Nationwide Quality of Hospice Care: Findings From the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospice Quality Reporting Program

Limitations With California Medicaid Data for Palliative and End of Life Care Quality Measures

In 2014 the California legislature passed Senate Bill 1004 (SB 1004) that was designed to expand access to specialty palliative care for individuals served by California's Medicaid (known as Medi-Cal) Managed Care Plans (MCPs). The California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) operationalized the legislation by developing minimum requirements for palliative care programs that all MCPs must meet or exceed.7 Quality and utilization data specific to California's Medicaid population are needed for stakeholders to identify care deficiencies and disparities, describe the end of life experience and utilization patterns of MCP members, compare these patterns to Medicare beneficiaries or other populations, and set appropriate targets to help monitor progress. We evaluated the feasibility of using Medicaid claims data and encounter data either by partnering with MCPs or by obtaining statewide data from DHCS to measure the quality of palliative care and end of life care. In a concurrent but separate effort, we analyzed administrative data supplied by three MCPs as part of a prospective pilot of standards for home-based palliative care in California, including care delivered to Medicaid beneficiaries under SB 1004. Beyond the practical challenges of allowing time for data access and approvals, both projects revealed several limitations to using administrative data to assess quality of palliative and end of life care for a Medicaid population. We describe these challenges that undermined our confidence in analysis results and propose solutions to measuring the quality of palliative and end of life care for Medicaid patients and suggested next steps.

Navigating a "Good Death" During COVID-19: Understanding Real-Time End-of-Life Care Structures, Processes, and Outcomes Through Clinical Notes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic severely disrupted hospice care, yet there is little research regarding how widespread disruptions affected clinician and family decision-making. We aimed to understand how the pandemic affected structures, processes, and outcomes of end-of-life care.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Retrospective narrative chart review of electronic health records of 61 patients referred and admitted to hospice from 3 New York City geriatrics practices who died between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. We linked longitudinal, unstructured medical, and hospice electronic health record notes to create a real-time, multiperspective trajectory of patients' interactions with providers using directed content analysis.

RESULTS

Most patients had dementia and were enrolled in hospice for 11 days. Care processes were shaped by structural factors (staffing, supplies, and governmental/institutional policies), and outcomes were prioritized by care teams and families (protecting safety, maintaining high-touch care, honoring patient values, and supporting patients emotionally and spiritually). Processes used to achieve these outcomes were decision-making, care delivery, supporting a "good death," and emotional and spiritual support.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Care processes were negotiated throughout the end of life, with clinicians and families making in-the-moment decisions. Some adaptations were effective but also placed extraordinary pressure on paid and family caregivers. Healthcare teams' and families' goals to meet patients' end-of-life priorities can be supported by ongoing assessment of patient goals and process changes needed to support them, stronger structural supports for paid and family caregivers, incentivizing relationships across primary care and hospice teams, and extending social work and spiritual care.

Hospice providers serving assisted living residents: Association of higher volume with lower quality

BACKGROUND

Assisted living (AL) community caregivers are known to report lower quality of hospice care. However, little is known about hospice providers serving AL residents and factors that may contribute to, and explain, differences in quality. We examined the association between hospice providers' AL patient-day volume and their quality ratings based on Hospice Item Set (HIS) and Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Hospice Surveys.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study employed information from the Medicare Compare website and Medicare claims data. Medicare-eligible AL residents were identified using previously validated methods and merged with hospice claims. Linear probability models adjusting for county fixed effects were used to examine the association between hospice provider AL volume, measured as the share of annual hospice patient days from AL residents, and quality measures obtained from HIS and CAHPS. Models controlled for hospice providers' profit status and daily patient census.

RESULTS

Higher AL-volume hospice providers were 7 percentage points more likely to have caregivers reporting lower median scores on domains of pain assessment, dyspnea treatment, and emotional support. Their caregivers also reported lower scores in team communications and training family to provide care. Higher AL-volume hospice providers also were 5 percentage points less likely to get higher aggregated scores from all CAHPS domains and 7 percentage points less likely to have higher HIS composite scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospice providers serving higher volumes of AL patient days had lower quality scores. In order to identify targeted opportunities for quality improvement, research is needed to understand why lower quality providers are concentrated in the AL market.

