Trends in observation stays for Medicare beneficiaries with and without Alzheimer's disease and related dementias

BACKGROUND

There has been a marked rise in the use of observation care for Medicare beneficiaries visiting the emergency department (ED) in recent years. Whether trends in observation use differ for people with Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease-related dementias (AD/ADRD) is unknown.

METHODS

Using a national 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries ages 68+ from 2012 to 2018, we compared trends in ED visits and observation stays by AD/ADRD status for beneficiaries visiting the ED. We then examined the degree to which trends differed by nursing home (NH) residency status, assigning beneficiaries to four groups: AD/ADRD residing in NH (AD/ADRD+ NH+), AD/ADRD not residing in NH (AD/ADRD+ NH-), no AD/ADRD residing in NH (AD/ADRD- NH+), and no AD/ADRD not residing in NH (AD/ADRD- NH-).

RESULTS

Of 7,489,780 unique beneficiaries, 18.6% had an AD/ADRD diagnosis. Beneficiaries with AD/ADRD had more than double the number of ED visits per 1000 in all years compared to those without AD/ADRD and saw a faster adjusted increase over time (+26.7 vs. +8.2 visits/year; p < 0.001 for interaction). The annual increase in the adjusted proportion of ED visits ending in observation was also greater among people with AD/ADRD (+0.78%/year, 95% CI 0.77-0.80%) compared to those without AD/ADRD (+0.63%/year, 95% CI 0.59-0.66%; p < 0.001 for interaction). Observation utilization was greatest for the AD/ADRD+ NH+ population and lowest for the AD/ADRD- NH- population, but the AD/ADRD+ NH- group saw the greatest increase in observation stays over time (+15.4 stays per 1000 people per year, 95% CI 15.0-15.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare beneficiaries with AD/ADRD have seen a disproportionate increase in observation utilization in recent years, driven by both an increase in ED visits and an increase in the proportion of ED visits ending in observation.

Disparities in Access to Outpatient Surgery Related to Removal of Procedures from Medicare's Inpatient Only List

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the shift from inpatient to outpatient surgical care related to changes to the Inpatient Only List in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The extent to which procedures shift from the inpatient to outpatient setting following removal from Medicare's Inpatient Only List is unknown. Many health systems also encouraged a shift from inpatient to outpatient surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessing the relative change in outpatient surgical utilization for procedures removed from the Inpatient Only List during COVID-19 would provide empirical data on whether reimbursement policy changes or inpatient capacity needs during the pandemic were more likely to shift care from the inpatient to outpatient setting.

METHODS

We used administrative data from the PINC AI Healthcare Database across 723 hospitals to determine the within-facility relative change in outpatient vs inpatient procedural volume in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019 using a multivariable conditional fixed-effects Poisson regression model. We also assessed whether outpatient surgical utilization varied by race and ethnicity. Using a multivariable linear probability model, we assessed the absolute change in risk-adjusted 30-day complication, readmission, and mortality rates for inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures.

RESULTS

In 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019 respectively, there was a 5.3% (95% CI, 1.4% to 9.5%) and 41.3% (95% CI 33.1% to 50.0%) relative increase in outpatient elective procedural volume. Outpatient procedural volume increased most significantly for hip replacement which was removed from the Inpatient Only List in 2020 (increase in outpatient surgical utilization of 589.3% (95% CI, 524.9% to 660.3%)). The shift to outpatient hip replacement procedures was concentrated among White patients; in 2021, hip replacement procedural volume increased by 271.1% (95% CI, 241.2% and 303.7%) for White patients and 29.5% (95% CI, 24.4% and 34.9%) for Black patients compared to 2019 levels. There were no consistent or large changes in 30-day complication, readmission, or mortality risk in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019.

CONCLUSION

There was a modest increase in elective outpatient surgeries and a pronounced increase in outpatient orthopedic surgeries which were removed from the Inpatient Only List during the COVID-19 pandemic. Utilization of outpatient surgical procedures was concentrated among White patients.

The Rise and Risks of Medicare Advantage "Affinity Plans"

This Viewpoint discusses the proliferation of Medicare Advantage plans targeting specific groups of individuals and whether these plans will improve quality of care for beneficiaries.

Medicaid Eligibility Loss Among Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries Before and During COVID-19 Public Health Emergency

Importance

Medicaid coverage loss can substantially compromise access to and affordability of health care for dual-eligible beneficiaries. The extent to which this population lost Medicaid coverage before and during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) and the characteristics of beneficiaries more at risk for coverage loss are currently not well known.

Objective

To assess the loss of Medicaid coverage among dual-eligible beneficiaries before and during the first year of the PHE, and to examine beneficiary-level and plan-level factors associated with heightened likelihood of losing Medicaid.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This repeated cross-sectional study used national Medicare data to estimate annual rates of Medicaid loss among dual-eligible beneficiaries before (2015 to 2019) and during the PHE (2020). Individuals who were dual eligible for Medicare and Medicaid at the beginning of a given year and who continuously received low-income subsidies for Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage were included in the sample. Multivariable regression models were used to examine beneficiary-level and plan-level factors associated with Medicaid loss. Data analyses were conducted between March 2023 and October 2023.

Exposure

Onset of PHE.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Loss of Medicaid for at least 1 month within a year.

Results

Sample included 56 172 736 dual-eligible beneficiary-years between 2015 and 2020. In 2020, most dual-eligible beneficiaries were aged over 65 years (5 984 420 [61.1%]), female (5 868 866 [59.9%]), non-Hispanic White (4 928 035 [50.3%]), full-benefit eligible (6 837 815 [69.8%]), and enrolled in traditional Medicare (5 343 537 [54.6%]). The adjusted proportion of dual-eligible beneficiaries losing Medicaid for at least 1 month increased from 6.6% in 2015 to 7.3% in 2019 and then dropped to 2.3% in 2020. Between 2015 and 2019, dual-eligible beneficiaries who were older (ages 55-64 years: -1.4%; 95% CI, -1.8% to -1.0%; ages 65-74 years: -2.0%; 95% CI, -2.5% to -1.5%; ages 75 and older: -4.5%; 95% CI, -5.0% to -4.0%), disabled (-0.8%; 95% CI, -1.1% to -0.6%), and in integrated care programs were less likely to lose Medicaid. In 2020, the disparities within each of these demographic groups narrowed significantly. Notably, while Black (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.2% to 0.9%) and Hispanic (0.7%; 95% CI, 0.3% to 1.2%) dual-eligible beneficiaries were more likely to lose Medicaid than their non-Hispanic White counterparts between 2015 and 2019, such gap was eliminated for Black beneficiaries and narrowed for Hispanic beneficiaries in 2020.

Conclusions and Relevance

During the PHE, Medicaid coverage loss declined significantly among dual-eligible beneficiaries, and disparities were mitigated across subgroups. As the PHE unwinds, it is crucial for policymakers to implement strategies to minimize Medicaid coverage disruptions and racial and ethnic disparities, especially given that loss of Medicaid was slightly increasing over time before the PHE.

Improving health equity through health care systems research

OBJECTIVE

To describe health equity research priorities for health care delivery systems and delineate a research and action agenda that generates evidence-based solutions to persistent racial and ethnic inequities in health outcomes.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

This project was conducted as a component of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) stakeholder engaged process to develop an Equity Agenda and Action Plan to guide priority setting to advance health equity. Recommendations were developed and refined based on expert input, evidence review, and stakeholder engagement. Participating stakeholders included experts from academia, health care organizations, industry, and government.

STUDY DESIGN

Expert group consensus, informed by stakeholder engagement and targeted evidence review.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Priority themes were derived iteratively through (1) brainstorming and idea reduction, (2) targeted evidence review of candidate themes, (3) determination of preliminary themes; (4) input on preliminary themes from stakeholders attending AHRQ's 2022 Health Equity Summit; and (5) and refinement of themes based on that input. The final set of research and action recommendations was determined by authors' consensus.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Health care delivery systems have contributed to racial and ethnic disparities in health care. High quality research is needed to inform health care delivery systems approaches to undo systemic barriers and inequities. We identified six priority themes for research; (1) institutional leadership, culture, and workforce; (2) data-driven, culturally tailored care; (3) health equity targeted performance incentives; (4) health equity-informed approaches to health system consolidation and access; (5) whole person care; (6) and whole community investment. We also suggest cross-cutting themes regarding research workforce and research timelines.

