No abstract

ACO) Model aims to drive health care organizations to reduce expenditures while improving quality for fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE To determine whether FFS beneficiaries aligned with Pioneer ACOs had smaller increases in spending and utilization than other FFS beneficiaries while retaining similar levels of care satisfaction in the first 2 years of the Pioneer ACO Model. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Participants were FFS Medicare beneficiaries aligned with 32 ACOs (n = 675 712 in 2012; n = 806 258 in 2013) and a comparison group of alignment-eligible beneficiaries in the same markets (n = 13 203 694 in 2012; n = 12 134 154 in 2013). Analyses comprised difference-in-differences multivariable regression with Oaxaca-Blinder reweighting to model expenditure and utilization outcomes over a 2-year performance period (2012-2013) and 2-year baseline period (2010-2011) as well as adjusted analyses of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers & Systems (CAHPS) survey responses among random samples of beneficiaries in Pioneer ACOs (n = 13 097), FFS (n = 116 255), or Medicare Advantage (n = 203 736) for 2012 care.

IMPORTANCE A physician's prior experience caring for a patient may be associated with patient outcomes and care patterns during and after hospitalization.OBJECTIVE To examine differences in the use of health care resources and outcomes among hospitalized patients cared for by hospitalists, their own primary care physicians (PCPs), or other generalists. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis retrospective study analyzed admissions for the 20 most common medical diagnoses among elderly fee-for-service Medicare patients from January 1 through December 31, 2013. Patients had at least 1 previous encounter with an outpatient clinician within the 365 days before admission, and diagnoses were restricted to the 20 most common diagnosis related groups. Data were collected from Medicare Parts A and B claims data, and outcomes were analyzed from January 1, 2013, through January 31, 2014.EXPOSURES Physician types included hospitalists, PCPs (ie, the physicians who provided a plurality of ambulatory visits in the year preceding admission), or generalists (not the patients' PCPs). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESNumber of in-hospital specialist consultations, length of stay, discharge site, all-cause 7-and 30-day readmission rates, and 30-day mortality.RESULTS A total of 560 651 admissions were analyzed (41.9% men and 59.1% women; mean [SD] age, 80 [8] years). Patients' physicians were hospitalists in 59.7% of admissions; PCPs, in 14.2%; and other generalists, in 26.1%. Primary care physicians used consultations 3% more (relative risk, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05) and other generalists used consultations 6% more (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.05-1.07) than hospitalists. Lengths of stay were 12% longer among patients cared for by PCPs (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.11-1.13) and 6% longer among those cared for by other generalists (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.05-1.07) compared with patients cared for by hospitalists. However, PCPs were more likely to discharge patients home (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.11-1.17), whereas other generalists were less likely to do so (AOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.96). Relative to hospitalists, patients cared for by PCPs had similar readmission rates at 7 days (AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96-1.01) and 30 days (AOR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99-1.04), whereas other generalists' readmission rates were greater than hospitalists' rates at 7 (AOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07) and 30 (AOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.06) days. Patients cared for by PCPs had lower 30-day mortality than patients of hospitalists (AOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.97), whereas the mortality rate of patients of other generalists was higher (AOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.07-1.12). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE A PCP's prior experience with a patient may be associated with inpatient use of resources and patient outcomes. Patients cared for by their own PCP had slightly longer lengths of stay and were more likely to be discharged home but also were less likely to die within 30 days compared with those cared for by hospitalists or other genera...

The belief that integrated delivery systems offer better care at lower cost has contributed to growing interest in accountable care organizations. These provider-led delivery systems would accept responsibility for their primary care populations and would have financial incentives for improving care and reducing costs. We investigated this belief by comparing the costs and quality of care provided to Medicare beneficiaries in twenty-two health care markets by physicians who did and did not work within large multispecialty group practices affiliated with the Council of Accountable Physician Practices. In most markets, and after adjustment for patient factors, group physicians affiliated with the council provided higher-quality care at a 3.6 percent lower annual cost ($272 per patient).

Physician networks have a relationship with ACSAs that is independent of the physicians in the network. Physician networks could be an important focus for understanding variations in medical care and for intervening to improve care.

No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Differences among hospitals in the use of inpatient consultation may contribute to variation in outcomes and costs for hospitalized patients, but basic epidemiologic data on consultations nationally are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to identify physician, hospital, and geographic factors that explain variation in rates of inpatient consultation. The primary outcome measured was number of consultations conducted during the hospitalization, summarized at the hospital level as the number of consultations per 1,000 Medicare admissions, or Bconsultation density.K EY RESULTS: Consultations occurred 2.6 times per admission on average. Among non-critical access hospitals, use of consultation varied 3.6-fold across quintiles of hospitals (933 versus 3,390 consultations per 1,000 admissions, lowest versus highest quintiles, p<0.001). Sicker patients received greater intensity of consultation (rate ratio [RR] 1.18, 95 % CI 1.17-1.18 for patients admitted to ICU; and RR 1.19, 95 % CI 1.18-1.20 for patients who died). However, even after controlling for patient-level factors, hospital characteristics also predicted differences in rates of consultation. For example, hospital size (large versus small, RR 1.31, 95 % CI 1.25-1.37), rural location (rural versus urban, RR 0.78, CI 95 % 0.76-0.80), ownership status (public versus not-for-profit, RR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.91-0.97), and geographic quadrant (Northeast versus West, RR 1.17, 95 % CI 1.12-1.21) all influenced the intensity of consultation use. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals exhibit marked variation in the number of consultations per admission in ways not fully explained by patient characteristics. Hospital Bconsultation density^may constitute an important focus for monitoring resource use for hospitals or health systems.