Is There Extra Cost of Institutional Care for MS Patients?

Throughout life, patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) require increasing levels of support, rehabilitative services, and eventual skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. There are concerns that access to SNF care for MS patients is limited because of perceived higher costs of their care. This study compares costs of caring for an MS patient versus those of a typical SNF patient. We merged SNF cost report data with the 2001-2006 Nursing Home Minimum Data Set (MDS) to calculate percentage of MS residents-days and facility case-mix indices (CMIs). We estimated the average facility daily cost using hybrid cost functions, adjusted for facility ownership, average facility wages, CMI-adjusted number of SNF days, and percentage of MS residents-days. We describe specific characteristics of SNF with high and low MS volumes and examine any sources of variation in cost. MS patients were no longer more costly than typical SNF patients. A greater proportion of MS patients had no significant effect on facility daily costs (P = 0.26). MS patients were more likely to receive care in government-owned facilities (OR = 1.904) located in the Western (OR = 2.133) and Midwestern (OR = 1.3) parts of the USA (P < 0.05). Cost of SNF care is not a likely explanation for the perceived access barriers that MS patients face

Is There Extra Cost of Institutional Care for MS Patients?

Throughout life, patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) require increasing levels of support, rehabilitative services, and eventual skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. There are concerns that access to SNF care for MS patients is limited because of perceived higher costs of their care. This study compares costs of caring for an MS patient versus those of a typical SNF patient. We merged SNF cost report data with the 2001–2006 Nursing Home Minimum Data Set (MDS) to calculate percentage of MS residents-days and facility case-mix indices (CMIs). We estimated the average facility daily cost using hybrid cost functions, adjusted for facility ownership, average facility wages, CMI-adjusted number of SNF days, and percentage of MS residents-days. We describe specific characteristics of SNF with high and low MS volumes and examine any sources of variation in cost. MS patients were no longer more costly than typical SNF patients. A greater proportion of MS patients had no significant effect on facility daily costs (P = 0.26). MS patients were more likely to receive care in government-owned facilities (OR = 1.904) located in the Western (OR = 2.133) and Midwestern (OR = 1.3) parts of the USA (P < 0.05). Cost of SNF care is not a likely explanation for the perceived access barriers that MS patients face

Assessment of Differences in Inpatient Rehabilitation Services for Length of Stay and Health Outcomes Between US Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries

Importance: Enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) has been increasing and has reached one-third of total Medicare enrollment. Because of data limitations, direct comparison of inpatient rehabilitation services between MA and traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries has been very scarce. Subgroups of elderly individuals admitted to inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) may experience different care outcomes by insurance types. Objective: To measure the differences in length of stay and health outcomes of inpatient rehabilitation services between TM and MA beneficiaries in the US. Design, setting, and participants: This multiyear cross-sectional study used the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation to assess rehabilitation services received by elderly (aged \u3e65 years) Medicare beneficiaries in IRFs between 2007 and 2016 for stroke, hip fracture, and joint replacement. Generalized linear models were used to assess whether an association existed between Medicare insurance type and IRF care outcomes. Models were adjusted for demographic characteristics, clinical conditions, and facility characteristics. Data were analyzed from September 2018 to August 2019. Exposures: Medicare insurance plan type, TM or MA. Main outcomes and measures: Inpatient length of stay in IRFs, functional improvements, and possibility of returning to the community after discharge. Results: The sample included a total of 1 028 470 patients (634 619 women [61.7%]; mean [SD] age, 78.23 [7.26] years): 473 017 patients admitted for stroke, 323 029 patients admitted for hip fracture, and 232 424 patients admitted for joint replacement. Individuals enrolled in MA plans were younger than TM beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 76.96 [7.02] vs 77.95 [7.26] years for stroke, 79.92 [6.93] vs 80.85 [6.87] years for hip fracture, and 74.79 [6.58] vs 75.88 [6.80] years for joint replacement) and were more likely to be black (17 086 [25.5%] vs 54 648 [17.9%] beneficiaries) or Hispanic (14 496 [28.5%] vs 24 377 [8.3%] beneficiaries). The MA beneficiaries accounted for 21.8% (103 204 of 473 017) of admissions for stroke, 11.5% (37 160 of 323 029) of admissions for hip fracture, and 11.8% (27 314 of 232 424) of admissions for joint replacement. The MA beneficiaries had shorter mean lengths of stay than did TM beneficiaries for both stroke (0.11 day; 95% CI, -0.15 to -0.07 day; 1.15% shorter) and hip fracture (0.17 day; 95% CI, -0.21 to -0.13 day; 0.85% shorter). The MA beneficiaries also had higher possibilities of returning to the community than did TM beneficiaries, by 3.0% (95% CI, 2.6%-3.4%) for stroke and 5.0% (95% CI, 4.4%-5.6%) for hip fracture. The shorter length of stay and better ultimate outcomes were achieved without substantially compromising the intermediate functional improvements. Facility type (freestanding vs within an acute care hospital) and patient alternative payment sources other than Medicare (none vs other) partially explained the differences between insurance types. Conclusions and relevance: This study suggests that MA enrollees experience shorter length of stay and better outcomes for postacute care than do TM beneficiaries in IRFs. The magnitude of the differences depends on treatment deferability, patient sociodemographic subgroups, and facility characteristics

Rural Urban Disparity in the Use of Preventive Care: What can we learn from Colorectal Cancer Screening?