CONCLUSIONS

As the nation's primary health services research agency, AHRQ can advance equitable delivery of health care by funding research and disseminating evidence to help transform the organization and delivery of health care.

Disparities in property insurance relief among socially vulnerable Texas communities after Winter Storm Uri

Property insurance is an important tool for resiliency from the accelerating impacts of climate-intensified extreme weather events. However, disparities in property insurance payouts may reduce their potential protective effects. The objective of this study was to quantify disparities in insurance payouts by Texas' insurers after the 2021 Winter Storm Uri, and to understand if any socioeconomic factors were associated with higher rates of declined relief. We extracted data from the Texas Department of Insurance on rates of denied insurance claims by zip code and county at 1 month and 13 months into the recovery period. We then linked these data to community-level socioeconomic information. Finally, we produced separate linear regressions for each predictor and covariate. Across both time points, communities with a higher proportion of Hispanic people, primary Spanish speakers, people who did not graduate high school, and people living below the federal poverty line were significantly more likely to experience denied claims. Communities with higher social vulnerability scores also experienced more denied claims. While financial security is a critical social determinant of health, findings suggest that insurers may be engaging in structurally discriminatory practices and failing to provide relief for people from socially vulnerable communities in the wake of climate-intensified events.

Comparison of Claims-Based Frailty Indices in U.S. Veterans 65 and Older for Prediction of Long-Term Institutionalization and Mortality

BACKGROUND

Frailty is increasingly recognized as a useful measure of vulnerability in older adults. Multiple claims-based frailty indices (CFIs) can readily identify individuals with frailty, but whether 1 CFI improves prediction over another is unknown. We sought to assess the ability of 5 distinct CFIs to predict long-term institutionalization (LTI) and mortality in older Veterans.

METHODS

Retrospective study conducted in U.S. Veterans ≥65 years without prior LTI or hospice use in 2014. Five CFIs were compared: Kim, Orkaby (Veteran Affairs Frailty Index [VAFI]), Segal, Figueroa, and the JEN-FI, grounded in different theories of frailty: Rockwood cumulative deficit (Kim and VAFI), Fried physical phenotype (Segal), or expert opinion (Figueroa and JFI). The prevalence of frailty according to each CFI was compared. CFI performance for the coprimary outcomes of any LTI or mortality from 2015 to 2017 was examined. Because Segal and Kim include age, sex, or prior utilization, these variables were added to regression models to compare all 5 CFIs. Logistic regression was used to calculate model discrimination and calibration for both outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 3 million Veterans were included (mean age 75, 98% male participants, 80% White, and 9% Black). Frailty was identified for between 6.8% and 25.7% of the cohort with 2.6% identified as frail by all 5 CFIs. There was no meaningful difference between CFIs in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for LTI (0.78-0.80) or mortality (0.77-0.79).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on different frailty constructs, and identifying different subsets of the population, all 5 CFIs similarly predicted LTI or death, suggesting each could be used for prediction or analytics.

Trends in healthy days at home for Medicare beneficiaries using the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Older adults, particularly those with Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease Related Dementias (AD/ADRD), have high rates of emergency department (ED) visits and are at risk for poor outcomes. How best to measure quality of care for this population has been debated. Healthy Days at Home (HDAH) is a broad outcome measure reflecting mortality and time spent in facility-based healthcare settings versus home. We examined trends in 30-day HDAH for Medicare beneficiaries after visiting the ED and compared trends by AD/ADRD status.

METHODS

We identified all ED visits among a national 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries ages 68 and older from 2012 to 2018. For each visit, we calculated 30-day HDAH by subtracting mortality days and days spent in facility-based healthcare settings within 30 days of an ED visit. We calculated adjusted rates of HDAH using linear regression, accounting for hospital random effects, visit diagnosis, and patient characteristics. We compared rates of HDAH among beneficiaries with and without AD/ADRD, including accounting for nursing home (NH) residency status.

RESULTS

We found fewer adjusted 30-day HDAH after ED visits among patients with AD/ADRD compared to those without AD/ADRD (21.6 vs. 23.0). This difference was driven by a greater number of mortality days, SNF days, and, to a lesser degree, hospital observation days, ED visits, and long-term hospital days. From 2012 to 2018, individuals living with AD/ADRD had fewer HDAH each year but a greater mean annual increase over time (p < 0.001 for the interaction between year and AD/ADRD status). Being a NH resident was associated with fewer adjusted 30-day HDAH for beneficiaries with and without AD/ADRD.

CONCLUSIONS

Beneficiaries with AD/ADRD had fewer HDAH following an ED visit but saw moderately greater increases in HDAH over time compared to those without AD/ADRD. This trend was visit driven by declining mortality and utilization of inpatient and post-acute care.

Association Between Emergency Physician's Age and Mortality of Medicare Patients Aged 65 to 89 Years After Emergency Department Visit

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the association between emergency physicians' ages and patient mortality after emergency department visits.

METHODS

This observational study used a 20% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 to 89 years treated by emergency physicians at EDs from 2016 to 2017. We investigated whether 7-day mortality after ED visits differed by the age of the emergency physician, adjusting for patient and physician characteristics and hospital fixed effects.

RESULTS

We observed 2,629,464 ED visits treated by 32,570 emergency physicians (mean age 43.5). We found that patients treated by younger emergency physicians had lower mortality rates compared with those treated by older physicians. Adjusted 7-day mortality was 1.33% for patients treated by emergency physicians aged less than 40 years, 1.36% (adjusted difference, 0.03%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.001% to 0.06%) for physicians ages 40 to 49, 1.40% (0.08%; 95% CI 0.04% to 0.12%) for physicians ages 50 to 59, and 1.43% (0.11%; 95% CI 0.06% to 0.16%) for those with a physician age of 60 years and more. Similar patterns were observed when stratified by the patient's disposition (discharged vs admitted), and the association was more pronounced for patients with higher severity of illness.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare patients aged 65 to 89 years treated by emergency physicians aged under 40 years had lower 7-day mortality rates than those treated by physicians aged 50 to 59 years and 60 years or older within the same hospital. Potential mechanisms explaining the association between emergency physician age and patient mortality (eg, differences in training received and other unobservable patient/physician characteristics) are uncertain and require further study.

Early changes in health coverage and access to dental care associated with Medicaid expansion under the COVID-19 pandemic

The extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic has affected early changes in health coverage and access to dental care services in states that expanded Medicaid versus those that did not is currently not well known. Using data from the National Health Interview Survey, we found that, during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, states that had previously expanded their Medicaid programs under the Affordable Care Act had lower uninsurance rates for White low-income adults (-8.8 percentage points; 95% CI: -16.6, -1.0) and lower dental uninsurance rates for all low-income adults (-5.4 percentage points; 95% CI: -10.4, -0.5). Our findings also suggest that the combination of Medicaid expansion with coverage of adult dental benefits in Medicaid was associated with improved dental coverage and access to dental care during the pandemic. With the expiration of the public health emergency declaration, states are considering strategies to prevent disruptions in Medicaid coverage. Our study adds to the evidence of the importance of Medicaid expansion in stabilizing health coverage during a public health crisis.

High-performing primary care clinics across high-need, high-cost Medicare populations

BACKGROUND

To reduce spending and improve quality, some primary care clinics in the USA have focused on high-need, high-cost (HNHC) Medicare beneficiaries, which include clinically distinct subpopulations: older adults with frailty, adults under 65 years with disability and beneficiaries with major complex chronic conditions. Nationally, the extent to which primary care clinics are high-performing 'Bright Spots'-clinics that achieve favourable outcomes at lower costs across HNHC beneficiary subpopulations-is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of primary care clinics that perform highly on commonly used cost or quality measures for HNHC subpopulations.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

Cross-sectional study using Medicare claims data from 2014 to 2015.

MAIN MEASURES

Annual spending, avoidable hospitalisations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions, treat-and-release emergency department visits, all-cause 30-day unplanned hospital readmission rates and healthy days at home. Clinics were high performing when they ranked in the top quartile of performance for ≥4 measures for an HNHC subpopulation. 'Bright Spot' clinics were in the top quartile of performance for ≥4 measures across all the HNHC subpopulations.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 2770 primary care clinics cared for at least 10 beneficiaries from each of the three HNHC subpopulations (adults under 65 with disability, older adults with frailty and beneficiaries with major complex chronic conditions). Less than 4% of clinics were high performing for each HNHC subpopulation; <0.5% of clinics were in the top quartile for all five measures for a given subpopulation. No clinics met the definition of a primary care 'Bright Spot'.

