Background: Despite cardiac rehabilitation (CR) being shown to improve health outcomes among patients with heart disease, its use has been suboptimal. In response, the Million Hearts Cardiac Rehabilitation Collaborative developed a road map to improve CR use, including increasing participation rates to ≥70% by 2022. This observational study provides current estimates to measure progress and identifies the populations and regions most at risk for CR service underutilization. Methods and Results: We identified Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who were CR eligible in 2016, and assessed CR participation (≥1 CR session attended), timely initiation (participation within 21 days of event), and completion (≥36 sessions attended) through 2017. Measures were assessed overall, by beneficiary characteristics and geography, and by primary CR-qualifying event type (acute myocardial infarction hospitalization; coronary artery bypass surgery; heart valve repair/replacement; percutaneous coronary intervention; or heart/heart-lung transplant). Among 366 103 CR-eligible beneficiaries, 89 327 (24.4%) participated in CR, of whom 24.3% initiated within 21 days and 26.9% completed CR. Eligibility was highest in the East South Central Census Division (14.8 per 1000). Participation decreased with increasing age, was lower among women (18.9%) compared with men (28.6%; adjusted prevalence ratio: 0.91 [95% CI, 0.90–0.93]) was lower among Hispanics (13.2%) and non-Hispanic blacks (13.6%) compared with non-Hispanic whites (25.8%; adjusted prevalence ratio: 0.63 [0.61–0.66] and 0.70 [0.67–0.72], respectively), and varied by hospital referral region and Census Division (range: 18.6% [East South Central] to 39.1% [West North Central]) and by qualifying event type (range: 7.1% [acute myocardial infarction without procedure] to 55.3% [coronary artery bypass surgery only]). Timely initiation varied by geography and qualifying event type; completion varied by geography. Conclusions: Only 1 in 4 CR-eligible Medicare beneficiaries participated in CR and marked disparities were observed. Reinforcement of current effective strategies and development of new strategies will be critical to address the noted disparities and achieve the 70% participation goal.

Objectives: The objective of this qualitative study was to better understand facilitators and barriers to depression screening for older adults. Methods: We conducted 43 focus groups with 102 providers and 247 beneficiaries or proxies: 13 focus groups with Medicare providers, 28 with older Medicare beneficiaries, and 2 with caregivers of older Medicare beneficiaries. Each focus group was recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using principles of grounded theory. Results: There was widespread consensus among beneficiary and provider focus group participants that depression screening was important. However, several barriers interfered with effective depression screening, including stigma, lack of resources for treatment referrals, and lack of time during medical encounters. Positive communication with providers and an established relationship with a trusted provider were primary facilitators for depression screening. Providers who took the time to put their beneficiaries at ease and used conversational language rather than clinical terms appeared to have the most success in eliciting beneficiary honesty about depressive symptoms. Respondents stressed the need for providers to be attentive, concerned, non-judgmental, and respectful. Conclusion: Findings indicate that using person-centered approaches to build positive communication and trust between beneficiaries and providers could be an effective strategy for improving depression screening. Better screening can lead to higher rates of diagnosis and treatment of depression that could enhance quality of life for older adults.

Preventive service use remains low among Medicare beneficiaries despite the Affordable Care Act's waiver of coinsurance. This study sought to understand barriers and facilitators to preventive service provision, access, and uptake. We used a mixed methods approach synthesizing quantitative survey and qualitative focus group data. Self-reported utilization of and factors related to preventive services were explored using quantitative data from the 2012 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. Qualitative data from 16 focus groups conducted in 2016 with a range of providers, health advocates, and Medicare beneficiaries explored perspectives on preventive service use. Providers indicated time and competing priorities as factors for not offering patients a full range of preventive services, while beneficiaries reported barriers related to knowledge, perception, and trust. Current healthcare reform efforts incorporating team-based care, nurses and other non-physician providers, and coordinated electronic health records could support enhanced use of preventive services if fully implemented and utilized.

