Performance Of Safety-Net Hospitals In Year 1 Of The Comprehensive Care For Joint Replacement Model

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.

The Association of Oncology Provider Density With Black-White Disparities in Cancer Mortality in US Counties

BACKGROUND

Black-White racial disparities in cancer mortality are well-documented in the US. Given the estimated shortage of oncologists over the next decade, understanding how access to oncology care might influence cancer disparities is of considerable importance. We aim to examine the association between oncology provider density in a county and Black-White cancer mortality disparities.

METHODS

An ecological study of 1048 US counties was performed. Oncology provider density was estimated using the 2013 National Plan and Provider Enumeration System data. Black:White cancer mortality ratio was calculated using 2014-2018 age-standardized cancer mortality rates from State Cancer Profiles. Linear regression with covariate adjustment was constructed to assess the association of provider density with (1) Black:White cancer mortality ratio, and (2) cancer mortality rates overall, and separately among Black and White persons.

RESULTS

The mean Black:White cancer mortality ratio was 1.12, indicating that cancer mortality rate among Black persons was on average 12% higher than that among White persons. Oncology provider density was significantly associated with greater cancer mortality disparities: every 5 additional oncology providers per 100 000 in a county was associated with a .02 increase in the Black:White cancer mortality ratio (95% CI: .007 to .03); however, the unexpected finding may be explained by further analysis showing that the relationship between oncology provider density and cancer mortality was different by race group. Every 5 additional oncologists per 100 000 was associated with a 1.6 decrease per 100 000 in cancer mortality rates among White persons (95% CI: -3.0 to -.2), whereas oncology provider density was not associated with cancer mortality among Black persons.

CONCLUSION

Greater oncology provider density was associated with significantly lower cancer mortality among White persons, but not among Black persons. Higher oncology provider density alone may not resolve cancer mortality disparities, thus attention to ensuring equitable care is critical.

Safety-net hospital performance under Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relative progress of safety-net hospitals (SNHs) under Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) mandatory bundled payment model over 2016-2020 and to identify the contributors to SNHs' realization of success under the program.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

Secondary data on all CJR hospitals were collected from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) public use files and from the American Hospital Association.

STUDY DESIGN

We addressed whether SNHs can achieve progress in financial performance under CJR by focusing on the relative change in reconciliation payments or the difference between episode spending and target prices. We applied the method of dominance analysis to ordinary least squares regression to determine the relative importance of predictors of change in reconciliation payments over time.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Compared to CJR hospitals overall, SNHs were less successful in meeting episode spending targets. Hospital factors dominated socioeconomic factors in explaining progress among SNHs, but not among non-SNHs. The contribution of nurse staffing was negligible across all CJR hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

The formula used by CMS to determine spending targets may not be sufficient to address disparities in SNH financial performance under mandatory bundled payment.

Association of Skilled Nursing Facility Participation in Voluntary Bundled Payments With Postacute Care Outcomes for Joint Replacement

IMPORTANCE

The Medicare Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) model 3 of 2013 holds participating skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) responsible for all episode costs. There is limited evidence regarding SNF-specific outcomes associated with BPCI.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between SNF BPCI participation and patient outcomes and across-facility differences in these outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Observational difference-in-differences (DID) study of 2013-2017 for 330 unique persistent-participating SNFs, 146 unique dropout SNFs, and 14,028 unique eligible nonparticipating SNFs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rehospitalization within 30 and 90 days after SNF admission, and rate of successful discharge from the SNF to the community.

RESULTS

Total 636,355 SNF admissions after LEJR procedures were identified for 582,766 Medicare patients [mean (SD) age, 76.81 (9.26) y; 424,076 (72.77%) women]. The DID analysis showed that for persistent-enrollment SNFs, no BPCI-related changes were found in readmission and successful community discharge rates overall, but were found for their subgroups. Specifically, under BPCI, the 30-day readmission rate decreased by 2.19 percentage-points for White-serving SNFs in the persistent-participating group relative to those in the nonparticipating group, and by 1.75 percentage-points for non-Medicaid-dependent SNFs in the persistent-participating group relative to those in the nonparticipating group; and the rate of successful community discharge increased by 4.44 percentage-points for White-serving SNFs in the persistent-participating group relative to those in the nonparticipating group, whereas such relationship was not detected among non-White-serving SNFs, leading to increased between-facility differences (differential DID=-7.62). BPCI was not associated with readmission or successful community discharge rates for dropout SNFs, overall, or in subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Among Medicare patients receiving LEJR, BPCI was associated with improved outcomes for White-serving/non-Medicaid-dependent SNFs but not for other SNFs, which did not help reduce or could even worsen the between-facility differences.

