State variation in the characteristics of Medicare-Medicaid dual enrollees: Implications for risk adjustment

The Role of Hospital Characteristics in Clinical and Quality Outcomes for Gastrointestinal Bleeding in a National Cohort

INTRODUCTION

There is substantial variability in patient outcomes for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) across hospitals. This study aimed to identify hospital factors associated with GIB outcomes.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized for GIB from 2016 to 2018. These data were merged with the American Hospital Association Annual Survey data to incorporate hospital characteristics. We used generalized linear mixed-effect models to estimate the effect of hospital-level characteristics on patient outcomes after adjusting for patient risk factors including anticoagulant and antiplatelet use, recent GIB, and comorbidities. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality, and secondary outcomes included length of stay and a composite outcome of 30-day readmission or mortality.

RESULTS

Factors associated with improved GIB 30-day mortality included large hospital size (defined as beds >400, odds ratio [OR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.97), greater case volume (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96-0.98), increased resident and nurse staffing (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83-0.94), and blood donor center designation (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.99). Patients treated at a hospital with multiple advanced capabilities, such as availability of advanced endoscopy, advanced intensive care unit (ICU) capabilities (both a medical-surgical ICU and cardiac ICU), blood donor center, and liver transplant center, had a 22% reduction in 30-day mortality risk, compared with those hospitalized in a hospital with none of these services (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.91). However, length of stay increased with additional services.

DISCUSSION

Patients hospitalized for GIB at hospitals with multiple advanced specialized capabilities have lower mortality but longer lengths of stay. Further research should examine the processes of care linked to these services that contribute to improved mortality in GIB.

Successful Discharge to Community From Home Health Less Likely for People in Late Stages of Dementia

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Several studies have established the efficacy of home health in meeting the health care needs of people with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) and helping them to remain at home. However, transitioning to the community after discharge from home health presents challenges to patient safety and quality of life. The severity of an individual's functional impairments, cognitive limitations, and behavioral and psychological symptoms may compound these challenges. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between dementia severity and successful discharge to community (DTC) from home health.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 142 376 Medicare beneficiaries with ADRD. Successful DTC was defined as having no unplanned hospitalization or death within 30 days of DTC from home health. Successful DTC rates were calculated, and multilevel logistic regression was used to estimate the relative risk (RR) of successful DTC, by dementia severity category, adjusted for patient and clinical characteristics. Six dementia severity categories were identified using a crosswalk between items on the Outcome and Assessment Information Set and the Functional Assessment Staging Tool.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Successful DTC occurred in 71.2% of beneficiaries. Beneficiaries in the 2 most severe dementia categories had significantly lower risk of successful DTC (category 6: RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.889-0.910; category 7: RR = 0.737, 95% CI = 0.704-0.770) than those in the least severe dementia category. The RR of successful DTC for people with ADRD decreased as the level of independence with oral medication management decreased and when there was an overall greater need for caregiver assistance.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient status at the time of admission to home health is associated with outcomes after discharge from home health. Early identification of people in advanced stages of ADRD provides an opportunity to implement strategies to facilitate successful DTC while people are still receiving home care services. The severity of ADRD and availability of caregiver assistance should be key considerations in planning for successful DTC for people with ADRD.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Alzheimer's Disease Link with Cardio and Cerebrovascular Diseases, Based on Hawaii Medicare Data

Background

There is an expanding body of literature implicating heart disease and stroke as risk factors for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Hawaii is one of the six majority-minority states in the United States and has significant racial health disparities. The Native-Hawaiians/Pacific-Islander (NHPI) population is well-known as a high-risk group for a variety of disease conditions.

Objective

We explored the association of cardiovascular disease with AD development based on the Hawaii Medicare data, focusing on racial disparities.

Methods

We utilized nine years of Hawaii Medicare data to identify subjects who developed heart failure (HF), ischemic heart disease (IHD), atrial fibrillation (AF), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, and progressed to AD, using multistate models. Propensity score-matched controls without cardiovascular disease were identified to compare the risk of AD after heart disease and stroke. Racial/Ethnic differences in progression to AD were evaluated, accounting for other risk factors.

