Lessons for Medicare Part D in the hemodialysis community

BACKGROUND: Medicare beneficiaries without prescription drug coverage consistently fill fewer prescriptions than beneficiaries with some form of drug coverage due to cost. ESRD patients, who are disproportionately poor and typically use multiple oral medications, would likely benefit substantially from any form of prescription drug coverage. Because most hemodialysis patients are Medicare-eligible, they as well as their providers would be expected to be well informed of changes in Medicare prescription drug coverage. By examining the level of understanding and use of the temporary Medicare Prescription Drug Discount Card Program in the hemodialysis population, we can gain a better understanding of the potential long-term utilization for Medicare Part D. METHODS: We surveyed English-speaking adult hemodialysis patients with Medicare coverage from two urban hemodialysis centers affiliated with the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) during July and August 2005 (n = 70). We also surveyed University- and community-based nephrologists and non-physician dialysis health care professionals over the same time frame (n = 70). RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent of patients received prescription drug coverage through Medi-Cal, 20% through another insurance program, and 21% had no prescription drug coverage. Forty percent of patients with no prescription drug coverage reported "sometimes" or "rarely" being able to obtain medications vs. 22% of patients with some form of drug coverage. None of the patients surveyed actually had a Medicare-approved prescription drug card, and of those who intended to apply, only 10% reported knowing how to do so. Only 11% health care professionals knew the eligibility requirements of the drug discount cards. CONCLUSION: Despite a significant need, hemodialysis patients and providers were poorly educated about the Medicare Prescription Drug Discount Cards. This has broad implications for the dissemination of information about Medicare Part D

Health information exchange between hospital and skilled nursing facilities not associated with lower readmissions

ObjectiveTo assess whether an electronic health record (EHR) portal to enable health information exchange (HIE) between a hospital and three skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) reduced likelihood of patient readmission.Setting/DataSecondary data; all discharges from a large academic medical center to SNFs between July 2013 and March 2017, combined with portal usage records from SNFs with HIE access.DesignWe use differenceâ inâ differences to determine whether portal implementation reduced likelihood of readmission over time for patients discharged to HIEâ enabled SNFs, relative to those discharged to nonenabled facilities. Additional descriptive analyses of audit log data characterize portal use within enabled facilities.Data CollectionEncounterâ level clinical EHR data were merged with EHR audit log data that captured portal usage in the timeframe associated with a patient transition from hospital to SNF.Principal FindingsDeclines in likelihood of 30â day readmission were not significantly different for patients in HIEâ enabled vs control SNFs (diffâ inâ diff = 0.022; P = .431). We observe similar null effects with shorter readmission windows. The portal was used for 46 percent of discharges, with significant usage pattern variation within/across facilities.ConclusionsImplementation of a hospitalâ SNF EHR portal did not reduce readmissions from enabled SNFs. Emergent HIE use cases need to be better defined and leveraged for design and implementation that generates value in the context of postacute transitions.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/153113/1/hesr13210.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/153113/2/hesr13210-sup-0001-Authormatrix.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/153113/3/hesr13210_am.pd

Risk adjustment methods for Home Care Quality Indicators (HCQIs) based on the minimum data set for home care

BACKGROUND: There has been increasing interest in enhancing accountability in health care. As such, several methods have been developed to compare the quality of home care services. These comparisons can be problematic if client populations vary across providers and no adjustment is made to account for these differences. The current paper explores the effects of risk adjustment for a set of home care quality indicators (HCQIs) based on the Minimum Data Set for Home Care (MDS-HC). METHODS: A total of 22 home care providers in Ontario and the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (WRHA) in Manitoba, Canada, gathered data on their clients using the MDS-HC. These assessment data were used to generate HCQIs for each agency and for the two regions. Three types of risk adjustment methods were contrasted: a) client covariates only; b) client covariates plus an "Agency Intake Profile" (AIP) to adjust for ascertainment and selection bias by the agency; and c) client covariates plus the intake Case Mix Index (CMI). RESULTS: The mean age and gender distribution in the two populations was very similar. Across the 19 risk-adjusted HCQIs, Ontario CCACs had a significantly higher AIP adjustment value for eight HCQIs, indicating a greater propensity to trigger on these quality issues on admission. On average, Ontario had unadjusted rates that were 0.3% higher than the WRHA. Following risk adjustment with the AIP covariate, Ontario rates were, on average, 1.5% lower than the WRHA. In the WRHA, individual agencies were likely to experience a decline in their standing, whereby they were more likely to be ranked among the worst performers following risk adjustment. The opposite was true for sites in Ontario. CONCLUSIONS: Risk adjustment is essential when comparing quality of care across providers when home care agencies provide services to populations with different characteristics. While such adjustment had a relatively small effect for the two regions, it did substantially affect the ranking of many individual home care providers

Patient's Request for Medical Payment

This is fill-out form for patient's to request payment for medical services

Perioperative hair removal in the 21st century: utilizing an innovative vacuum-assisted technology to safely expedite hair removal before surgery.

