IMPORTANCE Use of postacute care is common and costly in the United States, but there is significant uncertainty about whether the choice of postacute care setting matters. Understanding these tradeoffs is particularly important as new alternative payment models push patients toward lower-cost settings for care. OBJECTIVE To investigate the association of patient outcomes and Medicare costs of discharge to home with home health care vs discharge to a skilled nursing facility. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A retrospective cohort study used Medicare claims data from short-term acute-care hospitals in the United States and skilled nursing facility and home health assessment data from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2016, on Medicare beneficiaries who were discharged from the hospital to home with home health care or to a skilled nursing facility. To address the endogeneity of treatment choice, an instrumental variables approach used the differential distance between the beneficiary's home zip code and the closest home health agency and the closest skilled nursing facility as an instrument. EXPOSURES Receipt of postacute care at home vs in a skilled nursing facility. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Readmission within 30 days of hospital discharge, death within 30 days of hospital discharge, improvement in functional status during the postacute care episode, and Medicare payment for postacute care and total payment for the 60-day episode. RESULTS A total of 17 235 854 hospitalizations (62.2% women and 37.8% men; mean [SD] age, 80.5 [7.9] years) were discharged either to home with home health care (38.8%) or to a skilled nursing facility (61.2%) during the study period. Discharge to home was associated with a 5.6-percentage point higher rate of readmission at 30 days compared with discharge to a skilled nursing facility (95% CI, 0.8-10.3; P = .02). There were no significant differences in 30-day mortality rates (−2.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.8-10.3; P = .12) or improved functional status (−1.9 percentage points; 95% CI,-12.0 to 8.2; P = .71). Medicare payment for postacute care was significantly lower for those discharged to home compared with those discharged to a skilled nursing facility

Objective. To assess longitudinally whether a change in registered nurse (RN) staffing and skill mix leads to a change in nursing home resident outcomes while controlling for the potential endogeneity of staffing. Data Sources. Minimum Data Set (MDS) nursing home resident assessment data from five states merged with Online Survey Certification and Reporting (OSCAR) data from 1996 through 2000. Study Design. Resident-level longitudinal analysis with facility fixed effects and instrumental variables. Outcomes studied are incidence of pressure sores and urinary tract infections. RN staffing was measured as the care hours per resident-day and skill mix was measured as RN staffing hours as a proportion of total staffing hours. Data Extraction Method. We use all quarterly MDS assessments that fall within 120 days of an annual OSCAR data point, resulting in 399,206 resident-level observations. Principal Findings. Controlling for endogeneity of staffing increases the estimated impact of staffing on outcomes in nursing homes. Greater RN staffing significantly decreases the likelihood of both adverse outcomes. Increasing skill mix only reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections. Conclusions. Research that fails to account for endogeneity of the staffing-outcomes relationship may underestimate the benefit from increased RN staffing. Increases in RN staffing are likely to reduce adverse outcomes in some nursing homes. More research using a broader array of instruments and a national sample would be beneficial.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Nursing homes have experienced a disproportionate share of COVID-19 cases and deaths. Early analyses indicated that baseline quality was not predictive of nursing home cases, but a more nuanced study of the role of nurse staffing is needed to target resources and better respond to future outbreaks. We sought to understand whether baseline nurse staffing is associated with the presence of COVID-19 in nursing homes and whether staffing impacts outbreak severity. DESIGN: We analyzed Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) facility-level data on COVID-19 cases and deaths merged with nursing home and county characteristics. We used logistic regressions to examine the associations of staffing levels from Nursing Home Compare with the outcomes of any COVID-19 cases and, conditional on at least one case, an outbreak. Among facilities with at least one case, we modeled count of deaths using hurdle negative binomial-2 regressions. SETTING: All nursing homes in the CMS COVID-19 Nursing Home Dataset with reports that passed the CMS Quality Assurance Check as of June 25, 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Residents of nursing homes that met COVID-19 reporting requirements. MEASUREMENTS: A nursing home is defined as having at least one case is if one or more confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case among residents or staff is reported. Conditional on at least one case, we examine two outcomes: an outbreak, defined as confirmed cases/certified beds >10% or total confirmed and suspected cases/beds >20% or >10 deaths, and the total number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 among residents and staff. RESULTS: A total of 71% of the 13,167 nursing homes that reported COVID-19 data as of June 14 had at least one case among residents and/or staff. Of those, 27% experienced an outbreak. Higher registered nurse-hours are associated with a higher probability of experiencing any cases. However, among facilities with at least one case, higher nurse aide (NA) hours and total nursing hours are associated with a lower probability of experiencing an outbreak and with fewer deaths. The strongest predictor of cases and outbreaks in nursing homes is per capita cases in the county. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of COVID-19 in the community remains the strongest predictor of COVID-19 cases and deaths in nursing homes, but higher NA hours and total nursing hours may help contain the number of cases and deaths.

Hospital spending represents approximately one third of total national health spending, and the majority of hospital spending is by public payers. Elderly individuals with long-term care needs are at particular risk for hospitalization. While some hospitalizations are unavoidable, many are not, and there may be benefits to reducing hospitalizations in terms of health and cost. This article reviews the evidence from 55 peer-reviewed articles on interventions that potentially reduce hospitalizations from formal long-term care settings. The interventions showing the strongest potential are those that increase skilled staffing, especially through physician assistants and nurse practitioners; improve the hospital-to-home transition; substitute home health care for selected hospital admissions; and align reimbursement policies such that providers do not have a financial incentive to hospitalize. Much of the evidence is weak and could benefit from improved research design and methodology.

Medicare's PPS system and associated rate cuts for SNFs have had a negative effect on staffing and regulatory compliance. Further research is necessary to determine whether these changes are associated with worse outcomes. Findings from this investigation could help guide policy modifications that support the provision of quality nursing home care.

Very little is known about rank-and-file physicians' views on pay-for-performance (P4P) and public reporting. In a national survey of general internists, we found strong potential support for financial incentives for quality, but less support for public reporting. Large majorities of respondents stated that these programs will result in physicians' avoiding high-risk patients and will divert attention from important types of care for which quality is not measured. Public and private policymakers might avoid a physician backlash and better succeed at improving health care quality if they consider these concerns when designing P4P and public reporting programs.

No abstract

Objective. The impact of quality improvement incentives on nontargeted care is unknown and some have expressed concern that such incentives may be harmful to nontargeted areas of care. Our objective is to examine the effect of publicly reporting quality information on unreported quality of care. Data Sources/Study Setting. The nursing home Minimum Data Set from 1999 to 2005 on all postacute care admissions. Study Design. We studied 13,683 skilled nursing facilities and examined how unreported aspects of clinical care changed in response to changes in reported care after public reporting was initiated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on their website, Nursing Home Compare, in 2002. Principal Findings. We find that overall both unreported and reported care improved following the launch of public reporting. Improvements in unreported care were particularly large among facilities with high scores or that significantly improved on reported measures, whereas low‐scoring facilities experienced no change or worsening of their unreported quality of care. Conclusions. Public reporting in the setting of postacute care had mixed effects on areas without public reporting, improving in high‐ranking facilities, but worsening in low‐ranking facilities. While the benefits of public reporting may extend beyond areas that are being directly measured, these initiatives may also widen the gap between high‐ and low‐quality facilities.