Healthcare Reform in the U.S. Must Be Driven by Policy and Data, Not Politics and Idealogy

Background U.S. healthcare spending will reach 20% of GDP by 2026. Despite this spending, almost 14% of our under-65 population still lacks health insurance and out-of-pocket healthcare spending is high. To date, much of the healthcare reform debate has focused on who pays—the government, employers or individuals. Objective To review current healthcare reform issues and evidence. Method We address the questions of how much we pay, how we pay and what we receive for the money as a potential foundation for constructive dialogue. Results U.S. healthcare spending continues to exceed that of other countries, without offering universal coverage. Notwithstanding coverage expansions implemented under the Affordable Care Act, uninsurance rates have been rising. Rapid growth of high deductible plans has also significantly increased rates of underinsurance. There is very little evidence that specific policies or interventions employed to date will significantly reduce cost, especially under a fee for service system, where volume makes up for cuts. Global risk payments hold the greatest promise for real cost containment because they can drive true delivery system reform. Conclusion Meaningful, long-term healthcare reform cannot be successful until comprehensive, evidence-based policies that address healthcare costs are fully embraced and implemented

Measurement Matters: Changing Penalty Calculations under the Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) Cost Hospitals Millions

BACKGROUND: Since October 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has penalized 25% of U.S. hospitals with the highest rates of hospital-acquired conditions under the Hospital Acquired Conditions Reduction Program (HACRP). While early evaluations of the HACRP program reported cumulative reductions in hospital-acquired conditions, more recent studies have not found a clear association between receipt of the HACRP penalty and hospital quality of care. We posit that some of this disconnect may be driven by frequent scoring updates. The sensitivity of the HACRP penalties to updates in the program\u27s scoring methodology has not been independently evaluated. METHODS: We used hospital discharge records from 14 states to evaluate the association between changes in HACRP scoring methodology and corresponding shifts in penalty status. To isolate the impact of changes in scoring methods over time, we used FY2018 hospital performance data to calculate total HAC scores using FY2015 through FY2018 CMS scoring methodologies. RESULTS: Comparing hospital penalty status based on various HACRP scoring methodologies over time, we found a significant overlap between penalized hospitals when using FY 2015 and 2016 scoring methodologies (95%) and between FY 2017 and 2018 methodologies (46%), but substantial differences across early vs later years. Only 15% of hospitals were eligible for penalties across all four years. We also found significant changes in a hospital\u27s (relative) ranking across the various years, indicating that shifts in penalty status were not driven by small changes in HAC scores clustered around the penalty threshold. CONCLUSIONS: HACRP penalties have been highly sensitive to program updates, which are generally announced after performance periods are concluded. This disconnect between performance and penalties calls into question the ability of the HACRP to improve patient safety as intended

Patient-Centered Medical Homes in Community Oncology Practices: Changes in Spending and Care Quality Associated With the COME HOME Experience

PURPOSE: We examined whether the Community Oncology Medical Home (COME HOME) program, a medical home program implemented in seven community oncology practices, was associated with changes in spending and care quality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared outcomes from elderly fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed between 2011 and 2015 with breast, lung, colorectal, thyroid, or pancreatic cancer, lymphoma, or melanoma and served by COME HOME practices before and after program implementation versus similar beneficiaries served by other geographically proximate oncologists. Difference-in-differences analysis compared changes in outcomes for COME HOME patients versus concurrent controls. Propensity score matching and regression methods were adjusted for clinical and sociodemographic differences. Our primary outcome was 6-month medical spending per beneficiary. Secondary outcomes included 6-month out-of-pocket spending, inpatient and ambulatory care–sensitive hospitalizations, readmissions, length of stay, and emergency department and evaluation and management visits. RESULTS: Before COME HOME, 6-month medical spending was $2,975 higher for the study group compared with controls (95$1,635 to $4,315; P \u3c .001) and increasing at a similar rate. After intervention, this difference was reduced to$318 (95% CI, −$1,105 to$1,741; P = .661), a significant change of −$2,657 (95$4,631 to −$683; P = .008) or 8.1$32,866). COME HOME was also associated with significantly reduced (10.2 %) emergency department visits per 1,000 patients per 6-month period (P = .024). There were no statistically significant differences in other outcomes. CONCLUSION: COME HOME was associated with reduced Medicare spending and improved emergency department use. The patient-centered medical home model holds promise for oncology practices, but improvements were not uniform

Three Years In--Changing Plan Features in the U.S. Health Insurance Marketplace

Background: A central objective of recent U.S. healthcare policy reform, most notably the Affordable Care Act\u27s (ACA) Health Insurance Marketplace, has been to increase access to stable, affordable health insurance. However, changing market dynamics (rising premiums, changes in issuer participation and plan availability) raise significant concerns about the marketplaces\u27 ability to provide a stable source of healthcare for Americans that rely on them. By looking at the effect of instability on changes in the consumer choice set, we can analyze potential incentives to switch plans among price-sensitive enrollees, which can then be used to inform policy going forward. Methods: Data on health plan features for non-tobacco users in 2512 counties in 34 states participating in federally-facilitated exchanges from 2014 to 2016 was obtained from the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services. We examined how changes in individual plan features, including premiums, deductibles, issuers, and plan types, impact consumers who had purchased the lowest-cost silver or bronze plan in their county the previous year. We calculated the cost of staying in the same plan versus switching to another plan the following year, and analyzed how costs vary across geographic regions. Results: In most counties in 2015 and 2016 (53.7 and 68.2%, respectively), the lowest-cost silver plan from the previous year was still available, but was no longer the cheapest plan. In these counties, consumers who switched to the new lowest-cost plan would pay less in monthly premiums on average, by $51.48 and$55.01, respectively, compared to staying in the same plan. Despite potential premium savings from switching, however, the majority would still pay higher average premiums compared to the previous year, and most would face higher deductibles and an increased probability of having to change provider networks. Conclusion: While the ACA has shown promise in expanding healthcare access, continued changes in the availability and affordability of health plans are likely to result in churning and switching among enrollees, which may have negative ramifications for their health going forward. Future healthcare policy reform should aim to stabilize marketplace dynamics in order to encourage greater care continuity and limit churning

Three years in – changing plan features in the U.S. health insurance marketplace

Abstract Background A central objective of recent U.S. healthcare policy reform, most notably the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Health Insurance Marketplace, has been to increase access to stable, affordable health insurance. However, changing market dynamics (rising premiums, changes in issuer participation and plan availability) raise significant concerns about the marketplaces’ ability to provide a stable source of healthcare for Americans that rely on them. By looking at the effect of instability on changes in the consumer choice set, we can analyze potential incentives to switch plans among price-sensitive enrollees, which can then be used to inform policy going forward. Methods Data on health plan features for non-tobacco users in 2512 counties in 34 states participating in federally-facilitated exchanges from 2014 to 2016 was obtained from the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services. We examined how changes in individual plan features, including premiums, deductibles, issuers, and plan types, impact consumers who had purchased the lowest-cost silver or bronze plan in their county the previous year. We calculated the cost of staying in the same plan versus switching to another plan the following year, and analyzed how costs vary across geographic regions. Results In most counties in 2015 and 2016 (53.7 and 68.2%, respectively), the lowest-cost silver plan from the previous year was still available, but was no longer the cheapest plan. In these counties, consumers who switched to the new lowest-cost plan would pay less in monthly premiums on average, by $51.48 and$55.01, respectively, compared to staying in the same plan. Despite potential premium savings from switching, however, the majority would still pay higher average premiums compared to the previous year, and most would face higher deductibles and an increased probability of having to change provider networks. Conclusion While the ACA has shown promise in expanding healthcare access, continued changes in the availability and affordability of health plans are likely to result in churning and switching among enrollees, which may have negative ramifications for their health going forward. Future healthcare policy reform should aim to stabilize marketplace dynamics in order to encourage greater care continuity and limit churning.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144501/1/12913_2018_Article_3198.pd

Persistent Polypharmacy and Fall Injury Risk: The Health, Aging and Body Composition Study

