Is there evidence of cream skimming among nursing homes following the publication of the Nursing Home Compare report card?

Access to preferred skilled nursing facilities: Transitional care pathways for patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to assess whether individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) experience restricted access to hospitals' high-volume preferred skilled nursing facility (SNF) partners.

DATA SOURCES

The data source includes acute care hospital to SNF transitions identified using 100% Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files, 2017-2019.

STUDY DESIGN

We model and compare the estimated effect of facility "preferredness" on SNF choice for patients with and without ADRD. We use conditional logistic regression with a 1:1 patient sample otherwise matched on demographic and encounter characteristics.

DATA COLLECTION

Our matched sample included 58,190 patients, selected from a total observed population of 3,019,260 Medicare hospitalizations that resulted in an SNF transfer between 2017 and 2019.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Overall, patients with ADRD have a lower probability of being discharged to a preferred SNF (52.0% vs. 54.4%, p < 0.001). Choice model estimation using our matched sample suggests similarly that the marginal effect of preferredness on a patient choosing a proximate SNF is 2.4 percentage points lower for patients with ADRD compared with those without (p < 0.001). The differential effect of preferredness based on ADRD status increases when considering (a) the cumulative effect of multiple SNFs in close geographic proximity, (b) the magnitude of the strength of hospital-SNF relationship, and (c) comparing patients with more versus less advanced ADRD.

CONCLUSIONS

Preferred relationships are significantly predictive of where a patient receives SNF care, but this effect is weaker for patients with ADRD. To the extent that these high-volume relationships are indicative of more targeted transitional care improvements from hospitals, ADRD patients may not be fully benefiting from these investments. Hospital leaders can leverage integrated care relationships to reduce SNFs' perceived need to engage in selection behavior (i.e., enhanced resource sharing and transparency in placement practices). Policy intervention may be needed to address selection behavior and to support hospitals in making systemic improvements that can better benefit all SNF partners (i.e., more robust information sharing systems).

Relationship Between Nursing Home Compare Improvement in Function Quality Measure and Physical Recovery After Hip Replacement

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether patients with a total or partial hip replacement admitted to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) after the improvement in function quality measure was added to Nursing Home Compare in July 2016 have greater physical recovery than patients admitted before July 2016.

DESIGN

Pre (January 1, 2015-June 30, 2016) vs post (July 1, 2016-December 31, 2017) design.

SETTING

Skilled nursing facilities (n=12,829).

PARTICIPANTS

Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries (N=106,832) discharged from acute hospitals to SNF after hip replacement between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The 5- and 14-day minimum data set assessments were used to calculate total scores for the quality measure, self-care, mobility, and balance. We calculated the average adjusted change per 10 days and any improvement between the 5- and 14-day assessments.

RESULTS

The average adjusted change per 10 days for the quality measure total score for patients admitted before July 2016 and after July 2016 was 1.00 points (standard error, 0010) and 1.06 points (standard error, 0.010), respectively (P<.01). This was a relative increase of 6.0%. Among patients admitted to a SNF before July 2016, 44.4% (standard error, 0.06) had any improvement in the quality measure total score compared with 45.5% (standard error, 0.23) of patients admitted after July 2016 (P<.01). This was a relative increase of 2.5%. The adjusted change per 10 days and percentage of patients who had any improvement in the total scores for self-care, mobility, and balance were all significantly higher after July 2016.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients admitted to a SNF after a hip replacement after July 2016 had greater physical recovery than patients admitted before the improvement in function quality measure was added to Nursing Home Compare.

Health Care Providers and the Public Reporting of Nursing Home Quality in the United States Department of Veterans Affairs: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

In June 2018, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) began the public reporting of its 134 Community Living Centers' (CLCs) overall quality by using a 5-star rating system based on data from the national quality measures captured in CLC Compare. Given the private sector's positive experience with report cards, this is a seminal moment for stimulating measurable quality improvements in CLCs. However, the public reporting of CLC Compare data raises substantial and immediate implications for CLCs. The report cards, for example, facilitate comparisons between CLCs and community nursing homes in which CLCs generally fare worse. This may lead to staff anxiety and potentially unintended consequences. Additionally, CLC Compare is designed to spur improvement, yet the motivating aspects of the report cards are unknown. Understanding staff attitudes and early responses is a critical first step in building the capacity for public reporting to spur quality.

OBJECTIVE

We will adapt an existing community nursing home public reporting survey to reveal important leverage points and support CLCs' quality improvement efforts. Our work will be grounded in a conceptual framework of strategic orientation. We have 2 aims. First, we will qualitatively examine CLC staff reactions to CLC Compare. Second, we will adapt and expand upon an extant community nursing home survey to capture a broad range of responses and then pilot the adapted survey in CLCs.

