Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To determine the feasibility of integrating Medicare Advantage (MA) admissions into the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) hospital outcome measures through combining Medicare Advantage Organization (MAO) encounter- and hospital-submitted inpatient claims. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING/METHODS:Beneficiary enrollment data and inpatient claims from the Integrated Data Repository for 2018 Medicare discharges. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:We examined timeliness of MA claims, compared diagnosis and procedure codes for admissions with claims submitted both by the hospital and the MAO (overlapping claims), and compared demographic characteristics and principal diagnosis codes for admissions with overlapping claims versus admissions with a single claim. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS/METHODS:We combined hospital- and MAO-submitted claims to capture MA admissions from all hospitals and identified overlapping claims. For admissions with only an MAO-submitted claim, we used provider history data to match the National Provider Identifier on the claim to the CMS Certification Number used for reporting purposes in CMS outcome measures. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS/RESULTS:After removing void and duplicate claims, identifying overlapped claims between the hospital- and MAO-submitted datasets, restricting claims to acute care and critical access hospitals, and bundling same admission claims, we identified 5,078,611 MA admissions. Of these, 76.1% were submitted by both the hospital and MAO, 14.2% were submitted only by MAOs, and 9.7% were submitted only by hospitals. Nearly all (96.6%) hospital-submitted claims were submitted within 3 months after a one-year performance period, versus 85.2% of MAO-submitted claims. Among the 3,864,524 admissions with overlapping claims, 98.9% shared the same principal diagnosis code between the two datasets, and 97.5% shared the same first procedure code. CONCLUSIONS:Inpatient MA data are feasible for use in CMS claims-based hospital outcome measures. We recommend prioritizing hospital-submitted over MAO-submitted claims for analyses. Monitoring, data audits, and ongoing policies to improve the quality of MA data are important approaches to address potential missing data and errors.

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:The authors sought to assess why patients use out-of-network health care providers and whether patients' reasons differ for mental and general medical health providers. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:In a national Internet survey of commercial plan enrollees (N=713) who used an out-of-network provider, participants indicated whether 12 reasons were "important" (vs. "not applicable" or "not important") in their decision to see an out-of-network provider. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Reasons for using out-of-network care were multifactorial. Six reasons were similarly important, including the three most-cited reasons: convenient location (66% vs. 69% for mental vs. general medical health, respectively), higher quality (65% vs. 69%), and affordability (70% vs. 71%). Reasons more commonly cited for using out-of-network mental health care were that in-network providers were not taking new patients (34% vs. 24%), confidentiality (33% vs. 19%), cultural competence (33% vs. 23%), and inaccurate in-network provider directories (30% vs. 22%). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:The most common reasons for using out-of-network care were cited with similar frequency for both mental health and general medical health providers.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment is rapidly expanding, yet Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) claims-based hospital outcome measures, including readmission rates, have historically included only fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To assess the outcomes of incorporating MA data into the CMS claims-based FFS Hospital-Wide All-Cause Unplanned Readmission (HWR) measure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:This cohort study assessed differences in 30-day unadjusted readmission rates and demographic and risk adjustment variables for MA vs FFS admissions. Inpatient FFS and MA administrative claims data were extracted from the Integrated Data Repository for all admissions for Medicare beneficiaries from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019. Measure reliability and risk-standardized readmission rates were calculated for the FFS and MA cohort vs the FFS-only cohort, overall and within specialty subgroups (cardiorespiratory, cardiovascular, medicine, surgery, neurology), then changes in hospital performance quintiles were assessed after adding MA admissions. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE/UNASSIGNED:Risk-standardized readmission rates. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:The cohort included 11 029 470 admissions (4 077 633 [37.0%] MA; 6 044 060 [54.8%] female; mean [SD] age, 77.7 [8.2] years). Unadjusted readmission rates were slightly higher for MA vs FFS admissions (15.7% vs 15.4%), yet comorbidities were generally lower among MA beneficiaries. Test-retest reliability for the FFS and MA cohort was higher than for the FFS-only cohort (0.78 vs 0.73) and signal-to-noise reliability increased in each specialty subgroup. Mean hospital risk-standardized readmission rates were similar for the FFS and MA cohort and FFS-only cohorts (15.5% vs 15.3%); this trend was consistent across the 5 specialty subgroups. After adding MA admissions to the FFS-only HWR measure, 1489 hospitals (33.1%) had their performance quintile ranking changed. As their proportion of MA admissions increased, more hospitals experienced a change in their performance quintile ranking (147 hospitals [16.3%] in the lowest quintile of percentage MA admissions; 408 [45.3%] in the highest). The combined cohort added 63 hospitals eligible for public reporting and more than 4 million admissions to the measure. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:In this cohort study, adding MA admissions to the HWR measure was associated with improved measure reliability and precision and enabled the inclusion of more hospitals and beneficiaries. After MA admissions were included, 1 in 3 hospitals had their performance quintile changed, with the greatest shifts among hospitals with a high percentage of MA admissions.

