Geographic Variation in Informed Consent Law: Two Standards for Disclosure of Treatment Risks

We analyzed 714 jury verdicts in informed consent cases tried in 25 states in 1985–2002 to determine whether the applicable standard of care (“patient” vs. “professional” standard) affected the outcome. Verdicts for plaintiffs were significantly more frequent in states with a patient standard than in states with a professional standard (27 percent vs. 17 percent, P = 0.02). This difference in outcomes did not hold for other types of medical malpractice litigation (36 percent vs. 37 percent, P = 0.8). The multivariate odds of a plaintiff’s verdict were more than twice as high in states with a patient standard than in states with a professional standard (odds ratio = 2.15, 95% confidence interval = 1.32–3.50). The law’s expectations of clinicians with respect to risk disclosure appear to vary geographically

Year 1 of the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement-Advanced model

BACKGROUND: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation launched the Medicare Bundled Payments for Care Improvement-Advanced (BPCI-A) program for hospitals in October 2018. Information is needed about the effects of the program on health care utilization and Medicare payments. METHODS: We conducted a modified segmented regression analysis using Medicare claims and including patients with discharge dates from January 2017 through September 2019 to assess differences between BPCI-A participants and two control groups: hospitals that never joined the BPCI-A program (nonjoining hospitals) and hospitals that joined the BPCI-A program in January 2020, after the conclusion of the intervention period (late-joining hospitals). The primary outcomes were the differences in changes in quarterly trends in 90-day per-episode Medicare payments and the percentage of patients with readmission within 90 days after discharge. Secondary outcomes were mortality, volume, and case mix. RESULTS: A total of 826 BPCI-A participant hospitals were compared with 2016 nonjoining hospitals and 334 late-joining hospitals. Among BPCI-A hospitals, the mean baseline 90-day per-episode Medicare payment was $27,315; the change in the quarterly trends in the intervention period as compared with baseline was -$78 per quarter. Among nonjoining hospitals, the mean baseline 90-day per-episode Medicare payment was $25,994; the change in quarterly trends as compared with baseline was -$26 per quarter (difference between nonjoining hospitals and BPCI-A hospitals, $52 [95$26,807; the change in the quarterly trends as compared with baseline was $4 per quarter (difference between late-joining hospitals and BPCI-A hospitals,$82 [95% CI, 41 to 122] per quarter; P\u3c0.001; 0.3% of the baseline payment). There were no meaningful differences in the changes with regard to readmission, mortality, volume, or case mix. CONCLUSIONS: The BPCI-A program was associated with small reductions in Medicare payments among participating hospitals as compared with control hospitals. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.)

Association of physician group practice participation in bundled payments with patient selection, costs, and outcomes for joint replacement

IMPORTANCE: Medicare\u27s Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program, which ran from 2013 to 2018, was an important experiment in physician-focused alternative payment models. However, little is known about whether the program was associated with better quality or outcomes or lower costs. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether participation in BPCI among physician group practices was associated with advantageous or deleterious changes in costs or patient outcomes. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study used 2013 to 2017 Medicare files and difference-in-differences (DID) models to compare the change over time in Medicare payments, patient selection, and clinical outcomes between 91 orthopedic groups in BPCI Model 2 and 169 propensity-matched controls for patients undergoing joint replacement. Analyses were performed between December 2019 and February 2021. EXPOSURES: Voluntary participation in BPCI. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was 90-day Medicare payments; secondary outcomes were patient selection (volume, comorbidities) and clinical outcomes (30-day and 90-day emergency department visits, readmissions, mortality, and healthy days at home). RESULTS: There were 74 343 patient episodes in the baseline period and 102 790 during the intervention in BPCI practices, and 88 147 patient episodes in the baseline period and 120 253 during the intervention in control practices; 291 214 of 461 598 (63.1%) patients were women, and 419 619 (90.9%) were White. At baseline, mean episode payments among BPCI-participating practices were $18 257, which decreased to$15 320 during the intervention, while control practices decreased from $17 927 to$16 170 (DID, -$1180; 95$1565 to -$795; CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Group practice participation in BPCI for joint replacement was associated with reduced Medicare payments and improvements in clinical outcomes

Changes in racial equity associated with participation in the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced Program

IMPORTANCE: The Medicare alternative payment models are designed to incentivize cost reduction and quality improvement, but there are no requirements established for evaluating the outcomes of the Medicare populations. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether participation in the Medicare Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-A) program was associated with narrowing or widening of Black and White racial inequities in outcomes and access. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort alternative payment models on equity and quality for disadvantaged populations were studied between April 6, 2021, and August 28, 2022, in US hospitals. Black and White Medicare beneficiaries admitted for any of the 29 inpatient conditions in the BPCI-A program between January 1, 2017, and September 31, 2019, were included. EXPOSURES: BPCI-A participation implemented in 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Ninety-day readmission and mortality, healthy days at home, and proportion of Black patients hospitalized. Segmented regression models were used to examine quarterly changes in slopes for each outcome. RESULTS: The sample included 6 690 336 episodes (6 019 359 White patients, 670 977 Black patients). The population comprised approximately 43% men, 57% women, 17% individuals younger than 65 years, 47% between ages 65 and 80 years, and 36% older than 80 years. Prior to implementation of the BPCI-A program, compared with episodes for White patients, Black patients had higher 90-day readmissions (36.3% vs 29.6%), similar 90-day mortality (12.3% vs 13.3%), and fewer healthy days at home (mean, 68.5 vs 69.5 days). BPCI-A participation was not associated with significant changes in the racial gap in readmissions but was associated with a greater gain in heathy days at home (differences by race, -0.07 days per quarter; 95% CI, -0.12 to -0.01 days per quarter). Among Black patients admitted to BPCI-A hospitals vs controls, healthy days at home increased by 0.09 more days/episode per quarter (95% CI, 0.02-0.17 days/episode per quarter). The proportion of Black patients decreased similarly at BPCI-A and control hospitals. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study, BPCI-A participation was not associated with improvements in racial inequities in clinical outcomes. Black patients in BPCI-A had a slight gain in healthy days at home; there were no changes in access. The findings of this study suggest that more needs to be done if payment policy reform is going to be part of the efforts to address glaring racial inequities in health care quality and outcomes. These findings support a need for payment policy reform specifically targeting equity-enhancing programs

Changes in cardiovascular spending, care utilization, and clinical outcomes associated with participation in bundled payments for care improvement - Advanced

BACKGROUND: Bundled Payments for Care Improvement - Advanced (BPCI-A) is a Medicare initiative that aims to incentivize reductions in spending for episodes of care that start with a hospitalization and end 90 days after discharge. Cardiovascular disease, an important driver of Medicare spending, is one of the areas of focus BPCI-A. It is unknown whether BPCI-A is associated with spending reductions or quality improvements for the 3 cardiovascular medical events or 5 cardiovascular procedures in the model. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we conducted difference-in-differences analyses using Medicare claims for patients discharged between January 1, 2017, and September 30, 2019, to assess differences between BPCI-A hospitals and matched nonparticipating control hospitals. Our primary outcomes were the differential changes in spending, before versus after implementation of BPCI-A, for cardiac medical and procedural conditions at BPCI-A hospitals compared with controls. Secondary outcomes included changes in patient complexity, care utilization, healthy days at home, readmissions, and mortality. RESULTS: Baseline spending for cardiac medical episodes at BPCI-A hospitals was $25 606. The differential change in spending for cardiac medical episodes at BPCI-A versus control hospitals was$16 (95% CI, -$228 to$261; CONCLUSIONS: Participation in BPCI-A was not associated with spending reductions, changes in care utilization, or quality improvements for the cardiovascular medical events or procedures offered in the model

Medicaid eligibility loss among dual-eligible beneficiaries before and during COVID-19 public health emergency

IMPORTANCE: Medicaid coverage loss can substantially compromise access to and affordability of health care for dual-eligible beneficiaries. The extent to which this population lost Medicaid coverage before and during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) and the characteristics of beneficiaries more at risk for coverage loss are currently not well known. OBJECTIVE: To assess the loss of Medicaid coverage among dual-eligible beneficiaries before and during the first year of the PHE, and to examine beneficiary-level and plan-level factors associated with heightened likelihood of losing Medicaid. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This repeated cross-sectional study used national Medicare data to estimate annual rates of Medicaid loss among dual-eligible beneficiaries before (2015 to 2019) and during the PHE (2020). Individuals who were dual eligible for Medicare and Medicaid at the beginning of a given year and who continuously received low-income subsidies for Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage were included in the sample. Multivariable regression models were used to examine beneficiary-level and plan-level factors associated with Medicaid loss. Data analyses were conducted between March 2023 and October 2023. EXPOSURE: Onset of PHE. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Loss of Medicaid for at least 1 month within a year. RESULTS: Sample included 56 172 736 dual-eligible beneficiary-years between 2015 and 2020. In 2020, most dual-eligible beneficiaries were aged over 65 years (5 984 420 [61.1%]), female (5 868 866 [59.9%]), non-Hispanic White (4 928 035 [50.3%]), full-benefit eligible (6 837 815 [69.8%]), and enrolled in traditional Medicare (5 343 537 [54.6%]). The adjusted proportion of dual-eligible beneficiaries losing Medicaid for at least 1 month increased from 6.6% in 2015 to 7.3% in 2019 and then dropped to 2.3% in 2020. Between 2015 and 2019, dual-eligible beneficiaries who were older (ages 55-64 years: -1.4%; 95% CI, -1.8% to -1.0%; ages 65-74 years: -2.0%; 95% CI, -2.5% to -1.5%; ages 75 and older: -4.5%; 95% CI, -5.0% to -4.0%), disabled (-0.8%; 95% CI, -1.1% to -0.6%), and in integrated care programs were less likely to lose Medicaid. In 2020, the disparities within each of these demographic groups narrowed significantly. Notably, while Black (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.2% to 0.9%) and Hispanic (0.7%; 95% CI, 0.3% to 1.2%) dual-eligible beneficiaries were more likely to lose Medicaid than their non-Hispanic White counterparts between 2015 and 2019, such gap was eliminated for Black beneficiaries and narrowed for Hispanic beneficiaries in 2020. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: During the PHE, Medicaid coverage loss declined significantly among dual-eligible beneficiaries, and disparities were mitigated across subgroups. As the PHE unwinds, it is crucial for policymakers to implement strategies to minimize Medicaid coverage disruptions and racial and ethnic disparities, especially given that loss of Medicaid was slightly increasing over time before the PHE