Improving target price calculations in Medicare bundled payment programs.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To compare the predictive accuracy of two approaches to target price calculations under Bundled Payments for Care Improvement-Advanced (BPCI-A): the traditional Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) methodology and an empirical Bayes approach designed to mitigate the effects of regression to the mean.Data sources
Medicare fee-for-service claims for beneficiaries discharged from acute care hospitals between 2010 and 2016.Study design
We used data from a baseline period (discharges between January 1, 2010 and September 30, 2013) to predict spending in a performance period (discharges between October 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016). For 23 clinical episode types in BPCI-A, we compared the average prediction error across hospitals associated with each statistical approach. We also calculated an average across all clinical episode types and explored differences by hospital size.Data collection/extraction methods
We used a 20% sample of Medicare claims, excluding hospitals and episode types with small numbers of observations.Principal findings
The empirical Bayes approach resulted in significantly more accurate episode spending predictions for 19 of 23 clinical episode types. Across all episode types, prediction error averaged $8456 for the CMS approach versus $7521 for the empirical Bayes approach. Greater improvements in accuracy were observed with increasing hospital size.Conclusions
CMS should consider using empirical Bayes methods to calculate target prices for BPCI-A.
SUBMITTER: Cher BAY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8313949 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Improving target price calculations in Medicare bundled payment programs.
Cher Benjamin A Y BAY Gulseren Baris B Ryan Andrew M AM
Health services research 20210602 4
<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the predictive accuracy of two approaches to target price calculations under Bundled Payments for Care Improvement-Advanced (BPCI-A): the traditional Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) methodology and an empirical Bayes approach designed to mitigate the effects of regression to the mean.<h4>Data sources</h4>Medicare fee-for-service claims for beneficiaries discharged from acute care hospitals between 2010 and 2016.<h4>Study design</h4>We used data from ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceMedicare began paying for medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) at opioid treatment programs (OTPs) that dispense methadone and other MOUD in January 2020. There has been little research describing the response to this payment change and whether it resulted in more patients receiving MOUD or just a shift in who pays for this care.ObjectiveTo describe how many and which Medicare beneficiaries receive care from OTPs and how this compares to those receiving MOUD in other settings.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study included all patients receiving MOUD care identified in 2019-2022 100% US Medicare Parts B and D claims. Patients receiving care in an OTP who were dually insured with Medicare and Medicaid in the 2019-2020 Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System were also included.ExposureReceiving MOUD care in an OTP.Main outcomes and measuresComparisons of 2022 beneficiaries treated in OTPs vs other non-OTP settings in 2022.ResultsThe share of Medicare beneficiaries treated by OTPs rose steadily from 4 per 10 000 (14 160 beneficiaries) in January 2020 to 7 per 10 000 (25 596 beneficiaries) in August 2020, then plateaued through December 2022; of 38 870 patients (23% ≥66 years; 35% female) treated at an OTP in 2022, 96% received methadone. Patients in OTPs, compared to those receiving MOUD in other settings, were more likely be 65 years and younger (65% vs 62%; P < .001), less likely to be White (72% vs 82%; P < .001), and more likely to be an urban resident (86% vs 74%; P < .001). When Medicare OTP coverage began, there was no associated drop in the number of dually insured patients with Medicaid with an OTP claim. Of the 1854 OTPs, 1115 (60%) billed Medicare in 2022, with the share billing Medicare ranging from 13% to 100% across states.Conclusions and relevanceThis study showed that since the initiation of Medicare OTP coverage in 2020, there has been a rapid increase in the number of Medicare beneficiaries with claims for OTP services for MOUD, and most OTPs have begun billing Medicare. Patients in OTPs were more likely to be urban residents and members of racial or ethnic minority groups than the patients receiving other forms of MOUD.
| S-EPMC11259898 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative incentivizes participating providers to reduce total Medicare payments for an episode of care. However, there are concerns that reducing payments could reduce quality of care.ObjectiveTo assess the association of BPCI with patient-reported functional status and care experiences.DesignWe surveyed a stratified random sample of Medicare beneficiaries with BPCI episodes attributed to participating physician group practices, and matched comparison beneficiaries, after hospitalization for one of the 18 highest volume clinical episodes. The sample included beneficiaries discharged from the hospital from February 2017 through September 2017. Beneficiaries were surveyed approximately 90 days after their hospital discharge. We estimated risk-adjusted differences between the BPCI and comparison groups, pooled across all 18 clinical episodes and separately for the five largest clinical episodes.ParticipantsMedicare beneficiaries with BPCI episodes (n=16,898, response rate=44.5%) and comparison beneficiaries hospitalized for similar conditions selected using coarsened exact matching (n=14,652, response rate=46.2%).Main measuresPatient-reported functional status, care experiences, and overall satisfaction with recovery.Key resultsOverall, we did not find differences between the BPCI and comparison respondents across seven measures of change in functional status or overall satisfaction with recovery. Both BPCI and comparison respondents reported generally positive care experiences, but BPCI respondents were less likely to report positive care experience for 3 of 8 measures (discharged at the right time, -1.2 percentage points (pp); appropriate level of care, -1.8 pp; preferences for post-discharge care taken into account, -0.9 pp; p<0.05 for all three measures).ConclusionsThe proportion of respondents with favorable care experiences was smaller for BPCI than comparison respondents. However, we did not detect differences in self-reported change in functional status approximately 90 days after hospital discharge, indicating that differences in care experiences did not affect functional recovery.
