Identification of Emergency Care-Sensitive Conditions and Characteristics of Emergency Department Utilization.

Importance: Monitoring emergency care quality requires understanding which conditions benefit most from timely, quality emergency care. Objectives: To identify a set of emergency care-sensitive conditions (ECSCs) that are treated in most emergency departments (EDs), are associated with a spectrum of adult age groups, and represent common reasons for seeking emergency care and to provide benchmark national estimates of ECSC acute care utilization. Design, Setting, and Participants: A modified Delphi method was used to identify ECSCs. In a cross-sectional analysis, ECSC-associated visits by adults (aged ≥18 years) were identified based on International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes and analyzed with nationally representative data from the 2016 US Nationwide Emergency Department Sample. Data analysis was conducted from January 2018 to December 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Identification of ECSCs and ECSC-associated ED utilization patterns, length of stay, and charges. Results: An expert panel rated 51 condition groups as emergency care sensitive. Emergency care-sensitive conditions represented 16 033 359 of 114 323 044 ED visits (14.0%) in 2016. On average, 8 535 261 of 17 886 220 ED admissions (47.7%) were attributed to ECSCs. The most common ECSC ED visits were for sepsis (1 716 004 [10.7%]), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1 273 319 [7.9%]), pneumonia (1 263 971 [7.9%]), asthma (970 829 [6.1%]), and heart failure (911 602 [5.7%]) but varied by age group. Median (interquartile range) length of stay for ECSC ED admissions was longer than non-ECSC ED admissions (3.2 [1.7-5.8] days vs 2.7 [1.4-4.9] days; P \u3c .001). In 2016, median (interquartile range) ED charges per visit for ECSCs were $2736 ($1684-$4605) compared with$2179 ($1118-$4359) per visit for non-ECSC ED visits (P \u3c .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This comprehensive list of ECSCs can be used to guide indicator development for pre-ED, intra-ED, and post-ED care and overall assessment of the adult, non-mental health, acute care system. Health care utilization and costs among patients with ECSCs are substantial and warrant future study of validation, variations in care, and outcomes associated with ECSCs

Anticipating VA/non-VA care coordination demand for Veterans at high risk for hospitalization

AbstractU.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) patients' multi-system use can create challenges for VA clinicians who are responsible for coordinating Veterans' use of non-VA care, including VA-purchased care ("Community Care") and Medicare.To examine the relationship between drive distance and time-key eligibility criteria for Community Care-and VA reliance (proportion of care received in VA versus Medicare and Community Care) among Veterans at high risk for hospitalization. We used prepolicy data to anticipate the impact of the 2014 Choice Act and 2018 Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act (MISSION Act), which expanded access to Community Care.Cross-sectional analysis using fractional logistic regressions to examine the relationship between a Veteran's reliance on VA for outpatient primary, mental health, and other specialty care and their drive distance/time to a VA facility.Thirteen thousand seven hundred three Veterans over the age of 65 years enrolled in VA and fee-for-service Medicare in federal fiscal year 2014 who were in the top 10th percentile for hospitalization risk.Key explanatory variables were patients' drive distance to VA > 40 miles (Choice Act criteria) and drive time to VA ≥ 30 minutes for primary and mental health care and ≥60 minutes for specialty care (MISSION Act criteria).Veterans at high risk for hospitalization with drive distance eligibility had increased odds of an outpatient specialty care visit taking place in VA when compared to Veterans who did not meet Choice Act eligibility criteria (odds ratio = 1.10, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.15). However, drive time eligibility (MISSION Act criteria) was associated with significantly lower odds of an outpatient specialty care visit taking place in VA (odds ratio = 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.67, 0.71). Neither drive distance nor drive time were associated with reliance for outpatient primary care or mental health care.VA patients who are at high risk for hospitalization may continue to rely on VA for outpatient primary care and mental health care despite access to outside services, but may increase use of outpatient specialty care in the community in the MISSION era, increasing demand for multi-system care coordination

Outpatient care fragmentation in Veterans Affairs patients at high-risk for hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE: To examine outpatient care fragmentation and its association with future hospitalization among patients at high risk for hospitalization. DATA SOURCES: Veterans Affairs (VA) and Medicare data. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a longitudinal study, using logistic regression to examine how outpatient care fragmentation in FY14 (as measured by number of unique providers, Breslaus Usual Provider of Care (UPC), Bice-Boxermans Continuity of Care Index (COCI), and Modified Modified Continuity Index (MMCI)) was associated with all-cause hospitalizations and hospitalizations related to ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) in FY15. We also examined how fragmentation varied by patients age, gender, race, ethnicity, marital status, rural status, history of homelessness, number of chronic conditions, Medicare utilization, and mental health care utilization. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: We extracted data for 130,704 VA patients ≥65 years old with a hospitalization risk ≥90th percentile and ≥ four outpatient visits in the baseline year. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The mean (SD) of FY14 outpatient visits was 13.2 (8.6). Fragmented care (more providers, less care with a usual provider, more dispersed care based on COCI) was more common among patients with more chronic conditions and those receiving mental health care. In adjusted models, most fragmentation measures were not associated with all-cause hospitalization, and patients with low levels of fragmentation (more concentrated care based on UPC, COCI, and MMCI) had a higher likelihood of an ACSC-related hospitalization (AOR, 95% CI = 1.21 (1.09-1.35), 1.27 (1.14-1.42), and 1.28 (1.18-1.40), respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to expectations, outpatient care fragmentation was not associated with elevated all-cause hospitalization rates among VA patients in the top 10th percentile for risk of admission; in fact, fragmented care was linked to lower rates of hospitalization for ACSCs. In integrated settings such as the VA, multiple providers, and dispersed care might offer access to timely or specialized care that offsets risks of fragmentation, particularly for conditions that are sensitive to ambulatory care

Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND: Statin therapy reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiovascular events, but whether the addition of ezetimibe, a nonstatin drug that reduces intestinal cholesterol absorption, can reduce the rate of cardiovascular events further is not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial involving 18,144 patients who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 days and had LDL cholesterol levels of 50 to 100 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 2.6 mmol per liter) if they were receiving lipid-lowering therapy or 50 to 125 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 3.2 mmol per liter) if they were not receiving lipid-lowering therapy. The combination of simvastatin (40 mg) and ezetimibe (10 mg) (simvastatin-ezetimibe) was compared with simvastatin (40 mg) and placebo (simvastatin monotherapy). The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, coronary revascularization ( 6530 days after randomization), or nonfatal stroke. The median follow-up was 6 years. RESULTS: The median time-weighted average LDL cholesterol level during the study was 53.7 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 69.5 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier event rate for the primary end point at 7 years was 32.7% in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 34.7% in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (absolute risk difference, 2.0 percentage points; hazard ratio, 0.936; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 0.99; P = 0.016). Rates of pre-specified muscle, gallbladder, and hepatic adverse effects and cancer were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: When added to statin therapy, ezetimibe resulted in incremental lowering of LDL cholesterol levels and improved cardiovascular outcomes. Moreover, lowering LDL cholesterol to levels below previous targets provided additional benefit