ArticleBMC health services research2024
Medicare's comprehensive care for joint replacement model increased public hospitals' inpatient length of stay.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model is an alternative Medicare payment model for joint replacement that mandated participation by hospitals in randomly selected Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). On average, the program decreased inpatient length of stay and increased home discharge rates. It is unclear if these effects differed based on hospital ownership type, even though ownership may impact care redesign opportunities.
methodsWe used the 2014-2017 California Patient Discharge Datasets. The study included 113,590 hospitalizations for hip and knee joint replacement from 287 hospitals in the treated and control MSAs in California. The primary outcomes were inpatient length of stay and home discharge rates. Home discharge status included self-care, the use of home health, and hospice care at home. To determine whether the impact of the CJR model differed by hospital ownership type, we used event study, difference-in-differences (DID), and triple differences (DDD) models to estimate changes in health care services utilization in treated relative to control areas before versus after CJR implementation (April 2016) by hospital ownership type.
resultsOf the 113,590 hospitalizations, 51,708 (45.52%) were in treated MSAs and 61,882 (54.48%) were in control MSAs; 81,649 (71.88%) were from nonprofit hospitals, 20,247 (17.82%) were from for-profit hospitals, and 11,694 (10.29%) were from government-owned hospitals. DID analyses showed that after policy implementation, nonprofit and for-profit hospitals experienced a decrease in inpatient length of stay of 0.02 days (95% CI, -0.04 to -0.01) and 0.04 days (95% CI, -0.06 to -0.01), respectively, while government-owned hospitals experienced an increase by 0.11 days (95% CI, 0.04 to 0.18). For home discharge rates, nonprofit hospitals experienced an increase of 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03), while other hospitals did not show statistically significant changes. DDD analyses confirmed that inpatient length of stay increased in public compared to nonprofit hospitals in treated relative to control MSAs after policy implementation.
conclusionsThe impacts of the CJR program differed by hospital ownership type. Government-owned hospitals, with their unique financial circumstances, may have faced challenges that hindered the reductions in inpatient length of stay observed in other types of hospitals under the CJR Model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.