| S-EPMC8971231 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, a traditional Medicare bundled payment program for lower-extremity joint replacement, is associated with care for patients outside traditional Medicare. Whether CJR model outcomes have differed by patient race or ethnicity outside of traditional Medicare is unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate outcomes associated with the CJR model among Hispanic patients not enrolled in traditional Medicare.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used hospitalization data from California's Patient Discharge Dataset for all patients who underwent lower-extremity joint replacement in California between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2017. In California, 3 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) were randomly selected to participate in CJR in April 2016. Hospitals not participating in other Medicare Alternative Payment Models were included in the treated group if they were in these 3 MSAs and in the control group if they were in the remaining 23 MSAs. The data analysis was performed between October 1 and December 31, 2023.ExposureComprehensive Care for Joint Replacement program implementation.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were hospital length of stay and home discharge rates by race and ethnicity. Home discharge status included self-care, the use of home health services, and hospice care at home. Event study, difference-in-differences, and triple differences models were used to estimate differential changes in health care service use by race and ethnicity for patients in the treated MSAs compared with the control MSAs before vs after CJR implementation.ResultsOf 309 834 hospitalizations (patient mean [SD] age, 68.3 [11.3] years; 60.6% women; 14.8% Hispanic; 72.4% non-Hispanic White), 48.0% were in treated MSAs and 52.0% in control MSAs. The CJR program was associated with an increase in home discharge rates for patients without traditional Medicare coverage; however, the increase differed by patient race and ethnicity. The increase was 0.05 (95% CI, 0.02-0.08) percentage points higher for Hispanic patients with Medicare Advantage and 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01-0.04) percentage points higher for Hispanic patients without Medicare compared with their non-Hispanic White counterparts.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study shows that CJR program outcomes differed by race and ethnicity for patients covered outside traditional Medicare, with home discharge rates increasing more for Hispanic compared with non-Hispanic White patients. These findings suggest the importance of considering differential outcomes of Medicare payment policies for racial and ethnic minority patient populations beyond the initially targeted groups.
| S-EPMC11409153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe examined whether the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model was associated with changes in the receipt of joint replacement among people with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) as well as spending, health service use, and postsurgical outcomes among people with ADRD who underwent a joint replacement surgery.MethodsRetrospective cohort study using 2013-2017 Medicare claims and Minimum Data Set. We used a difference-in-differences analysis to compare people with ADRD residing in CJR-participating treatment areas versus nonparticipating control areas on the receipt of joint replacement, episode spending during the index hospitalization and subsequent 90-day post-discharge period, discharges to an institutional post-acute care setting, and readmissions within 90 days of hospital discharge.ResultsOur sample included 3,361,950 Medicare enrollees with ADRD (2,156,995 women [64%]; mean [SD] age, 83 [8.0] years; 2,646,405 white [78%], 344,478 black [10%], 224,010 Hispanic [7%]). The receipt of replacement among people with ADRD changed similarly between CJR-participating treatment and control areas after CJR model was implemented, suggesting no association of CJR model with the receipt of replacement. Among people with ADRD who received joint replacement, the CJR model was associated with a $1029 decrease in spending per episode (95% confidence interval [CI] -$1577, -$481, p < 0.001), a 1.62 percentage point decrease in discharges to an institutional post-acute care setting (95% CI -3.17, -0.07, p = 0.04), but no changes in 90-day readmission (95% CI -2.68, 0.00, p = 0.051).ConclusionsDespite concerns that the CJR model could hinder people with ADRD from receiving joint replacement, the receipt of joint replacement did not change among people with ADRD under CJR. The CJR model was associated with decreased spending for people with ADRD who received joint replacements, driven by reduced discharges to an institutional post-acute care setting, without any changes in 90-day readmission.
