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

Abstract

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. This multiyear cross-sectional study used Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility-Patient Assessment Instrument (IRF-PAI) data to assess PAC delivery from January 2019 to December2020. Inpatient rehabilitation for stroke, hip fracture, joint replacement, and cardiac and pulmonary conditions among Medicare beneficiaries 65years or older. 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. 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 (+0.22days; 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 (-0.68day; 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. 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.