Changes in hospital admissions for urgent conditions during COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether patients are deferring necessary care for urgent conditions during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and, if so, to what extent.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Using billing data from 8 acute care hospitals, we identified 9 principal medical diagnoses from International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes across 4 medical specialties (cardiology, gastroenterology, neurology, and urology). In addition, we defined a combined obstetrical falsification end point. We compared daily admission rates during the pandemic period (3/1/2020-4/30/2020) with the same dates in 2019 (3/1/2019-4/30/2019). As a reference, we also compared a prepandemic period in the same years (1/1/2019-2/28/2019 and 1/1/2020-2/29/2020). We compared admission rates between years using t tests.

RESULTS

There were 3219 admissions for the conditions of interest during the study period in 2019 and 2661 in 2020. There was no difference in prepandemic daily admission rates in 2020 compared with 2019 (29.04 vs 27.63 admissions per day; -4.9%; P = .50). During the pandemic period, there was a 33.7% decrease in admission rates for all conditions combined in 2020 compared with 2019 (24.68 vs 16.37; -33.7%; P = .03). By specialty, the combined gastroenterology (10.22 vs 7.20; -29.6%; P = .02) and cardiovascular (2.34 vs 1.29; -44.7%; P = .05) end points demonstrated reduction in daily admission rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Daily admission rates during the COVID-19 pandemic were lower for these acute medical conditions. Public awareness campaigns are urgently needed to reassure the public about the safety of presenting for care.

Early experiences with cardiology electronic consults: A systematic review

Many health systems have begun implementing electronic consultation programs. The clinical and financial impact of these programs in cardiology and the potential for more widespread adoption remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the current literature related to electronic consultation in cardiology.

METHODS

Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review in August 2018 of English literature. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases for studies related to electronic consultation in cardiology.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies were included. Two of the studies were randomized controlled trials, 16 were quantitative studies with defined endpoints, and 3 were qualitative descriptions. Most studies were conducted in the United States and Canada. The available literature suggests cardiology e-consult programs can be implemented in different practice settings, have good patient and provider satisfaction, deliver greater and timelier access to outpatient cardiac care, and do so in a cost saving fashion. While studies suggest cardiology e-consultation is safe, there are no studies evaluating hard clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiology e-consults appear to be a promising tool for increasing access to outpatient cardiac care. Further investigation is required to evaluate the effects of cardiology electronic consultation on the quality of care.

CONDENSED ABSTRACT

Here we present the first systematic review of electronic consultation in cardiology. The available literature suggests cardiology e-consult programs can be implemented in different practice settings, have good patient and provider satisfaction, deliver greater and timelier access to outpatient cardiac care, and do so in a cost saving fashion. While studies suggest cardiology e-consultation is safe, there are no studies evaluating hard clinical outcomes. Overall, cardiology e-consults appear to be a promising tool for increasing access to outpatient cardiac care. Further investigation is required to evaluate the effects of cardiology electronic consultation on the quality of care.

Beyond the stethoscope: managing ambulatory heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic

There have been nearly 70 million cases of COVID‐19 worldwide, with over 1.5 million deaths at the time of this publication. This global pandemic has mandated dramatic changes in healthcare delivery with a particular focus on social distancing in order to reduce viral transmission. Heart failure patients are among the highest utilizers of health care and are at increased risk for COVID‐related vulnerabilities. Effectively managing this complex and resource‐intensive patient population from a distance presents new and unique challenges. Here, we review relevant data on telemedicine and remote monitoring strategies for heart failure patients and provide a framework to help providers treat this population during the COVID‐19 pandemic. This includes (i) dedicated pre‐visit contact and planning (i.e. confirm clinical appropriateness, presence of compatible technology, and patient comfort); (ii) utilization of virtual clinic visits (use of telehealth platforms, a video‐assisted exam, self‐reported vital signs, and weights); and (iii) use of existing remote heart failure monitoring sensors when applicable (CardioMEMS, Optivol, and HeartLogic). While telemedicine and remote monitoring strategies are not new, these technologies are emerging as an important tool for the effective management of heart failure patients during the COVID‐19 pandemic. In general, these strategies appear to be safe; however, additional data will be needed to determine their effectiveness with respect to both process and outcomes measures.