BACKGROUND:Financial distress is a barrier to cessation among low-income smokers. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate an intervention that integrated financial coaching and benefits referrals into a smoking cessation program for low-income smokers. DESIGN/METHODS:Randomized waitlist control trial conducted from 2017 to 2019. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Adult New York City residents were eligible if they reported past 30-day cigarette smoking, had income below 200% of the federal poverty level, spoke English or Spanish, and managed their own funds. Pregnant or breastfeeding people were excluded. Participants were recruited from two medical centers and from the community. INTERVENTION/METHODS:The intervention (n = 208) offered smoking cessation coaching, nicotine replacement therapy, money management coaching, and referral to financial benefits and empowerment services. The waitlist control (n=202) was usual care during a 6-month waiting period. MAIN MEASURES/METHODS:Treatment engagement, self-reported 7-day abstinence, and financial stress at 6 months. KEY RESULTS/RESULTS:At 6 months, intervention participants reported higher abstinence (17% vs. 9%, P=0.03), lower stress about finances (β, -0.8 [SE, 0.4], P=0.02), and reduced frequency of being unable to afford activities (β, -0.8 [SE, 0.4], P=0.04). Outcomes were stronger among participants recruited from the medical centers (versus from the community). Among medical center participants, the intervention was associated with higher abstinence (20% vs. 8%, P=0.01), higher satisfaction with present financial situation (β, 1.0 [SE, 0.4], P=0.01), reduced frequency of being unable to afford activities (β, -1.0 [SE, 0.5], P=0.04), reduced frequency in getting by paycheck-to-paycheck (β, -1.0 [SE, 0.4], P=0.03), and lower stress about finances in general (β, -1.0 [SE, 0.4], P = 0.02). There were no group differences in outcomes among people recruited from the community (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Among low-income smokers recruited from medical centers, the intervention produced higher abstinence rates and reductions in some markers of financial distress than usual care. The intervention was not efficacious with people recruited from the community. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03187730.

BACKGROUND:Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has become a prevalent mode of breast cancer screening in recent years. Although older women are commonly screened for breast cancer, little is known about screening outcomes using DBT among older women. OBJECTIVE:To assess proximal screening outcomes with DBT compared to traditional two-dimensional(2-D) mammography among women 67-74 and women 75 and older. DESIGN/METHODS:Cohort study. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 67 years and older with no history of prior cancer who received a screening mammogram in 2015. MAIN MEASURES/METHODS:Use of subsequent imaging (ultrasound and diagnostic mammography) as an indication of recall, breast cancer detection, and characteristics of breast cancer at the time of diagnosis. Analyses used weighted logistic regression to adjust for potential confounders. KEY RESULTS/RESULTS:Our study included 26,406 women aged 67-74 and 17,001 women 75 and older who were screened for breast cancer. Among women 75 and older, the rate of subsequent imaging among women screened with DBT did not differ significantly from 2-D mammography (91.8 versus 97.0 per 1,000 screening mammograms, p=0.37). In this age group, DBT was associated with 2.1 additional cancers detected per 1,000 screening mammograms compared to 2D (11.5 versus 9.4, p=0.003), though these additional cancers were almost exclusively in situ and stage I invasive cancers. For women 67-74 years old, DBT was associated with a higher rate of subsequent imaging than 2-D mammography (113.9 versus 100.3, p=0.004) and a higher rate of stage I invasive cancer detection (4.7 versus 3.7, p=0.002), but not other stages. CONCLUSIONS:Breast cancer screening with DBT was not associated with lower rates of subsequent imaging among older women. Most additional cancers detected with DBT were early stage. Whether detecting these additional early-stage cancers among older women improves health outcomes remains uncertain.