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Rochester. School of Medicine & Dentistry. Dept. of Community and Preventive Medicine, 2012.There is evidence of rural urban disparity in the use of preventive care including colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. In this study, we try to understand the reasons behind the rural urban disparity in CRC screenin, and the trend for the screening and rural-urban disparity in the screening before and after Medicare expansion of colonoscopy coverage in 2001. We use Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS), Area Resource File (ARF), Rural –Urban Commuting Area Codes (RUCAs) and American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database. We use weighted logistic regression to explore the explanations of rural urban disparity in CRC screening. We use bivariate probit model and propensity score to control for sample selection. Logistic regression analysis is used to explore the screening and disparity trend over time. We found that people with higher education, greater income, better supplemental insurance coverage, shorter distance, and living in an area with greater provider supply are more likely to receive CRC screening. Education, income, supplemental insurance coverage explains disparities between urban and large, small and isolated rural areas. Distance seems to explain disparities between urban and small rural, and urban and isolated rural areas. The possible provider supplies that explain the rural-urban disparity are primary care physician, specialist and preventive medicine physician supply. Our study has found an increasing trend for CRC screening and evidence for reduced disparity between urban and small rural areas in 2005, but not for other areas nor for other year. The rural-urban disparities are persistent across three years even after control for individual characteristics and area provider supply. People in rural areas should be targeted for interventions to increase CRC screening. Possible interventions to improve CRC screening, particularly in rural areas, should consider the following strategies: 1. Increasing CRC screening by FOBT use; 2. Use educational effort that has been proven to be effective, such as patient reminders, decision aid and one-on-one education; 3. Remove provider supply barrier to screening in rural areas including: (1) exploring the possibility of establishing mobile CRC screening facility, (2) motivating specialists to practice periodically in rural areas, and (3) exploring the impact of preventive medicine physicians

Regional multiteam systems in cancer care delivery

Teamwork is essential for addressing many of the challenges that arise in the coordination and delivery of cancer care, especially for the problems that are presented by patients who cross geographic boundaries and enter and exit multiple health care systems at various times during their cancer care journeys. The problem of coordinating the care of patients with cancer is further complicated by the growing number of treatment options and modalities, incompatibilities among the vast variety of technology platforms that have recently been adopted by the health care industry, and competing and misaligned incentives for providers and systems. Here we examine the issue of regional care coordination in cancer through the prism of a real patient journey. This article will synthesize and elaborate on existing knowledge about coordination approaches for complex systems, in particular, in general and cancer care multidisciplinary teams; define elements of coordination derived from organizational psychology and human factors research that are applicable to team-based cancer care delivery; and suggest approaches for improving multidisciplinary team coordination in regional cancer care delivery and avenues for future research. The phenomenon of the mobile, multisystem patient represents a growing challenge in cancer care. Paradoxically, development of high-quality, high-volume centers of excellence and the ease of virtual communication and data sharing by using electronic medical records have introduced significant barriers to effective team-based cancer care. These challenges urgently require solutions. </jats:p

Is There Extra Cost of Institutional Care for MS Patients?

Throughout life, patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) require increasing levels of support, rehabilitative services, and eventual skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. There are concerns that access to SNF care for MS patients is limited because of perceived higher costs of their care. This study compares costs of caring for an MS patient versus those of a typical SNF patient. We merged SNF cost report data with the 2001-2006 Nursing Home Minimum Data Set (MDS) to calculate percentage of MS residents-days and facility case-mix indices (CMIs). We estimated the average facility daily cost using hybrid cost functions, adjusted for facility ownership, average facility wages, CMI-adjusted number of SNF days, and percentage of MS residents-days. We describe specific characteristics of SNF with high and low MS volumes and examine any sources of variation in cost. MS patients were no longer more costly than typical SNF patients. A greater proportion of MS patients had no significant effect on facility daily costs (P = 0.26). MS patients were more likely to receive care in government-owned facilities (OR = 1.904) located in the Western (OR = 2.133) and Midwestern (OR = 1.3) parts of the USA (P &lt; 0.05). Cost of SNF care is not a likely explanation for the perceived access barriers that MS patients face

Postoperative Morbidity by Procedure and Patient Factors Influencing Major Complications Within 30 Days Following Shoulder Surgery.