Factors Associated With Participation in Cardiac Episode Payments Included in Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative

Importance

Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) is a voluntary pilot program evaluating bundled payments for several common cardiovascular conditions. Evaluating the external validity of this program is important for understanding the effects of bundled payments on cardiovascular care.

Objective

To determine whether participants in BPCI cardiovascular bundles are representative of US acute care hospitals and identify factors associated with participation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Retrospective cross-sectional study of hospitals participating in BPCI model 2 bundles for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure (CHF), coronary artery bypass graft, and percutaneous coronary intervention and nonparticipating control hospitals (October 2013 to January 2017). The BPCI participants were identified using data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and controls were identified using the 2013 American Hospital Association's Survey of US Hospitals. Hospital structural characteristics and clinical performance data were obtained from the American Heart Association survey and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. One hundred fifty-nine hospitals participating in BPCI model 2 cardiac bundles and 1240 nonparticipating control hospitals were compared, and a multivariable logistic regression was estimated to identify predictors of BPCI participation.

Exposures

Bundled payments.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Hospital-level structural characteristics and 30-day risk-adjusted readmission and mortality rates for AMI and CHF.

Results

Compared with nonparticipants, BPCI participants were larger, more likely to be privately owned or teaching hospitals, had lower Medicaid bed day ratios (ratio of Medicaid inpatient days to total inpatient days: 17.0 vs 19.3; P < .001), and were less likely to be safety net hospitals (2.5% vs 12.3%; P < .001). The BPCI participants had higher AMI and CHF discharge volumes, were more likely to have cardiac intensive care units and catheterization laboratories, and had lower risk-standardized 30-day mortality rates for AMI (13.7% vs 16.6%; P = .001) and CHF (11.3 vs 12.4; P = .005). In multivariable analysis, larger hospital size and access to a cardiac catheterization laboratory were positively associated with participation. Being a safety net hospital was negatively associated with participation (odds ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.7; P = .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Hospitals participating in BPCI model 2 cardiac bundles differed in significant ways from nonparticipating hospitals. The BPCI outcomes may therefore have limited external validity, particularly among small and safety net hospitals with limited clinical cardiac services.

Long term risk of death and readmission after hospital admission with covid-19 among older adults: retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the long term risk of death and hospital readmission after an index admission with covid-19 among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, and to compare these outcomes with historical control patients admitted to hospital with influenza.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

United States.

PARTICIPANTS

883 394 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries age ≥65 years discharged alive after an index hospital admission with covid-19 between 1 March 2020 and 31 August 2022, compared with 56 409 historical controls discharged alive after a hospital admission with influenza between 1 March 2018 and 31 August 2019. Weighting methods were used to account for differences in observed characteristics.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

All cause death within 180 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes included first all cause readmission and a composite of death or readmission within 180 days.

RESULTS

The covid-19 cohort compared with the influenza cohort was younger (77.9 v 78.9 years, standardized mean difference -0.12) and had a lower proportion of women (51.7% v 57.3%, -0.11). Both groups had a similar proportion of black beneficiaries (10.3% v 8.1%, 0.07) and beneficiaries with dual Medicaid-Medicare eligibility status (20.1% v 19.2%; 0.02). The covid-19 cohort had a lower comorbidity burden, including atrial fibrillation (24.3% v 29.5%, -0.12), heart failure (43.4% v 49.9%, -0.13), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (39.2% v 52.9%, -0.27). After weighting, the covid-19 cohort had a higher risk (ie, cumulative incidence) of all cause death at 30 days (10.9% v 3.9%; standardized risk difference 7.0%, 95% confidence interval 6.8% to 7.2%), 90 days (15.5% v 7.1%; 8.4%, 8.2% to 8.7%), and 180 days (19.1% v 10.5%; 8.6%, 8.3% to 8.9%) compared with the influenza cohort. The covid-19 cohort also experienced a higher risk of hospital readmission at 30 days (16.0% v 11.2%; 4.9%, 4.6% to 5.1%) and 90 days (24.1% v 21.3%; 2.8%, 2.5% to 3.2%) but a similar risk at 180 days (30.6% v 30.6%;-0.1%, -0.5% to 0.3%). Over the study period, the 30 day risk of death for patients discharged after a covid-19 admission decreased from 17.9% to 7.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare beneficiaries who were discharged alive after a covid-19 hospital admission had a higher post-discharge risk of death compared with historical influenza controls; this difference, however, was concentrated in the early post-discharge period. The risk of death for patients discharged after a covid-19 related hospital admission substantially declined over the course of the pandemic.