METHODS

We will conduct interviews with staff at 3 CLCs (1 1-star CLC, 1 3-star CLC, and 1 5-star CLC) to identify staff actions taken in response to their CLCs' public data; staff's commitment to or difficulties with using CLC Compare; and factors that motivate staff to improve CLC quality. We will integrate these findings with our conceptual framework to adapt and expand a community nursing home survey to the current CLC environment. We will conduct cognitive interviews with staff in 1 CLC to refine survey items. We will then pilot the survey in 6 CLCs (2 1-star CLCs, 2 3-star CLCs, and 2 5-star CLCs) to assess the survey's feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary psychometric properties.

RESULTS

We will develop a brief survey for use in a future national administration to identify system-wide responses to CLC Compare; evaluate the impact of CLC Compare on veterans' clinical outcomes and satisfaction; and develop, test, and disseminate interventions to support the meaningful use of CLC Compare for quality improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

The knowledge gained from this pilot study and from future work will help VA refine how CLC Compare is used, ensure that CLC staff understand and are motivated to use its quality data, and implement concrete actions to improve clinical quality. The products from this pilot study will also facilitate studies on the effects of public reporting in other critical VA clinical areas.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/23516.

Higher hospital referral concentration associated with lower-risk patients in skilled nursing facilities

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether stronger referral relationships between hospitals and skilled nursing facilities (SNF) are associated with lower-risk patients being admitted to SNF.

DATA SOURCES/COLLECTION

We used MedPAR data to estimate referral relationship strength and nursing home survey data (OSCAR and CASPER) to determine the risk of patient admissions at nearly 14 000 SNFs from 2008 to 2014.

STUDY DESIGN

We examined the association of hospital referral concentration with the percentage of higher-risk patients admitted to non-hospital-based (freestanding) SNFs using an instrumental variables approach. We used the distance between patients and SNFs and hospitals and SNFs as the instrument.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We used previously collected MedPAR and OSCAR/CASPER survey data.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We find greater observed referral concentration among freestanding SNFs is associated with lower percentages of patients with pressure sores (coefficient, -2.64; 95% CI, [-2.82 to -2.46]), catheters (-0.55; [-0.74 to -0.36]), and physical restraints (-0.16; [-0.29 to -0.03]) at admission to a skilled nursing facility.

CONCLUSIONS

We find evidence that freestanding SNFs with stronger hospital referral relationships may be admitting less risky patients, possibly contributing to disparities across SNFs.

Two Decades of Nursing Home Compare: What Have We Learned?

Approximately two decades ago, federally mandated public reporting began for U.S. nursing homes through a system now known as Nursing Home Compare. The goals were to provide information to enable consumers to choose higher quality nursing homes and to incent providers to improve the quality of care delivered. We conduct a systematic review of the literature on responses to Nursing Home Compare and its effectiveness in meeting these goals. We find evidence of modest but meaningful response by both consumers and providers. However, we also find evidence that some improvement in scores does not reflect true quality improvement, that disparities by race and income have increased, that risk-adjustment of the measures is likely inadequate, and that several key domains of quality are not represented. Our results support moderate success of Nursing Home Compare in achieving intended goals but also reveal the need for continued refinement.

Quality Indicators as Predictors of Future Inspection Performance in Ontario Nursing Homes

OBJECTIVES

There are several mechanisms for monitoring the quality of care in long-term care (LTC), including the use of quality indicators derived from resident assessments and formal inspections. The LTC inspection process is time and resource-intensive, and there may be opportunities to better target inspections. In this study, we aimed to examine whether quality indicators could predict future inspection performance in LTC homes across Ontario, Canada.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

In total, 594 LTC homes across Ontario.

METHODS

Using a database compiling detailed inspection reports for the period from 2017 to 2018, we classified each home into 1 of 3 categories (in good standing, needing improvement, needing significant improvement). Machine learning techniques were used to examine whether publicly available Resident Assessment Instrument‒Minimum Data Set quality indicators for the period 2016‒2017 could predict facility classification based on inspection results.

RESULTS

After running a wide range of models, only a weak relationship was found between quality indicators and future inspection performance. The best-performing model was able to achieve a classification accuracy of 40.1%. Feature analysis was performed on the final model to identify which quality indicators were most indicative of predicted poor performance. Experiencing worsened pain, restraint use, and worsened pressure ulcers were correlated with homes predicted as needing significant improvement. Counterintuitively, improved physical functioning had an inverse relationship with homes predicted as being in good standing.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Most quality indicators are poor predictors of inspection performance. Further work is required to explore the limited relationship between these 2 measures of LTC quality, and to identify other quality measures that may be useful as predictors of facilities facing difficulty in meeting quality standards.