No abstract

Research Objective The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model is intended to encourage participant hospitals to reduce Medicare payments by coordinating care with the physicians, post‐acute care (PAC) providers, and other providers involved in an episode of care for a lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR), which comprises the surgery plus the services provided in the 90 days after hospital discharge. Previous studies have documented reductions in institutional PAC attributable to the model.1 The shift towards less intensive PAC could affect patient experiences and recovery. We surveyed Medicare fee‐for‐service (FFS) beneficiaries after LEJR surgery to document their self‐reported functional status, pain, satisfaction with care management and overall recovery, care transitions, and dependence on caregivers for help with activities of daily living. These patient‐reported outcomes are important indicators of quality that cannot be measured using secondary data. Study Design In 2018, participation in CJR was mandatory for hospitals that that did not meet rural or low‐volume exemptions, and were located in 34 randomly‐selected, historically high‐payment metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). We surveyed a census of Medicare FFS beneficiaries who had LEJR surgery in mandatory CJR hospitals, and those who had LEJR surgery in hospitals within 47 high‐payment MSAs randomly assigned to the control group. Patients received the survey approximately 90 to 120 days after hospital discharge. We estimated risk‐adjusted differences between CJR and control respondents. Population Studied We sampled beneficiaries who had LEJR surgery in March, April, August or September 2018 from the CJR group (12,478 beneficiaries) and the control group (13,137 beneficiaries). Response rates for the survey were similar for the CJR and control groups (67.6% and 68.6%, respectively). Principal Findings The CJR model did not have a significant impact on patient‐reported functional status, pain, satisfaction with care management or satisfaction with overall recovery. However, CJR respondents were 1.2 percentage points less likely to report that they received the right amount of care in the two weeks after hospital discharge than control respondents (p < 0.01), and CJR respondents required more caregiver help at home than control respondents (a difference of 1.9 points on a 100‐point scale, p < 0.01). Conclusions The CJR model resulted in a small increase in the number of respondents who reported that they needed caregiver help after returning home. This is consistent with previous findings that CJR patients were less likely to use institutional PAC and were more likely to go directly home after surgery than control respondents. However, this did not result in decreased functional status or satisfaction with care management and recovery. This suggests that greater dependence on caregivers did not translate to lower satisfaction or worse functional recovery. Implications for Policy or Practice Results show that CJR reduced Medicare paym...

Research Objective The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model is intended to encourage participant hospitals to reduce Medicare payments by coordinating care with the physicians, postacute care (PAC) providers, and other providers involved in an episode of care for a lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR), which comprises the surgery plus the services provided in the 90 days after hospital discharge. Although participant hospitals are incentivized to improve or maintain quality of care, reductions in institutional PAC attributable to the model could have adverse effects on patient recovery and care experiences.1 We surveyed Medicare fee‐for‐service (FFS) beneficiaries a few months after LEJR surgery to document their self‐reported functional status, pain, satisfaction with care management and overall recovery, care transitions, and dependence on caregivers for help with activities of daily living (ADLs). These patient‐reported outcomes are important indicators of quality that cannot be measured using secondary data. Study Design From 171 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) that met CJR eligibility criteria, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) randomly selected 67 for CJR and 104 for the control group. Participation in CJR was mandatory for all hospitals in the 67 selected MSAs during the time covered by our analysis. We surveyed a stratified random sample of Medicare FFS beneficiaries who had LEJR surgery in CJR hospitals and a matched group of beneficiaries who had surgery in control hospitals. Patients received the survey approximately 90 to 120 days after hospital discharge. We estimated risk‐adjusted differences between CJR and control respondents on all outcomes. Population Studied Medicare FFS beneficiaries who had LEJR surgery in March, April, August, or September 2017 were sampled from the CJR intervention group (7,604 beneficiaries) and the control group (7,188 beneficiaries). We oversampled patients with hip fractures to assess results for beneficiaries who may be most sensitive to care changes made by hospitals in response to CJR model incentives. Response rates for the survey were similar for the CJR and control groups (70.7% and 71.4%, respectively). Principal Findings The CJR model did not have a significant impact on patient‐reported functional status, pain, satisfaction with care management and overall recovery, and care transitions. The only significant difference was that CJR respondents reported needing more caregiver help putting on or taking off clothes after returning home than did control respondents. On a 100‐point scale, the difference was ‐2.3 points (P < .01). All measures were similar for CJR and control respondents with hip fractures. Conclusions The CJR model resulted in a small increase in reported caregiver help needed after patients returned home. Functional status and satisfaction with care and recovery roughly 90 to 120 days after hospital discharge, however, were not affected by the model, indicating that concerns about dependence on caregivers ...

