Advertisement

A Retrospective Study of Administrative Data to Identify High-Need Medicare Beneficiaries at Risk of Dying and Being Hospitalized

  • Emmanuelle BélangerEmail author
  • Benjamin Silver
  • David J. Meyers
  • Momotazur Rahman
  • Amit Kumar
  • Cyrus Kosar
  • Vincent Mor
Original Research

Abstract

Background

Developing a definition of what constitutes high need among Medicare beneficiaries using administrative data is an important prerequisite to evaluating value-based payment reforms. While various definitions of high need exist, their predictive validity for different patient outcomes in the following year has not been systematically assessed for both fee-for-service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries.

Objective

To develop a definition of high need using administrative data in 2014 and to examine its predictive validity for patient outcomes in 2015 as compared to alternative definitions for both FFS and MA beneficiaries.

Design

Retrospective cohort study of national Medicare claims and post-acute assessment data.

Participants

All Medicare beneficiaries in 2014 who survived until the end of the year (n = 54,717,039).

Main Measures

Two or more complex conditions, 6 or more chronic conditions, acute or post-acute health services utilization, indicators of frailty, complete dependency in mobility or in any activities of daily living in post-acute care assessments, hospitalization, mortality, days in community, Medicare expenditures.

Key Results

Based on our definition of high-need patients, 13.17% of FFS and 8.85% of MA beneficiaries were identified as high need in 2014. High-need FFS patients had mortality rates 7.1 times higher (16.23% vs. 2.27%) and hospitalization rates 3.4 times higher (40.69 vs. 12.03) in 2015 compared to other beneficiaries. Competing high-need definitions all had good specificity (≥ 0.88). Having 3 or more Hierarchical Chronic Conditions yielded a good positive predictive value for hospitalization, at 0.50, but only identified 19.71% of FFS beneficiaries hospitalized and 28.46% of FFS decedents that year as high need, as opposed to 33.92% and 51.98% for the new definition. Results were similar for MA beneficiaries.

Conclusions

The proposed high-need definition has better sensitivity and yields a sample of almost 5 million FFS and 1.5 million MA beneficiaries, facilitating outcome performance comparisons across health systems.

KEY WORDS

Medicare hospitalization mortality health services Need 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Contributors

The authors would also like to thank Nina Joyce, PhD for her help with statistical programming.

Funders

This work was supported by a research grant from the Peterson Center on Healthcare.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Emmanuelle Belanger declares no conflicts of interest.

Benjamin Silver declares no conflicts of interest.

David J. Meyers declares no conflicts of interest.

Momotazur Rahman declares no conflicts of interest.

Amit Kumar declares no conflicts of interest.

Cyrus Kosar declares no conflicts of interest.

Vincent Mor is Chair of the Independent Quality Committee at HCR Manor Care, and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Board and consultant at NaviHealth, Inc., as well as former Director of PointRight, Inc., where he holds less than 1% equity.

