Abstract

BackgroundDespite the success of stroke rehabilitation services, differences in service utilization exist. Some patients with stroke may travel across regions to receive necessary care prescribed by their physician. It is unknown how availability and combinations of post-acute care facilities in local healthcare markets influence use patterns. We present the distribution of skilled nursing, inpatient rehabilitation, and long-term care hospital services across Hospital Service Areas among a national stroke cohort, and we describe drivers of post-acute care service use.MethodsWe extracted data from 2013 to 2014 of a national stroke cohort using Medicare beneficiaries (174,498 total records across 3232 Hospital Service Areas). Patients’ ZIP code of residence was linked to the facility ZIP code where care was received. If the patient did not live in the Hospital Service Area where they received care, they were considered a “traveler”. We performed multivariable logistic regression to regress traveling status on the care combinations available where the patient lived.ResultsAlthough 73.4% of all Hospital Service Areas were skilled nursing-only, only 23.5% of all patients received care in skilled nursing-only Hospital Service Areas; 40.8% of all patients received care in Hospital Service Areas with only inpatient rehabilitation and skilled nursing, which represented only 18.2% of all Hospital Service Areas. Thirty-five percent of patients traveled to a different Hospital Service Area from where they lived. Regarding “travelers,” for those living in a skilled nursing-only Hospital Service Area, 49.9% traveled for care to Hospital Service Areas with only inpatient rehabilitation and skilled nursing. Patients living in skilled nursing-only Hospital Service Areas had more than five times higher odds of traveling compared to those living in Hospital Service Areas with all three facilities.ConclusionsGeographically, the vast majority of Hospital Service Areas in the United States that provided rehabilitation services for stroke survivors were skilled nursing-only. However, only about one-third lived in skilled nursing-only Hospital Service Areas; over 35% traveled to receive care. Geographic variation exists in post-acute care; this study provides a foundation to better quantify its drivers. This study presents previously undescribed drivers of variation in post-acute care service utilization among Medicare beneficiaries—the “traveler effect”.

Highlights

  • Despite the success of stroke rehabilitation services, differences in service utilization exist

  • Design, and study sample The aim of this study is to determine how the availability and combinations of post-acute care (PAC) facilities in local healthcare markets influence rehabilitation use patterns. We accomplish this by presenting the distribution of Skilled nursing facility (SNF), Inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF), and Long-term care hospital (LTCH) services across Hospital Service Area (HSA) and by identifying variables associated with the odds of traveling outside of the HSA in which a patient lives for PAC services

  • Additional regression results of the remaining Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) can be found in the supplemental material [see Additional file 2]. These results indicated that patients who lived in any other HSA combination besides IRFLTCH-SNF had significantly higher odds of traveling compared to the IRF-LTCH-SNF combination (SNFonly odds ratios (OR): 5.44, 95% confidence interval: 5.32, 5.57; LTCH-SNF OR: 4.04, 95% Confidence interval (CI): 3.84, 4.26; IRF-only OR: 6.80, 95% CI: 3.75, 12.30; IRF-SNF OR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.36, 1.43)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Despite the success of stroke rehabilitation services, differences in service utilization exist. Some patients with stroke may travel across regions to receive necessary care prescribed by their physician It is unknown how availability and combinations of post-acute care facilities in local healthcare markets influence use patterns. Patients with stroke use PAC services ranged from 62.6% in the East and West South Central states to 74.5% in the New England area [4]. It is unclear what drives the differences in regional use, potential factors may include availability of PAC facilities, patient characteristics and clinical diagnoses and severity, provider availability, and current reimbursement programs [4, 8]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call