Miranda B Lam1,2,3, Tynan H Friend4, Parsa Erfani5, E John Orav6,7, Ashish K Jha8, Jose F Figueroa4,5,6. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. Miranda_Lam@dfci.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital / Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. Miranda_Lam@dfci.harvard.edu. 3. Harvard Medical School, MA, Boston, USA. Miranda_Lam@dfci.harvard.edu. 4. Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Harvard Medical School, MA, Boston, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 8. School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: End-of-life (EOL) costs constitute a substantial portion of healthcare spending in the USA and have been increasing. ACOs may offer an opportunity to improve quality and curtail EOL spending. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether practices that became ACOs altered spending and utilization at the EOL. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Medicare claims. PATIENTS: We assigned patients who died in 2012 and 2015 to an ACO or non-ACO practice. Practices that converted to ACOs in 2013 or 2014 were matched to non-ACOs in the same region. A total of 23,643 ACO patients were matched to 23,643 non-ACO patients. MAIN MEASURES: Using a difference-in-differences model, we examined changes in EOL spending and care utilization after ACO implementation. KEY RESULTS: The introduction of ACOs did not significantly impact overall spending for patients in the last 6 months of life (difference-in-difference (DID) = $192, 95%CI -$841 to $1125, P = 0.72). Changes in spending did not differ between ACO and non-ACO patients across spending categories (inpatient, outpatient, physician services, skilled nursing, home health, hospice). No differences were seen between ACO and non-ACO patients in rates of ED visits, inpatient admissions, ICU admission, mean healthy days at home, and mean hospice days at 180 and 30 days prior to death. However, non-ACO patients had a significantly greater increase in hospice utilization compared to ACO patients at 180 days (DID P-value = 0.02) and 30 days (DID P-value = 0.01) prior to death. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of hospice care utilization, spending and utilization were not different between ACOs and non-ACO patients at the EOL. Longer follow-up may be necessary to evaluate the impact of ACOs on EOL spending and care.
BACKGROUND: End-of-life (EOL) costs constitute a substantial portion of healthcare spending in the USA and have been increasing. ACOs may offer an opportunity to improve quality and curtail EOL spending. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether practices that became ACOs altered spending and utilization at the EOL. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Medicare claims. PATIENTS: We assigned patients who died in 2012 and 2015 to an ACO or non-ACO practice. Practices that converted to ACOs in 2013 or 2014 were matched to non-ACOs in the same region. A total of 23,643 ACO patients were matched to 23,643 non-ACO patients. MAIN MEASURES: Using a difference-in-differences model, we examined changes in EOL spending and care utilization after ACO implementation. KEY RESULTS: The introduction of ACOs did not significantly impact overall spending for patients in the last 6 months of life (difference-in-difference (DID) = $192, 95%CI -$841 to $1125, P = 0.72). Changes in spending did not differ between ACO and non-ACO patients across spending categories (inpatient, outpatient, physician services, skilled nursing, home health, hospice). No differences were seen between ACO and non-ACO patients in rates of ED visits, inpatient admissions, ICU admission, mean healthy days at home, and mean hospice days at 180 and 30 days prior to death. However, non-ACO patients had a significantly greater increase in hospice utilization compared to ACO patients at 180 days (DID P-value = 0.02) and 30 days (DID P-value = 0.01) prior to death. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of hospice care utilization, spending and utilization were not different between ACOs and non-ACO patients at the EOL. Longer follow-up may be necessary to evaluate the impact of ACOs on EOL spending and care.
Authors: Nita Khandelwal; J Randall Curtis; Vicki A Freedman; Judith D Kasper; Pedro Gozalo; Ruth A Engelberg; Joan M Teno Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Eric B French; Jeremy McCauley; Maria Aragon; Pieter Bakx; Martin Chalkley; Stacey H Chen; Bent J Christensen; Hongwei Chuang; Aurelie Côté-Sergent; Mariacristina De Nardi; Elliott Fan; Damien Échevin; Pierre-Yves Geoffard; Christelle Gastaldi-Ménager; Mette Gørtz; Yoko Ibuka; John B Jones; Malene Kallestrup-Lamb; Martin Karlsson; Tobias J Klein; Grégoire de Lagasnerie; Pierre-Carl Michaud; Owen O'Donnell; Nigel Rice; Jonathan S Skinner; Eddy van Doorslaer; Nicolas R Ziebarth; Elaine Kelly Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Nancy Luo; Bradley G Hammill; Adam D DeVore; Haolin Xu; Gregg C Fonarow; Nancy M Albert; Roland A Matsouaka; Adrian F Hernandez; Clyde Yancy; Robert J Mentz Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Jennifer W Mack; Angel Cronin; Nancy L Keating; Nathan Taback; Haiden A Huskamp; Jennifer L Malin; Craig C Earle; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer Gabbard; N M Pajewski; Kathryn E Callahan; Ajay Dharod; Kristie Foley; Keren Ferris; Adam Moses; Carl Grey; Jeff Williamson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-12-15 Impact factor: 2.692