BACKGROUND:Broad consensus supports the use of primary care to address unmet need for mental health treatment. OBJECTIVE:To better understand whether primary care filled the gap when individuals were unable to access specialty mental health care. DESIGN/METHODS:2018 mixed methods study with a national US internet survey (completion rate 66%) and follow-up interviews. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Privately insured English-speaking adults ages 18-64 reporting serious psychological distress that used an outpatient mental health provider in the last year or attempted to use a mental health provider but did not ultimately use specialty services (N = 428). Follow-up interviews were conducted with 30 survey respondents. MAIN MEASURES/METHODS:Whether survey respondents obtained mental health care from their primary care provider (PCP), and if so, the rating of that care on a 1 to 10 scale, with ratings of 9 or 10 considered highly rated. Interviews explored patient-reported barriers and facilitators to engagement and satisfaction with care provided by PCPs. KEY RESULTS/RESULTS:Of the 22% that reported they tried to but did not access specialty mental health care, 53% reported receiving mental health care from a PCP. Respondents receiving care only from their PCP were less likely to rate their PCP care highly (21% versus 48%; p = 0.01). Interviewees reported experiences with PCP-provided mental health care related to three major themes: PCP engagement, relationship with the PCP, and PCP role. CONCLUSIONS:Primary care is partially filling the gap for mental health treatment when specialty care is not available. Patient experiences reinforce the need for screening and follow-up in primary care, clinician training, and referral to a trusted specialty consultant when needed.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a breast cancer screening modality that has gained popularity in recent years. Although insurance coverage for DBT is not mandated under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, several states have required coverage without cost sharing for private insurers. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate the association between state-level insurance coverage mandates for DBT and changes in DBT use, price, and out-of-pocket payments. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This cohort study used an event-study design with repeated cross-sectional observations of US states. Data were obtained from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis database for commercially insured women aged 40 to 64 years who underwent screening mammography between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019. Data were analyzed between January 14, 2021, and January 20, 2022. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Passage of state-level legislation requiring insurance coverage of DBT. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Change in DBT use among women screened for breast cancer, overall DBT price, and out-of-pocket payments for DBT in states with mandates for coverage of DBT compared with states that did not pass legislation. Results/UNASSIGNED:This study included 9 604 084 screening mammograms from 5 754 123 women (mean [SD] age, of 53 [6.7] years). During the study period, 15 states enacted DBT coverage mandates and 34 states did not. In states with coverage mandates, DBT use increased by 9.0 percentage points (95% CI, 1.8-16.3 percentage points; P = .02) 2 years after the mandate compared with states without coverage mandates. Coverage mandates were also associated with a net $38.7 (95% CI, $13.4-$63.9; P = .003) decrease in the mean price of DBT compared with no coverage mandates. There was no association between coverage mandates and out-of-pocket payments 2 years after mandate passage ($-2.1; 95% CI, $-5.3 to $1.0; P = .18). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:In this cohort study, DBT coverage mandates were associated with an increase in DBT use but not with any change in out-of-pocket payments. The findings suggest that coverage mandates for DBT may have been associated with broader use but were not associated with changes in direct costs to patients.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Early or mid-career physicians have few opportunities to participate in career development programs in health policy and advocacy with experiential and mentored training that can be incorporated into their busy lives. AIM/OBJECTIVE:The Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) created the Leadership in Health Policy (LEAHP) program, a year-long career development program, to prepare participants with a sufficient depth of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors to continue to build mastery and effectiveness as leaders, advocates, and educators in health policy. We sought to evaluate the program's impact on participants' self-efficacy in the core skills targeted in the curriculum. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Fifty-five junior faculty and trainees across three scholar cohorts from 2017 to 2021. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/METHODS:Activities included workshops and exercises at an annual meeting, one-on-one mentorship, monthly webinars and journal clubs, interaction with policy makers, and completion of capstone projects. PROGRAM EVALUATION/RESULTS:Self-administered, electronic surveys conducted before and following the year-long program showed a significant improvement in mean self-efficacy scores for the total score and for each of the six domains in general knowledge, teaching, research, and advocacy in health policy. Compared to the baseline scores, after the program the total mean score increased from 3.1 to 4.1, an increase of 1.1 points on a 5-point Likert scale (95% CI: 0.9-1.3; Cohen's D: 1.7), with 61.4% of respondents increasing their mean score by at least 1 point. Responses to open-ended questions indicated that the program met scholars' stated needs to improve their knowledge base in health policy and advocacy skills. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:The LEAHP program provides an opportunity for mentored, experiential training in health policy and advocacy, can build the knowledge and amplify the scale of physicians engaged in health policy, and help move physicians from individual patient advocacy in the clinic to that of populations.

BACKGROUND:Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) may have a higher cancer detection rate and lower recall compared with 2-dimensional (2 D) mammography for breast cancer screening. The goal of this study was to evaluate screening outcomes with DBT in a real-world cohort and to characterize the population health impact of DBT as it is widely adopted. METHODS:This observational study evaluated breast cancer screening outcomes among women screened with 2 D mammography vs DBT. We used deidentified administrative data from a large private health insurer and included women aged 40-64 years screened between January 2015 and December 2017. Outcomes included recall, biopsy, and incident cancers detected. We used 2 complementary techniques: a patient-level analysis using multivariable logistic regression and an area-level analysis evaluating the relationship between population-level adoption of DBT use and outcomes. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS:Our sample included 7 602 869 mammograms in 4 580 698 women, 27.5% of whom received DBT. DBT was associated with modestly lower recall compared with 2 D mammography (113.6 recalls per 1000 screens, 99% confidence interval [CI] = 113.0 to 114.2 vs 115.4, 99% CI = 115.0 to 115.8, P < .001), although younger women aged 40-44 years had a larger reduction in recall (153 recalls per 1000 screens, 99% CI = 151 to 155 vs 164 recalls per 1000 screens, 99% CI = 163 to 166, P < .001). DBT was associated with higher biopsy rates than 2 D mammography (19.6 biopsies per 1000 screens, 99% CI = 19.3 to 19.8 vs 15.2, 99% CI = 15.1 to 15.4, P < .001) and a higher cancer detection rate (4.9 incident cancers per 1000 screens, 99% CI = 4.7 to 5.0 vs 3.8, 99% CI = 3.7 to 3.9, P < .001). Point estimates from the area-level analysis generally supported these findings. CONCLUSIONS:In a large population of privately insured women, DBT was associated with a slightly lower recall rate than 2 D mammography and a higher cancer detection rate. Whether this increased cancer detection improves clinical outcomes remains unknown.