Background: Perioperative hair removal using clippers requires lengthy cleanup to remove loose hairs contaminating the operative field. We compared the amount of hair debris and associated microbiologic contamination produced during clipping of surgical sites using standard surgical clippers (SSC) or clippers fitted with a vacuum-assisted hair collection device (SCVAD). Methods: Trained nurses conducted bilateral hair clipping of the chest and groin of 18 male subjects using SSC or SCVAD. Before and during clipping, measurements of particulate matter and bacterial contamination were evaluated on settling plates placed next to each subject’s chest and groin. Skin condition after clipping and total clipping/cleanup times were compared between SSC and SCVAD. Results: The microbial burden recovered from residual hair during cleanup in the SSC group was 3.9 log10 CFU and 4.6 log10 CFU from respective, chest, and groin areas. Use of the SCVAD resulted in a significant (P < .001) reduction in both residual hair and microbial contamination within the operative field compared with SSC. Conclusions: Use of SCVAD resulted in significant (P< .001) reduction in total time required to clip and clean up residual hair contaminating the operative field compared with standard practice (ie, SSC), eliminating the need to physically remove dispersed hairs, which can harbor a significant microbial burden, from within the operative field

The Early Effects of Medicare's Mandatory Hospital Pay‐for‐Performance Program

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110552/1/hesr12206-sup-0001-AuthorMatrix.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110552/2/hesr12206.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110552/3/hesr12206-sup-0002-DataS1.pd

Associations between exemption and survival outcomes in the UK's primary care pay-for-performance programme:a retrospective cohort study

PublishedJournal ArticleThis is the final version of the article. Available from BMJ Publishing Group via the DOI in this record.OBJECTIVES: The UK's Quality and Outcomes Framework permits practices to exempt patients from financially-incentivised performance targets. To better understand the determinants and consequences of being exempted from the framework, we investigated the associations between exception reporting, patient characteristics and mortality. We also quantified the proportion of exempted patients that met quality targets for a tracer condition (diabetes). DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal study, using individual patient data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. SETTING: 644 general practices, 2006/7 to 2011/12. PARTICIPANTS: Patients registered with study practices for at least one year over the study period, with at least one condition of interest (2 460 341 in total). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Exception reporting rates by reason (clinical contraindication, patient dissent); all-cause mortality in year following exemption. Analyses with logistic and Cox proportional-hazards regressions, respectively. RESULTS: The odds of being exempted increased with age, deprivation and multimorbidity. Men were more likely to be exempted but this was largely attributable to higher prevalence of conditions with high exemption rates. Modest associations remained, with women more likely to be exempted due to clinical contraindication (OR 0.90, 99% CI 0.88 to 0.92) and men more likely to be exempted due to informed dissent (OR 1.08, 99% CI 1.06 to 1.10). More deprived areas (both for practice location and patient residence) were non-linearly associated with higher exception rates, after controlling for comorbidities and other covariates, with stronger associations for clinical contraindication. Compared with patients with a single condition, odds ratios for patients with two, three, or four or more conditions were respectively 4.28 (99% CI 4.18 to 4.38), 16.32 (99% CI 15.82 to 16.83) and 68.69 (99% CI 66.12 to 71.37) for contraindication, and 2.68 (99% CI 2.63 to 2.74), 4.02 (99% CI 3.91 to 4.13) and 5.17 (99% CI 5.00 to 5.35) for informed dissent. Exempted patients had a higher adjusted risk of death in the following year than non-exempted patients, regardless of whether this exemption was for contraindication (hazard ratio 1.37, 99% CI 1.33 to 1.40) or for informed dissent (1.20, 99% CI 1.17 to 1.24). On average, quality standards were met for 48% of exempted patients in the diabetes domain, but there was wide variation across indicators (ranging from 8 to 80%). CONCLUSIONS: Older, multimorbid and more deprived patients are more likely to be exempted from the scheme. Exception reported patients are more likely to die in the following year, whether they are exempted by the practice for a contraindication or by themselves through informed dissent. Further research is needed to understand the relationship between exception reporting and patient outcomes.NIHR School for Primary Care Research (Project #141); Medical Research Council; Health eResearch Centre grant MR/K006665/1