Robert E Burke1, Christine D Jones2, Eric A Coleman3, Jason R Falvey4, Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley4,5, Adit A Ginde6. 1. Research and Hospital Medicine Sections, Denver VA Medical Center in Denver, CO. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora, CO. 3. Division of Health Care Policy and Research, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO. 4. Physical Therapy Program, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; University of Colorado, Aurora, CO. 5. Veterans Affairs Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Denver, CO. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora, CO.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Geographic variation in the use of post-acute care (PAC - skilled nursing facility and home health care) after hospital discharge is substantial, but reasons for this remain largely unexplored. PAC use in urban hospitals compared to rural hospitals may be one key contributor. We aimed to describe PAC use, explore substitution of one type of PAC for another, and identify how PAC use varies by diagnosis in urban and rural settings. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the 2012 National Inpatient Sample including adult discharges to PAC after a hospitalization. METHODS: We adjusted for differences in patient demographics, comorbidities, hospital care provided, and hospital information, comparing use of PAC in urban and rural settings in multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Rural patients discharged from rural hospitals constituted 188,137 (12.1%) of the 1.56 million discharges in the sample. Rural discharges received less home health care (0.85; 0.80-0.90) than urban discharges, resulting in less rural PAC use overall (0.95; 0.91-0.99). Rural discharges received more overall PAC for stroke (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.19) and less PAC for sepsis (0.92; 0.86-0.98), hip fracture (0.82; 0.70-0.96), and elective joint arthroplasty, where rural discharges had 41% lower odds of receiving PAC (0.59; 0.49-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: The striking differences in receipt of post-acute care in urban and rural patients may constitute a disparity. Evaluation of costs and outcomes of PAC use in these settings is urgently needed as Medicare expands bundled payments for this care.
OBJECTIVES: Geographic variation in the use of post-acute care (PAC - skilled nursing facility and home health care) after hospital discharge is substantial, but reasons for this remain largely unexplored. PAC use in urban hospitals compared to rural hospitals may be one key contributor. We aimed to describe PAC use, explore substitution of one type of PAC for another, and identify how PAC use varies by diagnosis in urban and rural settings. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the 2012 National Inpatient Sample including adult discharges to PAC after a hospitalization. METHODS: We adjusted for differences in patient demographics, comorbidities, hospital care provided, and hospital information, comparing use of PAC in urban and rural settings in multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Rural patients discharged from rural hospitals constituted 188,137 (12.1%) of the 1.56 million discharges in the sample. Rural discharges received less home health care (0.85; 0.80-0.90) than urban discharges, resulting in less rural PAC use overall (0.95; 0.91-0.99). Rural discharges received more overall PAC for stroke (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.19) and less PAC for sepsis (0.92; 0.86-0.98), hip fracture (0.82; 0.70-0.96), and elective joint arthroplasty, where rural discharges had 41% lower odds of receiving PAC (0.59; 0.49-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: The striking differences in receipt of post-acute care in urban and rural patients may constitute a disparity. Evaluation of costs and outcomes of PAC use in these settings is urgently needed as Medicare expands bundled payments for this care.
Authors: Charles D Phillips; Scott Holan; Michael Sherman; Malgorzata Leyk Williams; Catherine Hawes Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jane L Givens; Susan L Mitchell; Sylvia Kuo; Pedro Gozalo; Vince Mor; Joan Teno Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Karen E Joynt Maddox; Michael L Barnett; E John Orav; Jie Zheng; David C Grabowski; Arnold M Epstein Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-08-11 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Benjamin R Griffin; Neeru Agarwal; Rachana Amberker; Jeydith A Gutierrez Perez; Kelsi Eichorst; Jennifer Chapin; Amy C Schweitzer; Mariko Hagiwara; Chaorong Wu; Patrick Ten Eyck; Heather Schacht Reisinger; Mary Vaughan-Sarrazin; Ethan F Kuperman; Kevin Glenn; Diana I Jalal Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2021-10 Impact factor: 2.899
Authors: Jason R Falvey; Michael J Bade; Jeri E Forster; Robert E Burke; Jason M Jennings; Eugene Nuccio; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Eméfah C Loccoh; Karen E Joynt Maddox; Yun Wang; Dhruv S Kazi; Robert W Yeh; Rishi K Wadhera Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2022-01-25 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jason R Falvey; Terrence E Murphy; Thomas M Gill; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley; Lauren E Ferrante Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Timothy A Reistetter; Karl Eschbach; John Prochaska; Daniel C Jupiter; Ickpyo Hong; Allen M Haas; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-05-01 Impact factor: 2.159