RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: In Medicare Advantage (MA) with its CMS Hierarchical Condition Categories (CMS-HCC) payment model, CMS reimburses private plans (Medicare Advantage Organizations [MAOs]) with prospective, monthly, health-based or risk-adjusted, capitated payments. The effect of this payment methodology on healthcare delivery remains debatable. How value-based contracting generates cost efficiencies and improves clinical outcomes in MA is studied. STUDY DESIGN: A difference in contracting arrangements between an MAO and 2 provider groups facilitated an intervention-control, preintervention-postintervention, difference-in-differences approach among statistically similar, elderly, community-dwelling MA enrollees within one metropolitan statistical area. METHODS: Starting in 2009, for intervention-group MA enrollees, the MAO and a provider group agreed to full-risk capitation combined with a revenue gainshare. The gainshare was based on increases in the Risk Adjustment Factor (RAF), which modified the CMS-HCC payments. For the control group, the MAO continued to reimburse another provider group through fee-for-service. RAF, utilization, and survival were followed until December 31, 2012. RESULTS: The intervention group's mean RAF increased significantly (P <.001), estimating $2,519,544 per 1000 members of additional revenue. The intervention increased office-based visits (P <.001). Emergency department visits (P <.001) and inpatient hospital admissions (P = .002) decreased. This change in utilization saved $2,071,293 per 1000 enrollees. By intensifying office-based care for these MA enrollees with multiple comorbidities, a 6% survival benefit with a 32.8% lower hazard of death (P <.001) was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: Value-based contracting can drive utilization patterns and improve clinical outcomes among chronically ill, elderly MA members.
Asunto(s)
Medicare Part C/economía , Compra Basada en Calidad , Anciano , Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. , Comorbilidad , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Planes de Aranceles por Servicios/economía , Gastos en Salud , Humanos , Ajuste de Riesgo/métodos , Análisis de Supervivencia , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Caseload often correlates with improved outcomes for several surgical procedures, including solid organ transplantation. Given the unique nature of pancreas transplantation and large variation in transplant center volumes, this study aims to determine whether center volume affects patient and graft survival after pancreas transplantation. METHODS: Registry data on all forms of whole organ pancreas transplants performed between 1995 and 2000 were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing. Patient and graft survival rates were followed until 2002. Center volume then was categorized as: low (< 10/year), medium (10-20/year), high (21-50/year), and very high (< 50/year). Cox proportional hazard regression models were developed to evaluate factors affecting pancreas transplant outcomes. RESULTS: Very-high-volume centers were more likely to do pancreas after kidney transplant, pancreas transplant alone, pancreas with kidney transplant, and repeat transplants, while other centers more frequently performed simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants (P < .001). Very-high-volume centers were more likely to transplant older recipients and less likely to transplant minority or Medicaid patients. Low-volume centers tended to accept pancreatic allografts from younger donors and had the longest waiting times. In models adjusting for differences in patient population, there were no differences in patient survival. However, low-volume centers had a slightly increased risk of graft loss compared to other centers. Early graft loss was similar among all centers, but medium-volume centers were at increased risk for late graft loss. CONCLUSIONS: Low center volume is not associated with increased mortality after pancreas transplantation. Other factors appear to be more important than center volume in determining pancreas transplant outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Trasplante de Páncreas , Adulto , Femenino , Supervivencia de Injerto , Humanos , Trasplante de Riñón , Masculino , Trasplante de Páncreas/estadística & datos numéricos , Sistema de Registros , Trasplante Homólogo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Live donor renal transplantation (LRT) now comprises more than 40% of all kidney transplants performed in the United States. Many patients on the cadaveric waiting list have a prospective live kidney donor. This study determines whether cadaveric donor renal transplantation (CRT) can demonstrate better outcomes than LRT. METHODS: From the United States Renal Data System registry, 31,909 adult recipients of a first-time kidney transplant from 1995 to 1998 were analyzed. Recipients were followed until December 31, 2000. RESULTS: CRT, more human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatches, increased donor age, cold ischemia time greater than 24 hr, African American recipient, and a history of diabetic nephropathy all increased the risk of graft failure, return to dialysis, and death. Nevertheless, in specific circumstances, CRT could provide better outcomes than LRT. For example, in recipients aged 18 to 59 years with a hypothetical live kidney donor aged 50 years and four HLA mismatches, the relative risk of graft loss with LRT is comparable or increased compared with CRT if the cadaveric kidney donor is much younger or with fewer HLA mismatches. On the other hand, for recipients aged 60 years or older, CRT never provides better outcomes than LRT. All analyses were adjusted for recipient race, gender, and history of diabetic nephropathy. There were no significant interactions among donor type, HLA mismatches, donor age, and cold ischemia time. CONCLUSIONS: The elderly recipient with an imminent LRT should never be offered CRT. A combination of recipient and donor factors can make CRT preferable to LRT in younger patients.
Asunto(s)
Trasplante de Riñón/mortalidad , Donadores Vivos , Adolescente , Adulto , Distribución por Edad , Cadáver , Frío , Femenino , Supervivencia de Injerto , Humanos , Isquemia , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Factores de Riesgo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have revolutionized the management of secondary common bile duct (CBD) stones, the use of these modalities as a single-stage procedure remains controversial. The aim of this study is to determine whether LC and intraoperative ERCP as a single procedure has any advantages to LC and either preoperative or postoperative therapeutic ERCP performed in 2 stages. METHODS: A retrospective 5-year review involved all patients undergoing both LC and ERCP for management of CBD stones from January 1997 to December 2001. Patients were categorized into 3 groups: (1) preoperative ERCP, followed by LC (ERCP then LC); (2) LC, followed by postoperative ERCP (LC then ERCP); and (3) LC with intraoperative ERCP as a single procedure (LC/ERCP). RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were treated for secondary CBD stones. Forty-three patients underwent ERCP then LC, 10 underwent LC then ERCP, and 14 patients underwent LC/ERCP. There were no differences among the groups in terms of patient demographics or overall complication rates. CBD access and stone clearance was achieved in all 67 (100%) patients, with 1 mild ERCP-related complication in the ERCP-then-LC group. Overall complication rates, hospital length of stay, and total hospital charges were not statistically different among the 3 groups. CONCLUSION: Single-stage LC/ERCP provides efficacious therapy for CBD stones and may be beneficial in select patients who may not tolerate a second anesthetic procedure.