Supplementary material

11606_2018_4781_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Cohen SB. Statistical brief #455: the concentration of health care expenditures and related expenses for costly medical conditions, 2012. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality website. https://meps.ahrq.gov/data_files/publications/st455/stat455.pdf. Published October 2014. Accessed 15 October 2017.
  2. 2.
    Dhruv K. The high price of failing America’s costliest patients. The New York Times. 2017 Sep 28. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/upshot/the-high-price-of-failing-americas-costliest-patients.html. Accessed 15 October 2017.
  3. 3.
    Anderson GF, Ballreich J, Bleich S, Boyd C, DuGoff E, Leff B, Salzburg C, Wolff J. Attributes common to programs that successfully treat high-need, high-cost individuals. Am J Manage Care. 2015;21(11):e597–600.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blumenthal D, Chernof B, Fulmer T, Lumpkin J, Selberg J. Caring for high-need, high-cost patients - an urgent priority. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(10):909–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hayes SL, Salzberg CA, McCarthy D, Radley DC, Abrams MK, Shah T, Anderson GF. High-need, high-cost patients: who are they and how do they use health care? A population-based comparison of demographics, health care use, and expenditures. The Commonwealth Fund, Issue Brief. 2016 Aug;26:1–14. Available from: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2016/aug/high-need-high-cost-patients-meps1. Accessed 23 November 2017.
  6. 6.
    Joynt KE, Figueroa JF, Beaulieu N, Wild RC, Orav EJ, Jha AK. Segmenting high-cost Medicare patients into potentially actionable cohorts. Healthc. 2017;5(1–2):62–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Evaluation of the CMS-HCC Risk Adjustment Model, Final Report. 2011 Mar 29;:1–127. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Health-Plans/MedicareAdvtgSpecRateStats/downloads/Evaluation_Risk_Adj_Model_2011.pdf. Accessed 15 October 2017.
  8. 8.
    Colla CH, Lewis VA, Kao L-S, O'Malley AJ, Chang C-H, Fisher ES. Association between Medicare Accountable Care Organization implementation and spending among clinically vulnerable beneficiaries. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(8):1167–75. Accessed 15 October 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare’s post-acute care: Trends and ways to rationalize payments. 2015 Mar 5;:1–14. Available from: http://www.medpac.gov/docs/default-source/reports/chapter-7-medicare-s-post-acute-care-trends-and-ways-to-rationalize-payments-march-2015-report-.pdf. Accessed 15 October 2017.
  10. 10.
    Jacobson G, Damico A, Neuman T, Gold M. Medicare Advantage 2017 Spotlight: Enrollment Market Update. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Issue Brief. 2017 6:1–23. Available from: http://files.kff.org/attachment/Issue-Brief-Medicare-Advantage-2017-Spotlight-Enrollment-Market-Update. Accessed 15 October 2017.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Accountable Care Organization 2015 Program Analysis Quality Performance Standards Narrative Measure Specifications. 2015 Jan 5;:1–39. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/medicare/medicare-fee-for-service-payment/sharedsavingsprogram/downloads/ry2015-narrative-specifications.pdf. Accessed 15 October 2017.
  12. 12.
    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2015 measure information about the 30-day all-cause hospital readmission measure. 2017 Mar 15;1–26 Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeedbackProgram/Downloads/2015-ACR-MIF.pdf. Accessed 23 November 2017.
  13. 13.
    Figueroa JF, Joynt Maddox KE, Beaulieu N, Wild RC, Jha AK. Concentration of potentially preventable spending among high-cost Medicare subpopulations: an observational study. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(10):706–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beaulieu ND, Joynt KE, Wild R, Jha AK. Concentration of high-cost patients in hospitals and markets. Am J Manag Care. 2017;23(4):233–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kumar A, Karmarkar AM, Graham JE, Resnik L, Tan A, Deutsch A, et al. Comorbidity indices versus function as potential predictors of 30-day readmission in older patients following postacute rehabilitation. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2017;72(2):223–8.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36(1):8–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Charlson ME, Charlson RE, Peterson JC, Marinopoulos SS, Briggs WM, Hollenberg JP. The Charlson comorbidity index is adapted to predict costs of chronic disease in primary care patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(12):1234–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sharabiani MTA, Aylin P, Bottle A. Systematic review of comorbidity indices for administrative data. Med Care. 2012;50(12):1109–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huckfeldt PJ, Escarce JJ, Rabideau B, Karaca-Mandic P, Sood N. Less intense postacute care, better outcomes for enrollees in Medicare Advantage than those in Fee-For-Service. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(1):91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McWilliams JM, Schwartz AL. Focusing on high-cost patients — the key to addressing high costs? N Engl J Med. 2017;376(9):807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Blumenthal D, Anderson G, Burke SP, Fulmer T, Jha A K, Long P. Tailoring complex-care management, coordination, and integration for high-need, high-cost patients. 2016. Discussion Paper, National Academy of Medicine, Washington, DC. Available from: https://nam.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/tailoring-complex-care-management-coordination-and-integration-for-high-need-high-cost-patients.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2017.

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emmanuelle Bélanger
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Benjamin Silver
    • 1
    • 3
  • David J. Meyers
    • 2
  • Momotazur Rahman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Amit Kumar
    • 4
  • Cyrus Kosar
    • 2
  • Vincent Mor
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  1. 1.Center for Gerontology and Healthcare Research, School of Public HealthBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice, School of Public HealthBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  3. 3.RTI InternationalWaltham, MAUSA
  4. 4.College of Health and Human ServicesNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  5. 5.U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical CenterProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations