Association Between Hospital Participation in a Medicare Bundled Payment Initiative and Payments and Quality Outcomes for Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Episodes

Abstract

IMPORTANCE Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) is a voluntary initiative of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to test the effect of holding an entity accountable for all services provided during an episode of care on episode payments and quality of care. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether BPCI was associated with a greater reduction in Medicare payments without loss of quality of care for lower extremity joint (primarily hip and knee) replacement episodes initiated in BPCI-participating hospitals that are accountable for total episode payments (for the hospitalization and Medicare-covered services during the 90 days after discharge). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A difference-indifferences approach estimated the differential change in outcomes for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who had a lower extremity joint replacement at a BPCI-participating hospital between the baseline (October 2011 through September 2012) and intervention (October 2013 through June 2015) periods and beneficiaries with the same surgical procedure at matched comparison hospitals. EXPOSURE Lower extremity joint replacement at a BPCI-participating hospital. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Standardized Medicare-allowed payments (Medicare payments), utilization, and quality (unplanned readmissions, emergency department visits, and mortality) during hospitalization and the 90-day postdischarge period. RESULTS There were 29 441 lower extremity joint replacement episodes in the baseline period and 31 700 in the intervention period (mean [SD] age, 74.1 [8.89] years; 65.2% women) at 176 BPCI-participating hospitals, compared with 29 440 episodes in the baseline period (768 hospitals) and 31 696 episodes in the intervention period (841 hospitals

Red-State Medicaid Expansions — Achilles’ Heel of ACA Repeal?

“…Evaluations of the first two years of the Pioneer ACO model found broadly similar results: improvements on some measures of quality performance, with no evidence of adverse effects on others (McWilliams et al 2015;Nyweide et al 2015). Similarly, evidence from the first two years of CMMI's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative, found that the savings achieved under that initiative came at no cost in terms of quality of care (Dummit et al 2016). This evidence implies that APMs will be successful in improving the overall value of the care delivered, not just in reducing spending.…”

“…32 The lower bound of this range reflects the White (2013) that ACOs have reduced annual spending for aligned beneficiaries by 0 to 3 percent, with early evidence suggesting that ACOs start at the bottom of that range and move toward the top as they gain experience (McWilliams et al 2016;McWilliams 2016). Research examining the first two years of CMMI's smaller Pioneer ACO model found savings of a broadly similar magnitude (Nyweide et al 2015;McWilliams et al 2015), while evidence from the first two years of CMMI's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative, CMMI's largest bundled payment program, found savings of around 4 percent of episode spending among participating hospitals relative to non-participating hospitals (Dummit et al 2016). …”

Design and impact of bundled payment for detox and follow-up care

“…Bundled payment for surgical procedures has been found to reduce costs without decreasing quality (Dummit, Kahvecioglu, Marrufo, & et al, 2016) and reduce inpatient costs, readmissions, and length of stay (Iorio et al). Bundled payment implementation (Hussey, Ridgely, & Rosenthal, 2011; Ridgely, De Vries, Bozic, & Hussey, 2014) and the design of bundled payment models for chronic care (O’Byrne et al, 2013) has been challenging, though a bundled payment for diabetes care in the Netherlands did lead to improved care coordination (de Bakker et al, 2012).…”

Trends in Post–Acute Care Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries: 2000 to 2015

“…3 The expense of post–acute care may diminish its use under cost-containment incentives. 4 Alternatively, pressure to reduce costs by reducing unnecessary readmissions may encourage its use. Our objective was to document recent trends in use of institutional post–acute care (including the 2 most common sites: skilled nursing facilities [SNFs] and inpatient rehabilitation facilities [IRFs]) and, simultaneously, hospital and post–acute care length of stay.…”