Suchergebnisse

A growing body of evidence documents pervasive racial, ethnic, and class disparities in long-term care in the United States. At the same time, major quality improvement initiatives are being implemented that rely on market-based incentives, many of which may have the unintended consequence of exacerbating disparities. We review existing evidence on disparities in the use and quality of long-term care services, analyze current market-based policy initiatives in terms of their potential to ameliorate or exacerbate these disparities, and suggest policies and policy modifications that may help decrease disparities. We find that racial disparities in the use of formal long-term care have decreased over time. Disparities in quality of care are more consistently documented and appear to be related to racial and socioeconomic segregation of long-term care facilities as opposed to within-provider discrimination. Market-based incentives policies should explicitly incorporate the goal of mitigating the potential unintended consequence of increased disparities.

Approximately two decades ago, federally mandated public reporting began for U.S. nursing homes through a system now known as Nursing Home Compare. The goals were to provide information to enable consumers to choose higher quality nursing homes and to incent providers to improve the quality of care delivered. We conduct a systematic review of the literature on responses to Nursing Home Compare and its effectiveness in meeting these goals. We find evidence of modest but meaningful response by both consumers and providers. However, we also find evidence that some improvement in scores does not reflect true quality improvement, that disparities by race and income have increased, that risk-adjustment of the measures is likely inadequate, and that several key domains of quality are not represented. Our results support moderate success of Nursing Home Compare in achieving intended goals but also reveal the need for continued refinement.

IMPORTANCE: The Balancing Incentives Program (BIP), established under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provided federal funding for states to shift long-term care out of institutional settings and into the home. However, the association of its implementation with informal caregiving is not known. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between BIP participation and the prevalence and frequency of informal caregiving and socioeconomic disparities among caregivers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The cohort study included respondents to the 2011-2018 American Time Use Survey in BIP-adopting states and non–BIP-adopting states. EXPOSURE: Living in a state that had implemented the BIP after program implementation had begun (April 2012 to April 2018). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Prevalence of caregiving among all respondents, frequency of caregiving, and minutes of daily sleep, a marker of well-being. Differences-in-differences (DID) regression analysis was used to compare these outcomes between BIP-adopting states and non–BIP-adopting states. RESULTS: The study included 38 343 respondents in BIP-adopting states (median age, 47 years [interquartile range (IQR), 31-61 years]; 51.9% women), of whom 7428 were caregivers (median age, 51 years [IQR, 37-61 years]; 55.6% women), and 26 437 respondents in non–BIP-adopting states (median age, 48 years [IQR, 32-62 years]; 52.7% women), of whom 5527 were caregivers (median age, 52 years [IQR, 38-62 years]; 57.9% women). There was no change in the prevalence of caregiving between BIP-adopting and non–BIP-adopting states after program implementation (DID, 0.00%; 95% CI, −0.01% to 0.01%). Caregivers in BIP-adopting states were more likely to provide daily care after implementation (DID, 3.2%; 95% CI, 0.3%-6.0%; P = .03) and report increased time sleeping (DID, 15.6 minutes; 95% CI, 4.9-26.2 minutes; P = .005) compared with caregivers in non–BIP-adopting states. This association was more pronounced among caregivers with more education (DID, 25.1 minutes; 95% CI, ...

Whereas numerous policies have been adopted to improve quality of care in nursing homes over the past several decades—with varying degrees of success—health care payment has been a largely untapped but potentially powerful policy tool to improve quality of care. Recently, however, payers have invested significant resources in the development and implementation of pay-for-performance (P4P) programs for nursing homes. The authors present results from a survey of state Medicaid agencies documenting the use and structure of P4P in nursing homes. Although the number of states that are implementing nursing home P4P is growing, the structure of these incentives varies across states, and little evidence exists to guide the planning or implementation of these initiatives.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A decade after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the vision of moving the U.S. health care system "from volume to value" has been partially realized, with few value-based payment initiatives systematically reducing spending or improving quality. While participation in value-based payments continues to grow, the adoption of advanced forms of value-based payment through alternative payment models lags behind both the goals set by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in 2015 and the threshold required for widespread practice transformation. Furthermore, the complexity of the current suite of alternative payment models and allure of traditional fee-for-service prevent the widespread adoption of full risk-bearing contracts. The high costs of care with the impending insolvency of the Medicare trust fund, persistence of poor quality of care and health disparities along racial and socioeconomic lines, and mixed success of alternative payment models indicate the need for a revamped vision for the 2020s. The 2020s require a new strategy that moves from a short-term focus on testing new payment models to a long-term focus on expanding models that are most likely to generate substantial savings and improve quality. This white paper outlines a new direction for the federal government—primarily through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)—to chart over the next decade aimed at completing the transition to a health care system that pays for value and reduced health disparities, rather than high volumes of services. First, CMS must articulate a clear vision for the future of value-based payment. In particular, the vision must align across all publicly financed health care, driving change beyond Medicare and Medicaid. Second, CMS must dramatically simplify the current value-based payment landscape and engage late-adopting providers. Third, for health systems already participating in value-based payment, CMS must accelerate the movement from upside-only shared savings to risk-bearing, population-based alternative payment models while curtailing the ability of providers to opt out of value-based payment altogether. Fourth, CMS must not only pull providers toward advanced alternative payment models, but also structure incentives to push providers away from fee-for-service payment. Finally, achieving health equity must be a central feature and goal of value-based payment. Taken together, these five recommendations provide a path toward widespread adoption and success of alternative payment models, producing better health outcomes for all Americans, reducing wasteful inefficiencies and health disparities, and more effectively stewarding taxpayer funds to support other national priorities