Assessment of Prices for Cardiovascular Tests and Procedures at Top-Ranked US Hospitals

This cross-sectional study describes variation in prices for common cardiovascular tests and procedures, both between and within top-ranked US hospitals.

Health Care Access and Management of Cardiovascular Risk Factors Among Working-Age Adults With Low Income by State Medicaid Expansion Status

Importance

Medicaid expansion led to gains in insurance coverage among working-age adults with low income. To date, the extent to which disparities in access and cardiovascular care persist for this population in Medicaid nonexpansion and expansion states is unknown.

Objective

To compare insurance coverage, health care access, and cardiovascular risk factor management between working-age adults (age 18-64 years) with low income in Medicaid nonexpansion and expansion states and between uninsured and insured adults in these states.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study analyzed data on adults aged 18 to 64 years with low income from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from January 1 to December 31, 2019.

Exposures

State Medicaid expansion and insurance status.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were health care access and monitoring and treatment of cardiovascular risk factors. The estimated adjusted risk difference (RD) in outcomes was estimated to compare adults in Medicaid nonexpansion and expansion states and uninsured and insured individuals in nonexpansion and expansion states.

Results

The weighted study population consisted of 28 028 451 working-age adults with low income, including 10 094 994 (36.0%) in Medicaid nonexpansion states (63.4% female) and 17 933 457 (64.0%) in expansion states (59.2% female). Adults in nonexpansion states had higher uninsurance rates (42.4% [95% CI, 40.2%-44.7%] vs 23.8% [95% CI, 22.8%-24.8%]), were less likely to have a usual source of care (55.4% [95% CI, 53.1%-57.6%] vs 65.4% [95% CI, 64.3%-66.5%]; adjusted RD, -11.4% [95% CI, -13.9% to -8.8%]) or a recent examination (78.9% [95% CI, 77.0%-80.9%] vs 84.4% [95% CI, 83.5%-85.2%]; RD, -6.2% [95% CI, -8.4% to -4.0%]), and were more likely to have deferred care owing to cost (36.1% [95% CI, 34.0%-38.2%] vs 21.8% [95% CI, 20.9%-22.8%]; RD, 14.2% [95% CI, 11.9%-16.6%]) than were those in expansion states. There were no significant differences in cardiovascular risk factor management between these groups. In nonexpansion states, uninsured adults had significantly worse access to care across these measures and were less likely to receive indicated monitoring of cholesterol (72.6% [95% CI, 67.7%-77.4%] vs 93.7%; [95% CI, 92.4%-95.0%]; RD, -17.2% [95% CI, -21.8% to -12.6%]) and hemoglobin A1c (55.2% [95% CI, 40.0%-72.5%] vs 88.5% [95% CI, 79.2%-97.9%]; RD, -25.8% [95% CI, -47.6% to -4.1%]) levels or to receive treatment for hypertension (49.4% [95% CI, 43.3%-55.6%] vs 74.7% [95% CI, 71.5%-78.0%]; RD, -16.3% [95% CI, -23.2% to -9.4%]) and hyperlipidemia (30.2% [95% CI, 23.5%-36.8%] vs 58.7% [95% CI, 53.9%-63.5%]; RD, -19.3% [95% CI, -27.9% to -10.7%]) compared with insured adults. These patterns were similar for uninsured and insured adults in expansion states.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, working-age adults with low income in Medicaid nonexpansion states experienced higher uninsurance rates and worse access to care than did those in expansion states; however, cardiovascular risk factor management was similar and treatment rates were low. In nonexpansion states, uninsured adults were less likely to receive appropriate cardiovascular risk factor management compared with insured adults.