CONCLUSIONS

High-performing primary care clinics that achieved favourable health outcomes or lower costs across subpopulations of HNHC beneficiaries in the Medicare programme in 2015 were rare. Efforts are needed to support primary care clinics in providing optimal care to HNHC subpopulations.

Use of High-Risk Medications Among Older Adults Enrolled in Medicare Advantage Plans vs Traditional Medicare

Importance

Limiting the use of high-risk medications (HRMs) among older adults is a national priority to provide a high quality of care for older beneficiaries of both Medicare Advantage and traditional fee-for-service Medicare Part D plans.

Objective

To evaluate the differences in the rate of HRM prescription fills among beneficiaries of traditional Medicare vs Medicare Advantage Part D plans and to examine the extent to which these differences change over time and the patient-level factors associated with higher rates of HRMs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used a 20% sample of Medicare Part D data on filled drug prescriptions from 2013 to 2017 and a 40% sample from 2018. The sample comprised Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years or older who were enrolled in Medicare Advantage or traditional Medicare Part D plans. Data were analyzed between April 1, 2022, and April 15, 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the number of unique HRMs prescribed to older Medicare beneficiaries per 1000 beneficiaries. Linear regression models were used to model the primary outcome, adjusting for patient characteristics and county characteristics and including hospital referral region fixed effects.

Results

The sample included 5 595 361 unique Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who were propensity score-matched on a year-by-year basis to 6 578 126 unique traditional Medicare beneficiaries between 2013 and 2018, resulting in 13 704 348 matched pairs of beneficiary-years. The traditional Medicare vs Medicare Advantage cohorts were similar in age (mean [SD] age, 75.65 [7.53] years vs 75.60 [7.38] years), proportion of males (8 127 261 [59.3%] vs 8 137 834 [59.4%]; standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.002), and predominant race and ethnicity (77.1% vs 77.4% non-Hispanic White; SMD = 0.05). On average in 2013, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries filled 135.1 (95% CI, 128.4-142.6) unique HRMs per 1000 beneficiaries compared with 165.6 (95% CI, 158.1-172.3) HRMs per 1000 beneficiaries for traditional Medicare. In 2018, the rate of HRMs had decreased to 41.5 (95% CI, 38.2-44.2) HRMs per 1000 beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage and to 56.9 (95% CI, 54.1-60.1) HRMs per 1000 beneficiaries in traditional Medicare. Across the study period, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries received 24.3 (95% CI, 20.2-28.3) fewer HRMs per 1000 beneficiaries per year compared with traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Female, American Indian or Alaska Native, and White populations were more likely to receive HRMs than other groups.

Conclusion and Relevance

Results of this study showed that HRM rates were consistently lower among Medicare Advantage than traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Higher use of HRMs among female, American Indian or Alaska Native, and White populations is a concerning disparity that requires further attention.

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.

Association Between Community-Level Social Risk and Spending Among Medicare Beneficiaries: Implications for Social Risk Adjustment and Health Equity

Importance

Payers are increasingly using approaches to risk adjustment that incorporate community-level measures of social risk with the goal of better aligning value-based payment models with improvements in health equity.

Objective

To examine the association between community-level social risk and health care spending and explore how incorporating community-level social risk influences risk adjustment for Medicare beneficiaries.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Using data from a Medicare Advantage plan linked with survey data on self-reported social needs, this cross-sectional study estimated health care spending health care spending was estimated as a function of demographics and clinical characteristics, with and without the inclusion of Area Deprivation Index (ADI), a measure of community-level social risk. The study period was January to December 2019. All analyses were conducted from December 2021 to August 2022.

Exposures

Census block group-level ADI.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Regression models estimated total health care spending in 2019 and approximated different approaches to social risk adjustment. Model performance was assessed with overall model calibration (adjusted R2) and predictive accuracy (ratio of predicted to actual spending) for subgroups of potentially vulnerable beneficiaries.

Results

Among a final study population of 61 469 beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 70.7 [8.9] years; 35 801 [58.2%] female; 48 514 [78.9%] White; 6680 [10.9%] with Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility; median [IQR] ADI, 61 [42-79]), ADI was weakly correlated with self-reported social needs (r = 0.16) and explained only 0.02% of the observed variation in spending. Conditional on demographic and clinical characteristics, every percentile increase in the ADI (ie, more disadvantage) was associated with a $11.08 decrease in annual spending. Directly incorporating ADI into a risk-adjustment model that used demographics and clinical characteristics did not meaningfully improve model calibration (adjusted R2 = 7.90% vs 7.93%) and did not significantly reduce payment inequities for rural beneficiaries and those with a high burden of self-reported social needs. A postestimation adjustment of predicted spending for dual-eligible beneficiaries residing in high ADI areas also did not significantly reduce payment inequities for rural beneficiaries or beneficiaries with self-reported social needs.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries, the ADI explained little variation in health care spending, was negatively correlated with spending conditional on demographic and clinical characteristics, and was poorly correlated with self-reported social risk factors. This prompts caution and nuance when using community-level measures of social risk such as the ADI for social risk adjustment within Medicare value-based payment programs.

Evaluation of Potentially Avoidable Acute Care Utilization Among Patients Insured by Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare

Importance

Medicare Advantage plans have strong incentives to reduce potentially wasteful health care, including costly acute care visits for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSCs). However, it remains unknown whether Medicare Advantage plans lower acute care use compared with traditional Medicare, or if it shifts patients from hospitalization to observation stays and emergency department (ED) direct discharges.

Objective

To determine whether Medicare Advantage is associated with differential utilization of hospitalizations, observations, and ED direct discharges for ACSCs compared with traditional Medicare.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cross-sectional study of US Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare beneficiaries from January 1 to December 31, 2018. Poisson regression models were used to compare risk-adjusted rates of Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare, controlling for patient demographic characteristics and clinical risk and including county fixed-effects. Data were analyzed between April 2021 and November 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Hospitalizations, observation stays, and ED direct discharges for ACSCs.

Results

The study sample comprised 2 665 340 Medicare Advantage patients (mean [SD] age, 72.7 [9.8] years; 1 504 519 [56.4%] women; 1 859 067 [69.7%] White individuals) and 7 981 547 traditional Medicare patients (mean [SD] age, 71.2 [11.8] years; 4 232 201 [53.0%] women; 6 176 239 [77.4%] White individuals). Medicare Advantage patients had lower risk of hospitalization for ACSCs compared with traditional Medicare patients (relative risk [RR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.93-0.95), primarily owing to fewer hospitalizations for acute conditions (eg, pneumonia). Medicare Advantage patients had a higher risk of ED direct discharges (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.43-1.45) and observation stays (RR, 2.38; 95% CI, 2.34-2.41) for ACSCs vs traditional Medicare patients. Overall, Medicare Advantage patients were at higher risk of needing care for an ACSC (hospitalization, ED direct discharge, or observation stay) than traditional Medicare patients (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.30-1.31). Within the Medicare Advantage population, patients in health maintenance organizations (HMOs) were at lower risk of ACSC-related hospitalization compared with patients in its preferred provider organizations (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98); however, those in the HMOs had a higher risk of ED direct discharge (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.07-1.09) and observation stay (overall RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.12).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cross-sectional study of Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare patients with ACSCs indicate that apparent gains in lowering rates of potentially avoidable acute care have been associated with shifting inpatient care to settings such as ED direct discharges and observation stays.

Why the US spends more treating high-need high-cost patients: a comparative study of pricing and utilization of care in six high-income countries

One of the most pressing challenges facing most health care systems is rising costs. As the population ages and the demand for health care services grows, there is a growing need to understand the drivers of these costs across systems. This paper attempts to address this gap by examining utilization and spending of the course of a year for two specific high-need high-cost patient types: a frail older person with a hip fracture and an older person with congestive heart failure and diabetes. Data on utilization and expenditure is collected across five health care settings (hospital, post-acute rehabilitation, primary care, outpatient specialty and drugs), in six countries (Canada (Ontario), France, Germany, Spain (Aragon), Sweden and the United States (fee for service Medicare) and used to construct treatment episode Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) that compare prices using baskets of goods from the different care settings. The treatment episode PPPs suggest other countries have more similar volumes of care to the US as compared to other standardization approaches, suggesting that US prices account for more of the differential in US health care expenditures. The US also differs with regards to the share of expenditures across care settings, with post-acute rehab and outpatient speciality expenditures accounting for a larger share of the total relative to comparators.