Skilled Nursing Facility Participation in a Voluntary Medicare Bundled Payment Program: Association With Facility Financial Performance

IMPORTANCE

Model 3 of the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) is an alternative payment model in which an entity takes accountability for the episode costs. It is unclear how BPCI affected the overall skilled nursing facility (SNF) financial performance and the differences between facilities with differing racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status (SES) composition of the residents.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine associations between BPCI participation and SNF finances and across-facility differences in SNF financial performance.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A longitudinal study spanning 2010-2017, based on difference-in-differences analyses for 575 persistent-participation SNFs, 496 dropout SNFs, and 13,630 eligible nonparticipating SNFs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Inflation-adjusted operating expenses, revenues, profit, and profit margin.

RESULTS

BPCI was associated with reductions of $0.63 million in operating expenses and $0.57 million in operating revenues for the persistent-participation group but had no impact on the dropout group compared with nonparticipating SNFs. Among persistent-participation SNFs, the BPCI-related declines were $0.74 million in operating expenses and $0.52 million in operating revenues for majority-serving SNFs; and $1.33 and $0.82 million in operating expenses and revenues, respectively, for non-Medicaid-dependent SNFs. The between-facility SES gaps in operating expenses were reduced (differential difference-in-differences estimate=$1.09 million). Among dropout SNFs, BPCI showed mixed effects on across-facility SES and racial/ethnic differences in operating expenses and revenues. The BPCI program showed no effect on operating profit measures.

CONCLUSIONS

BPCI led to reduced operating expenses and revenues for SNFs that participated and remained in the program but had no effect on operating profit indicators and mixed effects on SES and racial/ethnic differences across SNFs.

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.

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.

Association of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model With Disparities in the Use of Total Hip and Total Knee Replacement

Importance

The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model is Medicare's mandatory bundled payment reform to improve quality and spending for beneficiaries who need total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR), yet it does not account for sociodemographic risk factors such as race/ethnicity and income. Results of this study could be the basis for a Medicare payment reform that addresses inequities in joint replacement care.

Objective

To examine the association of the CJR model with racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in the use of elective THR and TKR among older Medicare beneficiaries after accounting for the population of patients who were at risk or eligible for these surgical procedures.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used the 2013 to 2017 national Medicare data and multivariable logistic regressions with triple-differences estimation. Medicare beneficiaries who were aged 65 to 99 years, entitled to Medicare, alive at the end of the calendar year, and residing either in the 67 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) mandated to participate in the CJR model or in the 104 control MSAs were identified. A subset of Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of arthritis underwent THR or TKR. Data were analyzed from March to December 2020.

Exposures

Implementation of the CJR model in 2016.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes were separate binary indicators for whether a beneficiary underwent THR or TKR. Key independent variables were MSA treatment status, pre- or post-CJR model implementation phase, combination of race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic beneficiaries) and dual eligibility, and their interactions. Logistic regression models were used to control for patient characteristics, MSA fixed effects, and time trends.

Results

The 2013 cohort included 4 447 205 Medicare beneficiaries, of which 2 025 357 (45.5%) resided in MSAs with the CJR model. The cohort's mean (SD) age was 77.18 (7.95) years, and it was composed of 2 951 140 female (66.4%), 3 928 432 non-Hispanic White (88.3%), and 657 073 dually eligible (14.8%) beneficiaries. Before the CJR model implementation, rates were highest among non-Hispanic White non-dual-eligible beneficiaries at 1.25% (95% CI, 1.24%-1.26%) for THR use and 2.28% (95% CI, 2.26%-2.29%) for TKR use in MSAs with CJR model. Compared with MSAs without the CJR model and the analogous race/ethnicity and dual-eligibility group, the CJR model was associated with a 0.10 (95% CI, 0.05-0.15; P < .001) percentage-point increase in TKR use for non-Hispanic White non-dual-eligible beneficiaries, a 0.11 (95% CI, 0.004-0.21; P = .04) percentage-point increase for non-Hispanic White dual-eligible beneficiaries, a 0.15 (95% CI, -0.29 to -0.01; P = .04) percentage-point decrease for non-Hispanic Black non-dual-eligible beneficiaries, and a 0.18 (95% CI, -0.34 to -0.01; P = .03) percentage-point decrease for non-Hispanic Black dual-eligible beneficiaries. These CJR model-associated changes in TKR use were 0.25 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.10; P = .001) percentage points lower for non-Hispanic Black non-dual-eligible beneficiaries and 0.27 (95% CI, -0.45 to -0.10; P = .002) percentage points lower for non-Hispanic Black dual-eligible beneficiaries compared with the model-associated changes for non-Hispanic White non-dual-eligible beneficiaries. No association was found between the CJR model and a widening of the THR use gap among race/ethnicity and dual eligibility groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this study indicate that the CJR model was associated with a modest increase in the already substantial difference in TKR use among non-Hispanic Black vs non-Hispanic White beneficiaries; no difference was found for THR. These findings support the widespread concern that payment reform has the potential to exacerbate disparities in access to joint replacement care.

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.

Overlap Between Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Program and Accountable Care Organizations

BACKGROUND

Overlap between Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model and accountable care organizations (ACOs) may result in positive or negative synergies. In this study, we describe the overlap between the programs at the beneficiary and hospital levels.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of patient and hospital characteristics using data from 2016 Medicare claims, the US Census Bureau, the American Hospital Association annual survey, Hospital Compare, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation file. On the beneficiary level, we conducted 2 comparisons: (1) among patients who received joint replacement at CJR hospitals, ACO patients (overlap) vs not (CJR-only) and 2) among patients who received joint replacement elsewhere, ACO patients (ACO-only) vs not (neither). On the hospital level, we compared hospitals in the top quartile of overlap rate (high overlap) vs those in the bottom 3 (low overlap).

RESULTS

We studied 14,519 overlap, 38,972 CJR-only, 26,872 ACO-only, and 68,945 neither beneficiaries. Compared with CJR-only patients, the overlap group was less likely to be older than 85, of black race, of low socioeconomic status, and burdened with clinical complications. Similar results were observed when the ACO-only group was compared with the neither group. Compared with low overlap hospitals, high overlap ones were more likely to be of nonprofit and less likely to be of safety net.

CONCLUSION

CJR-ACO overlap is associated with differences in beneficiary and hospital characteristics, which raises key issues for providers and policymakers.

Association of the Mandatory Medicare Bundled Payment With Joint Replacement Outcomes in Hospitals With Disadvantaged Patients

Importance

Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model rewards or penalizes hospitals on the basis of meeting spending benchmarks that do not account for patients' preexisting social and medical complexity or high expenses associated with serving disadvantaged populations such as dual-eligible patients (ie, those enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid). The CJR model may have different implications for hospitals serving a high percentage of dual-eligible patients (termed high-dual) and hospitals serving a low percentage of dual-eligible patients (termed low-dual).

Objective

To examine changes associated with the CJR model among high-dual or low-dual hospitals in 2016 to 2017.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study comprised 3 analyses of high-dual or low-dual hospitals (n = 1165) serving patients with hip or knee joint replacements (n = 768 224) in 67 treatment metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) selected for CJR participation and 103 control MSAs. The study used Medicare claims data and public reports from 2012 to 2017. Data analysis was conducted from February 1, 2019, to August 31, 2019.

Exposures

The CJR model holds participating hospitals accountable for the spending and quality of care during care episodes for patients with hip or knee joint replacement, including hospitalization and 90 days after discharge.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were total episode spending, discharge to institutional postacute care facility, and readmission within the 90-day postdischarge period; bonus and penalty payments for each hospital; and reductions in per-episode spending required to receive a bonus for each hospital.

Results

In total, 1165 hospitals (291 high-dual and 874 low-dual) and 768 224 patients with joint replacement (494 013 women [64.3%]; mean [SD] age, 76 [7] years) were included. An episode-level triple-difference analysis indicated that total spending under the CJR model decreased at high-dual hospitals (by $851; 95% CI, -$1556 to -$146; P = .02) and low-dual hospitals (by $567; 95% CI, -$933 to -$202; P = .003). The size of decreases did not differ between the 2 groups (difference, -$284; 95% CI, -$981 to $413; P = .42). Discharge to institutional postacute care settings and readmission did not change among both hospital groups. High-dual hospitals were less likely to receive a bonus compared with low-dual hospitals (40.3% vs 59.1% in 2016; 56.9% vs 76.0% in 2017). To receive a bonus, high-dual hospitals would be required to reduce spending by $887 to $2231 per episode, compared with only $89 to $215 for low-dual hospitals.

Conclusions and Relevance

The study found that high- and low-dual hospitals made changes in care after CJR implementation, and the magnitude of these changes did not differ between the 2 groups. However, high-dual hospitals were less likely to receive a bonus for spending cuts. Spending benchmarks for CJR would require high-dual hospitals to reduce spending more substantially to receive a financial incentive.

Penalties and Rewards for Safety Net vs Non-Safety Net Hospitals in the First 2 Years of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model

This study compared monetary penalties and rewards among safety net vs non–safety net hospitals under Medicare’s Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, a bundled payment plan for hip and knee replacements intended to incentivize health care quality and savings, in 2016 and 2017.