Choosing the Best and Scrambling for the Rest: Hospital-Nursing Home Relationships and Admissions to Post-Acute Care

OBJECTIVE

We explored post-Affordable Care Act hospital and skilled nursing facility (SNF) perspectives in discharge and admission practices.

METHOD

Interviews were conducted with 138 administrative personnel in 16 hospitals and 25 SNFs in eight U.S. markets and qualitatively analyzed.

RESULTS

Hospitals may use prior referral rates and patients' geographic proximity to SNFs to guide discharges. SNFs with higher hospital referral rates often use licensed nurses to screen patients to admit more preferred patients. While SNFs with lower hospital referral rates use marketing strategies to increase admissions, these patients are often less preferred due to lower reimbursement or complex care needs.

CONCLUSION

An unintended consequence of increased hospital-SNF integration may be greater disparity. SNFs with high hospital referral rates may admit well-reimbursed or less medically complex patients than SNFs with lower referral rates. Without policy remediation, SNFs with lower referral rates may thus care for more medically complex long-term care patients.

Challenges and Consequences of Reduced Skilled Nursing Facility Lengths of Stay

OBJECTIVE

To identify the challenges that reductions in length of stay (LOS) pose for skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and their postacute care (PAC) patients.

DATA SOURCES/SETTING

Seventy interviews with staff in 25 SNFs in eight U.S. cities, LOS data for patients in those SNFs.

STUDY DESIGN

Data were qualitatively analyzed, and key themes were identified. Interview data from SNFs with and without reductions in median risk-adjusted LOS were compared and contrasted.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We conducted 70 semistructured interviews. LOS data were derived from minimum dataset (MDS) admission records available for all patients in all U.S. SNFs from 2012 to 2014.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Challenges reported regardless of reductions in LOS included frequent and more complicated re-authorization processes, patients becoming responsible for costs, and discharging patients whom staff felt were unsafe at home. Challenges related to reduced LOS included SNFs being pressured to discharge patients within certain time limits. Some SNFs reported instituting programs and processes for following up with patients after discharge. These programs helped alleviate concerns about patients, but they resulted in nonreimbursable costs for facilities.

CONCLUSIONS

The push for shorter LOS has resulted in unexpected challenges and costs for SNFs and possible unintended consequences for PAC patients.

Residential Area Life Expectancy: Association With Outcomes and Processes of Care for Patients With ESRD in the United States

BACKGROUND

The effects of underlying noncodified risks are unclear on the prognosis of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). We aimed to evaluate the association of residential area life expectancy with outcomes and processes of care for patients with ESRD in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients with incident ESRD between 2006 and 2013 recorded in the US Renal Data System (n=606,046).

PREDICTOR

The primary exposure was life expectancy in the patient's residential county estimated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.

OUTCOMES

Death, placement on the kidney transplant wait list, living and deceased donor kidney transplantation, and posttransplantation graft loss.

RESULTS

Median life expectancies of patients' residences were 75.6 (males) and 80.4 years (females). Compared to the highest life expectancy quintile and adjusted for demographic factors, disease cause, and multiple comorbid conditions, the lowest quintile had adjusted HRs for mortality of 1.20 (95% CI, 1.18-1.22); placement onto the waiting list, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.67-0.70); living donor transplantation, 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.56); posttransplantation graft loss, 1.35 (95% CI, 1.27-1.43); and posttransplantation mortality, 1.29 (95% CI, 1.19-1.39). Patients living in areas with lower life expectancy were less likely to be informed about transplantation, be under the care of a nephrologist, or receive an arteriovenous fistula as the initial dialysis access. Results remained consistent with additional adjustment for zip code-level median income, population size, and urban-rural locality.

LIMITATIONS

Potential residual confounding and attribution of effects to individuals based on residential area-level data.

CONCLUSIONS

Residential area life expectancy, a proxy for socioeconomic, environmental, genetic, and behavioral factors, was independently associated with mortality and process-of-care measures for patients with ESRD. These results emphasize the underlying effect on health outcomes of the environment in which patients live, independent of patient-level factors. These findings may have implications for provider assessments.