Effect of Medicare Advantage on Hospital Readmission and Mortality Rankings

BACKGROUND

Medicare links hospital performance on readmissions and mortality to payment solely on the basis of outcomes among fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries. Whether including Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries, who account for nearly half of all Medicare beneficiaries, in the evaluation of hospital performance affects rankings is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the inclusion of MA beneficiaries in readmission and mortality measures reclassifies hospital performance rankings compared with current measures.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

SETTING

Population-based.

PARTICIPANTS

Hospitals participating in the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program or Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program.

MEASUREMENTS

Using the 100% Medicare files for FFS and MA claims, the authors calculated 30-day risk-adjusted readmissions and mortality for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and pneumonia on the basis of only FFS beneficiaries and then both FFS and MA beneficiaries. Hospitals were divided into quintiles of performance based on FFS beneficiaries only, and the proportion of hospitals that were reclassified to a different performance group with the inclusion of MA beneficiaries was calculated.

RESULTS

Of the hospitals in the top-performing quintile for readmissions and mortality based on FFS beneficiaries, between 21.6% and 30.2% were reclassified to a lower-performing quintile with the inclusion of MA beneficiaries. Similar proportions of hospitals were reclassified from the bottom performance quintile to a higher one across all measures and conditions. Hospitals with a higher proportion of MA beneficiaries were more likely to improve in performance rankings.

LIMITATION

Hospital performance measurement and risk adjustment differed slightly from those used by Medicare.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 1 in 4 top-performing hospitals is reclassified to a lower performance group when MA beneficiaries are included in the evaluation of hospital readmissions and mortality. These findings suggest that Medicare's current value-based programs provide an incomplete picture of hospital performance.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Cardiovascular hospitalizations and mortality among adults aged 25-64 years in the USA

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Declines in cardiovascular mortality have stagnated in the USA since 2011. There is growing concern that these patterns reflect worsening cardiovascular health in younger adults. However, little is known about how the burden of acute cardiovascular hospitalizations and mortality has changed in this population. Changes in cardiovascular hospitalizations and mortality among adults aged 25-64 years were evaluated, overall and by community-level income.

METHODS

Using the National Inpatient Sample, age-standardized annual hospitalization and in-hospital mortality rates for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure, and ischaemic stroke were determined among adults aged 25-64 years. Quasi-Poisson and quasi-binominal regression models were fitted to compare outcomes between individuals residing in low- and higher-income communities.

RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2019, age-standardized hospitalization rates for AMI increased among younger adults from 155.0 (95% confidence interval: 154.6, 155.4) per 100 000 to 160.7 (160.3, 161.1) per 100 000 (absolute change +5.7 [5.0, 6.3], P < .001). Heart failure hospitalizations also increased (165.3 [164.8, 165.7] to 225.3 [224.8, 225.8], absolute change +60.0 (59.3, 60.6), P < .001), as ischaemic stroke hospitalizations (76.3 [76.1, 76.7] to 108.1 [107.8, 108.5], absolute change +31.7 (31.2, 32.2), P < .001). Across all conditions, hospitalizations rates were significantly higher among younger adults residing in low-income compared with higher-income communities, and disparities did not narrow between groups. In-hospital mortality decreased for all conditions over the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

There was an alarming increase in cardiovascular hospitalizations among younger adults in the USA from 2008 to 2019, and disparities between those residing in low- and higher-income communities did not narrow.

Prevalence of Chronic Medical Conditions Among Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

The federal government spends billions of dollars per year on payments to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans based, in part, on beneficiaries' risk scores. Despite this, little is known about the true burden of chronic medical conditions among MA beneficiaries compared with those in fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the prevalence of chronic medical conditions is higher among MA compared with FFS beneficiaries.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

SETTING

Population based.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged 65 years or older enrolled in MA or FFS Medicare.

MEASUREMENTS

Using direct physical examination and laboratory data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2015 to 2018), we compared the age- and sex-standardized prevalence of obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease between MA and FFS beneficiaries.

