Suppr超能文献

新冠肺炎大流行前后,传统医疗保险和医疗保险优势计划在住院康复机构中的康复后护理。

Post-Acute Care in Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities Between Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage Plans Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

机构信息

Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.

Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.

出版信息

J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2023 Jun;24(6):868-875.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2023.03.030. Epub 2023 Apr 5.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Compare post-acute care (PAC) utilization and outcomes in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF) between beneficiaries covered by Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) plans during the COVID-19 pandemic relative to the previous year.

DESIGN

This multiyear cross-sectional study used Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility-Patient Assessment Instrument (IRF-PAI) data to assess PAC delivery from January 2019 to December 2020.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Inpatient rehabilitation for stroke, hip fracture, joint replacement, and cardiac and pulmonary conditions among Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older.

METHODS

Patient-level multivariate regression models with difference-in-differences approach were used to compare TM and MA plans in length of stay (LOS), payment per episode, functional improvements, and discharge locations.

RESULTS

A total of 271,188 patients were analyzed [women (57.1%), mean (SD) age 77.8 (0.06) years], among whom 138,277 were admitted for stroke, 68,488 hip fracture, 19,020 joint replacement, and 35,334 cardiac and 10,069 pulmonary conditions. Before the pandemic, MA beneficiaries had longer LOS (+0.22 days; 95% CI: 0.15-0.29), lower payment per episode (-$361.05; 95% CI: -573.38 to -148.72), more discharges to home with a home health agency (HHA) (48.9% vs 46.6%), and less to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) (15.7% vs 20.2%) than TM beneficiaries. During the pandemic, both plan types had shorter LOS (-0.68 day; 95% CI: 0.54-0.84), higher payment (+$798; 95% CI: 558-1036), increased discharges to home with an HHA (52.8% vs 46.6%), and decreased discharges to an SNF (14.5% vs 20.2%) than before. Differences between TM and MA beneficiaries in these outcomes became smaller and less significant. All results were adjusted for beneficiary and facility characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Although the COVID-19 pandemic affected PAC delivery in IRF in the same directions for both TM and MA plans, the timing, time duration, and magnitude of the impacts were different across measures and admission conditions. Differences between the 2 plan types shrank and performance across all dimensions became more comparable over time.

摘要

目的

比较 COVID-19 大流行期间,传统医疗保险(TM)和医疗保险优势(MA)计划覆盖的住院康复设施(IRF)内接受康复治疗的患者的康复后护理(PAC)利用情况和结果,与前一年进行比较。

设计

这项多年的横断面研究使用了住院康复设施患者评估工具(IRF-PAI)数据,评估了 2019 年 1 月至 2020 年 12 月的 PAC 治疗情况。

地点和参与者

年龄在 65 岁及以上的 Medicare 受益人的中风、髋部骨折、关节置换以及心脏和肺部疾病的住院康复治疗。

方法

采用差异中的差异方法的患者水平多变量回归模型,比较了 TM 和 MA 计划在住院时间(LOS)、每例支付额、功能改善和出院地点方面的差异。

结果

共分析了 271188 名患者(女性占 57.1%,平均年龄 77.8[0.06]岁),其中 138277 人因中风住院,68488 人因髋部骨折住院,19020 人因关节置换住院,35334 人因心脏疾病住院,10069 人因肺部疾病住院。在大流行之前,MA 受益人的 LOS 更长(+0.22 天;95%CI:0.15-0.29),每例支付额更低(-361.05 美元;95%CI:-573.38 美元至-148.72 美元),出院后到家庭健康机构(HHA)的比例更高(48.9%比 46.6%),到熟练护理机构(SNF)的比例更低(15.7%比 20.2%)。在大流行期间,两种计划类型的 LOS 都更短(-0.68 天;95%CI:0.54-0.84),支付额更高(+798 美元;95%CI:558 美元至 1036 美元),出院后到 HHA 的比例更高(52.8%比 46.6%),出院到 SNF 的比例更低(14.5%比 20.2%)。与之前相比,TM 和 MA 受益人的这些结果之间的差异变小,且不再显著。所有结果均根据受益人和设施的特点进行了调整。

结论和意义

尽管 COVID-19 大流行对 TM 和 MA 计划的 IRF 中的 PAC 治疗产生了相同的影响,但在各项措施和入院条件方面,影响的时间、持续时间和程度是不同的。两种计划类型之间的差异缩小,随着时间的推移,所有维度的表现变得更加可比。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7a5b/10073583/cf33f02f4824/gr1_lrg.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验