Key result
Participation in Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement decreased the use of overall institutional post-acute care by 4.4% versus 2.1% in matched controls (difference -2.2%; P=0.033).
Why the study?
Reducing post-acute care is critical under bundled payment, but whether this occurs via provider selection or consolidation and how changes relate to program success remained unclear.
Does participation in Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program reduce the use and duration of institutional post-acute care for lower-extremity joint replacement?
Observational (n=264)
Yes
Does participation in Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program reduce the use and duration of institutional post-acute care for lower-extremity joint replacement?
Effect estimate: difference -2.2%
Absolute Event Rate: 4.4% vs 2.1%
p-value: p=0.033
Reductions in spending under the BPCI program for joint replacement were driven by shifting patients to lower-cost discharge settings and shortening institutional post-acute care duration, rather than changing referral patterns to higher-quality providers.
May reduce institutional post-acute care after joint replacement; leaves open effects on outcomes and generalizability.
IMPORTANCE: Bundled payments, in which services provided around a care episode are linked together, are being tested under Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program. Reducing post-acute care (PAC) is critical under bundled payment, but little is known about whether this is done through provider selection or consolidation, and whether particular patterns of changes in PAC are associated with success under the program. OBJECTIVE: To characterize patterns of change in PAC under lower-extremity joint replacement episodes in BPCI. DESIGN: Retrospective difference-in-differences study. SETTING: US Medicare, 2013 to 2015. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 264 US hospitals participating in BPCI for lower-extremity joint replacement and matched controls. EXPOSURES: Participation in BPCI. MEASUREMENTS: Use and duration of institutional PAC (proportion discharged to a skilled nursing facility, an inpatient rehabilitation facility, and a long-term care hospital), dispersion of PAC (proportion of discharges to commonly used providers), and quality of PAC (Star Ratings, readmission rates, length of stay, and nurse staffing); part A Medicare payments. RESULTS: BPCI participants decreased the use and duration of institutional PAC compared to controls: overall institutional PAC declined 4.4% in BPCI hospitals vs 2.1% in non-BPCI hospitals (difference = -2.2%; P = .033), and duration decreased by 1.6 days in BPCI hospitals compared to 0.0 days in non-BPCI hospitals (difference in differences = -1.5 days; P < .001). However, BPCI participants did not change their PAC referral patterns to reduce dispersion or refer patients to higher-quality PAC providers. Hospitals that were more successful in reducing Medicare payments started with higher payments and higher use of institutional PAC settings and demonstrated greater drops in use and duration of institutional PAC, but no differences in dispersion or referral to high-quality providers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Reductions in spending under BPCI were driven by a shift from higher- to lower-cost discharge settings, and by shortening the duration of institutional PAC. Hospitals that reduced payments the most had the highest spending at baseline. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1027-1035, 2019.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maddox et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Lower-extremity joint replacement (n=264). Participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) vs. Non-BPCI hospitals (matched controls) was evaluated on Decline in overall institutional post-acute care (PAC) (difference -2.2%, p=0.033). Participation in Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement decreased the use of overall institutional post-acute care by 4.4% versus 2.1% in matched controls (difference -2.2%; P=0.033).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: