Objective

To determine changes in industry marketing payments to physicians due to the covid-19 pandemic.

Design

Quasi experimental, difference-in-difference study.

Data source

US nationwide database of licensed physicians, the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System, which was linked to a database of industry marketing payments made to physicians, Open Payments.

Population

All licensed US physicians from 2018 to 2020 and those who received payments from industry.

Main outcome measures

Changes in the value and the number of monthly industry payments physician received before (January-February 2020) and during the pandemic (April-December 2020) were assessed, adjusting for physicians' characteristics (gender and specialty). As the control, data for the same months in 2019 were used. Industry payments by type of payments (eg, meals, travel, consulting fees, speaker compensation, honorariums), were also examined.

Results

Among 880 589 US physicians included in this study, 267 463 (30.4%) physicians received a total of 4 117 482 non-research payments with $626 million ($710 per physician; £610; €708) in 2020 (40-44% decrease from $1047m in 2018 and $1115m in 2019). Industry payments decreased significantly in the months of the covid-19 pandemic (adjusted change in the value of -48.4%; 95% confidence interval -50.6 to -46.2; P<0.001; and adjusted change in the number of -47.4%, 95% confidence interval -47.7 to -47.1; P<0.001), particularly for meals and travel fees. No evidence was seen of a decrease in the number of industry payments for consulting and honorariums. A similar pattern was observed across physicians' gender and specialty.

Conclusions

Industry payments to physicians, particularly those involving physical interactions such as meals and travel, substantially decreased during the pandemic. How such changes affect prescription practices and the quality of clinical practice in the long term should be investigated.

Background

As the U.S. homeless population grows, so has the challenge of providing effective care to homeless individuals. Understanding hospitals that achieve better outcomes after hospital discharge for homeless patients has important implications for making our health system more sustainable and equitable.

Objective

To determine whether homeless patients experience higher rates of readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits after hospital discharge than non-homeless patients, and whether the homeless patients exhibit lower rates of readmissions and ED visits after hospital discharge when they were admitted to hospitals experienced with the treatment of the homeless patients ("homeless-serving" hospitals-defined as hospitals in the top decile of the proportion of homeless patients).

Design

A population-based longitudinal study, using the data including all hospital admissions and ED visits in FL, MA, MD, and NY in 2014.

Participants

Participants were 3,527,383 patients (median age [IQR]: 63 [49-77] years; 1,876,466 [53%] women; 134,755 [4%] homeless patients) discharged from 474 hospitals.

Main measures

Risk-adjusted rates of 30-day all-cause readmissions and ED visits after hospital discharge.

Key results

After adjusting for potential confounders, homeless patients had higher rates of readmissions (adjusted rate, 27.3% vs. 17.5%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.93; 95% CI, 1.69-2.21; p < 0.001) and ED visits after hospital discharge (37.1% vs. 23.6%; aOR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.74-2.25; p < 0.001) compared with non-homeless patients. Homeless patients treated at homeless-serving hospitals exhibited lower rates of readmissions (23.9% vs. 33.4%; p < 0.001) and ED visits (31.4% vs. 45.4%; p < 0.001) after hospital discharge than homeless patients treated at non-homeless-serving hospitals.

Conclusions

Homeless patients were more likely to be readmitted or return to ED within 30 days after hospital discharge, especially when they were treated at hospitals that treat a small proportion of homeless patients. These findings suggest that homeless patients may receive better discharge planning and care coordination when treated at hospitals experienced with caring for homeless people.

Background

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on participation in and availability of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is unknown.

Methods

Among eligible Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, we evaluated, by month, the number of CR sessions attended per 100 000 beneficiaries, individuals eligible to initiate CR, and centers offering in-person CR between January 2019 and December 2021. We compared these outcomes between 2 periods: December 1, 2019 through February 28, 2020 (period 1, before declaration of the pandemic-related national emergency) and October 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021 (period 2, the latest period for which data are currently available).

Results

In period 1, Medicare beneficiaries participated in (mean±SD) 895±84 CR sessions per 100 000 beneficiaries each month. After the national emergency was declared, CR participation sharply declined to 56 CR sessions per 100 000 beneficiaries in April 2020. CR participation recovered gradually through December 2021 but remained lower than prepandemic levels (period 2: 698±29 CR sessions per month per 100 000 beneficiaries, P=0.02). Declines in CR participation were most marked among dual Medicare and Medicaid enrollees and patients residing in rural areas or socially vulnerable communities. There was no statistically significant change in CR eligibility between the 2 periods. Compared with 2618±5 CR centers in period 1, there were 2464±7 in period 2 (P<0.01). Compared with CR centers that survived the pandemic, 220 CR centers that closed were more likely to be affiliated with public hospitals, located in rural areas, and serve the most socially vulnerable communities.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a persistent decline in CR participation and the closure of CR centers, which disproportionately affected rural and low-income patients and the most socially vulnerable communities. Innovation in CR financing and delivery is urgently needed to equitably enhance CR participation among Medicare beneficiaries.