Association of Academic Medical Center Presence With Clinical Outcomes at Neighboring Community Hospitals Among Medicare Beneficiaries

IMPORTANCE

Studies suggest that academic medical centers (AMCs) have better outcomes than nonteaching hospitals. However, whether AMCs have spillover benefits for patients treated at neighboring community hospitals is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether market-level AMC presence is associated with outcomes for patients treated at nonteaching hospitals within the same markets.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective, population-based cohort study assessed traditional Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older discharged from US acute care hospitals between 2015 and 2017 (100% sample). Data were analyzed from August 2021 to December 2022.

EXPOSURES

The primary exposure was market-level AMC presence. Health care markets (ie, hospital referral regions) were categorized by AMC presence (percentage of hospitalizations at AMCs) as follows: no presence (0%), low presence (>0% to 20%), moderate presence (>20% to 35%), and high presence (>35%).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were 30-day and 90-day mortality and healthy days at home (HDAH), a composite outcome reflecting mortality and time spent in facility-based health care settings.

RESULTS

There were 22 509 824 total hospitalizations, with 18 865 229 (83.8%) at non-AMCs. The median (IQR) age of patients was 78 (71-85) years, and 12 568 230 hospitalizations (55.8%) were among women. Of 306 hospital referral regions, 191 (62.4%) had no AMCs, 61 (19.9%) had 1 AMC, and 55 (17.6%) had 2 or more AMCs. Markets characteristics differed significantly by category of AMC presence, including mean population, median income, proportion of White residents, and physicians per population. Compared with markets with no AMC presence, receiving care at a non-AMC in a market with greater AMC presence was associated with lower 30-day mortality (9.5% vs 10.1%; absolute difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -1.0% to -0.4%; P < .001) and 90-day mortality (16.1% vs 16.9%; absolute difference, -0.8%; 95% CI, -1.2% to -0.4%; P < .001) and more HDAH at 30 days (16.49 vs 16.12 HDAH; absolute difference, 0.38 HDAH; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.64 HDAH; P = .005) and 90 days (61.08 vs 59.83 HDAH; absolute difference, 1.25 HDAH; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.92 HDAH; P < .001), after adjustment. There was no association between market-level AMC presence and mortality for patients treated at AMCs themselves.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

AMCs may have spillover effects on outcomes for patients treated at non-AMCs, suggesting that they have a broader impact than is traditionally recognized. These associations are greatest in markets with the highest AMC presence and persist to 90 days.

Association of Clinical Setting With Sociodemographics and Outcomes Following Endovascular Femoropopliteal Artery Revascularization in the United States

BACKGROUND

After the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services modified reimbursement rates for outpatient peripheral vascular intervention in 2008 with the intent of improving access to care, providers began to increasingly perform peripheral vascular interventions in privately owned office-based clinics. Little is known about the characteristics of patients treated in this setting and their long-term outcomes as compared with those treated in hospital-based centers.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, Medicare beneficiaries ≥66 years undergoing outpatient femoropopliteal peripheral vascular interventions in office-based clinics and hospital-based centers from 2015 to 2017 were identified. Sociodemographics, comorbidities, and institutional characteristics were compared across sites. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the adjusted associations between practice site location and outcomes. The primary outcome was the composite of major amputation or death analyzed through the end of follow-up.

RESULTS

Among 134 869 patients, 29.9% were treated in office-based clinics and 70.1% in hospital-based centers. Patients treated in office-based clinics were more often Black (16.9% versus 11.9%), dually enrolled in Medicaid (26.3% versus 19.6%), and residents of lower-resourced regions (32.6% versus 25.6%). Over a median follow-up time of 800 days (interquartile range, 531-1119 days), patients treated in office-based clinics had reduced risks of major amputation or death compared with outpatients treated in hospital-based centers (hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.89-0.95]). They also had lower adjusted all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.90-0.96]), major lower extremity amputation (hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.79-0.89]), and all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.84-0.88]). These findings persisted after stratification by critical limb ischemia, race, dual enrollment, and regional socioeconomic status, as well as among operators treating patients in both clinical settings.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large nationwide analysis of Medicare beneficiaries, office-based clinics treated a more socioeconomically disadvantaged population compared with hospital-based centers. Long-term outcomes were comparable between locations. As such, these clinics appear to be selecting lower-risk patients for outpatient peripheral vascular interventions, although there remains the possibility of unmeasured confounding.

Cardiac Rehabilitation and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Persistent Declines in Cardiac Rehabilitation Participation and Access Among US Medicare Beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on participation in and availability of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is unknown.

METHODS

Among eligible Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, we evaluated, by month, the number of CR sessions attended per 100 000 beneficiaries, individuals eligible to initiate CR, and centers offering in-person CR between January 2019 and December 2021. We compared these outcomes between 2 periods: December 1, 2019 through February 28, 2020 (period 1, before declaration of the pandemic-related national emergency) and October 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021 (period 2, the latest period for which data are currently available).

RESULTS

In period 1, Medicare beneficiaries participated in (mean±SD) 895±84 CR sessions per 100 000 beneficiaries each month. After the national emergency was declared, CR participation sharply declined to 56 CR sessions per 100 000 beneficiaries in April 2020. CR participation recovered gradually through December 2021 but remained lower than prepandemic levels (period 2: 698±29 CR sessions per month per 100 000 beneficiaries, P=0.02). Declines in CR participation were most marked among dual Medicare and Medicaid enrollees and patients residing in rural areas or socially vulnerable communities. There was no statistically significant change in CR eligibility between the 2 periods. Compared with 2618±5 CR centers in period 1, there were 2464±7 in period 2 (P<0.01). Compared with CR centers that survived the pandemic, 220 CR centers that closed were more likely to be affiliated with public hospitals, located in rural areas, and serve the most socially vulnerable communities.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a persistent decline in CR participation and the closure of CR centers, which disproportionately affected rural and low-income patients and the most socially vulnerable communities. Innovation in CR financing and delivery is urgently needed to equitably enhance CR participation among Medicare beneficiaries.

Assessment of Strategies Used in US Hospitals to Address Social Needs During the COVID-19 Pandemic

This survey study uses 2020 American Hospital Association data to assess strategies of US hospitals serving vulnerable populations in addressing social needs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ACO Spending and Utilization Among Medicare Patients at the End of Life: an Observational Study

BACKGROUND

End-of-life (EOL) costs constitute a substantial portion of healthcare spending in the USA and have been increasing. ACOs may offer an opportunity to improve quality and curtail EOL spending.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether practices that became ACOs altered spending and utilization at the EOL.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of Medicare claims.

PATIENTS

We assigned patients who died in 2012 and 2015 to an ACO or non-ACO practice. Practices that converted to ACOs in 2013 or 2014 were matched to non-ACOs in the same region. A total of 23,643 ACO patients were matched to 23,643 non-ACO patients.

MAIN MEASURES

Using a difference-in-differences model, we examined changes in EOL spending and care utilization after ACO implementation.

KEY RESULTS

The introduction of ACOs did not significantly impact overall spending for patients in the last 6 months of life (difference-in-difference (DID) = $192, 95%CI -$841 to $1125, P = 0.72). Changes in spending did not differ between ACO and non-ACO patients across spending categories (inpatient, outpatient, physician services, skilled nursing, home health, hospice). No differences were seen between ACO and non-ACO patients in rates of ED visits, inpatient admissions, ICU admission, mean healthy days at home, and mean hospice days at 180 and 30 days prior to death. However, non-ACO patients had a significantly greater increase in hospice utilization compared to ACO patients at 180 days (DID P-value = 0.02) and 30 days (DID P-value = 0.01) prior to death.

CONCLUSIONS

With the exception of hospice care utilization, spending and utilization were not different between ACOs and non-ACO patients at the EOL. Longer follow-up may be necessary to evaluate the impact of ACOs on EOL spending and care.

