Lisa C Lindley1, Melanie J Cozad2, Jennifer W Mack3, Jessica Keim-Malpass4, Radion Svynarenko1, Pamela S Hinds5,6. 1. College of Nursing, 16166University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA. 2. Department of Health Services Policy and Management, 2629University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA. 3. Department of Pediatric Oncology and Division of Population Sciences, 1855Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. School of Nursing, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. 5. Department of Nursing Science, 8404Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC, USA. 6. Department of Pediatrics, 8367The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandated landmark hospice care legislation for children at end of life. Little is known about the impact of pediatric concurrent hospice care. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of pediatric concurrent vs standard hospice care on end-of-life care continuity among Medicaid beneficiaries. METHODS: Using national Medicaid data, we conducted a quasi-experimental designed study to estimate the effect of concurrent vs standard hospice care to improve end-of-life care continuity for children. Care continuity (i.e., hospice length of stay, hospice disenrollment, emergency room transition, and inpatient transition) was measured via claims data. Exposures were concurrent hospice vs standard hospice care. Using instrumental variable analysis, the effectiveness of exposures on care continuity was compared. RESULTS: Concurrent hospice care affected care continuity. It resulted in longer lengths of stays in hospice (β = 2.76, P < .001) and reduced hospice live discharges (β = -2.80, P < .05), compared to standard hospice care. Concurrent care was not effective at reducing emergency room (β = 2.09, P < .001) or inpatient care (β = .007, P < .05) transitions during hospice enrollment. CONCLUSION: Our study provides critical insight into the quality of care delivered for children at end of life. These findings have policy implications.
BACKGROUND: The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandated landmark hospice care legislation for children at end of life. Little is known about the impact of pediatric concurrent hospice care. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of pediatric concurrent vs standard hospice care on end-of-life care continuity among Medicaid beneficiaries. METHODS: Using national Medicaid data, we conducted a quasi-experimental designed study to estimate the effect of concurrent vs standard hospice care to improve end-of-life care continuity for children. Care continuity (i.e., hospice length of stay, hospice disenrollment, emergency room transition, and inpatient transition) was measured via claims data. Exposures were concurrent hospice vs standard hospice care. Using instrumental variable analysis, the effectiveness of exposures on care continuity was compared. RESULTS: Concurrent hospice care affected care continuity. It resulted in longer lengths of stays in hospice (β = 2.76, P < .001) and reduced hospice live discharges (β = -2.80, P < .05), compared to standard hospice care. Concurrent care was not effective at reducing emergency room (β = 2.09, P < .001) or inpatient care (β = .007, P < .05) transitions during hospice enrollment. CONCLUSION: Our study provides critical insight into the quality of care delivered for children at end of life. These findings have policy implications.
Entities:
Keywords:
care continuity; concurrent hospice care; emergency department use; hospice length of stay; hospice live discharge; inpatient admission; medicaid; pediatric hospice care
Authors: Jessica Keim-Malpass; Melanie J Cozad; Radion Svynarenko; Jennifer W Mack; Lisa C Lindley Journal: J Spec Pediatr Nurs Date: 2021-04-03 Impact factor: 1.260
Authors: Joan M Teno; Pedro Gozalo; Amal N Trivedi; Jennifer Bunker; Julie Lima; Jessica Ogarek; Vincent Mor Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ying Xian; Robert G Holloway; Paul S Chan; Katia Noyes; Manish N Shah; Henry H Ting; Andre R Chappel; Eric D Peterson; Bruce Friedman Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-01-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Vincent Mor; Todd H Wagner; Cari Levy; Mary Ersek; Susan C Miller; Risha Gidwani-Marszowski; Nina Joyce; Katherine Faricy-Anderson; Emily A Corneau; Karl Lorenz; Bruce Kinosian; Scott Shreve Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Mary Lou Clark Fornehed; Radion Svynarenko; Jessica Keim-Malpass; Melanie J Cozad; Kerri A Qualls; Whitney L Stone; Lisa C Lindley Journal: South Med J Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 0.954
Authors: Melanie J Cozad; Radion Svynarenko; Pamela S Hinds; Jennifer W Mack; Jessica Keim-Malpass; Lisa C Lindley Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2022-04-18 Impact factor: 2.090