Nursing Home Response to Nursing Home Compare: The Provider Perspective

Nursing Home Compare (NHC) publishes composite quality ratings of nursing homes based on a five-star rating system, a system that has been subject to controversy about its validity. Using in-depth interviews, we assess the views of nursing home administrators and staff on NHC and unearth strategies used to improve ratings. Respondents revealed conflicting goals and strategies. Although nursing home managers monitor the ratings and expend effort to improve scores, competing goals of revenue maximization and avoidance of litigation often overshadow desire to score well on NHC. Some of the improvement strategies simply involve coding changes that have no effect on resident outcomes. Many respondents doubted the validity of the self-reported staffing data and stated that lack of risk adjustment biases ratings. Policy makers should consider nursing home incentives when refining the system, aiming to improve the validity of the self-reported domains to provide incentives for broader quality improvement.

Public Reporting and Demand Rationing: Evidence from the Nursing Home Industry

This paper examines an under-explored unintended consequence of public reporting: the potential for demand rationing. Public reporting, although intended to increase consumer access to high-quality products, may have provided the perverse incentive for high-quality providers facing fixed capacity and administrative pricing to avoid less profitable types of residents. Using data from the nursing home industry before and after the implementation of the public reporting system in 2002, we find that high-quality nursing homes facing capacity constraints reduced admissions of less profitable Medicaid residents while increasing the more profitable Medicare and private-pay admissions, relative to low-quality nursing homes facing no capacity constraints. These effects, although small in magnitude, are consistent with provider rationing of demand on the basis of profitability and underscore the important role of institutional details in designing effective public reporting systems for regulated industries.

Making difficult decisions: the role of quality of care in choosing a nursing home

OBJECTIVES

We investigated how quality of care affects choosing a nursing home.

METHODS

We examined nursing home choice in California, Ohio, New York, and Texas in 2001, a period before the federal Nursing Home Compare report card was published. Thus, consumers were less able to observe clinical quality or clinical quality was masked. We modeled nursing home choice by estimating a conditional multinomial logit model.

RESULTS

In all states, consumers were more likely to choose nursing homes of high hotel services quality but not clinical care quality. Nursing home choice was also significantly associated with shorter distance from prior residence, not-for-profit status, and larger facility size.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of quality report cards, consumers choose a nursing home on the basis of the quality dimensions that are easy for them to observe, evaluate, and apply to their situation. Future research should focus on identifying the quality information that offers the most value added to consumers.

Shipping out instead of shaping up: rehospitalization from nursing homes as an unintended effect of public reporting

Public reporting of health care quality has become a popular tool for incenting quality improvement. A fundamental question about public reporting is whether it causes providers to select healthier patients for treatment. In the nursing home post-acute setting, where patients must achieve a minimum length of stay to be included in quality measures, selection may take the form of discharge from the nursing home using rehospitalization, a particularly costly and undesirable outcome. We study the population of post-acute patients of skilled nursing facilities nationwide during 1999-2005 to assess whether selective rehospitalization occurred when public reporting was instituted in 2002, using multiple quasi-experimental designs to identify effects. We find that after public reporting was implemented, rehospitalizations before the length-of-stay cutoff increased. We conclude that nursing homes rehospitalize higher-risk post-acute patients to improve scores, providing evidence for selection behavior on the part of nursing home providers in the presence of public reporting.

Nursing home work environment and the risk of pressure ulcers and incontinence

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between nursing home (NH) work environment attributes such as teams, consistent assignment and staff cohesion, and the risk of pressure ulcers and incontinence.

DATA SOURCES/SETTING

Minimum dataset for 46,044 residents in 162 facilities in New York State, for June 2006-July 2007, and survey responses from 7,418 workers in the same facilities.

STUDY DESIGN

For each individual and facility, primary and secondary data were linked. Random effects logistic models were used to develop/validate outcome measures. Generalized estimating equation models with robust standard errors and probability weights were employed to examine the association between outcomes and work environment attributes. Key independent variables were staff cohesion, percent staff in daily care teams, and percent staff with consistent assignment. Other facility factors were also included.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Residents in facilities with worse staff cohesion had significantly greater odds of pressure ulcers and incontinence, compared with residents in facilities with better cohesion scores. Residents in facilities with greater penetration of self-managed teams had lower risk of pressure ulcers, but not of incontinence. Prevalence of consistent assignment was not significantly associated with the outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

NH environments and management practices influence residents' health outcomes. These findings provide important lessons for administrators and regulators interested in promoting NH quality improvement.

Patients' experiences of the quality of long-term care among the elderly: comparing scores over time

BACKGROUND

Every two years, long-term care organizations for the elderly are obliged to evaluate and publish the experiences of residents, representatives of psychogeriatric patients, and/or assisted-living clients with regard to quality of care. Our hypotheses are that publication of this quality information leads to improved performance, and that organizations with substandard performance will improve more than those whose performance is relatively good.

