Association of Patient Social, Cognitive, and Functional Risk Factors with Preventable Hospitalizations: Implications for Physician Value-Based Payment
Ambulatory care-sensitive condition (ACSC) hospitalizations are used to evaluate physicians’ performance in Medicare value-based payment programs. However, these measures may disadvantage physicians caring for vulnerable populations because they omit social, cognitive, and functional factors that may be important determinants of hospitalization.
To determine whether social, cognitive, and functional risk factors are associated with ACSC hospitalization rates and whether adjusting for them changes outpatient safety-net providers’ performance.
Using data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, we conducted patient-level multivariable regression to estimate the association (as incidence rate ratios (IRRs)) between patient-reported social, cognitive, and functional risk factors and ACSC hospitalizations. We compared outpatient safety-net and non-safety-net providers’ performance after adjusting for clinical comorbidities alone and after additional adjustment for social, cognitive, and functional factors captured in survey data.
Safety-net and non-safety-net clinics.
Community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries contributing 38,616 person-years from 2006 to 2013.
Acute and chronic ACSC hospitalizations.
After adjusting for clinical comorbidities, Alzheimer’s/dementia (IRR 1.30, 95% CI 1.02–1.65), difficulty with 3–6 activities of daily living (ADLs) (IRR 1.43, 95% CI 1.05–1.94), difficulty with 1–2 instrumental ADLs (IADLs, IRR 1.54, 95% CI 1.26–1.90), and 3–6 IADLs (IRR 1.90, 95% CI 1.49–2.43) were associated with acute ACSC hospitalization. Low income (IRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03–1.58), lack of educational attainment (IRR 1.33, 95% CI 1.04–1.69), being unmarried (IRR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01–1.36), difficulty with 1–2 IADLs (IRR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05–1.60), and 3–6 IADLs (IRR 1.44, 95% CI 1.16–1.80) were associated with chronic ACSC hospitalization. Adding these factors to standard Medicare risk adjustment eliminated outpatient safety-net providers’ performance gap (p < .05) on ACSC hospitalization rates relative to non-safety-net providers.
Social, cognitive, and functional risk factors are independently associated with ACSC hospitalizations. Failure to account for them may penalize outpatient safety-net providers for factors that are beyond their control.
KEY WORDSphysician value-based payment Medicare safety-net providers
We thank Julia Clarke of Saint Louis University for providing assistance on the literature review.
Saint Louis University purchased and provided access to the data used in this study. Dr. Joynt Maddox is supported by K23-HL109177-03 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI).
Dr. Johnston had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design: all authors.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: all authors.
Drafting of the manuscript: all authors.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: all authors.
Statistical analysis: Johnston.
Obtained funding: Johnston.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Johnston.
Study supervision: all authors.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This study was approved by the Saint Louis University Institutional Review Board.
Conflict of Interest
Dr. Joynt Maddox does work under contract with the US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. All remaining authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.
Role of the Sponsor
Neither Saint Louis University nor the NHLBI had any role in the design and conduct of the study; analysis or interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
- 3.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Guide to prevention quality indicators: hospital admission for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. In: AHRQ Quality Indicators. Vol Version 3. Department of Health and Human Services; 2007:1–59.Google Scholar
- 5.Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Quality and Cost Measures Used in the Value Modifier. Value-Based Paym Modif. 2018. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeedbackProgram/ValueBasedPaymentModifier.html. Accessed January 16, 2019.
- 6.Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Accountable Care Organization 2018 Quality Measures. Medicare Shar Savings Progr. 2018. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/sharedsavingsprogram/Downloads/2018-reporting-year-narrative-specifications.pdf. Accessed January 16, 2019.
- 7.Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System: MIPS Scoring Methodology Overview. 2018.Google Scholar
- 8.Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 2016 Measure Information About the Per Capita Costs for All Attributed Beneficiaries Measure, Calculated for the 2018 Value-Based Payment Modifier Program. 2017:1–8. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeedbackProgram/Downloads/2016-TPCC-MIF.pdf. Accessed January 16, 2019.
- 14.Fong TG, Jones RN, Marcantonio ER, et al. Adverse Outcomes After Hospitalization and Delirium in Persons With Alzheimer Disease. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(12):848. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-156-12-201206190-00005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 20.Andrulis DP, Siddiqui NJ. Health Reform Holds Both Risks And Rewards For Safety-Net Providers And Racially And Ethnically Diverse Patients. 2011;10(10):1830–1836. doi: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0661.
- 21.Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Technical Documentation for the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. In: Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey Data Tables. Vol ; 2009:1–12.Google Scholar
- 22.CMS Chronic Condition Warehouse. 27 Chronic Condition Algorithms. 2016. https://www.ccwdata.org/web/guest/condition-categories. Accessed January 16, 2019.
- 25.Ivanova JI, Mytelka DS, Duh MS, et al. Evaluating the utility of existing patient-reported outcome scales in novel patient populations with pancreatic cancer, lung cancer, and myeloproliferative neoplasms using medicare current beneficiary survey data. Patient. 2013;6(3):189–200. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-013-0018-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 26.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Prevention Quality Indicators (PQI) Composite Measure Workgroup Final Report. Agency Healthc Res Qual Qual Indic (AHRQ QI). 2006:1–29. http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/Downloads/Modules/PQI/PQI_Composite_Development.pdf. Accessed January 16, 2019.
- 27.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Prevention Quality Indicators (PQI) Composite Measure Workgroup Final Report. Agency Healthc Res Qual Qual Indic (AHRQ QI). 2006:1–29.Google Scholar
- 30.Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Report to Congress: Social Risk Factors and Performance Under Medicare’s Value-Based Payment Programs. 2016. https://aspe.hhs.gov/pdf-report/report-congress-social-risk-factors-and-performance-under-medicares-value-based-purchasing-programs. Accessed January 16, 2019.
- 32.Chen LM, Epstein AM, Orav EJ, Filice CE, Samson LW, Joynt Maddox KE. Association of Practice-Level Social and Medical Risk With Performance in the Medicare Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier Program. JAMA. 2017;318(5):453. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.9643.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 35.National Academy of Medicine. Effective Care for High-Need Patients. A Spec Publ from Natl Acad Med. 2017:1-213. https://nam.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Effective-Care-for-High-Need-Patients.pdf. Accessed January 16, 2019.