Nan Tracy Zheng1, Dana B Mukamel2, Bruce Friedman3, Thomas V Caprio4, Helena Temkin-Greener5. 1. Aging, Disability and Long Term Care, Division of Health Services and Social Policy Research, RTI International, Waltham, MA. Electronic address: ntzheng@rti.org. 2. Department of Medicine, Health Policy Research Institute, University of California, Irvine, CA. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY. 4. Division of Geriatrics and Aging, Department of Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. 5. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY; Center for Ethics, Humanities and Palliative Care, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Hospice enrollment is known to reduce risk of hospitalizations for nursing home residents who use it. We examined whether residing in facilities with a higher hospice penetration: (1) reduces hospitalization risk for nonhospice residents; and (2) decreases hospice-enrolled residents' hospitalization risk relative to hospice-enrolled residents in facilities with a lower hospice penetration. METHODS: Medicare Beneficiary File, Inpatient and Hospice Claims, Minimum Data Set Version 2.0, Provider of Services File, and Area Resource File. Retrospective analysis of long-stay nursing home residents who died during 2005-2007. Overall, 505,851 nonhospice (67.66%) and 241,790 hospice-enrolled (32.34%) residents in 14,030 facilities nationwide were included. We fit models predicting the probability of hospitalization conditional on hospice penetration and resident and facility characteristics. We used instrumental variable method to address the potential endogeneity between hospice penetration and hospitalization. Distance between each nursing home and the closest hospice was the instrumental variable. RESULTS: In the last 30 days of life, 37.63% of nonhospice and 23.18% of hospice residents were hospitalized. Every 10% increase in hospice penetration leads to a reduction in hospitalization risk of 5.1% for nonhospice residents and 4.8% for hospice-enrolled residents. CONCLUSIONS: Higher facility-level hospice penetration reduces hospitalization risk for both nonhospice and hospice-enrolled residents. The findings shed light on nursing home end-of-life care delivery, collaboration among providers, and cost benefit analysis of hospice care.
OBJECTIVES: Hospice enrollment is known to reduce risk of hospitalizations for nursing home residents who use it. We examined whether residing in facilities with a higher hospice penetration: (1) reduces hospitalization risk for nonhospice residents; and (2) decreases hospice-enrolled residents' hospitalization risk relative to hospice-enrolled residents in facilities with a lower hospice penetration. METHODS: Medicare Beneficiary File, Inpatient and Hospice Claims, Minimum Data Set Version 2.0, Provider of Services File, and Area Resource File. Retrospective analysis of long-stay nursing home residents who died during 2005-2007. Overall, 505,851 nonhospice (67.66%) and 241,790 hospice-enrolled (32.34%) residents in 14,030 facilities nationwide were included. We fit models predicting the probability of hospitalization conditional on hospice penetration and resident and facility characteristics. We used instrumental variable method to address the potential endogeneity between hospice penetration and hospitalization. Distance between each nursing home and the closest hospice was the instrumental variable. RESULTS: In the last 30 days of life, 37.63% of nonhospice and 23.18% of hospice residents were hospitalized. Every 10% increase in hospice penetration leads to a reduction in hospitalization risk of 5.1% for nonhospice residents and 4.8% for hospice-enrolled residents. CONCLUSIONS: Higher facility-level hospice penetration reduces hospitalization risk for both nonhospice and hospice-enrolled residents. The findings shed light on nursing home end-of-life care delivery, collaboration among providers, and cost benefit analysis of hospice care.
Authors: Dana B Mukamel; Thomas Caprio; Richard Ahn; Nan Tracy Zheng; Sally Norton; Timothy Quill; Helena Temkin-Greener Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Joseph G Ouslander; Gerri Lamb; Mary Perloe; JoVonn H Givens; Linda Kluge; Tracy Rutland; Adam Atherly; Debra Saliba Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Kenneth S Boockvar; Ann L Gruber-Baldini; Lynda Burton; Sheryl Zimmerman; Conrad May; Jay Magaziner Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: D Saliba; R Kington; J Buchanan; R Bell; M Wang; M Lee; M Herbst; D Lee; D Sur; L Rubenstein Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Pedro Gozalo; Joan M Teno; Susan L Mitchell; Jon Skinner; Julie Bynum; Denise Tyler; Vincent Mor Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Susan C Miller; Julie C Lima; Orna Intrator; Edward Martin; Janet Bull; Laura C Hanson Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: John G Cagle; Kathleen T Unroe; Morgan Bunting; Brittany L Bernard; Susan C Miller Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2016-11-02 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Kathleen T Unroe; John G Cagle; Kathleen A Lane; Christopher M Callahan; Susan C Miller Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2015-07-03 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Susan C Miller; Roshani Dahal; Julie C Lima; Orna Intrator; Edward Martin; Janet Bull; Laura C Hanson Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2016-09-17 Impact factor: 3.612