Background Older adults receive treatment for fall injuries in both inpatient and outpatient settings. The effect of persistent polypharmacy (i.e. using multiple medications over a long period) on fall injuries is understudied, particularly for outpatient injuries. We examined the association between persistent polypharmacy and treated fall injury risk from inpatient and outpatient settings in community-dwelling older adults. Methods The Health, Aging and Body Composition Study included 1764 community-dwelling adults (age 73.6 ± 2.9 years; 52% women; 38% black) with Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) claims at or within 6 months after 1998/99 clinic visit. Incident fall injuries (N = 545 in 4.6 ± 2.9 years) were defined as the initial claim with an ICD-9 fall E-code and non-fracture injury, or fracture code with/without a fall code from 1998/99 clinic visit to 12/31/08. Those without fall injury (N = 1219) were followed for 8.1 ± 2.6 years. Stepwise Cox models of fall injury risk with a time-varying variable for persistent polypharmacy (defined as ≥6 prescription medications at the two most recent consecutive clinic visits) were adjusted for demographics, lifestyle characteristics, chronic conditions, and functional ability. Sensitivity analyses explored if persistent polypharmacy both with and without fall risk increasing drugs (FRID) use were similarly associated with fall injury risk. Results Among 1764 participants, 636 (36%) had persistent polypharmacy over the follow-up period, and 1128 (64%) did not. Fall injury incidence was 38 per 1000 person-years. Persistent polypharmacy increased fall injury risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.31 [1.06, 1.63]) after adjusting for covariates. Persistent polypharmacy with FRID use was associated with a 48% increase in fall injury risk (95%CI: 1.10, 2.00) vs. those who had non-persistent polypharmacy without FRID use. Risks for persistent polypharmacy without FRID use (HR: 1.22 [0.93, 1.60]) and non-persistent polypharmacy with FRID use (HR: 1.08 [0.77, 1.51]) did not significantly increase compared to non-persistent polypharmacy without FRID use. Conclusions Persistent polypharmacy, particularly combined with FRID use, was associated with increased risk for treated fall injuries from inpatient and outpatient settings. Clinicians may need to consider medication management for FRID and other fall prevention strategies in community-dwelling older adults with persistent polypharmacy to reduce fall injury risk

Association Between Community Social Vulnerability and Preventable Hospitalizations

Preventable hospitalizations are common and costly events that burden patients and our health care system. While research suggests that these events are strongly linked to ambulatory care access, emerging evidence suggests they may also be sensitive to a patient’s social, environmental, and economic conditions. This study examines the association between variations in social vulnerability and preventable hospitalization rates. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of county-level preventable hospitalization rates for 33 states linked with data from the 2020 Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). Preventable hospitalizations were 40% higher in the most vulnerable counties compared with the least vulnerable. Adjusted regression results confirm the strong relationship between social vulnerability and preventable hospitalizations. Our results suggest wide variation in community-level preventable hospitalization rates, with robust evidence that variation is strongly related to a community’s social vulnerability. The human toll, societal cost, and preventability of these hospitalizations make understanding and mitigating these inequities a national priority

The Influences of Reproductive Status and Acute Stress on the Levels of Phosphorylated Mu Opioid Receptor Immunoreactivity in Rat Hippocampus

Opioids play a critical role in hippocampally dependent behavior and plasticity. In the hippocampal formation, mu opioid receptors (MOR) are prominent in parvalbumin (PARV) containing interneurons. Previously we found that gonadal hormones modulate the trafficking of MORs in PARV interneurons. Although sex differences in response to stress are well documented, the point at which opioids, sex, and stress interact to influence hippocampal function remains elusive. Thus, we used quantitative immunocytochemistry in combination with light and electron microscopy for the phosphorylated MOR (pMOR) at the SER375 carboxy-terminal residue in male and female rats to assess these interactions. In both sexes, pMOR-immunoreactivity (ir) was prominent in axons and terminals and in a few neuronal somata and dendrites, some of which contained PARV in the mossy fiber pathway region of the dentate gyrus (DG) hilus and CA3 stratum lucidum. In unstressed rats, the levels of pMOR-ir in the DG or CA3 were not affected by sex or estrous cycle stage. However, immediately following 30 min of acute immobilization stress (AIS), males had higher levels of pMOR-ir whereas females at proestrus and estrus (high estrogen stages) had lower levels of pMOR-ir within the DG. In contrast, the number and types of neuronal profiles with pMOR-ir were not altered by AIS in either males or proestrus females. These data demonstrate that although gonadal steroids do not affect pMOR levels at resting conditions, they are differentially activated both pre and postsynaptic MORs following stress. These interactions may contribute to the reported sex differences in hippocampally dependent behaviors in stressed animals

An examination of health care utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic among women with early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer

Background: Women undergoing treatment for breast cancer require frequent clinic visits for maintenance of therapy. With COVID-19 causing health care disruptions, it is important to learn about how this population’s access to health care has changed. This study compares self-reported health care utilization and changes in factors related to health care access among women treated at a cancer center in the mid-South US before and during the pandemic. Methods: Participants (N = 306) part of a longitudinal study to improve adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) adherence completed pre-intervention baseline surveys about their health care utilization prior to AET initiation. Questions about the impact of COVID-19 were added after the pandemic started assessing financial loss and factors related to care. Participants were categorized into three time periods based on the survey completion date: (1) pre-COVID (December 2018 to March 2020), (2) early COVID (April 2020 – December 2020), and later COVID (January 2021 to June 2021). Negative binomial regression analyses used to compare health care utilization at different phases of the pandemic controlling for patient characteristics. Results: Adjusted analyses indicated office visits declined from pre-COVID, with an adjusted average of 17.7 visits, to 12.1 visits during the early COVID period (p = 0.01) and 9.9 visits during the later COVID period (p < 0.01). Hospitalizations declined from an adjusted average 0.45 admissions during early COVID to 0.21 during later COVID, after vaccines became available (p = 0.05). Among COVID period participants, the proportion reporting changes/gaps in health insurance coverage increased from 9.5% participants during early-COVID to 14.8% in the later-COVID period (p = 0.05). The proportion reporting financial loss due to the pandemic was similar during both COVID periods (34.3% early- and 37.7% later-COVID, p = 0.72). The proportion of participants reporting delaying care or refilling prescriptions decreased from 15.2% in early-COVID to 4.9% in the later-COVID period (p = 0.04). Conclusion: COVID-19 caused disruptions to routine health care for women with breast cancer. Patients reported having fewer office visits at the start of the pandemic that continued to decrease even after vaccines were available. Fewer patients reported delaying in-person care as the pandemic progressed.National Cancer Institute ; Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute ; Center for Strategic Scientific Initiatives, National Cancer Institute ; Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institut

Behavioral and Enhanced Perinatal Intervention (B-EPIC): A Randomized Trial Targeting Tobacco Use among Opioid Dependent Pregnant Women

Background Opioid use during pregnancy is a significant public health issue. The standard of care for treating opioid use disorder during pregnancy includes medications for opioid disorder (MOUD). However, tobacco use often goes unaddressed among pregnant women on MOUD. In 2018, our team received a National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) funded R34 to conduct a three year-randomized trial to test the feasibility of a novel tobacco intervention for pregnant women receiving MOUD. Aims The aims of this study are: (1) to determine the impact of the B-EPIC intervention on maternal tobacco use and stage of change; (2) to determine the impact of B-EPIC on tobacco-related maternal and infant health outcomes including gestational age at birth, birthweight, NAS diagnosis and severity, and number of ear and respiratory infections during the first six months; (3) to compare healthcare utilization and costs incurred by pregnant patients that receive the B-EPIC intervention versus TAU. Methods We plan to enroll 100 pregnant women on MOUD for this randomized controlled trial (B-EPIC intervention n = 50 and treatment as usual n = 50). A major strength of this study is its wide range of health and economic outcomes assessed on mother, neonate and the infant. Conclusions Despite the very high rates of smoking among pregnant women with OUD, there are few tobacco treatment interventions that have been tailored for this high - risk population. The overall goal of this study is to move towards a tobacco treatment standard for pregnant women receiving treatment for OUD