Jonathan D Wolfe1, Arnold M Epstein2,3, Jie Zheng3, E John Orav2,4, Karen E Joynt Maddox5,6. 1. Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. kjoyntmaddox@wustl.edu. 6. Center for Health Economics and Policy, Institute for Public Health, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. kjoyntmaddox@wustl.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospitals participating in Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program were incented to reduce Medicare payments for episodes of care. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that influenced whether or not hospitals were able to save in the BPCI program, how the cost of different services changed to produce those savings, and if "savers" had lower or decreased quality of care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: BPCI-participating hospitals. MAIN MEASURES: We designated hospitals that met the program goal of decreasing costs by at least 2% from baseline in average Medicare payments per 90-day episode as "savers." We used regression models to determine condition-level, patient-level, hospital-level, and market-level characteristics associated with savings. KEY RESULTS: In total, 421 hospitals participated in BPCI, resulting in 2974 hospital-condition combinations. Major joint replacement of the lower extremity had the highest proportion of savers (77.6%, average change in payments -$2235) and complex non-cervical spinal fusion had the lowest (22.2%, average change +$8106). Medical conditions had a higher proportion of savers than surgical conditions (11% more likely to save, P=0.001). Conditions that were mostly urgent/emergent had a higher proportion of savers than conditions that were mostly elective (6% more likely to save, P=0.007). Having higher than median costs at baseline was associated with saving (OR: 3.02, P<0.001). Hospitals with more complex patients were less likely to save (OR: 0.77, P=0.003). Savings occurred across both inpatient and post-acute care, and there were no decrements in clinical care associated with being a saver. CONCLUSIONS: Certain conditions may be more amenable than others to saving under bundled payments, and hospitals with high costs at baseline may perform well under programs which use hospitals' own baseline costs to set targets. Findings may have implications for the BPCI-Advanced program and for policymakers seeking to use payment models to drive improvements in care.
BACKGROUND: Hospitals participating in Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program were incented to reduce Medicare payments for episodes of care. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that influenced whether or not hospitals were able to save in the BPCI program, how the cost of different services changed to produce those savings, and if "savers" had lower or decreased quality of care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: BPCI-participating hospitals. MAIN MEASURES: We designated hospitals that met the program goal of decreasing costs by at least 2% from baseline in average Medicare payments per 90-day episode as "savers." We used regression models to determine condition-level, patient-level, hospital-level, and market-level characteristics associated with savings. KEY RESULTS: In total, 421 hospitals participated in BPCI, resulting in 2974 hospital-condition combinations. Major joint replacement of the lower extremity had the highest proportion of savers (77.6%, average change in payments -$2235) and complex non-cervical spinal fusion had the lowest (22.2%, average change +$8106). Medical conditions had a higher proportion of savers than surgical conditions (11% more likely to save, P=0.001). Conditions that were mostly urgent/emergent had a higher proportion of savers than conditions that were mostly elective (6% more likely to save, P=0.007). Having higher than median costs at baseline was associated with saving (OR: 3.02, P<0.001). Hospitals with more complex patients were less likely to save (OR: 0.77, P=0.003). Savings occurred across both inpatient and post-acute care, and there were no decrements in clinical care associated with being a saver. CONCLUSIONS: Certain conditions may be more amenable than others to saving under bundled payments, and hospitals with high costs at baseline may perform well under programs which use hospitals' own baseline costs to set targets. Findings may have implications for the BPCI-Advanced program and for policymakers seeking to use payment models to drive improvements in care.
Authors: Lindsay E Jubelt; Keith S Goldfeld; Wei-yi Chung; Saul B Blecker; Leora I Horwitz Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Andrew M Pepper; David Novikov; Zlatan Cizmic; John T Barrett; Michael Collins; Richard Iorio; Ran Schwarzkopf; William J Long Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Brandon C Maughan; Daver C Kahvecioglu; Grecia Marrufo; Gina M Gerding; Syvart Dennen; Jaclyn K Marshall; Daniel M Cooper; Colleen M Kummet; Laura A Dummit Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Laura A Dummit; Daver Kahvecioglu; Grecia Marrufo; Rahul Rajkumar; Jaclyn Marshall; Eleonora Tan; Matthew J Press; Shannon Flood; L Daniel Muldoon; Qian Gu; Andrea Hassol; David M Bott; Amy Bassano; Patrick H Conway Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 56.272