| S-EPMC9489623 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes are essential to demonstrate the value of hip and knee arthroplasty, a common target for payment reforms. We compare patient-reported global and condition-specific outcomes after hip and knee arthroplasty based on hospital participation in Medicare's bundled payment programs.MethodsWe performed a prospective observational study using the Comparative Effectiveness of Pulmonary Embolism Prevention after Hip and Knee Replacement trial. Differences in patient-reported outcomes through 6 months were compared between bundle and nonbundle hospitals using mixed-effects regression, controlling for baseline patient characteristics. Outcomes were the brief Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score or the brief Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Health Score, and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, measures of joint function, overall health, and pain, respectively.ResultsRelative to nonbundled hospitals, arthroplasty patients at bundled hospitals had slightly lower improvement in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (-1.8 point relative difference at 6 months; 95% confidence interval -3.2 to -0.4; P = .011) and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (-2.3 point relative difference at 6 months; 95% confidence interval -4.0 to -0.5; P = .010). However, these effects were small, and the proportions of patients who achieved a minimum clinically important difference were similar. Preoperative to postoperative change in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Health Score and Numeric Pain Rating Scale demonstrated a similar pattern of slightly worse outcomes at bundled hospitals with similar rates of achieving a minimum clinically important difference.ConclusionsPatients receiving care at hospitals participating in Medicare's bundled payment programs do not have meaningfully worse improvements in patient-reported measures of function, health, or pain after hip or knee arthroplasty.
| S-EPMC8218221 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceModel 3 of the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) is an alternative payment model in which an entity takes accountability for the episode costs. It is unclear how BPCI affected the overall skilled nursing facility (SNF) financial performance and the differences between facilities with differing racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status (SES) composition of the residents.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to determine associations between BPCI participation and SNF finances and across-facility differences in SNF financial performance.Design, setting, and participantsA longitudinal study spanning 2010-2017, based on difference-in-differences analyses for 575 persistent-participation SNFs, 496 dropout SNFs, and 13,630 eligible nonparticipating SNFs.Main outcome measuresInflation-adjusted operating expenses, revenues, profit, and profit margin.ResultsBPCI was associated with reductions of $0.63 million in operating expenses and $0.57 million in operating revenues for the persistent-participation group but had no impact on the dropout group compared with nonparticipating SNFs. Among persistent-participation SNFs, the BPCI-related declines were $0.74 million in operating expenses and $0.52 million in operating revenues for majority-serving SNFs; and $1.33 and $0.82 million in operating expenses and revenues, respectively, for non-Medicaid-dependent SNFs. The between-facility SES gaps in operating expenses were reduced (differential difference-in-differences estimate=$1.09 million). Among dropout SNFs, BPCI showed mixed effects on across-facility SES and racial/ethnic differences in operating expenses and revenues. The BPCI program showed no effect on operating profit measures.ConclusionsBPCI led to reduced operating expenses and revenues for SNFs that participated and remained in the program but had no effect on operating profit indicators and mixed effects on SES and racial/ethnic differences across SNFs.
| S-EPMC8665005 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMedicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model rewards or penalizes hospitals on the basis of meeting spending benchmarks that do not account for patients' preexisting social and medical complexity or high expenses associated with serving disadvantaged populations such as dual-eligible patients (ie, those enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid). The CJR model may have different implications for hospitals serving a high percentage of dual-eligible patients (termed high-dual) and hospitals serving a low percentage of dual-eligible patients (termed low-dual).ObjectiveTo examine changes associated with the CJR model among high-dual or low-dual hospitals in 2016 to 2017.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study comprised 3 analyses of high-dual or low-dual hospitals (n = 1165) serving patients with hip or knee joint replacements (n = 768 224) in 67 treatment metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) selected for CJR participation and 103 control MSAs. The study used Medicare claims data and public reports from 2012 to 2017. Data analysis was conducted from February 1, 2019, to August 31, 2019.ExposuresThe CJR model holds participating hospitals accountable for the spending and quality of care during care episodes for patients with hip or knee joint replacement, including hospitalization and 90 days after discharge.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were total episode spending, discharge to institutional postacute care facility, and readmission within the 90-day postdischarge period; bonus and penalty payments for each hospital; and reductions in per-episode spending required to receive a bonus for each hospital.ResultsIn total, 1165 hospitals (291 high-dual and 874 low-dual) and 768 224 patients with joint replacement (494 013 women [64.3%]; mean [SD] age, 76 [7] years) were included. An episode-level triple-difference analysis indicated that total spending under the CJR model decreased at high-dual hospitals (by $851; 95% CI, -$1556 to -$146; P = .02) and low-dual hospitals (by $567; 95% CI, -$933 to -$202; P = .003). The size of decreases did not differ between the 2 groups (difference, -$284; 95% CI, -$981 to $413; P = .42). Discharge to institutional postacute care settings and readmission did not change among both hospital groups. High-dual hospitals were less likely to receive a bonus compared with low-dual hospitals (40.3% vs 59.1% in 2016; 56.9% vs 76.0% in 2017). To receive a bonus, high-dual hospitals would be required to reduce spending by $887 to $2231 per episode, compared with only $89 to $215 for low-dual hospitals.Conclusions and relevanceThe study found that high- and low-dual hospitals made changes in care after CJR implementation, and the magnitude of these changes did not differ between the 2 groups. However, high-dual hospitals were less likely to receive a bonus for spending cuts. Spending benchmarks for CJR would require high-dual hospitals to reduce spending more substantially to receive a financial incentive.