METHODS

The analyses included organizational units that measured experiences twice between 2007 (t(0)) and 2009 (t(1)). Experiences with quality of care were measured with Consumer Quality Index (CQI) questionnaires. Besides descriptive analyses (i.e. mean, 5(th) and 95(th) percentile, and 90% central range) of the 19 CQI indicators and change scores of these indicators were calculated. Differences across five performance groups (ranging from 'worst' to 'best') were tested using an ANOVA test and effect sizes were measured with omega squared (ω(2)).

RESULTS

At t0 experiences of residents, representatives, and assisted-living clients were positive on all indicators. Nevertheless, most CQI indicators had improved scores (up to 0.37 change score) at t(1). Only three indicators showed a minor decline (up to -0.08 change score). Change scores varied between indicators and questionnaires, e.g. they were more profound for the face-to-face interview questionnaire for residents in nursing homes than for the other two mail questionnaires (0.15 vs. 0.05 and 0.04, respectively), possibly due to more variation between nursing homes on the first measurement, perhaps indicating more potential for improvement. A negative relationship was found between prior performance and change, particularly with respect to the experiences of residents (ω(2) = 0.16) and assisted-living clients (ω(2) = 0.15). However, the relation between prior performance and improvement could also be demonstrated with respect to the experiences reported by representatives of psychogeriatric patients and by assisted-living clients. For representatives of psychogeriatric patients, the performance groups 1 and 2 ([much] below average) improved significantly more than the other three groups (ω(2) = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both hypotheses were confirmed: almost all indicator scores improved over time and long-term care organizations for the elderly with substandard performance improved more than those with a performance which was already relatively good.

Applying market-based reforms to long-term care

Recent trends in U.S. long-term care policy reflect three broad goals Americans have for the quality of long-term care: improving quality of life, reducing fragmentation of delivery and financing, and increasing use of home and community-based care. At the same time, market-based reforms--namely, public reporting and pay-for-performance--have taken on their own momentum, aimed at improving the clinical quality of care among nursing home and home health care providers. The focus of reporting systems should be broadened to include quality of life in addition to clinical quality and to make measures less dependent on the setting in which care is delivered.

Changes in patient sorting to nursing homes under public reporting: improved patient matching or provider gaming?

OBJECTIVE

To test whether public reporting in the setting of postacute care in nursing homes results in changes in patient sorting.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

All postacute care admissions from 2001 to 2003 in the nursing home Minimum Data Set.

STUDY DESIGN

We test changes in patient sorting (or the changes in the illness severity of patients going to high- versus low-scoring facilities) when public reporting was initiated in nursing homes in 2002. We test for changes in sorting with respect to pain, delirium, and walking and then examine the potential roles of cream skimming and downcoding in changes in patient sorting. We use a difference-in-differences framework, taking advantage of the variation in the launch of public reporting in pilot and nonpilot states, to control for underlying trends in patient sorting.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

There was a significant change in patient sorting with respect to pain after public reporting was initiated, with high-risk patients being more likely to go to high-scoring facilities and low-risk patients more likely to go to low-scoring facilities. There was also an overall decrease in patient risk of pain with the launch of public reporting, which may be consistent with changes in documentation of pain levels (or downcoding). There was no significant change in sorting for delirium or walking.

CONCLUSIONS

Public reporting of nursing home quality improves matching of high-risk patients to high-quality facilities. However, efforts should be made to reduce the incentives for downcoding by nursing facilities.

Performing well on nursing home report cards: does it pay off?

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether high performance or improvement on quality measures leads to economic rewards for nursing homes in the presence of public reporting.

DATA SOURCES

Data from 6,286 freestanding Medicare-certified nursing homes between 1999 and 2005 were identified in Medicare Cost Reports, Minimum Data Set, and Online Survey and Certification Reporting System.

STUDY DESIGN

Using a facility-level fixed-effects model, the effect of public reporting on financial performance was measured by comparing each of four financial outcomes (revenues, expenses, operating, and total profit margins) before (1999-2002) to after (2003-2005) public reporting was initiated. The effects were estimated separately by level of performance and improvement over time.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Facilities that improved on publicly reported performance had increased revenues and higher profit margins after public reporting, mainly through increased Medicare admissions. High-scoring facilities showed similar patterns, though differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers that improve their performance under public reporting may receive a return on their investment in quality improvement. This supports the business case for public reporting.