Associations Between Certificate of Need Policies and Hospice Quality Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Certificate of need (CON) laws are state-based regulations requiring approval of new healthcare entities and capital expenditures. Varying by state, these regulations impact hospices in 14 states and DC, with several states re-examining provisions.

AIM

This cross-sectional study examined the association of CON status on hospice quality outcomes using the hospice item set metric (HIS).

DESIGN

Data from the February 2022 Medicare Hospice Provider and General Information reports of 4870 US hospices were used to compare group means of the 8 HIS measures across CON status. Multiple regression analysis was used to predict HIS outcomes by CON status while controlling for ownership and size.

RESULTS

Approximately 86% of hospices are in states without a hospice CON provision. The unadjusted mean HIS scores for all measures were higher in CON states (M range 94.40-99.59) than Non-CON (M range 90.50-99.53) with significant differences in all except treatment preferences. In the adjusted model, linear regression analyses showed hospice CON states had significantly higher HIS ratings than those from Non-CON states for beliefs and values addressed (β = .05, P = .009), pain assessment (β = .05, P = .009), dyspnea treatment (β = .08, P < .001) and the composite measure (β = .09, P < .001). Treatment preferences, pain screening, dyspnea screening, and opioid bowel treatment were not statistically significant (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

The study suggests that CON regulations may have a modest, but beneficial impact on hospice-reported quality outcomes, particularly for small and medium-sized hospices. Further research is needed to explore other factors that contribute to HIS outcomes.

Intersection of Palliative Care and Hospice Use Among Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer

Background: Hospice and palliative care (PC) are important components of lung cancer care and independently provide benefits to patients and their families. Objective: To better understand the relationship between hospice and PC and factors that influence this relationship. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with advanced lung cancer (stage IIIB/IV) within the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VA) from 2007 to 2013 with follow-up through 2017 (n = 22,907). Mixed logistic regression models with a random effect for site, adjustment for patient variables, and propensity score weighting were used to examine whether the association between PC and hospice use varied by U.S. region and PC team characteristics. Results: Overall, 57% of patients with lung cancer received PC, 69% received hospice, and 16% received neither. Of those who received hospice, 60% were already enrolled in PC. Patients who received PC had higher odds of hospice enrollment than patients who did not receive PC (adjusted odds ratio = 3.25, 95% confidence interval: 2.43-4.36). There were regional differences among patients who received PC; the predicted probability of hospice enrollment was 85% and 73% in the Southeast and Northeast, respectively. PC team and facility characteristics influenced hospice use in addition to PC; teams with the shortest duration of existence, with formal team training, and at lower hospital complexity were more likely to use hospice (all p < 0.05). Conclusions: Among patients with advanced lung cancer, PC was associated with hospice enrollment. However, this relationship varied by geographic region, and PC team and facility characteristics. Our findings suggest that regional PC resource availability may contribute to substitution effects between PC and hospice for end-of-life care.

Hospice Quality, Race, and Disenrollment in Hospice Enrollees With Dementia

Background: Racial and ethnic minoritized people with dementia (PWD) are at high risk of disenrollment from hospice, yet little is known about the relationship between hospice quality and racial disparities in disenrollment among PWD. Objective: To assess the association between race and disenrollment between and within hospice quality categories in PWD. Design/Setting/Subjects: Retrospective cohort study of 100% Medicare beneficiaries 65+ enrolled in hospice with a principal diagnosis of dementia, July 2012-December 2017. Race and ethnicity (White/Black/Hispanic/Asian and Pacific Islander [AAPI]) was assessed with the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) algorithm. Hospice quality was assessed with the publicly-available Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey item on overall hospice rating, including a category for hospices exempt from public reporting (unrated). Results: The sample included 673,102 PWD (mean age 86, 66% female, 85% White, 7.3% Black, 6.3% Hispanic, 1.6% AAPI) enrolled in 4371 hospices nationwide. Likelihood of disenrollment was higher in hospices in the lowest quartile of quality ratings (vs. highest quartile) for both White (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.12 [95% confidence interval 1.06-1.19]) and minoritized PWD (AOR range 1.2-1.3) and was substantially higher in unrated hospices (AOR range 1.8-2.0). Within both low- and high-quality hospices, minoritized PWD were more likely to be disenrolled compared with White PWD (AOR range 1.18-1.45). Conclusions: Hospice quality predicts disenrollment, but does not fully explain disparities in disenrollment for minoritized PWD. Efforts to improve racial equity in hospice should focus both on increasing equity in access to high-quality hospices and improving care for racial minoritized PWD in all hospices.

