the roles of regional and national chains. Almost half of all Medicare hospice enrollees in 2011 received hospice services from a multiagency chain. A handful of companies play a prominent role, although the presence of smaller for-profit and not-for-profit hospice chains also has grown in recent years. By focusing on the role of the diverse organizations that provide hospice care, our analyses can help inform efforts to monitor and assure quality of care, to assess payment adequacy and options for reform, and to facilitate greater transparency and accountability within the hospice marketplace.

Transfer of nursing home residents to emergency departments: organizational differences between nursing homes with high vs. low transfer rates

AIM

To explore possible factors in the organization of nursing homes that could be related to differences in the rate of transfer of residents from nursing homes to emergency department.

DESIGN

Explorative.

METHOD

In a single municipality, qualitative and quantitative data were collected from documents and through semi-structured interviews with 11 RNs from five nursing homes identified as having the highest vs. six identified as having the lowest transfer rates to emergency department. Data were analysed by non-parametric tests and basic content analysis.

RESULTS

All nursing homes in the highest transfer rate group and one in the lowest transfer rate group were run by private for-profit providers. Compared with the low group, the high group had fewer updated advance care plans and the RNs interviewed had less work experience in care of older people and less training in care of persons with dementia. There was no difference in nursing home size or staff/resident ratio. The RNs described similar possibilities to provide palliative care, medical equipment and perceived medical support from GPs.

Effect of Ownership on Hospice Service Use: 2005-2011

OBJECTIVES

To assess differences in populations and service use according to hospice ownership, chain status, and agency size.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older enrolled in hospice during 2005 to 2011 N = 5,405,526).

MEASUREMENTS

Hospice use according to ownership category (for-profit nonchain and chain, not-for-profit nonchain and chain, government) and agency size (0-50, 51-200, 201-400, ≥401 individuals discharged each year). Mean length of use, stays of 3 days or fewer, stays ending with live discharge, and decedents receiving no general inpatient care (GIP)- or continuous home care (CHC)-level hospice in the last 7 days of life.

RESULTS

After adjusting for individual and geographic differences, for-profit nonchain and chain agencies had longer mean length of use (84.5 and 91.2 days, respectively) than other agency types (66.3-72.5 days), higher rates of live discharge (21.0% and 20.2% vs 14.6-15.9%), and lower proportions of stays of 3 days or fewer (13.9% and 14.7% vs 16.6-17.5%) (all P < .001). The proportion of decedents not receiving GIP- or CHC-level care before death was highest in for-profit chains (75.9%) and lowest in not-for-profit nonchains (63.2%). Smaller agencies had longer mean length of use, higher live discharge rates, lower rates of stays of 3 days or fewer, and higher rates of individuals receiving no GIP- or CHC-level care. There were considerable differences in patient traits and unadjusted service use between the nation's largest chains.

CONCLUSION

In addition to for-profit and not-for-profit hospice agencies differing according to important dimensions, there is substantial heterogeneity within these ownership categories, highlighting the need to consider factors such as agency size and chain affiliation in understanding variations in Medicare beneficiaries' hospice care.