BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Previous research has documented racial/ethnic disparities in diabetes treatments and outcomes. It remains controversial whether these disparities result from differences in socioeconomic status (SES) or other factors. We examined racial/ethnic disparities in therapeutic modalities and diabetes outcomes among the large number of pediatric participants in the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry. METHODS: The cohort included 10 704 participants aged <18 years with type 1 diabetes for ≥1 year (48% female; mean age: 11.9 ± 3.6 years; diabetes duration: 5.2 ± 3.5 years). Diabetes management and clinical outcomes were compared among 8841 non-Hispanic white (white) (83%), 697 non-Hispanic black (black) (7%), and 1166 Hispanic (11%) participants. The population included 214 high-income black and Hispanic families. RESULTS: Insulin pump use was higher in white participants than in black or Hispanic participants (61% vs 26% and 39%, respectively) after adjusting for gender, age, diabetes duration, and SES (P < .001). Mean hemoglobin A1c was higher (adjusted P < .001) in black participants than in white or Hispanic participants (9.6%, 8.4%, and 8.7%). More black participants experienced diabetic ketoacidosis and severe hypoglycemic events in the previous year than white or Hispanic participants (both, P < .001). There were no significant differences in hemoglobin A1c, diabetic ketoacidosis, or severe hypoglycemia between white and Hispanic participants after adjustment for SES. CONCLUSIONS: Even after SES adjustment, marked disparities in insulin treatment method and treatment outcomes existed between black versus Hispanic and white children within this large pediatric cohort. Barriers to insulin pump use and optimal glycemic control beyond SES should be explored in all ethnic groups.

IMPORTANCE Medicare payment initiatives are spurring efforts to reduce potentially avoidable hospitalizations. OBJECTIVE To determine whether training and support for implementation of a nursing home (NH) quality improvement program (Interventions to Reduce Acute Care Transfers [INTERACT]) reduced hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) visits. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This analysis compared changes in hospitalization and ED visit rates between the preintervention and postintervention periods for NHs randomly assigned to receive training and implementation support on INTERACT to changes in control NHs. The analysis focused on 85 NHs (36 717 NH residents) that reported no use of INTERACT during the preintervention period. INTERVENTIONS The study team provided training and support for implementing INTERACT, which included tools that help NH staff identify and evaluate acute changes in NH resident condition and document communication between physicians; care paths to avoid hospitalization when safe and feasible; and advance care planning and quality improvement tools.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES All-cause hospitalizations, hospitalizations considered potentially avoidable, 30-day hospital readmissions, and ED visits without admission. All-cause hospitalization rates were calculated for all resident-days, high-risk days (0-30 days after NH admission), and lower-risk days (Ն31 days after NH admission). RESULTSWe found that of 85 NHs, those that received implementation training and support exhibited statistically nonsignificant reductions in hospitalization rates compared with control NHs (net difference, −0.13 per 1000 resident-days; P = .25), hospitalizations during the first 30 days after NH admission (net difference, −0.37 per 1000 resident-days; P = .48), hospitalizations during periods more than 30 days after NH admission (net difference, −0.09 per 1000 resident-days; P = .39), 30-day readmission rates (net change in rate among hospital discharges, −0.01; P = .36), and ED visits without admission (net difference, 0.02 per 1000 resident-days; P = .83). Intervention NHs exhibited a reduction in potentially avoidable hospitalizations overall (net difference, −0.18 per 1000 resident-days, P = .01); however, this effect was not robust to a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCETraining and support for INTERACT implementation as carried out in this study had no effect on hospitalization or ED visit rates in the overall population of residents in participating NHs. The results have several important implications for implementing quality improvement initiatives in NHs. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02177058

Traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare’s prospective payment systems for postacute care provide little incentive to coordinate care or control costs. In contrast, Medicare Advantage plans pay for postacute care out of monthly capitated payments and thus have stronger incentives to use it efficiently. We compared the use of postacute care in skilled nursing and inpatient rehabilitation facilities by enrollees in Medicare Advantage and FFS Medicare after hospital discharge for three high-volume conditions: lower extremity joint replacement, stroke, and heart failure. After accounting for differences in patient characteristics at discharge, we found lower intensity of postacute care for Medicare Advantage patients compared to FFS Medicare patients discharged from the same hospital, across all three conditions. Medicare Advantage patients also exhibited better outcomes than their FFS Medicare counterparts, including lower rates of hospital readmission and higher rates of return to the community. These findings suggest that payment reforms such as bundling in FFS Medicare may reduce the intensity of postacute care without adversely affecting patient health.

In the National Pilot Program on Payment Bundling, a subset of Medicare providers will receive a single payment for an episode of acute care in a hospital, followed by postacute care in a skilled nursing or rehabilitation facility, the patient’s home, or other appropriate setting. This article examines the promises and pitfalls of bundled payments and addresses two important design decisions for the pilot: which conditions to include, and how long an episode should be. Our analysis of Medicare data found that hip fracture and joint replacement are good conditions to include in the pilot because they exhibit strong potential for cost savings. In addition, these conditions pose less financial risk for providers than other common ones do, so including them would make participation in the program more appealing to providers. We also found that longer episode lengths captured a higher percentage of costs and hospital readmissions while adding little financial risk. We recommend that the Medicare pilot program test alternative design features to help foster payment innovation throughout the health system.

No abstract