Patient-Reported Quality Measures for Palliative Care: The Time is now

CONTEXT

While progress has been made in the ability to measure the quality of hospice and specialty palliative care, there are notable gaps. A recent analysis conducted by Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) revealed a paucity of patient-reported measures, particularly in palliative care domains such as symptom management and communication.

OBJECTIVES

The research team, consisting of quality measure and survey developers, psychometricians, and palliative care clinicians, used established state-of-the art methods for developing and testing patient-reported measures.

METHODS

We applied a patient-centered, patient-engaged approach throughout the development and testing process. This sequential process included 1) an information gathering phase; 2) a pre-testing phase; 3) a testing phase; and 4) an endorsement phase.

RESULTS

To fill quality measure gaps identified during the information gathering phase, we selected two draft measures ("Feeling Heard and Understood" and "Receiving Desired Help for Pain") for testing with patients receiving palliative care in clinic-based settings. In the pre-testing phase, we used an iterative process of cognitive interviews to refine draft items and corresponding response options for the proposed measures. The alpha pilot test supported establishment of protocols for the national beta field test. Measures met conventional criteria for reliability, had strong face and construct validity, and there was diversity in program level scores. The measures received National Quality Forum (NQF) endorsement.

CONCLUSION

These measures highlight the key role of patient voices in palliative care and fill a much-needed gap for patient-reported experience measures in our field.

Variation in Hospice Experiences by Care Setting for Patients With Dementia

OBJECTIVES

Use of hospice care among patients with dementia has been steadily increasing. Our objectives were to characterize quality of hospice care experiences among decedents who had a primary diagnosis of dementia and their caregivers and investigate differences across settings of hospice care.

DESIGN

We analyzed Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Hospice Survey data from caregiver respondents whose family members received hospice care.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Data from 96,845 caregiver respondents whose family members had a primary diagnosis of dementia and died in 2017 or 2018 while receiving hospice care in 2829 hospices.

METHODS

We calculated quality measure scores overall and stratified by setting, adjusting for mode of survey administration and differences in case mix, and examined variability in hospice-level scores among decedents with dementia.

RESULTS

Mean quality measure scores ranged from 69.0 (Getting Hospice Care Training) to 90.9 (Getting Emotional Support). Measure scores varied significantly across settings, with caregivers of decedents who received care in a nursing home (NH), acute care hospital (ACH), or assisted living facility (ALF) consistently reporting poorer quality of care. Hospice-level scores varied substantially, with a wide range between the 10th and 90th percentiles of hospice performance (eg, 25 points).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

There are important opportunities to improve hospice care for patients with dementia and their caregivers, particularly with respect to caregiver training, symptom management, and across all dimensions within the NH, ACH, and ALF settings. Variability in care experiences across hospices, as well as long lengths of stay for those with dementia, highlight the importance of informed and timely hospice referral.

Cannabis and End-of-Life Care: A Snapshot of Hospice Planning and Experiences Among Illinois Medical Cannabis Patients With A Terminal Diagnosis

INTRODUCTION

Between 2013 and 2019, Illinois limited cannabis access to certified patients enrolled in the Illinois Medical Cannabis Program (IMCP). In 2016, the state instituted a fast-track pathway for terminal patients. The benefits of medicinal cannabis (MC) have clear implications for patients near end-of-life (EOL). However, little is known about how terminal patients engage medical cannabis relative to supportive care.

METHODS

Anonymous cross-sectional survey data were collected from 342 terminal patients who were already enrolled in (n = 19) or planning to enroll (n = 323) in hospice for EOL care. Logistic regression models compare patients in the sample on hospice planning vs. hospice enrollment, use of palliative care vs. hospice care, and use standard care vs non-hospice palliative care.

RESULTS

In our sample, cancer patients (OR = 0.21 (0.11), p < .01), and those who used the fast-track application into the IMCP (OR = 0.11 (0.06), p < .001) were less likely to be enrolled in hospice. Compared to patients in palliative care, hospice patients were less likely to report cancer as their qualifying condition (OR = 0.16 (0.11), p < .01), or entered the IMCP via the fast-track (OR = 0.23 (0.15), p < .05).

