The impact of Medicare, Medicaid and Schip Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) on the long term acute care hospitals

The Long Term Acute Care Hospitals (LTACH), which serve medically complex patients, have grown tremendously in recent years, by expanding the number of Medicare patient admissions and thus increasing Medicare expenditures (Stark 2004). In an attempt to mitigate the rapid growth of the LTACHs and reduce related Medicare expenditures, Congress enacted Section 114 of P.L. 110-173 (§114) of the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act (MMSEA) in December 29, 2007 to regulate the LTCAHs industry. MMSEA increased the medical necessity reviews for Medicare admissions, imposed a moratorium on new LTCAHs, and allowed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to recoup Medicare overpayments for unnecessary admissions. ^ This study examines whether MMSEA impacted LTACH admissions, operating margins and efficiency. These objectives were analyzed by comparing LTACH data for 2008 (post MMSEA) and data for 2006-2007 (pre-MMSEA). Secondary data were utilized from the American Hospital Association (AHA) database and the American Hospital Directory (AHD).^ This is a longitudinal retrospective study with a total sample of 55 LTACHs, selected from 396 LTACHs facilities that were fully operational during the study period of 2006-2008. The results of the research found no statistically significant change in total Medicare admissions; instead there was a small but not statistically significant reduction of 5% in Medicare admissions for 2008 in comparison to those for 2006. A statistically significant decrease in mean operating margins was confirmed between the years 2006 and 2008. The LTACHs' Technical Efficiency (TE), as computed by Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), showed significant decrease in efficiency over the same period. Thirteen of the 55 LTACHs in the sample (24%) in 2006 were calculated as “efficient” utilizing the DEA analysis. This dropped to 13% (7/55) in 2008. Longitudinally, the decrease in efficiency using the DEA extension technique (Malmquist Index or MI) indicated a deterioration of 10% in efficiency over the same period. Interestingly, however, when the sample was stratified into high efficient versus low efficient subgroups (approximately 25% in each group), a comparison of the MIs suggested a significant improvement in Efficiency Change (EC) for the least efficient (MI 0.92022) and reduction in efficiency for the most efficient LTACHs (MI = 1.38761) over same period. While a reduction in efficiency for the most efficient is unexpected, it is not particularly surprising, since efficiency measure can vary over time. An improvement in efficiency, however, for the least efficient should be expected as those LTACHs begin to manage expenses (and controllable resources) more carefully to offset the payment/reimbursement pressures on their margins from MMSEA.^

Health information exchange: Using metrics to address quality of care and return on investment

Health Information Exchange (HIE) will play a key part in our nation’s effort to improve healthcare. The evidence of HIEs transformational role in healthcare delivery systems is quite limited. The lack of such evidence led us to explore what exists in the healthcare industry that may provide evidence of effectiveness and efficiency of HIEs. The objective of the study was to find out how many fully functional HIEs are using any measurements or metrics to gauge impact of HIE on quality improvement (QI) and on return on investment (ROI).^ A web-based survey was used to determine the number of operational HIEs using metrics for QI and ROI. Our study highlights the fact that only 50 percent of the HIEs who responded use or plan to use metrics. However, 95 percent of the respondents believed HIEs improve quality of care while only 56 percent believed HIE showed positive ROI. Although operational HIEs present numerous opportunities to demonstrate the business model for improving health care quality, evidence to document the impact of HIEs is lacking. ^

Policy analysis of Texas Senate Bill 532 and the regulation of nurse practitioners in the convenience care model

Background. Retail clinics, also called convenience care clinics, have become a rapidly growing trend since their initial development in 2000. These clinics are coupled within a larger retail operation and are generally located in "big-box" discount stores such as Wal-mart or Target, grocery stores such as Publix or H-E-B, or in retail pharmacies such as CVS or Walgreen's (Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, 2008). Care is typically provided by nurse practitioners. Research indicates that this new health care delivery system reduces cost, raises quality, and provides a means of access to the uninsured population (e.g., Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, 2008; Convenient Care Association, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Hansen-Turton, Miller, Nash, Ryan, Counts, 2007; Salinsky, 2009; Scott, 2006; Ahmed & Fincham, 2010). Some healthcare analysts even suggest that retail clinics offer a feasible solution to the shortage of primary care physicians facing the nation (AHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange, 2010). ^ The development and performance of retail clinics is heavily dependent upon individual state policies regulating NPs. Texas currently has one of the most highly regulated practice environments for NPs (Stout & Elton, 2007; Hammonds, 2008). In September 2009, Texas passed Senate Bill 532 addressing the scope of practice of nurse practitioners in the convenience care model. In comparison to other states, this law still heavily regulates nurse practitioners. However, little research has been conducted to evaluate the impact of state laws regulating nurse practitioners on the development and performance of retail clinics. ^ Objectives. (1). To describe the potential impact that SB 532 has on retail clinic performance. (2). To discuss the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of the convenience care model. (3). To describe possible alternatives to Texas' nurse practitioner scope of practice guidelines as delineated in Texas Senate Bill 532. (4). To describe the type of nurse practitioner state regulation (i.e. independent, light, moderate, or heavy) that best promotes the convenience care model. ^ Methods. State regulations governing nurse practitioners can be characterized as independent, light, moderate, and heavy. Four state NP regulatory types and retail clinic performance were compared and contrasted to that of Texas regulations using Dunn and Aday's theoretical models for conducting policy analysis and evaluating healthcare systems. Criteria for measurement included effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. Comparison states were Arizona (Independent), Minnesota (Light), Massachusetts (Moderate), and Florida (Heavy). ^ Results. A comparative states analysis of Texas SB 532 and alternative NP scope of practice guidelines among the four states: Arizona, Florida, Massachusetts, and Minnesota, indicated that SB 532 has minimal potential to affect the shortage of primary care providers in the state. Although SB 532 may increase the number of NPs a physician may supervise, NPs are still heavily restricted in their scope of practice and limited in their ability to act as primary care providers. Arizona's example of independent NP practice provided the best alternative to affect the shortage of PCPs in Texas as evidenced by a lower uninsured rate and less ED visits per 1,000 population. A survey of comparison states suggests that retail clinics thrive in states that more heavily restrict NP scope of practice as opposed to those that are more permissive, with the exception of Arizona. An analysis of effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of the convenience care model indicates that retail clinics perform well in the areas of effectiveness and efficiency; but, fall short in the area of equity. ^ Conclusion. Texas Senate 532 represents an incremental step towards addressing the problem of a shortage of PCPs in the state. A comparative policy analysis of the other four states with varying degrees of NP scope of practice indicate that a more aggressive policy allowing for independent NP practice will be needed to achieve positive changes in health outcomes. Retail clinics pose a temporary solution to the shortage of PCPs and will need to expand their locations to poorer regions and incorporate some chronic care to obtain measurable health outcomes. ^