Results

We found increased risks of AD for AF, HF, IHD, and stroke. Socioeconomic (SE) status was found to be critical to AD risk. Among the low SE group, increased AD risks were found in NHPIs compared to Asians for all conditions selected and compared to whites for HF, IHD, and stroke. Interestingly, these observations were found reversed in the higher SE group, showing reduced AD risks for NHPIs compared to whites for AF, HF, and IHD, and to Asians for HF and IHD.

Conclusions

NHPIs with poor SE status seems to be mostly disadvantaged by the heart/stroke and AD association compared to corresponding whites and Asians.

Social risk adjustment in the hospital readmission reduction program: Pitfalls of peer grouping, measurement challenges, and potential solutions

OBJECTIVE

To examine the limitations of peer grouping and associated challenges measuring social risk in Medicare's Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP). Under peer grouping, hospitals are divided into quintiles based on the proportion of a hospital's Medicare inpatients with Medicaid ("dual share"). This approach was implemented to address concerns that the HRRP unfairly penalized hospitals that disproportionately serve disadvantaged patients.

DATA

Public data on hospitals in the HRRP.

DESIGN

We examined the relationship between hospital dual share and readmission rates within peer groups; changes in hospitals' peer group assignments, readmission rates, and penalties; and the relationship between state Medicaid eligibility rules and peer groups.

DATA COLLECTION

Public data on hospital characteristics and readmission rates for 3119 hospitals from 2019 to 2020.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The proportion of dual inpatients among hospitals of the same peer group varied by as much as 69 percentage points (ppt). Within peer groups, a one ppt increase in dual share was associated with a 0.01 ppt increase in the difference from the median readmission rate (p < 0.001). From 2019 to 2020, 8.8% of hospitals switched peer groups. Compared to hospitals that did not switch, those moving to a lower peer group had a higher mean penalty in 2020 (0.096 ppt; p = 0.006); those moving to a higher group had a lower mean penalty (-0.06 ppt; p = 0.079). However, changes in penalties did not correspond to changes in readmission rates. Hospitals in states with higher Medicaid income eligibility limits were more likely to be in higher peer groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer grouping is limited in the extent to which it accounts for differences in hospitals' patient populations, and it may not fully insulate hospitals from penalties linked to changes in patient mix. These problems arise from the construction of peer groups and the measure of social risk used to define them.

Retrospective cohort study comparing surgical inpatient charges, total costs, and variable costs as hospital cost savings measures

We analyzed differences (charges, total, and variable costs) in estimating cost savings of quality improvement projects using reduction of serious/life-threatening complications (Clavien-Dindo Level IV) and insurance type (Private, Medicare, and Medicaid/Uninsured) to evaluate the cost measures. Multiple measures are used to analyze hospital costs and compare cost outcomes across health systems with differing patient compositions. We used National Surgical Quality Improvement Program inpatient (2013-2019) with charge and cost data in a hospital serving diverse socioeconomic status patients. Simulation was used to estimate variable costs and total costs at 3 proportions of fixed costs (FC). Cases (Private 1517; Medicare 1224; Medicaid/Uninsured 3648) with patient mean age 52.3 years (Standard Deviation = 14.7) and 47.3% male. Medicare (adjusted odds ratio = 1.55, 95% confidence interval = 1.16-2.09, P = .003) and Medicaid/Uninsured (adjusted odds ratio = 1.41, 95% confidence interval = 1.10-1.82, P = .008) had higher odds of complications versus Private. Medicaid/Uninsured had higher relative charges versus Private, while Medicaid/Uninsured and Medicare had higher relative variable and total costs versus Private. Targeting a 15% reduction in serious complications for robust patients undergoing moderate-stress procedures estimated variable cost savings of $286,392. Total cost saving estimates progressively increased with increasing proportions of FC; $443,943 (35% FC), $577,495 (50% FC), and $1184,403 (75% FC). In conclusion, charges did not identify increased costs for Medicare versus Private patients. Complications were associated with > 200% change in costs. Surgical hospitalizations for Medicare and Medicaid/Uninsured patients cost more than Private patients. Variable costs should be used to avoid overestimating potential cost savings of quality improvement interventions, as total costs include fixed costs that are difficult to change in the short term.