DISCUSSION

Given low hospice enrollment in a fairly large EOL sample, cannabis use may operate as an alternative to supportive forms of care like hospice and palliation. Clinicians should initiate conversations about cannabis use with their patients while also engaging EOL Care planning discussions as an essential part of the general care plan.

"Goals of Care Conversations Don't Fit in a Box": Hospice Staff Experiences and Perceptions of Advance Care Planning Quality Measurement

CONTEXT

With rising concerns about quality of care in hospice, federal agencies recently began mandating quality measurement in hospice, including measures of advance care planning (ACP).

OBJECTIVES

To characterize hospice providers' experiences with ACP quality measurement and their reflections on ways to improve it.

METHODS

Semi-structured in-depth interviews of fifty-one hospice providers from various clinical backgrounds and organizational roles in four geographically diverse non-profit, community-based hospices in the U.S. Participants were queried about their experiences with and barriers to ACP quality measurement processes in their organization, opinions about the impacts of federally mandated quality measures, and ideas for improvement. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis with an interdisciplinary team, facilitated by ATLAS.ti and Excel.

RESULTS

Four key findings of the ACP quality measurement experience for hospice staff included variation, barriers, attitudes, and recommendations for improvement. 1) Variation: Within and across organizations, participants applied a variety of processes to measure ACP quality, and exposure to and experiences with quality measurement varied based on organizational role. 2) Barriers: ACP quality measurement was impeded by limited resources, technological problems, and measurement challenges. 3) Attitudes: Participants' opinions of recently implemented federally mandated requirements for ACP quality measurement highlighted numerous downsides, unintended consequences, and few upsides. 4) Recommendations: improvements included personalizing ACP quality measures, elevating the importance of quality measurement, and streamlining processes.

CONCLUSION

Hospice staff take ACP quality measurement seriously, but insufficient organizational resources and regulatory bureaucracy create challenges. Efforts to enhance ACP quality measure nuance and assess outcomes are needed to improve care.

What Do Parents Value Regarding Pediatric Palliative and Hospice Care in the Home Setting?

CONTEXT

Children with life-shortening serious illnesses and medically-complex care needs are often cared for by their families at home. Little, however, is known about what aspects of pediatric palliative and hospice care in the home setting (PPHC@Home) families value the most.

OBJECTIVES

To explore how parents rate and prioritize domains of PPHC@Home as the first phase of a larger study that developed a parent-reported measure of experiences with PPHC@Home.

METHODS

Twenty domains of high-value PPHC@Home, derived from the National Consensus Project's Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, the literature, and a stakeholder panel, were evaluated. Using a discrete choice experiment, parents provided their ratings of the most and least valued PPHC@Home domains. We also explored potential differences in how subgroups of parents rated the domains.

RESULTS

Forty-seven parents participated. Overall, highest-rated domains included Physical aspects of care: Symptom management, Psychological/emotional aspects of care for the child, and Care coordination. Lowest-rated domains included Spiritual and religious aspects of care and Cultural aspects of care. In exploratory analyses, parents who had other children rated the Psychological/emotional aspects of care for the sibling(s) domain significantly higher than parents who did not have other children (P = 0.02). Furthermore, bereaved parents rated the Caregiversupportat the end of life domain significantly higher than parents who were currently caring for their child (P = 0.04). No other significant differences in domain ratings were observed.

CONCLUSION

Knowing what parents value most about PPHC@Home provides the foundation for further exploration and conversation about priority areas for resource allocation and care improvement efforts.

Engaging Hospices in Quality Measurement and Improvement: Early Experiences of a Large Integrated Health Care System

The quality of hospice care remains highly variable in the U.S. Patients, providers, and health care systems lack a comprehensive method of measuring the quality of care provided by an individual hospice. Partners HealthCare sought to assess hospice quality based on objective and quantitative criteria obtained directly from hospices and through public reporting. Here, we describe the process of creating and administering this assessment and the initial creation of a collaborative network with high-quality hospices. A multidisciplinary advisory council developed criteria and a scoring system, focusing on organizational information (e.g., nursing turnover), clinical care quality indicators (e.g., visit hours before death), and training (e.g., medical director certification) and satisfaction (e.g., patient and family surveys). All Medicare-certified hospices in good standing in Massachusetts were eligible to participate in a request for information (RFI) process. We blinded data before scoring and invited hospices scoring above the 15th percentile to join the initial collaborative. Of 72 eligible hospices, most (53%) responded to the RFI, and 32% (n = 23) submitted completed surveys. Hospices could receive up to 23.75 points, and scores ranged from 2.25 to 19.5. The median score was 13.62 (interquartile range 10.5-16.75). For hospices scoring above the 15th percentile (n = 19), scores ranged from 10.0 to 19.5 (median 14). The hospice RFI process is one health care system's attempt to evaluate hospice quality. Further research will determine whether the scoring system proves to be a sensitive, specific, and reproducible measure of hospice quality, and whether the collaborative can foster quality improvement over time.

