PCI, CABG, CHF, AMI – Two Payment Methods: Bundled payments (hospitalization costs, up to 90 days of post-acute care, nursing home care, complications, and rehospitalizations) vs Diagnosis-related groupings cover only what happens in the hospital.
July 10, 2018 by 2012pharmaceutical
PCI, CABG, CHF, AMI – Two Payment Methods: Bundled payments (hospitalization costs, up to 90 days of post-acute care, nursing home care, complications, and rehospitalizations) vs Diagnosis-related groupings cover only what happens in the hospital.
Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
UPDATED on 8/17/2018
Certain risk factors make survivors of an acute MI more likely to suffer major cardiovascular events within a year, researchers said.
A model with 19 factors (comprising 15 unique variables) was created for the identification of high-risk patients; the strongest factors in the training sample (n=2,113) were found to be:
-
Age 85 years and older: HR 6.73 (95% CI 2.83-15.96)
-
Prior angina: HR 2.05 (95% CI 1.17-3.58)
-
Prior ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation: HR 2.15 (95% CI 0.99-4.70)
-
Ejection fraction under 40%: HR 2.86 (95% CI 1.89-4.34)
-
White blood cell count greater than 12,000 per μL: HR 2.65 (95% CI 1.53-4.61)
-
Heart rate faster than 90 beats per minute: HR 2.02 (95% CI 1.43-2.84)
With the tool, 11.3%, 81.0%, and 7.7% of patients were stratified to high-, average-, and low-risk groups, with respective probabilities of 0.32, 0.06, and 0.01 for 1-year events. Moreover, the model showed predictive ranges of 1.2%-33.9%, 1.2%-37.9%, and 1.3%-34.3% in these groups.
“This may aid clinicians in identifying high-risk patients who would benefit most from intensive follow-up and aggressive risk factor reduction,” the researchers wrote, noting that past efforts to identify risk factors have focused on the period immediately after initial hospitalization for acute MI.
SOURCE
https://www.medpagetoday.com/cardiology/myocardialinfarction/74528?xid=nl_mpt_cardiodaily_2018-08-17&eun=g99985d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=AHAWeekly_081718&utm_term=AHA%20Cardiovascular%20Daily%20-%20Active%20Users%20180%20days
PCI, CABG, CHF, AMI – Two Payment Methods: Bundled payments (hospitalization costs, up to 90 days of post-acute care, nursing home care, complications, and rehospitalizations) vs Diagnosis-related groupings cover only what happens in the hospital.
Bundled payments (hospitalization costs, up to 90 days of post-acute care, nursing home care, complications, and rehospitalizations) vs Diagnosis-related groupings cover only what happens in the hospital.
A retrospective, cross-sectional comparison of the BPCI model 2 bundles for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), congestive heart failure (CHF), and acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
The bundled payments covered hospitalization costs and, in most cases, up to 90 days of post-acute care, including nursing home care, complications, and rehospitalizations. Diagnosis-related groupings cover only what happens in the hospital, while bundled payments cover the entire 90-day episode in most cases.
A Good, Not Simple Idea
Blumenthal and Joynt Maddox agree that the idea of using financial incentives to drive quality improvement is a good one, but one that requires careful consideration and input from clinicians.
“I think policymakers think that it’s easier than it really is and, to be fair, why would a lawyer in DC understand how to make good health policy? I think we really need more clinicians and people with clinical knowledge involved in policymaking,” Joynt Maddox said.
“The idea is to build the bridge between inpatient and outpatient care, by coordinating care better, coordinating transitions better, reducing unnecessary care, and avoiding complications and readmissions,” she added.
An example might be to switch from automatically sending certain patients from the hospital to a nursing home for 30 days. “Maybe they only need 10 days or 1 week, or maybe they can just go home,” she said, but to allow better transitions and lower costs, there needs to be “someone to strategically approach the issue, and a lot of hospitals don’t have that ability.”
“You could argue that all hospitals should have the ability, and I totally agree that we should be doing a better job of organizing across settings, but the problem is that realistically these voluntary programs aren’t going to attract under-resourced hospitals, so this pilot will tell us what is possible in a well-resourced hospital but not much more,” said Joynt Maddox.
To date, the only outcomes reported on the new payment models have been a few evaluations from the federal government. Joynt Maddox recently reported some preliminary outcomes showing a lack of “clinically meaningful changes in access, utilization, or clinical outcomes” with episode-based payment for AMI, CHF, and pneumonia. Her final findings will be published soon.
SOURCE
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/899026?nlid=123768_3866&src=WNL_mdplsfeat_180710_mscpedit_card&uac=93761AJ&spon=2&impID=1680511&faf=1#vp_2
June 27, 2018
Factors Associated With Participation in Cardiac Episode Payments Included in Medicare’s Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative
Question Are hospitals participating in Medicare’s Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative for cardiac bundles different from nonparticipating hospitals in ways that could limit the generalizability of program outcomes to all US acute care hospitals?
Findings In this cross-sectional study, participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement model 2 bundled payments for acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with larger hospital size, non–safety net hospital status, and access to cardiac catheterization laboratories.
Meaning Outcomes of cardiac bundled payments included in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement may have limited external validity, particularly among small and safety net hospitals with more limited cardiac capabilities.
Importance Medicare’s Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) is a voluntary pilot program evaluating bundled payments for several common cardiovascular conditions. Evaluating the external validity of this program is important for understanding the effects of bundled payments on cardiovascular care.
Objective To determine whether participants in BPCI cardiovascular bundles are representative of US acute care hospitals and identify factors associated with participation.
Design, Setting, and Participants Retrospective cross-sectional study of hospitals participating in BPCI model 2 bundles for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure (CHF), coronary artery bypass graft, and percutaneous coronary intervention and nonparticipating control hospitals (October 2013 to January 2017). The BPCI participants were identified using data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and controls were identified using the 2013 American Hospital Association’s Survey of US Hospitals. Hospital structural characteristics and clinical performance data were obtained from the American Heart Association survey and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. One hundred fifty-nine hospitals participating in BPCI model 2 cardiac bundles and 1240 nonparticipating control hospitals were compared, and a multivariable logistic regression was estimated to identify predictors of BPCI participation.
Exposures Bundled payments.
Main Outcomes and Measures Hospital-level structural characteristics and 30-day risk-adjusted readmission and mortality rates for AMI and CHF.
Results Compared with nonparticipants, BPCI participants were larger, more likely to be privately owned or teaching hospitals, had lower Medicaid bed day ratios (ratio of Medicaid inpatient days to total inpatient days: 17.0 vs 19.3; P < .001), and were less likely to be safety net hospitals (2.5% vs 12.3%; P < .001). The BPCI participants had higher AMI and CHF discharge volumes, were more likely to have cardiac intensive care units and catheterization laboratories, and had lower risk-standardized 30-day mortality rates for AMI (13.7% vs 16.6%; P = .001) and CHF (11.3 vs 12.4; P = .005). In multivariable analysis, larger hospital size and access to a cardiac catheterization laboratory were positively associated with participation. Being a safety net hospital was negatively associated with participation (odds ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.7; P = .001).
Conclusions and Relevance Hospitals participating in BPCI model 2 cardiac bundles differed in significant ways from nonparticipating hospitals. The BPCI outcomes may therefore have limited external validity, particularly among small and safety net hospitals with limited clinical cardiac services.
SOURCE
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/article-abstract/2686124
June 27, 2018
What Can We Learn From Voluntary Bundled Payment Programs?
JAMA Cardiol. Published online June 27, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2018.1734
SOURCE
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/article-abstract/2686128
Like this:
Like Loading...
Leave a Reply