Characteristics, utilization, and concentration of outpatient care for dual-eligible Medicare beneficiaries

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the (1) distribution of outpatient care for dual-eligible Medicare beneficiaries ("duals") and (2) intensity of outpatient care utilization of duals vs non-dual-eligible beneficiaries ("nonduals").

STUDY DESIGN

Using data preceding the introduction of several outpatient alternative payment models, as well as Medicaid expansion, we evaluated the distribution of outpatient care across physician practices using a Lorenz curve and compared utilization of different outpatient services between duals and nonduals.

METHODS

We defined practices that did (high dual) and did not (low dual and no dual) account for the large majority of visits based on the Lorenz curve and then performed descriptive statistics between these groups of practices. Practice-level outcomes included patient demographics, practice characteristics, and county measures of structural disadvantage and population health. Patient-level outcomes included number of outpatient visits and unique outpatient physicians, primary vs subspecialty care visits, and expenditures.

RESULTS

Nearly 80% of outpatient visits for duals were provided by 35% of practices. Compared with low-dual and no-dual practices, high-dual practices served more patients (1117.6 patients per high-dual practice vs 683.8 patients per low-dual practice and 447.5 patients per no-dual practice; P < .001) with more comorbidities (3.9 mean total Elixhauser comorbidities among patients served by high-dual practices vs 3.6 among low-dual practices and 3.3 among no-dual practices; P < .001). With regard to utilization, duals had 2 fewer outpatient visits per year compared with nonduals (13.3 vs 15.2; P < .001), with particularly fewer subspecialty care visits (6.5 vs 7.9; P < .001) despite having more comorbidities (3.5 vs 2.7; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient care for duals was concentrated among a small number of practices. Despite having more chronic conditions, duals had fewer outpatient visits. Duals and the practices that serve them may benefit from targeted policies to promote access and improve outcomes.

Predicting health-related social needs in Medicaid and Medicare populations using machine learning

Providers currently rely on universal screening to identify health-related social needs (HRSNs). Predicting HRSNs using EHR and community-level data could be more efficient and less resource intensive. Using machine learning models, we evaluated the predictive performance of HRSN status from EHR and community-level social determinants of health (SDOH) data for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries participating in the Accountable Health Communities Model. We hypothesized that Medicaid insurance coverage would predict HRSN status. All models significantly outperformed the baseline Medicaid hypothesis. AUCs ranged from 0.59 to 0.68. The top performance (AUC = 0.68 CI 0.66–0.70) was achieved by the “any HRSNs” outcome, which is the most useful for screening prioritization. Community-level SDOH features had lower predictive performance than EHR features. Machine learning models can be used to prioritize patients for screening. However, screening only patients identified by our current model(s) would miss many patients. Future studies are warranted to optimize prediction of HRSNs.

Association of Medicare-Medicaid Dual Eligibility and Race and Ethnicity With Ischemic Stroke Severity

IMPORTANCE

Black and Hispanic US residents are disproportionately affected by stroke incidence, and patients with dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid may be predisposed to more severe strokes. Little is known about differences in stroke severity for individuals with dual eligibility, Black individuals, and Hispanic individuals, but understanding hospital admission stroke severity is the first important step for focusing strategies to reduce disparities in stroke care and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether dual eligibility and race and ethnicity are associated with stroke severity in Medicare beneficiaries admitted to acute hospitals with ischemic stroke.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using Medicare claims data for patients with ischemic stroke admitted to acute hospitals in the United States from October 1, 2016, to November 30, 2017. Data were analyzed from July 2021 and January 2022.

EXPOSURES

Dual enrollment for Medicare and Medicaid; race and ethnicity categorized as White, Black, Hispanic, and other.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Claim-based National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) categorized into minor (0-7), moderate (8-13), moderate to severe (14-21), and severe (22-42) stroke.