BackgroundLittle data are available to prioritize quality improvement initiatives in shoulder surgery.PurposeTo stratify the risk for 30-day postoperative morbidity in commonly performed surgical procedures about the shoulder completed in a hospital setting and to determine patient factors associated with major complications.Study designCohort study; Level of evidence, 3.MethodsThis retrospective study utilized the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database from the years 2005 to 2010. Using Current Procedural Terminology codes, the database was queried for shoulder cases that were divided into 7 groups: arthroscopy without repair; arthroscopy with repair; arthroplasty; clavicle/acromioclavicular joint (AC) open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF)/repair; ORIF of proximal humeral fracture; open tendon release/repair; and open shoulder stabilization. The primary end point was any major complication, with secondary end points of incisional infection, return to the operating room, and venothromboembolism (VTE), all within 30 days of surgery.ResultsOverall, 11,086 cases were analyzed. The overall major complication rate was 2.1% (n = 234). Factors associated with major complications on multivariate analysis included: procedure performed (P &lt; .001), emergency case (P &lt; .001), pulmonary comorbidity (P &lt; .001), preoperative blood transfusion (P = .033), transfer from an outside institution (P = .03), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (P = .006), wound class (P &lt; .001), dependent functional status (P = .027), and age older than 60 years (P = .01). After risk adjustment, open shoulder stabilization was associated with the greatest risk of major complications relative to arthroscopy without repair (odds ratio [OR], 5.56; P = .001), followed by ORIF of proximal humerus fracture (OR, 4.90; P &lt; .001) and arthroplasty (OR, 4.40; P &lt; .001). These 3 groups generated over 60% of all major complications. Open shoulder stabilization had the highest odds of reoperation (OR, 8.34; P &lt; .001), while ORIF of proximal humerus fracture had the highest risk for VTE (OR, 6.47; P = .001) compared with the reference group of arthroscopy without repair.ConclusionMultivariable analysis of the NSQIP database suggests that open shoulder stabilization, ORIF for proximal humerus fractures, and shoulder arthroplasty are associated with the highest risk of major complications within 30 days after shoulder surgery in a hospital setting. Age, functional status, ASA score, pulmonary comorbidity, emergency case, preoperative blood transfusion, and transfer from an outside institution are patient variables that significantly influence complication risk

Postoperative Morbidity by Procedure and Patient Factors Influencing Major Complications Within 30 Days Following Shoulder Surgery

BACKGROUND: Little data are available to prioritize quality improvement initiatives in shoulder surgery. PURPOSE: To stratify the risk for 30-day postoperative morbidity in commonly performed surgical procedures about the shoulder completed in a hospital setting and to determine patient factors associated with major complications. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: This retrospective study utilized the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database from the years 2005 to 2010. Using Current Procedural Terminology codes, the database was queried for shoulder cases that were divided into 7 groups: arthroscopy without repair; arthroscopy with repair; arthroplasty; clavicle/acromioclavicular joint (AC) open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF)/repair; ORIF of proximal humeral fracture; open tendon release/repair; and open shoulder stabilization. The primary end point was any major complication, with secondary end points of incisional infection, return to the operating room, and venothromboembolism (VTE), all within 30 days of surgery. RESULTS: Overall, 11,086 cases were analyzed. The overall major complication rate was 2.1% (n = 234). Factors associated with major complications on multivariate analysis included: procedure performed (P < .001), emergency case (P < .001), pulmonary comorbidity (P < .001), preoperative blood transfusion (P = .033), transfer from an outside institution (P = .03), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (P = .006), wound class (P < .001), dependent functional status (P = .027), and age older than 60 years (P = .01). After risk adjustment, open shoulder stabilization was associated with the greatest risk of major complications relative to arthroscopy without repair (odds ratio [OR], 5.56; P = .001), followed by ORIF of proximal humerus fracture (OR, 4.90; P < .001) and arthroplasty (OR, 4.40; P < .001). These 3 groups generated over 60% of all major complications. Open shoulder stabilization had the highest odds of reoperation (OR, 8.34; P < .001), while ORIF of proximal humerus fracture had the highest risk for VTE (OR, 6.47; P = .001) compared with the reference group of arthroscopy without repair. CONCLUSION: Multivariable analysis of the NSQIP database suggests that open shoulder stabilization, ORIF for proximal humerus fractures, and shoulder arthroplasty are associated with the highest risk of major complications within 30 days after shoulder surgery in a hospital setting. Age, functional status, ASA score, pulmonary comorbidity, emergency case, preoperative blood transfusion, and transfer from an outside institution are patient variables that significantly influence complication risk