RESULTS

The unweighted study population included 2446 respondents corresponding to a weighted total of 45 426 711 adults (34.4% MA, 65.6% FFS Medicare). The prevalence of obesity (41.1% vs. 40.6%; standardized difference [SDiff], 0.48 percentage points [pp] [95% CI, -5.2 to 6.2 pp]), hypertension (70.9% vs. 71.0%; SDiff, -0.05 pp [CI, -5.8 to 5.7 pp]), hyperlipidemia (79.4% vs. 82.3%; SDiff, -2.86 pp [CI, -7.0 to 1.3 pp]), and chronic kidney disease (19.2% vs. 22.8%; SDiff, -3.48 pp [CI, -9.2 to 2.3 pp]) was not higher among MA beneficiaries compared with FFS beneficiaries. However, the prevalence of diabetes was higher in MA (33.3% vs. 26.3%; SDiff, 7.00 pp [CI, 3.3 to 10.7 pp]).

LIMITATION

Differences in the severity of specific medical conditions between groups could not be assessed.

CONCLUSION

In this nationally representative study from 2015 to 2018, the prevalence of obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and chronic kidney disease was not higher among MA compared with FFS beneficiaries; however, the prevalence of diabetes was higher among MA beneficiaries.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and American Heart Association (AHA).

Enriching the American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry Through Linkage With External Data Sources: Rationale and Design

Background The AHA Registry (American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry) captures detailed information on hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The registry, however, does not capture information on social determinants of health or long-term outcomes. Here we describe the linkage of the AHA Registry with external data sources, including fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare claims, to fill these gaps and assess the representativeness of linked registry patients to the broader Medicare FFS population hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods and Results We linked AHA Registry records of adults ≥65 years from March 2020 to September 2021 with Medicare FFS claims using a deterministic linkage algorithm and with the American Hospital Association Annual Survey, Rural Urban Commuting Area codes, and the Social Vulnerability Index using hospital and geographic identifiers. We compared linked individuals with unlinked FFS beneficiaries hospitalized with COVID-19 to assess the representativeness of the AHA Registry. A total of 10 010 (47.0%) records in the AHA Registry were successfully linked to FFS Medicare claims. Linked and unlinked FFS beneficiaries were similar with respect to mean age (78.1 versus 77.9, absolute standardized difference [ASD] 0.03); female sex (48.3% versus 50.2%, ASD 0.04); Black race (15.1% versus 12.0%, ASD 0.09); dual-eligibility status (26.1% versus 23.2%, ASD 0.07); and comorbidity burden. Linked patients were more likely to live in the northeastern United States (35.7% versus 18.2%, ASD 0.40) and urban/metropolitan areas (83.9% versus 76.8%, ASD 0.18). There were also differences in hospital-level characteristics between cohorts. However, in-hospital outcomes were similar (mortality, 23.3% versus 20.1%, ASD 0.08; home discharge, 45.5% versus 50.7%, ASD 0.10; skilled nursing facility discharge, 24.4% versus 22.2%, ASD 0.05). Conclusions Linkage of the AHA Registry with external data sources such as Medicare FFS claims creates a unique and generalizable resource to evaluate long-term health outcomes after COVID-19 hospitalization.

Validation of Medicare Advantage Claims for Long-Term Outcome Assessment in Low-Risk Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Although Medicare Advantage (MA) plans provide coverage to >50% of Medicare beneficiaries, it is unclear whether MA claims can be used similarly to Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) claims for clinical outcomes assessment. In this study, we evaluate the accuracy of claims algorithms previously validated in FFS to assess comorbidities and outcomes in MA patients after aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

We compared the concordance of 11 claims-based covariates (diabetes, hypertension, atrial flutter/fibrillation, myocardial infarction) and outcomes (stroke, disabling stroke, transient ischemic attack, major vascular complication, bleeding, permanent pacemaker implantation, death) among FFS and MA patients with the covariates and adjudicated outcomes in the multinational Evolut Low-Risk Trial (2016-2018). We used claims algorithms for 1-year outcomes and calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and kappa, using adjudicated outcomes as the reference. We compared the kappa for MA versus FFS using the 2-sample z-test with a significance level of P<0.05.