Health care report cards are intended to improve quality, but there may be considerable heterogeneity in who benefits. In this article, we examine the intended and unintended effects of quality reporting for nursing home residents with severe dementia relative to other residents, using a difference-in-differences design to examine selected reported and unreported quality measures. Our results indicate that prior to public reporting, nursing home residents with severe dementia were at significantly higher risk of poor outcomes on most reported quality measures. After public reporting was initiated, outcomes for nursing home residents with severe dementia did not consistently improve or worsen. We see no evidence that individuals with severe dementia are being avoided by nursing homes, despite their potential negative impact on quality scores, but we do find an increase in coding of end-stage disease. Additional risk-adjustment, stratification, or additional quality measures may be warranted.

Long-term acute care hospitals (LTACs) are an increasingly common discharge destination for patients recovering from intensive care. In this article the authors use U.S. Medicare claims data to examine regional- and hospital-level variation in LTAC utilization after intensive care to determine factors associated with their use. Using hierarchical regression models to control for patient characteristics, this study found wide variation in LTAC utilization across hospitals, even controlling for LTAC access within a region. Several hospital characteristics were independently associated with increasing LTAC utilization, including increasing hospital size, for-profit ownership, academic teaching status, and colocation of the LTAC within an acute care hospital. These findings highlight the need for research into LTAC admission criteria and the incentives driving variation in LTAC utilization across hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has disproportionately affected communities of color, with black persons experiencing the highest rates of disease severity and mortality. A vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has the potential to reduce the race mortality gap from COVID-19; however, hesitancy toward the vaccine in the black community threatens vaccine uptake. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with black barbershop and salon owners living in zip codes of elevated COVID-19 prevalence to assess their attitudes, beliefs, and norms around a COVID-19 vaccine. We used a modified grounded theory approach to analyze the transcripts.RESULTS: We completed 4 focus groups (N = 24 participants) in July and August 2020. Participants were an average age of 46 years, and 89% were black non-Hispanic. Hesitancy against the COVID-19 vaccine was high due to mistrust in the medical establishment, concerns with the accelerated timeline for vaccine development, limited data on short- and long-term side effects, and the political environment promoting racial injustice. Some participants were willing to consider the vaccine once the safety profile is robust and reassuring. Receiving a recommendation to take the vaccine from a trusted healthcare provider served as a facilitator. Health beliefs identified were similar to concerns around other vaccines and included the fear of getting the infection with vaccination and preferring to improve one's baseline physical health through alternative therapies.CONCLUSIONS: We found that hesitancy of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine was high; however, provider recommendation and transparency around the safety profile might help reduce this hesitancy.SUMMARY: In focus group discussions, hesitancy of a COVID-19 vaccine was high among black participants due to health beliefs against vaccines in general, compounded by skepticism of vaccine development during the pandemic and the political environment fostering racial injustice.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has disproportionately affected communities of color, with blacks experiencing the highest rates of disease severity and mortality. A vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 has the potential to reduce the race mortality gap from COVID-19; however, hesitancy of the vaccine in the black community threatens vaccine uptake. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with black barbershop and salon owners living in zip codes of elevated COVID-19 prevalence to assess their attitudes, beliefs, and norms around a COVID-19 vaccine. We used a modified grounded theory approach to analyze the transcripts. RESULTS: We completed four focus groups (n=24 participants) in July and August 2020. Participants were an average age of 46, 89% were black non-Hispanic. Hesitancy against the COVID-19 vaccine was high due to mistrust in the medical establishment, concerns with the accelerated timeline for vaccine development, limited data on short and long-term side effects, and the political environment promoting racial injustice. Some participants were willing to consider the vaccine once the safety profile is robust and reassuring. Receiving a recommendation to take the vaccine from a trusted health care provider served as a facilitator. Health beliefs identified were similar to concerns around other vaccines, and included the fear of getting the infection with vaccination, and preferring to improve one's baseline physical health through alternative therapies. CONCLUSION: We found that hesitancy of the COVID-19 vaccine was high; however, provider recommendation and transparency around the safety profile might help reduce hesitancy of the COVID-19 vaccine.