When a patient has terminal illness and death is imminent, grief is a normal reaction. Primary care physicians can help patients and their families by talking with them about the five stages of grief (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance), providing grief counseling and appropriate pharmacotherapy, and being supportive. Grief often manifests with features similar to those of depression, and it is critical for the clinician to distinguish between the two. One distinguishing feature is that self-esteem in the grieving person is usually uncompromised, whereas a depressed person often has decreased self-esteem. Physicians should also watch for signs of mood disorders or abnormal grief. When grief is present more than 2 months after a loss, a diagnosis of major depression should be considered. Dysfunctional grief accompanied by severe depression and suicidal intent generally calls for psychiatric referral, hospitalization, or both.

1512 Background: OCM was a voluntary episode-based alternative payment model designed to improve the value of care for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries receiving systemic therapy for cancer. Participating practices received monthly enhanced oncology services (MEOS) care coordination payments and could receive additional payments (or penalties) if they met quality and total episode spending goals during 6-month episodes. Methods: We used a difference-in-differences approach to evaluate OCM impacts on Medicare payments, utilization, and quality measures during 6-month episodes before (July ‘14-January ’16) and after (July ‘16-June ‘21) OCM’s start. Patient-episodes were attributed to OCM-participating practices (n = 202) or propensity-matched comparison practices (n = 534). Statistical significance was defined as p≤0.10 to avoid missing program impacts. Results: Total episode payments (TEP) for 6-month OCM episodes increased from 29,120 in the baseline period to 35,467 in the OCM period (+21.8%). In reference to comparison episodes, OCM led to a 499 relative reduction in TEP (90%CI -771, -227, -1.7% relative to baseline.) OCM had no significant impact on TEP for low-risk breast, prostate, and bladder cancers, and OCM led to a relative decrease of 755 (CI -1140, -371) for all other higher risk cancers. Reductions in TEP were largest for high-risk breast cancer, lymphoma, lung cancer and colorectal cancer. The overall OCM impact on TEP was attributable to relative reductions in both Part A payments (-152, [CI -257, -47]) and Part B payments (-276, [CI -459, -92]). There was no OCM impact on Part D payments. While OCM had no impact on Part B chemotherapy payments, OCM reduced Part B non-chemotherapy drug payments by 251 (CI -330, -173; -9.3%). Utilization analyses showed no impact of OCM on ED visits or hospitalizations, but OCM reduced the likelihood of ICU admission by 0.6 percentage points (PP; CI -1.0, -0.1, -5.4%). OCM had no impact on initial chemotherapy regimen selection, but OCM led to greater use of biosimilar cancer therapies and value sensitive changes in the use of antiemetics, bone supportive medications, and WBC growth factors (including greater use of biosimilar WBC growth factors; all p < 0.10). OCM reduced hospitalizations in the last 30 days of life by 0.8 PP (CI -1.6, -0.1; -1.5%) with no impact on use of chemotherapy or hospice at the end of life. Despite OCM-related TEP reductions, OCM resulted in net losses to Medicare after accounting for MEOS and performance-based payments. Conclusions: OCM led to reductions in TEP with similar or improved quality. Reductions in TEP were greatest for common, high-cost cancer types and were driven primarily by changes in use of supportive care medications. The Medicare Enhancing Oncology Model will build on the experience of OCM to further the goal of improving the quality and value of cancer care for Medicare beneficiaries.