| S-EPMC6865278 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A goal of Medicare's bundled payment models is to improve quality and control costs after hospital discharge. Little is known about how participating hospitals are focusing their efforts to achieve these objectives, particularly around the use of skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). To understand hospitals' approaches, we conducted semistructured interviews with an executive or administrator in each of twenty-two hospitals and health systems participating in Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement model or its Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative for lower extremity joint replacement episodes. We identified two major organizational responses. One principal strategy was to reduce SNF referrals, using risk-stratification tools, patient education, home care supports, and linkages with home health agencies to facilitate discharges to home. Another was to enhance integration with SNFs: fifteen hospitals or health systems in our sample had formed networks of preferred SNFs to exert influence over SNF quality and costs. Common coordination strategies included sharing access to electronic medical records, embedding providers across facilities, hiring dedicated care coordination staff, and creating platforms for data sharing. As hospitals presumably move toward home-based care and more selective SNF referrals, more evidence is needed to understand how these discharge practices affect the quality of care and patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC6345271 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To determine whether bundled payment could be an effective payment model for California, the Integrated Healthcare Association convened a group of stakeholders (health plans, hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, physician organizations, and vendors) to develop, through a consensus process, the methods and means of implementing bundled payment. In spite of a high level of enthusiasm and effort, the pilot did not succeed in its goal to implement bundled payment for orthopedic procedures across multiple payers and hospital-physician partners. An evaluation of the pilot documented a number of barriers, such as administrative burden, state regulatory uncertainty, and disagreements about bundle definition and assumption of risk. Ultimately, few contracts were signed, which resulted in insufficient volume to test hypotheses about the impact of bundled payment on quality and costs. Although bundled payment failed to gain a foothold in California, the evaluation provides lessons for future bundled payment initiatives.
| S-EPMC8575503 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesIn 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services implemented bundling of all services for patients receiving dialysis, including erythropoietin-stimulating agents use, and the Food and Drug Administration recommended conservative erythropoietin-stimulating agent dosing.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsThis retrospective cohort study investigated anemia care and clinical outcomes before and after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services bundled payment and the revised Food and Drug Administration-recommended erythropoietin-stimulating agent labeling for Medicare-insured adults receiving hemodialysis using data from the United States Renal Data System from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2016. Clinical outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular event (stroke, acute myocardial infarction, and all-cause mortality), cardiovascular mortality, and heart failure. Measurements were compared between prepolicy (2006-2010) and postpolicy (2012-2016) implementation using interrupted time series and Cox proportional hazards regression models.ResultsOf 481,564 patients, erythropoietin-stimulating agent use immediately decreased by 84.8 per 1000 persons (P<0.001), with a significant decrease in the slope of the trend line (both P=0.001). Blood transfusion use rapidly increased by 8.34 per 1000 persons in April 2012 and then gradually decreased (both P=0.001). The percentage of patients with hemoglobin >11 g/dl decreased from 68% in January 2006 to 28% in December 2016, whereas those with hemoglobin <9 g/dl increased from 5% to 9%. Overall major adverse cardiovascular event (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 0.96), stroke (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 0.86), all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 0.89), cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 0.83), and heart failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.84 to 0.88) risks were lower. Acute myocardial infarction risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.06) was higher after policies changed.ConclusionsThe Medicare reimbursement policy and Food and Drug Administration-recommended erythropoietin-stimulating agent dosing changes were associated with lower erythropoietin-stimulating agent use and lower hemoglobin levels. These changes in anemia care were associated with lower risks of major adverse cardiovascular event, stroke, mortality, and heart failure but higher risk of acute myocardial infarction among adults receiving hemodialysis.
| S-EPMC9269657 | biostudies-literature