RESULTS

Our sample included 45 459 Medicare fee-for-service patients aged 66 and older (mean [SD] age, 80.2 [8.4]; 25 303 [55.7%] female; 7738 [17.0%] dual eligible; 4107 [9.0%] Black; 1719 [3.8%] Hispanic; 37 715 [83.0%] White). In the fully adjusted models, compared with White patients, Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.21; 95% CI, 1.06-1.39) and Hispanic patients (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.29-1.85) were more likely to have a severe stroke. Using White patients without dual eligibility as a reference group, White patients with dual eligibility were more likely to have a severe stroke (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.56-1.95). Similarly, Black patients with dual eligibility (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.78-2.60) and Hispanic patients with dual eligibility (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.98-3.16) were more likely to have a severe stroke.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, Medicare fee-for-service patients with ischemic stroke admitted to acute hospitals who were Black or Hispanic had a higher likelihood of worse stroke severity. Additionally, dual eligibility status had a compounding association with stroke severity regardless of race and ethnicity. An urgent effort is needed to decrease disparities in access to preventive and poststroke care for dual eligible and minority patients.

Association of Burden and Prevalence of Arthritis With Disparities in Social Risk Factors, Findings From 17 US States

Introduction

Social risks previously have been associated with arthritis prevalence and costs. Although social risks often cluster among individuals, no studies have examined associations between multiple social risks within the same individual. Our objective was to determine the association between individual and multiple social risks and the prevalence and burden of arthritis by using a representative sample of adults in 17 US states.

Methods

Data are from the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Respondents were 136,432 adults. Social risk factors were food insecurity, housing insecurity, financial insecurity, unsafe neighborhoods, and health care access hardship. Weighted χ² and logistic regression analyses, controlling for demographic characteristics, measures of socioeconomic position, and other health conditions examined differences in arthritis prevalence and burden by social risk factor and by a social risk index created by summing the social risk factors.

Results

We observed a gradient in the prevalence and burden of arthritis. Compared with those reporting 0 social risk factors, respondents reporting 4 or more social risk factors were more likely to have arthritis (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.57–2.36) and report limited usual activities (AOR, 2.97; 95% CI, 2.20–4.02), limited work (AOR, 2.72; 95% CI, 2.06–3.60), limited social activities (AOR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.26–4.26), and severe joint pain (AOR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.44–2.41).

Conclusion

Incremental increases in the number of social risk factors were independently associated with higher odds of arthritis and its burden. Intervention efforts should address the social context of US adults to improve health outcomes.

Association Between Patient Social Risk and Physician Performance Scores in the First Year of the Merit-based Incentive Payment System

IMPORTANCE

The US Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is a major Medicare value-based payment program aimed at improving quality and reducing costs. Little is known about how physicians' performance varies by social risk of their patients.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relationship between patient social risk and physicians' scores in the first year of MIPS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Cross-sectional study of physicians participating in MIPS in 2017.

EXPOSURES

Physicians in the highest quintile of proportion of dually eligible patients served; physicians in the 3 middle quintiles; and physicians in the lowest quintile.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the 2017 composite MIPS score (range, 0-100; higher scores indicate better performance). Payment rates were adjusted -4% to 4% based on scores.