Changes in spending, utilization, and quality of care among Medicare accountable care organizations during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID pandemic disrupted health care spending and utilization, and the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP), Medicare’s largest value-based payment model with 11.2 million assigned beneficiaries, was no exception. Despite COVID, the 513 accountable care organizations (ACO) in MSSP returned a program record $1.9 billion in net savings to Medicare in 2020. To understand the extent of COVID’s impact on MSSP cost and quality, we describe how ACO spending changed in 2020 and further analyze changes in measured quality and utilization. We found that non-COVID per capita spending in MSSP fell by 8.3 percent from $11,496 to $10,537 (95% confidence interval(CI),-1,223.8 to-695.4, p<0.001), driven by 14.6% and 7.5% reductions in per capita acute inpatient and outpatient spending, respectively. Utilization fell across inpatient, emergency, and outpatient settings. On quality metrics, preventive screening rates remained stable or improved, while control of diabetes and blood pressure worsened. Large reductions in non-COVID utilization helped ACOs succeed financially in 2020, but worsening chronic disease measures are concerning. The appropriateness of the benchmark methodology and exclusion of COVID-related spending, especially as the virus approaches endemicity, should be revisited to ensure bonus payments reflect advances in care delivery and health outcomes rather than COVID-related shifts in spending and utilization patterns.

National Estimates of Increase in US Mechanical Ventilator Supply During the COVID-19 Pandemic

This cross-sectional study assesses whether the increase in adult and pediatric and neonatal mechanical ventilators in US hospitals in response to the COVID-19 pandemic varied across hospital structural features, region, and safety-net status.

Changes in Employment Status and Access to Care During COVID-19 Pandemic Among Low-Income Adults in 4 Southern States

BACKGROUND

While the impact of the COVID-19 recession on the economy is clear, there is limited evidence on how the COVID-19 pandemic-related job losses among low-income people may have affected their access to health care.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association of job loss during the pandemic with insurance coverage and access to and affordability of health care among low-income adults.

DESIGN

Using a random digit dialing telephone survey from October 2020 to December 2020 of low-income adults in 4 states-Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Texas-we conducted a series of multivariable logistic regression analyses, adjusting for demographics, chronic conditions, and state of residence.

PARTICIPANTS

US citizens aged 19-64 with a family income less than 138% of the federal poverty line who became newly unemployed during pandemic, remained employed during pandemic, or were chronically unemployed before and during the pandemic.

MAIN MEASURES

Rates of insurance, type of insurance coverage, measures of access to/affordability of care, and food/housing security KEY RESULTS: Of 1,794 respondents, 14.5% were newly unemployed, 49.6% were chronically unemployed, and 35.7% were employed. The newly unemployed were slightly younger and more likely Black or Latino. The newly unemployed were more likely to report uninsurance compared to the employed (+16.4 percentage points, 95% CI 6.0-26.9), and the chronically unemployed (+26.4 percentage points, 95% CI 16.2-36.6), mostly driven by Texas' populations. The newly unemployed also reported lower rates of access to care and higher rates of financial barriers to care. They were also more likely to report food and housing insecurity compared to others.

CONCLUSIONS

In a survey of 4 Southern States during pandemic, the newly unemployed had higher rates of uninsurance and worse access to care-largely due to financial barriers-and reported more housing and food insecurity than other groups. Our study highlights the vulnerability of low-income populations who experienced a job loss, especially in Texas, which did not expand Medicaid.

Comparison of Pregnancy and Birth Outcomes Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic

IMPORTANCE

Little is known about changes in obstetric outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether obstetric outcomes and pregnancy-related complications changed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study included pregnant patients receiving care at 463 US hospitals whose information appeared in the PINC AI Healthcare Database. The relative differences in birth outcomes, pregnancy-related complications, and length of stay (LOS) during the pandemic period (March 1, 2020, to April 31, 2021) were compared with the prepandemic period (January 1, 2019, to February 28, 2020) using logistic and Poisson models, adjusting for patients' characteristics, and comorbidities and with month and hospital fixed effects.

EXPOSURES

COVID-19 pandemic period.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The 3 primary outcomes were the relative change in preterm vs term births, mortality outcomes, and mode of delivery. Secondary outcomes included the relative change in pregnancy-related complications and LOS.

RESULTS

There were 849 544 and 805 324 pregnant patients in the prepandemic and COVID-19 pandemic periods, respectively, and there were no significant differences in patient characteristics between periods, including age (≥35 years: 153 606 [18.1%] vs 148 274 [18.4%]), race and ethnicity (eg, Hispanic patients: 145 475 [47.1%] vs 143 905 [17.9%]; White patients: 456 014 [53.7%] vs 433 668 [53.9%]), insurance type (Medicaid: 366 233 [43.1%] vs 346 331 [43.0%]), and comorbidities (all standardized mean differences <0.10). There was a 5.2% decrease in live births during the pandemic. Maternal death during delivery hospitalization increased from 5.17 to 8.69 deaths per 100 000 pregnant patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.75; 95% CI, 1.19-2.58). There were minimal changes in mode of delivery (vaginal: OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.996-1.02; primary cesarean: OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04; vaginal birth after cesarean: OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.95-1.00; repeated cesarean: OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95-0.97). LOS during delivery hospitalization decreased by 7% (rate ratio, 0.931; 95% CI, 0.928-0.933). Lastly, the adjusted odds of gestational hypertension (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11), obstetric hemorrhage (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.10), preeclampsia (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06), and preexisting chronic hypertension (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09) increased. No significant changes in preexisting racial and ethnic disparities were observed.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there were increased odds of maternal death during delivery hospitalization, cardiovascular disorders, and obstetric hemorrhage. Further efforts are needed to ensure risks potentially associated with the COVID-19 pandemic do not persist beyond the current state of the pandemic.

Association Between Self-reported Health-Related Social Needs and Acute Care Utilization Among Older Adults Enrolled in Medicare Advantage

Question

To what extent are self-reported health-related social needs (HRSNs) associated with acute care utilization among older adults enrolled in Medicare Advantage, and are there specific HRSNs that seem to matter more?

Findings

In this cross-sectional study of 56 155 older adults enrolled in Medicare Advantage, HRSNs were associated with statistically significantly higher rates of acute care utilization, with the largest association observed for avoidable hospital stays (53.3% increase). Unreliable transportation had the largest association with hospital stays and emergency department visits (marginal effects of 51.2 and 95.5 events per 1000 beneficiaries, respectively).

Meaning

Among older adults enrolled in Medicare Advantage, self-reported HRSNs are associated with increased rates of acute care utilization.

Importance

There is increased focus on identifying and addressing health-related social needs (HRSNs). Understanding how different HRSNs relate to different health outcomes can inform targeted, evidence-based policies, investments, and innovations to address HRSNs.

Objective

To examine the association between self-reported HRSNs and acute care utilization among older adults enrolled in Medicare Advantage.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used data from a large, national survey of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries to identify the presence of HRSNs. Survey data were linked to medical claims, and regression models were used to estimate the association between HRSNs and rates of acute care utilization from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.

Exposures

Self-reported HRSNs, including food insecurity, financial strain, loneliness, unreliable transportation, utility insecurity, housing insecurity, and poor housing quality.

Main Outcomes and Measures

All-cause hospital stays (inpatient admissions and observation stays), avoidable hospital stays, all-cause emergency department (ED) visits, avoidable ED visits, and 30-day readmissions.

Results

Among a final study population of 56 155 Medicare Advantage beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 74.0 [5.8] years; 32 779 [58.4%] women; 44 278 [78.8%] White; and 7634 [13.6%] dual eligible for Medicaid), 27 676 (49.3%) reported 1 or more HRSNs. Health-related social needs were associated with statistically significantly higher rates of all utilization measures, with the largest association observed for avoidable hospital stays (incident rate ratio for any HRSN, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.35-1.74; P < .001). Compared with beneficiaries without HRSNs, beneficiaries with an HRSN had a 53.3% higher rate of avoidable hospitalization (incident rate ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.35-1.74; P < .001). Financial strain and unreliable transportation were each independently associated with increased rates of hospital stays (marginal effects of 26.5 [95% CI, 14.2-38.9] and 51.2 [95% CI, 30.7-71.8] hospital stays per 1000 beneficiaries, respectively). All HRSNs, except for utility insecurity, were independently associated with increased rates of ED visits. Unreliable transportation had the largest association with increased hospital stays and ED visits, with marginal effects of 51.2 (95% CI, 30.7-71.8) and 95.5 (95% CI, 65.3-125.8) ED visits per 1000 beneficiaries, respectively. Only unreliable transportation and financial strain were associated with increased rates of 30-day readmissions, with marginal effects of 3.3% (95% CI, 2.0%-4.0%) and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.6%), respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of older adults enrolled in Medicare Advantage, self-reported HRSNs were common and associated with statistically significantly increased rates of acute care utilization, with variation in which HRSNs were associated with different utilization measures. These findings provide evidence of the unique association between certain HRSNs and different types of acute care utilization, which could help refine the development and targeting of efforts to address HRSNs.