Hospice and Palliative Care: An Overview

Palliative medicine is specialized medical care for people with serious illness. Serious illness is one with high risk of mortality that negatively affects quality of life or function or is burdensome in symptoms, treatments, or caregiver stress. Palliative care improves symptom management and addresses the needs of patients and families, resulting in improved patient and caregiver quality of life and reduced symptom burden and health care utilization. Hospice is palliative care for patients with a prognosis of 6 months or less and is appropriate when goals are to avoid hospitalization and maximize time at home for patients who are dying.

Characteristics of Hospices Providing High-Quality Care

Background: The hospice market has changed substantially, shifting from predominately not-for-profit independent entities to for-profit national chains. Little is known about how hospice organizational characteristics are associated with quality of hospice care. Objective: To examine the association between hospice characteristics and care processes and performance on measures of hospice care quality. Design: Logistic regression models assessed the association between hospice characteristics and processes and hospices being in the top quartile of quality measure performance. Setting/Subjects: U.S. hospices with publicly reported measure scores in 2015-2017. Measurements: Summaries of hospice-level performance on Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Hospice Survey measures (including communication, timely care, symptom management, emotional and spiritual support, respect, training families, overall rating, and willingness to recommend) and Hospice Item Set (HIS) measures (including pain screening and assessment, dyspnea screening and treatment, bowel regimen for patients on opioids, discussion of treatment preferences, and beliefs/values addressed). Results: Of the 2746 hospices that met public reporting requirements, 5.6% were in the top quartile of both CAHPS and HIS performance. Characteristics associated with being in the top quartile for CAHPS included being a nonprofit and nonchain or government hospice, smaller size (<200 patients per year), and serving a rural area. Characteristics associated with being in the top quartile for HIS included being in a for-profit chain, larger size (91+ patients per year), and having <40% of patients in a nursing home. Providing professional staff visits in the last two days of life to a higher proportion of patients was associated with hospices being in the top quartile of HIS and in the top quartile of CAHPS. Conclusions: Hospice characteristics associated with strong performance on HIS measures differ from those associated with strong performance on CAHPS measures. Providing professional staff visits in the last two days of life is associated with high performance on both quality domains.

Effects of Caregiver and Decedent Characteristics on CAHPS Hospice Survey Scores

CONTEXT

The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS^®) Hospice Survey assesses the care experiences of hospice patients and their families. Public reporting of hospice performance on these survey measures began in February 2018.

OBJECTIVES

Develop an appropriate case-mix adjustment (CMA) model to allow for fair comparisons between hospices.

METHODS

We analyzed CAHPS Hospice Survey data reflecting experiences of 915,442 patients who received care from 2513 hospice programs between April 2015 and March 2016. Decedent and caregiver characteristics were identified for inclusion in CMA based on their variation across hospices (as measured by intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs]) and how predictive they were of responses to survey questions (as assessed by linear regression).

RESULTS

The final CMA model included decedent age, payer for hospice care, primary diagnosis, length of final episode of hospice care, caregiver age, caregiver education, relationship to decedent, survey language/language spoken at home, and response percentile. The characteristics that varied most across hospices were language (ICC = 0.48 for Spanish survey or home language) and payer for hospice care (ICC = 0.42 for Medicare only; ICC = 0.35 for Medicare and private insurance). The characteristics that were most predictive of caregivers' survey responses were payer for hospice care, caregiver education, and survey language/language spoken at home. Lack of appropriate adjustment would incorrectly rank hospices by 1.2-5.4 percentile points.

CONCLUSION

To ensure fair comparisons across hospices, CAHPS Hospice Survey measure scores should be adjusted for several caregiver and decedent characteristics.