RESULTS

The final sample included 284 544 physicians (76.1% men, 60.1% with ≥20 years in practice, 11.9% in rural location, 26.8% hospital-based, and 24.6% in primary care). The mean composite MIPS score was 73.3. Physicians in the highest risk quintile cared for 52.0% of dually eligible patients; those in the 3 middle risk quintiles, 21.8%; and those in the lowest risk quintile, 6.6%. After adjusting for medical complexity, the mean MIPS score for physicians in the highest risk quintile (64.7) was lower relative to scores for physicians in the middle 3 (75.4) and lowest (75.9) risk quintiles (difference for highest vs middle 3, -10.7 [95% CI, -11.0 to -10.4]; highest vs lowest, -11.2 [95% CI, -11.6 to -10.8]; P < .001). This relationship was found across specialties except psychiatry. Compared with physicians in the lowest risk quintile, physicians in the highest risk quintile were more likely to work in rural areas (12.7% vs 6.4%; difference, 6.3 percentage points [95% CI, 6.0 to 6.7]; P < .001) but less likely to care for more than 1000 Medicare beneficiaries (9.4% vs 17.8%; difference, -8.3 percentage points [95% CI, -8.7 to -8.0]; P < .001) or to have more than 20 years in practice (56.7% vs 70.6%; difference, -13.9 percentage points [95% CI, -14.4 to -13.3]; P < .001). For physicians in the highest risk quintile, several characteristics were associated with higher MIPS scores, including practicing in a larger group (mean score, 82.4 for more than 50 physicians vs 46.1 for 1-5 physicians; difference, 36.2 [95% CI, 35.3 to 37.2]; P < .001) and reporting through an alternative payment model (mean score, 79.5 for alternative payment model vs 59.9 for reporting as individual; difference, 19.7 [95% CI, 18.9 to 20.4]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional analysis of physicians who participated in the first year of the Medicare MIPS program, physicians with the highest proportion of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid had significantly lower MIPS scores compared with other physicians. Further research is needed to understand the reasons underlying the differences in physician MIPS scores by levels of patient social risk.

Risk adjusting for Medicaid participation in Medicare Advantage

OBJECTIVES

Determining appropriate capitated payments has important access implications for dual-eligible Medicare Advantage (MA) members. In 2017, MA plans began receiving higher capitated payments for beneficiaries with full vs partial Medicaid when payments started being risk adjusted for level of Medicaid benefits instead of any Medicaid participation. This approach could favor MA plans in states with more generous Medicaid programs where more beneficiaries qualify for full Medicaid and thus a higher capitated payment. To understand this issue, we examined adjusted Medicare spending for dual-eligible beneficiaries across states with differing Medicaid eligibility criteria.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of 2007-2015 traditional Medicare data for dual-eligible beneficiaries 65 years and older.

METHODS

We compared predicted per-beneficiary spending levels after adjusting for any Medicaid participation and for level of Medicaid benefits across states with varying Medicaid eligibility requirements.

RESULTS

States with the most generous Medicaid requirements had more dual-eligible beneficiaries with full Medicaid compared with the most restrictive states (median, 82% vs 55%). Nationally, Medicare spending levels were 1.3 times greater for full vs partial Medicaid participants (range across states, 0.8-1.7). When per-beneficiary spending was adjusted for level of Medicaid benefits, rather than any Medicaid participation, states with more generous Medicaid eligibility had larger gains in predicted spending per dual-eligible beneficiary than states with less generous Medicaid coverage (1.7% vs 1.3% increase).

CONCLUSIONS

Distinguishing between partial and full Medicaid in MA payments may disproportionately increase MA payments in states that have more full Medicaid beneficiaries due to more generous Medicaid eligibility.

State variation in the characteristics of Medicare-Medicaid dual enrollees: Implications for risk adjustment

OBJECTIVE

To examine between-state differences in the socioeconomic and health characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries dually enrolled in Medicaid, focusing on characteristics not observable to or used by policy makers for risk adjustment.

DATA SOURCE

2010-2013 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analyses of survey-reported health and socioeconomic status (SES) measures among low-income Medicare beneficiaries and low-income dual enrollees. We used hierarchical linear regression models with state random effects to estimate the between-state variation in respondent characteristics and linear models to compare the characteristics of dual enrollees by state Medicaid policies.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Between-state differences in health and socioeconomic risk among low-income Medicare beneficiaries, as measured by the coefficient of variation, ranged from 17.5 percent for an index of socioeconomic risk to 20.3 percent for an index of health risk. Between-state differences were comparable among the subset of low-income beneficiaries dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. Dual enrollees with incomes below the Federal Poverty Level were in better health and had higher SES in states that offered Medicaid to individuals with relatively higher incomes. Duals' average incomes were higher in states with Medically Needy programs.

CONCLUSIONS

Characteristics of dual enrollees differ substantially across states, reflecting differences in states' low-income Medicare populations and Medicaid policies. Risk-adjustment methods using dual enrollment to proxy for poor health and low SES should account for this state-level heterogeneity.