Diabetes Care Among Older Adults Enrolled in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare Fee-For-Service Plans: The Diabetes Collaborative Registry

OBJECTIVE

Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicare's managed care program, is quickly expanding, yet little is known about diabetes care quality delivered under MA compared with traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years old enrolled in the Diabetes Collaborative Registry from 2014 to 2019 with type 2 diabetes treated with one or more antihyperglycemic therapies. Quality measures, cardiometabolic risk factor control, and antihyperglycemic prescription patterns were compared between Medicare plan groups, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical factors.

RESULTS

Among 345,911 Medicare beneficiaries, 229,598 (66%) were enrolled in FFS and 116,313 (34%) in MA plans (for ≥1 month). MA beneficiaries were more likely to receive ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers for coronary artery disease, tobacco cessation counseling, and screening for retinopathy, foot care, and kidney disease (adjusted P ≤ 0.001 for all). MA beneficiaries had modestly but significantly higher systolic blood pressure (+0.2 mmHg), LDL cholesterol (+2.6 mg/dL), and HbA1c (+0.1%) (adjusted P < 0.01 for all). MA beneficiaries were independently less likely to receive glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (6.9% vs. 9.0%; adjusted odds ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.77-0.84) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (5.4% vs. 6.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.87-0.95). When integrating Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-linked data from 2014 to 2017 and more recent unlinked data from the Diabetes Collaborative Registry through 2019 (total N = 411,465), these therapeutic differences persisted, including among subgroups with established cardiovascular and kidney disease.

CONCLUSIONS

While MA plans enable greater access to preventive care, this may not translate to improved intermediate health outcomes. MA beneficiaries are also less likely to receive newer antihyperglycemic therapies with proven outcome benefits in high-risk individuals. Long-term health outcomes under various Medicare plans requires surveillance.

Trends in High-Severity Billing of Hospitalized Medicare Beneficiaries Treated by Hospitalists vs Nonhospitalists

Question

Are there substantial differences in high-severity billing of hospital encounters, defined as coding the highest level of severity, for Medicare patients treated by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists, and how are these differences changing over time?

Findings

In this cohort study of 4 071 241 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries treated in hospitals between 2009 and 2018, hospitalists billed a significantly higher proportion of their initial, subsequent, and discharge encounters of Medicare beneficiaries as high-severity compared with nonhospitalists, even after accounting for patient complexity, and this gap is growing over time.

Meaning

The growing number of hospitalists that are increasingly caring for Medicare beneficiaries and billing for higher-severity encounters may be an important driver of rising hospital costs nationally.

Importance

As US hospital expenditures continue to rise, understanding drivers of high-severity billing for hospitalized patients among inpatient physicians is critically important.

Objective

To evaluate high-severity billing trends of Medicare beneficiaries treated by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used Medicare fee-for-service claims of hospitalized patients from 2009 through 2018 to compare the proportion of high-severity billing between general medicine physicians classified as hospitalists vs nonhospitalists across initial, subsequent, and discharge hospital encounters. We compared physicians within the same hospital using hospital fixed effects and adjusted for patient demographics and comorbidities. Changes in the billing practices were assessed by investigating differences in slopes using an interaction term between physician type and time. Analyses were conducted between August 2021 and January 2022.

Exposures

Treatment by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists.

Main Outcomes and Measures

High-severity billing for initial, subsequent, and discharge hospital encounters.

Results

The sample included 3 121 260 and 1 855 678 Medicare beneficiaries treated by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists, respectively. In each year, mean age, proportion female, proportion Black and Hispanic dual status, and mean number of chronic conditions were similar among those treated by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists (standardized mean difference < .01). The number of hospitalists grew by 76%, from 23 390 in 2009 to 41 084 in 2018, whereas nonhospitalists decreased by 43.6% (53 758 to 30 289). The proportion of encounters performed by hospitalists increased for the initial hospital encounters (46.3% to 76%), subsequent encounters (46.8% to 76.7%), and discharge encounters (46.1% to 78.5%) over the 10-year period. The proportion of high-severity billing across the hospital, subsequent, and discharge encounters was consistently higher among hospitalists relative to nonhospitalists across all years. Compared with the trends for nonhospitalists, the proportion of high-severity billing grew by 0.46% per year (95% CI, 0.44% to 0.49%; P < .001) for initial encounters, 0.38% per year (95% CI, 0.37% to 0.39%; P < .001) for subsequent encounters, and by 1.1% per year (95% CI, 1.1% to 1.15%; P < .001) for discharge encounters among hospitalists.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries treated in hospitals, high-severity billing increased over time for hospital encounters at higher rates for hospitalists than for nonhospitalists. These differences do not appear to be explained by patient complexity. The increase in the number of hospitalists over time may be contributing to rising national costs related to hospital care.

Spending outcomes among patients with cancer in accountable care organizations 4 years after implementation

BACKGROUND

The long-term impact of affordable care organizations (ACOs) on cancer spending remains unknown. The authors examined whether practices that became ACOs altered their spending for patients with cancer in the first 4 years after ACO implementation.

METHODS

By using national Medicare data from 2011 to 2017, a random sample of 20% of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older with cancer was obtained (n = 866,532), and each patient was assigned to a practice. Practices that became ACOs in the Medicare Shared Savings Program were matched to non-ACO practices. Total, cancer-specific, and service category-specific yearly spending per patient was calculated. A difference-in-differences model was used to determine spending changes associated with ACO status for patients with cancer in the 4 years after ACO implementation.

RESULTS

The introduction of ACOs did not have a significant impact on overall spending for patients with cancer in the 2 years after ACO implementation (difference, -$38; 95% CI, -$268, $191; P = .74). Changes in spending also did not differ between ACO and non-ACO patients within service categories or among the 11 cancer types examined. The lack of difference in spending for patients with cancer in ACO and non-ACO practices persisted in the third and fourth years after ACO implementation (difference, -$120; 95% CI, -$284, $525; P = .56).

CONCLUSIONS

ACOs did not significantly change spending for patients with cancer in the first 4 years after their implementation compared with non-ACOs. This prompts a reevaluation of the current efficacy of ACOs in reducing spending for cancer care and may encourage policymakers to reconsider the incentive structures of ACOs.

LAY SUMMARY

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) were developed to curtail health care spending and improve quality, but their effects on cancer spending in their first 2 years have been minimal. The long-term impact of ACOs on cancer spending remains unknown. By using data from 866,532 Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, the authors observed that the association of a practice with an ACO did not significantly change total yearly spending per patient in the first 4 years after ACO implementation. This finding prompts a reevaluation of the current efficacy of ACOs in reducing spending for cancer care.

Changes in industry marketing payments to physicians during the covid-19 pandemic: quasi experimental, difference-in-difference study

Objective

To determine changes in industry marketing payments to physicians due to the covid-19 pandemic.

Design

Quasi experimental, difference-in-difference study.

Data source

US nationwide database of licensed physicians, the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System, which was linked to a database of industry marketing payments made to physicians, Open Payments.

Population

All licensed US physicians from 2018 to 2020 and those who received payments from industry.

Main outcome measures

Changes in the value and the number of monthly industry payments physician received before (January-February 2020) and during the pandemic (April-December 2020) were assessed, adjusting for physicians' characteristics (gender and specialty). As the control, data for the same months in 2019 were used. Industry payments by type of payments (eg, meals, travel, consulting fees, speaker compensation, honorariums), were also examined.

Results

Among 880 589 US physicians included in this study, 267 463 (30.4%) physicians received a total of 4 117 482 non-research payments with $626 million ($710 per physician; £610; €708) in 2020 (40-44% decrease from $1047m in 2018 and $1115m in 2019). Industry payments decreased significantly in the months of the covid-19 pandemic (adjusted change in the value of -48.4%; 95% confidence interval -50.6 to -46.2; P<0.001; and adjusted change in the number of -47.4%, 95% confidence interval -47.7 to -47.1; P<0.001), particularly for meals and travel fees. No evidence was seen of a decrease in the number of industry payments for consulting and honorariums. A similar pattern was observed across physicians' gender and specialty.

Conclusions

Industry payments to physicians, particularly those involving physical interactions such as meals and travel, substantially decreased during the pandemic. How such changes affect prescription practices and the quality of clinical practice in the long term should be investigated.

