Millions of older Americans are homebound and may benefit from home-based medical care. We characterized the receipt of this care among community-dwelling, fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries ages sixty-five and older surveyed in the National Health and Aging Trends Study between 2011 and 2017. Five percent of those surveyed received any home-based medical care between 2011 and 2017 (mean follow-up time per person was 3.4 years), and 75 percent of home-based medical care recipients were homebound. Only 11 percent of the total homebound population (approximately 4.4 million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in 2017) received any home-based medical care between 2011 and 2017. Receipt of home-based medical care was more common among homebound beneficiaries living in metropolitan areas and assisted living facilities, which suggests that geographic factors create operational efficiencies for home-based medical care practices that may improve their financial sustainability within the fee-for-service reimbursement setting. The significant unmet needs of this high-need, high-cost population and the known health and cost benefits of home-based medical care should spur stakeholders to expand the availability of this care.

Background

As more Americans age in place, it is critical to understand care delivery in the home. However, data on the range of home-based services provided by Medicare is limited. We define a taxonomy of clinical care in the home funded through fee-for-service Medicare and methods to identify receipt of those services.

Methods

We analyzed Fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare claims data from a nationally-representative cohort of older adults, the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), to identify home-based clinical care. We included 6,664 NHATS enrollees age ≥ 70 and living in the community, observed an average of 3 times each on claims-linked NHATS surveys. We examined provider and service type of home-based clinical care to identify a taxonomy of 5 types: home-based medical care (physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner visits), home-based podiatry, skilled home health care (SHHC), hospice, and other fee-for-service (FFS) home-based care. We further characterized home-based clinical care by detailed care setting and visit types.

Results

From 2011-2016, 17.8%-20.8% of FFS Medicare beneficiaries age ≥ 70 received Medicare-funded home-based clinical care. SHHC was the most common service (12.8%-16.1%), followed by other FFS home-based care (5.5%-6.5%), home-based medical care (3.2%-3.9%), and hospice (2.6%-3.0%). Examination of the other-FFS home-based care revealed imaging/diagnostics and laboratory testing to be the most common service.

Conclusions

We define a taxonomy of clinical care provided in the home, serving 1 in 5 FFS Medicare beneficiaries. This approach can be used to identify and address research and clinical care gaps in home-based clinical care delivery.

Background/objectives

COVID-19 required rapid innovation throughout the healthcare system. Home-based primary care (HBPC) practices faced unique challenges maintaining services for medically complex older populations for whom they needed to adapt a traditionally hands-on, model of care to accommodate restrictions on in-person contact. Our aim was to determine strategies used by New York City (NYC)-area HBPC practices to provide patient care during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic with the goal of informing planning and preparation for home-based practices nationwide.

Design

Cross-sectional qualitative design using semi-structured interviews.

Setting

HBPC practices in the NYC metro area during spring 2020.

Participants

HBPC leadership including clinical/medical directors, program managers, nurse practitioners/nursing coordinators, and social workers/social work coordinators (n = 13) at 6 NYC-area practices.

Measurements

Semi-structured interviews explored HBPC practices' COVID-19 care delivery challenges, adaptations, and advice for providers. Interviewers probed patient care, end-of-life care, telehealth, community-based services and staffing. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed through a combined inductive and deductive thematic approach.

Results

Participants described care delivery and operational adaptations similar to those universally adopted across healthcare settings during COVID-19, such as patient outreach and telehealth. HBPC-specific adaptations included mental health services for patients experiencing depression and isolation, using multiple modalities of patient interactions to balance virtual care with necessary in-person contact, strategies to maintain patient trust, and supporting team connection of staff through daily huddles and emotional support during the surge of deaths among long-standing patients.

Conclusion

NYC-area HBPC providers adapted care delivery and operations rapidly during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Keeping older, medically complex patients safe in their homes required considerable flexibility, transparency, teamwork, and partnerships with outside providers. As the pandemic continues to surge around the United States, HBPC providers may apply these lessons and consider resources needed to prepare for future challenges.

Research on professional burnout during the pandemic has focused on hospital-based health care workers. This study examined the psychological impact of the pandemic on home-based primary care (HBPC) providers. We interviewed 13 participants from six HBPC practices in New York City including medical/clinical directors, program managers, nurse practitioners, and social workers and analyzed the transcripts using inductive qualitative analysis approach. HBPC providers experienced emotional exhaustion and a sense of reduced personal accomplishment. They reported experiencing grief of losing many patients at once and pressure to adapt to changing circumstances quickly. They also reported feeling guilty for failing to protect their patients and reduced confidence in their professional expertise. Strategies to combat burnout included shorter on-call schedules, regular condolence meetings to acknowledge patient deaths, and peer support calls. Our study identifies potential resources to improve the well-being and reduce the risk of burnout among HBPC providers.

The rapid deployment of video visits during COVID-19 may have posed unique challenges for home-based primary care (HBPC) practices due to their hands-on model of care and older adult population. This qualitative study examined provider perceptions of video visits during the first wave of the COVID-19 crisis in New York City (NYC) through interviews with HBPC clinical/medical directors, program managers, nurse practitioners/nurse managers, and social work managers (n = 13) at six NYC-area practices. Providers reported a combination of commercial (health system-supported) and consumer (e.g., FaceTime) technological platforms was essential. Video visit benefits included triaging patient needs, collecting patient information, and increasing scheduling capacity. Barriers included cognitive and sensory abilities, technology access, reliance on caregivers and aides, addressing sensitive topics, and incomplete exams. Effectively integrating video visits requires considering how technology can be proactively integrated into practice. A policy that promotes platform flexibility will be crucial in fostering video integration.