RESULTS

Among 1139 US patients aged 65+ years old in the Evolut Low-Risk Trial, 782 patients (175 MA and 607 FFS) were linked to claims data and had complete comorbidity data. Among all covariates, claims algorithms for covariates had sensitivities ≥85% for identifying diabetes, atrial flutter/fibrillation, and hypertension in MA and FFS. For the outcomes, sensitivities were ≥85% for bleeding (comprehensive), permanent pacemaker implantation, and death. The kappa was higher in MA versus FFS for diabetes (P=0.03) and hypertension (P=0.025) but was lower in myocardial infarction (P<0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in the kappa agreement between MA versus FFS for any of the selected outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare claims have a similar level of kappa agreement in MA versus FFS for most covariates and outcomes. As patients shift to MA, ascertainment of outcomes using Medicare claims in postapproval studies remains valid for select outcomes.

Cardiovascular hospitalizations for Medicare advantage beneficiaries in the United States, 2009 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Federal programs measuring hospital quality of care for acute cardiovascular conditions are based solely on Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries, and exclude Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries. In this study we characterize the proportion of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in MA at the time of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and ischemic stroke hospitalization.

METHODS

Retrospective cross-sectional study of short-term acute care hospitals using Medicare claims in 2009 and 2019.

RESULTS

There were 2,653 hospitals in 2009 and 2,732 hospitals in 2019. Across hospitals, the proportion of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for AMI who were enrolled in MA increased between 2009 (hospital-level median 14.4% [IQR 5.1%-26.0%]) and 2019 (33.3% [IQR 20.6%-45.2%]), with substantial variation across hospitals. Similar patterns were observed for HF (13.0% [IQR 5.3%-24.3%] to 31.0% [IQR 20.2%-42.3%]) and ischemic stroke (14.6% [IQR 5.3%-26.7%] to 33.3% [IQR 20.9%-46.0%]). Within each hospital referral region, hospital size (large 36.3% vs small 24.5%; adjusted difference 6.7%, 95% CI, 4.5%-8.8%), teaching status (teaching 34.5% vs nonteaching 28.2%; 2.8%, 1.4%-4.1%), and ownership status (private nonprofit 32.3% vs public 24.5%; 5.2%, 3.5%-6.9%) were each associated with a higher hospital MA proportion.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for AMI, HF, and ischemic stroke enrolled in MA doubled between 2009 and 2019, with substantial variation across hospitals. These findings have implications for federal efforts to measure and improve quality, which currently focus only on FFS beneficiaries.

Association Between Medicare Program Type and Health Care Access, Acute Care Utilization, and Affordability Among Adults With Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

Medicare Advantage plans now provide health insurance coverage to >24 million older adults in the United States, and enrollment is increasing among individuals with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Whether Medicare Advantage enrollment is associated with similar health care access, acute care utilization, and financial strain for adults with CVD compared with traditional Medicare is unknown.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older with CVD using the 2019 National Health Interview Survey. We fit multivariable logistic regression models to examine the association of Medicare program type (Medicare Advantage versus traditional Medicare) with measures of health care access, acute care utilization, and affordability.

RESULTS

The weighted population included 11 013 437 Medicare beneficiaries, of whom 3 922 104 (35.6%) were enrolled in Medicare Advantage, and 7 091 334 (64.4%) were enrolled in traditional Medicare. Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare enrollees were similar with respect to age, sex, racial/ethnic distribution, and household income; however, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries were more likely to live in an urban setting (82.7% versus 76.0%; P=0.01) and to be college educated (24.2% versus 19.0%; P=0.01). Medicare Advantage beneficiaries were more likely to have a usual source of care (93.5% versus 88.9%; OR, 1.99 [95% CI, 1.33-2.98)]; however, there were no other differences in health care access or utilization. Medicare Advantage beneficiaries were more likely to have problems paying medical bills (16.5% versus 11.6%; OR, 1.68 [1.17-2.40]) and to worry about paying medical bills (40.1% versus 33.8%; OR, 1.37 [1.07-1.76]) compared with those enrolled in traditional Medicare.

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with CVD in Medicare Advantage were more likely to experience financial strain related to their medical bills compared with those in traditional Medicare. As enrollment in Medicare Advantage grows, policy efforts should focus on ensuring care is affordable for patients with CVD.