International comparison of spending and utilization at the end of life for hip fracture patients

OBJECTIVE

To identify and explore differences in spending and utilization of key health services at the end of life among hip fracture patients across seven developed countries.

DATA SOURCES

Individual-level claims data from the inpatient and outpatient health care sectors compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes, and Needs in Care (ICCONIC).

STUDY DESIGN

We retrospectively analyzed utilization and spending from acute hospital care, emergency department, outpatient primary care and specialty physician visits, and outpatient drugs. Patterns of spending and utilization were compared in the last 30, 90, and 180 days across Australia, Canada, England, Germany, New Zealand, Spain, and the United States. We employed linear regression models to measure age- and sex-specific effects within and across countries. In addition, we analyzed hospital-centricity, that is, the days spent in hospital and site of death.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We identified patients who sustained a hip fracture in 2016 and died within 12 months from date of admission.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Resource use, costs, and the proportion of deaths in hospital showed large variability being high in England and Spain, while low in New Zealand. Days in hospital significantly decreased with increasing age in Canada, Germany, Spain, and the United States. Hospital spending near date of death was significantly lower for women in Canada, Germany, and the United States. The age gradient and the sex effect were less pronounced in utilization and spending of emergency care, outpatient care, and drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Across seven countries, we find important variations in end-of-life care for patients who sustained a hip fracture, with some differences explained by sex and age. Our work sheds important insights that may help ongoing health policy discussions on equity, efficiency, and reimbursement in health care systems.

Differences in health care spending and utilization among older frail adults in high-income countries: ICCONIC hip fracture persona

OBJECTIVE

This study explores differences in spending and utilization of health care services for an older person with frailty before and after a hip fracture.

DATA SOURCES

We used individual-level patient data from five care settings.

STUDY DESIGN

We compared utilization and spending of an older person aged older than 65 years for 365 days before and after a hip fracture across 11 countries and five domains of care as follows: acute hospital care, primary care, outpatient specialty care, post-acute rehabilitative care, and outpatient drugs. Utilization and spending were age and sex standardized..

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

The data were compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes, and Needs in Care (ICCONIC) across 11 countries as follows: Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The sample ranged from 1859 patients in Spain to 42,849 in France. Mean age ranged from 81.2 in Switzerland to 84.7 in Australia. The majority of patients across countries were female. Relative to other countries, the United States had the lowest inpatient length of stay (11.3), but the highest number of days were spent in post-acute care rehab (100.7) and, on average, had more visits to specialist providers (6.8 per year) than primary care providers (4.0 per year). Across almost all sectors, the United States spent more per person than other countries per unit ($13,622 per hospitalization, $233 per primary care visit, $386 per MD specialist visit). Patients also had high expenditures in the year prior to the hip fracture, mostly concentrated in the inpatient setting.

CONCLUSION

Across 11 high-income countries, there is substantial variation in health care spending and utilization for an older person with frailty, both before and after a hip fracture. The United States is the most expensive country due to high prices and above average utilization of post-acute rehab care.

Within and across country variations in treatment of patients with heart failure and diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To compare within-country variation of health care utilization and spending of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and diabetes across countries.

DATA SOURCES

Patient-level linked data sources compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes, and Needs in Care across nine countries: Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Patients were identified in routine hospital data with a primary diagnosis of CHF and a secondary diagnosis of diabetes in 2015/2016.

STUDY DESIGN

We calculated the care consumption of patients after a hospital admission over a year across the care pathway-ranging from primary care to home health nursing care. To compare the distribution of care consumption in each country, we use Gini coefficients, Lorenz curves, and female-male ratios for eight utilization and spending measures.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

In all countries, rehabilitation and home nursing care were highly concentrated in the top decile of patients, while the number of drug prescriptions were more uniformly distributed. On average, the Gini coefficient for drug consumption is about 0.30 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27-0.36), while it is, 0.50 (0.45-0.56) for primary care visits, and more than 0.75 (0.81-0.92) for rehabilitation use and nurse visits at home (0.78; 0.62-0.9). Variations in spending were more pronounced than in utilization. Compared to men, women spend more days at initial hospital admission (+5%, 1.01-1.06), have a higher number of prescriptions (+7%, 1.05-1.09), and substantially more rehabilitation and home care (+20% to 35%, 0.79-1.6, 0.99-1.64), but have fewer visits to specialists (-10%; 0.84-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Distribution of health care consumption in different settings varies within countries, but there are also some common treatment patterns across all countries. Clinicians and policy makers need to look into these differences in care utilization by sex and care setting to determine whether they are justified or indicate suboptimal care.

International comparison of health spending and utilization among people with complex multimorbidity

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore cross-country differences in spending and utilization across different domains of care for a multimorbid persona with heart failure and diabetes.

DATA SOURCES

We used individual-level administrative claims or registry data from inpatient and outpatient health care sectors compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes, and Needs in Care (ICCONIC) across 11 countries: Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States (US).

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Data collected by ICCONIC partners.

STUDY DESIGN

We retrospectively analyzed age-sex standardized utilization and spending of an older person (65-90 years) hospitalized with a heart failure exacerbation and a secondary diagnosis of diabetes across five domains of care: hospital care, primary care, outpatient specialty care, post-acute rehabilitative care, and outpatient drugs.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Sample sizes ranged from n = 1270 in Spain to n = 21,803 in the United States. Mean age (standard deviation [SD]) ranged from 76.2 (5.6) in the Netherlands to 80.3 (6.8) in Sweden. We observed substantial variation in spending and utilization across care settings. On average, England spent $10,956 per person in hospital care while the United States spent $30,877. The United States had a shorter length of stay over the year (18.9 days) compared to France (32.9) and Germany (33.4). The United States spent more days in facility-based rehabilitative care than other countries. Australia spent $421 per person in primary care, while Spain (Aragon) spent $1557. The United States and Canada had proportionately more visits to specialist providers than primary care providers. Across almost all sectors, the United States spent more than other countries, suggesting higher prices per unit.

CONCLUSION

Across 11 countries, there is substantial variation in health care spending and utilization for a complex multimorbid persona with heart failure and diabetes. Drivers of spending vary across countries, with the United States being the most expensive country due to high prices and higher use of facility-based rehabilitative care.

Variation in Use of Surgical Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic by Surgical Urgency and Race and Ethnicity

Question

To what extent did the COVID-19 pandemic reduce access to surgical care, and were racial and ethnic minority groups more likely to have reduced access to surgical care?

Findings

In this cohort study of more than 13 million inpatient and outpatient surgical encounters in 767 US hospitals in a hospital administrative database, surgical use was 13% lower in 2020 compared with 2019, with the greatest decrease concentrated in elective surgical procedures. While Black and Hispanic patients experienced a reduction in surgical encounters, White patients experienced the greatest reduction in surgical encounters.

Meaning

Despite severe and persistent disruptions to health systems during the COVID-19 pandemic, racial and ethnic minority groups did not experience a disproportionate decrease in access to surgical care.

Importance

The extent of the disruption to surgical care during the COVID-19 pandemic has not been empirically characterized on a national level.

Objective

To characterize the use of surgical care across cohorts of surgical urgency during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to assess for racial and ethnic disparities.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective observational study using the geographically diverse, all payer data from 767 hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database. Procedures were categorized into 4 cohorts of surgical urgency (elective, nonelective, emergency, and trauma). A generalized linear regression model with hospital-fixed effects assessed the relative monthly within-hospital reduction in surgical encounters in 2020 compared with 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes were the monthly relative reduction in overall surgical encounters and across surgical urgency cohorts and race and ethnicity.

Results

The sample included 13 175 087 inpatient and outpatient surgical encounters. There was a 12.6% relative reduction in surgical use in 2020 compared to 2019. Across all surgical cohorts, the most prominent decreases in encounters occurred during Spring 2020 . For example, elective encounters began falling in March, reached a trough in April, and subsequently recovered but never to prepandemic levels (March: −26.8%; 95% CI, −29.6% to −23.9%; April: −74.6%; 95% CI, −75.5% to −73.5%; December: −13.3%; 95% CI, −16.6%, −9.8%). Across all operative surgical urgency cohorts, White patients had the largest relative reduction in encounters.

Conclusions and Relevance

As shown by this cohort study, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in large disruptions to surgical care across all categories of operative urgency, especially elective procedures. Racial and ethnic minority groups experienced less of a disruption to surgical care than White patients. Further research is needed to explore whether the decreased surgical use among White patients was owing to patient discretion and to document whether demand for surgical care will rebound to baseline levels.

Differences in health outcomes for high-need high-cost patients across high-income countries

OBJECTIVE

This study explores variations in outcomes of care for two types of patient personas-an older frail person recovering from a hip fracture and a multimorbid older patient with congestive heart failure (CHF) and diabetes.

DATA SOURCES

We used individual-level patient data from 11 health systems.

STUDY DESIGN

We compared inpatient mortality, mortality, and readmission rates at 30, 90, and 365 days. For the hip fracture persona, we also calculated time to surgery. Outcomes were standardized by age and sex.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Data was compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes and Needs in Care across 11 countries for the years 2016-2017 (or nearest): Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The hip sample across ranged from 1859 patients in Aragon, Spain, to 42,849 in France. Mean age ranged from 81.2 in Switzerland to 84.7 in Australia, and the majority of hip patients across countries were female. The congestive heart failure (CHF) sample ranged from 742 patients in England to 21,803 in the United States. Mean age ranged from 77.2 in the United States to 80.3 in Sweden, and the majority of CHF patients were males. Average in-hospital mortality across countries was 4.1%. for the hip persona and 6.3% for the CHF persona. At the year mark, the mean mortality across all countries was 25.3% for the hip persona and 32.7% for CHF persona. Across both patient types, England reported the highest mortality at 1 year followed by the United States. Readmission rates for all periods were higher for the CHF persona than the hip persona. At 30 days, the average readmission rate for the hip persona was 13.8% and 27.6% for the CHF persona.

CONCLUSION

Across 11 countries, there are meaningful differences in health system outcomes for two types of patients.

A methodology for identifying high-need, high-cost patient personas for international comparisons

OBJECTIVE

To establish a methodological approach to compare two high-need, high-cost (HNHC) patient personas internationally.

DATA SOURCES

Linked individual-level administrative data from the inpatient and outpatient sectors compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes, and Needs in Care (ICCONIC) across 11 countries: Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

We outline a methodological approach to identify HNHC patient types for international comparisons that reflect complex, priority populations defined by the National Academy of Medicine. We define two patient profiles using accessible patient-level datasets linked across different domains of care-hospital care, primary care, outpatient specialty care, post-acute rehabilitative care, long-term care, home-health care, and outpatient drugs. The personas include a frail older adult with a hip fracture with subsequent hip replacement and an older person with complex multimorbidity, including heart failure and diabetes. We demonstrate their comparability by examining the characteristics and clinical diagnoses captured across countries.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Data collected by ICCONIC partners.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Across 11 countries, the identification of HNHC patient personas was feasible to examine variations in healthcare utilization, spending, and patient outcomes. The ability of countries to examine linked, individual-level data varied, with the Netherlands, Canada, and Germany able to comprehensively examine care across all seven domains, whereas other countries such as England, Switzerland, and New Zealand were more limited. All countries were able to identify a hip fracture persona and a heart failure persona. Patient characteristics were reassuringly similar across countries.

CONCLUSION

Although there are cross-country differences in the availability and structure of data sources, countries had the ability to effectively identify comparable HNHC personas for international study. This work serves as the methodological paper for six accompanying papers examining differences in spending, utilization, and outcomes for these personas across countries.

An international comparison of long-term care trajectories and spending following hip fracture

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study are to compare the relative use of different postacute care settings in different countries and to compare three important outcomes as follows: total expenditure, total days of care in different care settings, and overall longevity over a 1-year period following a hip fracture.

DATA SOURCES

We used administrative data from hospitals, institutional and home-based long-term care (LTC), physician visits, and medications compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes, and Needs in Care (ICCONIC) from five countries as follows: Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

DATA EXTRACTION METHODS

Data were extracted from existing administrative data systems in each participating country.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study of all individuals admitted to acute care for hip fracture. Descriptive comparisons were used to examine aggregate institutional and home-based postacute care. Care trajectories were created to track sequential care settings after acute-care discharge through institutional and community-based care in three countries where detailed information allowed. Comparisons in patient characteristics, utilization, and costs were made across these trajectories and countries.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Across five countries with complete LTC data, we found notable variations with Germany having the highest days of home-based services with relatively low costs, while Sweden incurred the highest overall expenditures. Comparisons of trajectories found that France had the highest use of inpatient rehabilitation. Germany was most likely to discharge hip fracture patients to home. Over 365 days, France averaged the highest number of days in institution with 104, Canada followed at 94, and Germany had just 87 days of institutional care on average.

CONCLUSION

In this comparison of LTC services following a hip fracture, we found international differences in total use of institutional and noninstitutional care, longevity, and total expenditures. There exist opportunities to organize postacute care differently to maximize independence and mitigate costs.

Hispanic/Latino-Serving Hospitals Provide Less Targeted Temperature Management Following Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Background Variation exists in outcomes following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but whether racial and ethnic disparities exist in postarrest provision of targeted temperature management (TTM) is unknown. Methods and Results We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected cohort of patients who survived to admission following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival, whose catchment area represents ≈50% of the United States from 2013 to 2019. Our primary exposure was race or ethnicity and primary outcome was utilization of TTM. We built a mixed-effects model with both state of arrest and admitting hospital modeled as random intercepts to account for clustering. Among 96 695 patients (24.6% Black patients, 8.0% Hispanic/Latino patients, and 63.4% White patients), a smaller percentage of Hispanic/Latino patients received TTM than Black or White patients (37.5% versus 45.0% versus 43.3%, P<0.001) following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. In the mixed-effects model, Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.153 [95% CI, 1.102-1.207], P<0.001) and Hispanic/Latino patients (OR, 1.086 [95% CI, 1.017-1.159], P<0.001) were slightly more likely to receive TTM compared with White patients, perhaps because of worse neurological status on admission. We did find community- level disparity because Hispanic/Latino-serving hospitals (defined as the top decile of hospitals that cared for the highest proportion of Hispanic/Latino patients) provided less TTM (OR, 0.587 [95% CI, 0.474-0.742], P<0.001). Conclusions Reassuringly, we did not find evidence of intrahospital or interpersonal racial or ethnic disparity in the provision of TTM. However, we did find interhospital, community-level disparity. Hispanic/Latino-serving hospitals provided less guideline-recommended TTM after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Association Between Physician Part-time Clinical Work and Patient Outcomes

IMPORTANCE

Despite the growing number of physicians who reduce clinical time owing to research, administrative work, and family responsibilities, the quality of care provided by these physicians remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between the number of days worked clinically per year by physicians and patient mortality.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional analysis was completed on a 20% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries 65 years and older who were admitted to the hospital with an emergency medical condition and treated by a hospitalist in 2011 through 2016. Because hospitalists typically work in shifts, hospitalists' patients are plausibly quasirandomized to hospitalists based on the hospitalists' work schedules (natural experiment). The associations between hospitalists' number of days worked clinically per year and 30-day patient mortality and readmission rates were examined, adjusting for patient and physician characteristics and hospital fixed effects (effectively comparing physicians within the same hospital). Data analysis was conducted from July 1, 2020, to July 2, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Physicians' number of days worked clinically per year.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was 30-day patient mortality, and the secondary outcome was 30-day patient readmission.

RESULTS

Among 392 797 hospitalizations of patients treated by 19 170 hospitalists (7482 female [39.0%], 11 688 male [61.0%]; mean [SD] age, 41.1 [8.8] years), patients treated by physicians with more days worked clinically exhibited lower mortality. Adjusted 30-day mortality rates were 10.5% (reference), 10.0% (adjusted risk difference [aRD], -0.5%; 95% CI, -0.8% to -0.2%; P = .002), 9.5% (aRD, -0.9%; 95% CI, -1.2% to -0.6%; P < .001), and 9.6% (aRD, -0.9%; 95% CI, -1.2% to -0.6%; P < .001) for physicians in the first (bottom), second, third, and fourth (top) quartile of days worked clinically, respectively. Readmission rates were not associated with the numbers of days a physician worked clinically (adjusted 30-day readmissions for physicians in the bottom quartile of days worked clinically per year vs those in the top quartile, 15.3% vs 15.2%; aRD, -0.1%; 95% CI, -0.5% to 0.3%; P = .61).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, hospitalized Medicare patients treated by physicians who worked more clinical days had lower 30-day mortality. Given that physicians with reduced clinical time must often balance clinical and nonclinical obligations, improved support by institutions may be necessary to maintain the clinical performance of these physicians.