Brystana G Kaufman1, David Klemish2, Andrew Olson1, Cordt T Kassner3, Jerome P Reiter2, Matthew Harker4, Laura Sheble5,6, Benjamin A Goldstein2, Donald H Taylor7, Nrupen A Bhavsar8. 1. Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Department of Statistical Sciences, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Hospice Analytics, Colorado Springs, Colorado. 4. Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 5. School of Information Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. 6. Duke Network Analysis Center, Social Science Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 7. Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 8. Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
Background: Hospital referral regions (HRRs) are often used to characterize inpatient referral patterns, but it is unknown how well these geographic regions are aligned with variation in Medicare-financed hospice care, which is largely provided at home. Objective: Our objective was to characterize the variability in hospice use rates among elderly Medicare decedents by HRR and county. Methods: Using 2014 Master Beneficiary File for decedents 65 and older from North and South Carolina, we applied Bayesian mixed models to quantify variation in hospice use rates explained by HRR fixed effects, county random effects, and residual error among Medicare decedents. Results: We found HRRs and county indicators are significant predictors of hospice use in NC and SC; however, the relative variation within HRRs and associated residual variation is substantial. On average, HRR fixed effects explained more variation in hospice use rates than county indicators with a standard deviation (SD) of 10.0 versus 5.1 percentage points. The SD of the residual error is 5.7 percentage points. On average, variation within HRRs is about half the variation between regions (52%). Conclusions: The magnitude of unexplained residual variation in hospice use for NC and SC suggests that novel, end-of-life-specific service areas should be developed and tested to better capture geographic differences and inform research, health systems, and policy.
Background: Hospital referral regions (HRRs) are often used to characterize inpatient referral patterns, but it is unknown how well these geographic regions are aligned with variation in Medicare-financed hospice care, which is largely provided at home. Objective: Our objective was to characterize the variability in hospice use rates among elderly Medicare decedents by HRR and county. Methods: Using 2014 Master Beneficiary File for decedents 65 and older from North and South Carolina, we applied Bayesian mixed models to quantify variation in hospice use rates explained by HRR fixed effects, county random effects, and residual error among Medicare decedents. Results: We found HRRs and county indicators are significant predictors of hospice use in NC and SC; however, the relative variation within HRRs and associated residual variation is substantial. On average, HRR fixed effects explained more variation in hospice use rates than county indicators with a standard deviation (SD) of 10.0 versus 5.1 percentage points. The SD of the residual error is 5.7 percentage points. On average, variation within HRRs is about half the variation between regions (52%). Conclusions: The magnitude of unexplained residual variation in hospice use for NC and SC suggests that novel, end-of-life-specific service areas should be developed and tested to better capture geographic differences and inform research, health systems, and policy.
Keywords:
Bayesian statistics; Medicare; health care cost; hospice; practice variation
Authors: Amber E Barnato; Deepika Mohan; Rondall K Lane; Yue Ming Huang; Derek C Angus; Coreen Farris; Robert M Arnold Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin; Anita Datar Garten; Susan Paddock; Debra Saliba; Mark Totten; José J Escarce Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Austin S Kilaru; Douglas J Wiebe; David N Karp; Jennifer Love; Michael J Kallan; Brendan G Carr Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Nancy L Keating; Haiden A Huskamp; Elena Kouri; Deborah Schrag; Mark C Hornbrook; David A Haggstrom; Mary Beth Landrum Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Joan M Teno; Pedro L Gozalo; Julie P W Bynum; Natalie E Leland; Susan C Miller; Nancy E Morden; Thomas Scupp; David C Goodman; Vincent Mor Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 56.272