14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Association of a Bundled Hospital-at-Home and 30-Day Postacute Transitional Care Program With Clinical Outcomes and Patient Experiences

      research-article
      , MD, MPH 1 , , MD, MPH 2 , , MD 1 , 3 , , MD 4 , , MD, MSPH 3 , 5 ,
      JAMA Internal Medicine
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This case-control study compares the patient outcomes and ratings of care between patients who received hospital-at-home care bundled with a 30-day postacute transitional care period vs traditional inpatient care.

          Key Points

          Question

          What is the association of providing hospital-at-home care bundled with a 30-day postacute period of home-based transitional care with clinical outcomes and patients’ experiences compared with traditional inpatient care?

          Findings

          This case-control study with 507 participants found that compared with patients receiving inpatient care, patients receiving hospital-at-home care had shorter length of stay; lower rates of 30-day hospital readmission, emergency department visits, and skilled nursing facility admissions; and better ratings of care. There were no differences in the rates of adverse events.

          Meaning

          Hospital-at-home care bundled with a 30-day episode of postacute transitional care may be a safe and effective alternative to inpatient care for some patients.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Hospital-at-home (HaH) care provides acute hospital-level care in a patient’s home as a substitute for traditional inpatient care. In September 2017, the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee recommended implementation of an alternative payment model for a new model of HaH that bundles the acute episode with 30 days of postacute transitional care.

          Objective

          To report outcomes of this new payment model for HaH care.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          Case-control study of HaH care patients with a concurrent control group of hospital inpatients recruited from emergency departments (EDs) and residences in New York City from November 18, 2014, to August 31, 2017. HaH patients were 18 years or older with fee-for-service Medicare and acute medical illness requiring inpatient-level care. Control patients met HaH eligibility but refused participation or were seen in the ED when a HaH admission could not be initiated.

          Exposures

          HaH care or inpatient care.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Primary outcomes were acute period length of stay (LOS), all-cause 30-day hospital readmissions and ED visits, admissions to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), referral to a certified home health care agency, and patient experiences with care. Analyses accounted for nonrandom selection using inverse probability weighting.

          Results

          Among the 507 patients enrolled (mean [SD] age, 74.6 [15.7] years; 68.6% women), data were available on all patients 30 days postdischarge. HaH patients (n = 295) were older than controls (n = 212) and more likely to have a preacute functional impairment. HaH patients had shorter LOS (3.2 days vs 5.5 days; difference, −2.3 days; 95% CI, −1.8 to −2.7 days; weighted P < .001); lower rates of readmissions (8.6% [25] vs 15.6% [32]; difference, −7.0%; 95% CI, −12.9% to −1.1%; weighted P < .001), ED revisits (5.8% [17] vs 11.7% [24]; difference, −5.9%; 95% CI, −11.0% to −0.7%; weighted P < .001), and SNF admissions (1.7% [5] vs 10.4% [22]; difference, −8.7%; 95% CI, −13.0% to −4.3%; weighted P < .001); and were also more likely to rate their hospital care highly (68.8% [119] vs 45.3% [67]; difference, 23.5%; 95% CI, 12.9% to 34.1%; weighted P < .001). There were no differences in referrals to certified home health agencies.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          HaH care bundled with a 30-day postacute transitional care episode was associated with better patient outcomes and ratings of care compared with inpatient hospitalization. This model warrants consideration for addition to Medicare’s current portfolio of shared savings programs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Using inverse probability-weighted estimators in comparative effectiveness analyses with observational databases.

          Inverse probability-weighted estimation is a powerful tool for use with observational data. In this article, we describe how this propensity score-based method can be used to compare the effectiveness of 2 or more treatments. First, we discuss the inherent problems in using observational data to assess comparative effectiveness. Next, we provide a conceptual explanation of inverse probability-weighted estimation and point readers to sources that address the method in more formal, technical terms. Finally, we offer detailed guidance about how to implement the estimators in comparative effectiveness analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Costs for 'hospital at home' patients were 19 percent lower, with equal or better outcomes compared to similar inpatients.

            Hospitals are the standard acute care venues in the United States, but hospital care is expensive and can pose health threats for older people. Albuquerque, New Mexico-based Presbyterian Healthcare Services adapted the Hospital at Home® model developed by the Johns Hopkins University Schools of Medicine and Public Health to provide acute hospital-level care within patients' homes. Patients show comparable or better clinical outcomes compared with similar inpatients, and they show higher satisfaction levels. Available to Medicare Advantage and Medicaid patients with common acute care diagnoses, this program achieved savings of 19 percent over costs for similar inpatients. These savings were predominantly derived from lower average length-of-stay and use of fewer lab and diagnostic tests compared with similar patients in hospital acute care. Hospital at Home advances the Triple Aim of clinical quality, affordability, and exceptional patient experience.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              A meta-analysis of “hospital in the home”

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Intern Med
                JAMA Intern Med
                JAMA Intern Med
                JAMA Internal Medicine
                American Medical Association
                2168-6106
                2168-6114
                25 June 2018
                August 2018
                25 June 2019
                : 178
                : 8
                : 1033-1040
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
                [2 ]Department of General Internal Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
                [3 ]Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
                [4 ]Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
                [5 ]James J. Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, New York
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Corresponding Author: Albert L. Siu, MD, MSPH, Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY 10029 ( albert.siu@ 123456mountsinai.org ).
                Accepted for Publication: April 23, 2018.
                Published Online: June 25, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.2562
                Author Contributions: Dr Federman had full access to all of 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: Federman, Soones, DeCherrie, Leff.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Federman, Soones.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Federman.
                Obtained funding: Leff, Siu.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Federman, Soones, DeCherrie.
                Study supervision: Federman, DeCherrie.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
                Funding/Support: Research reported in this publication was supported by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (1C1CMS331334-01-00), the National Institute on Aging, Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center (TS, 3P30AG028741), and The John A. Hartford Foundation. The Mobile Acute Care Team HaH clinical project described was supported by grant No. 1C1CMS331334 from the US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the US Department of Health and Human Services or any of its agencies. The research presented was conducted by the awardee.
                Additional Contributions: We thank Barbara Morano, MPH, LCSW; Ania Wajnberg, MD; Christian Escobar, MD; Joanna Jimenez Mejia, RN; Theresa Soriano, MD; Cameron Hernandez, MD; Ramiro Jervis, MD, HealthCare Partners, IPA; Janeen Marshall, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; and Gabriel Silversmith, MD, for their substantial contributions to development of the HaH program, as well as Sara Lubetsky, MS, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Abraham Brody, PhD, MSN, Rory Meyers College of Nursing, New York University; and Alicia Arbaje, MD, John Hopkins Medical Center for their contributions to study design, data collection, and data management. We also thank Juan Wisnivesky, MD, DrPH, and Li Chen, MPH, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai for assistance with data analysis. They received no compensation for their contributions.
                Article
                PMC6143103 PMC6143103 6143103 ioi180039
                10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.2562
                6143103
                29946693
                81fda3dc-9b1f-4ee6-b9a5-d11cc172d8f8
                Copyright 2018 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
                History
                : 19 March 2018
                : 20 April 2018
                : 23 April 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
                Funded by: National Institute on Aging, Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center
                Funded by: The John A. Hartford Foundation
                Funded by: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Featured
                Online First

                Comments

                Comment on this article