The use of home-based medical care differed in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare in 2018. Having exactly one such visit was thirty-one times as likely for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries (18.6 percent) as for traditional Medicare beneficiaries (0.6 percent), likely reflecting incentives in the Medicare Advantage program to code all accurate diagnoses. Multiple home-based medical care visits were less likely in Medicare Advantage than in traditional Medicare (1.6 percent versus 2.1 percent of beneficiaries, respectively).

This cohort study evaluates the prevalence of homebound older adults in the US from 2011 to 2020 and assesses whether the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a change in prevalence.

Background

Homebound older adults have heightened risks for isolation and negative health consequences, but it is unclear how COVID-19 has impacted them. We examine social contact and mood symptoms among previously homebound older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Design/setting

Cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), a nationally-representative longitudinal study of aging in the USA.

Participants

A total of 3,112 community-dwelling older adults in 2019 who completed the COVID-19 survey in the summer/fall of 2020.

Measurements

Homebound status was defined via self-report as rarely/never leaving home or leaving the house with difficulty or help in the prior month. We measured limited social contact during COVID-19 (in-person, telephone, video or email contacts ResultsAmong homebound older adults, 13.2% experienced limited social contact during COVID-19 vs. 6.5% of the non-homebound. Differences in social contact were greatest for contacts via email/text/social media: 54.9% of the homebound used this DiscussionIsolation among homebound older adults increased during COVID-19, partially due to differences in technology use. We must ensure that homebound persons have the connection and care they need including new technologies for communication during and beyond COVID-19.

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.

Homebound older adults are a highly vulnerable population, yet little is known about their experiences with healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. We interviewed patients in home-based primary care (HBPC) in New York City by telephone in May and June of 2020. Interviews covered social supports, household activities, self-care, and medical care, and asked participants to compare current with prepandemic experiences. Among 70 participants, 37% were Black and 32% were Hispanic. Disruptions in the home included greater difficulty accessing paid caregivers (13.9%) and food (35.3%) than before the pandemic, and unaddressed household chores (laundry, 81.4%; food preparation, 11.4%). Black study participants were more likely than White and Hispanic participants to report disruptions in accessing medical care (13 [50.0%] vs. 3 [14.3%] vs. 6 [27.3%], respectively, p = 0.02), as well as food preparation and medication taking. Black patients in HBPC are at risk of disparities in healthcare and social support during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background/objectives

The Medicare home health benefit provides episodic skilled home-based clinical care to the growing population of community-dwelling persons with dementia. As of January 1, 2020, home health payment changed: episodes shortened from 60 to 30 days, and episodes initiated in the community are now reimbursed at lower rates than episodes following institutional stays. We aim to assess the potential impact of these policy changes on this population.

Design/setting

Cross-sectional study using the Medicare claims-linked National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS).

Participants

A total of 1,867 NHATS respondents who received home health between 2011 and 2017.

Measurements

Dementia was defined through both self-report and a validated cognitive assessment through NHATS. We described the demographic, socioeconomic, and health characteristics of older adults with dementia receiving home health compared with those without dementia. We then assessed the association of dementia with both receiving community-initiated home health (vs postinstitutional) and visit timing during the home health episode.

Results

Over a follow-up period of just over 4 years, 50.2% of persons with dementia used home health compared with 15.3% of persons without dementia. Most home health provided to persons with dementia was initiated in the community (61%), compared with 37% of episodes provided to persons without dementia. Persons with dementia were more likely to receive care in days 31 to 60 of the episode compared with those without dementia.

Conclusions

Shortening episodes and reimbursing community-initiated episodes at lower rates may disproportionately impact the highly vulnerable population of older adults with dementia, who receive more community-initiated care over longer time periods. Our work highlights the need to better understand the unique role of home health in meeting gaps in both acute- and long-term care systems for older adults with dementia. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:2303-2309, 2020.

Background/objectives

Approximately 2 million people, or 6% of older adults in the United States, are homebound. In cross-sectional studies, homebound older adults have high levels of morbidity and mortality, but there is little evidence of longitudinal outcomes after becoming homebound. The aim of this research is to prospectively assess over 6 years the dynamics of homebound status, ongoing community residence, and death in a population of community-dwelling older adults who are newly homebound.

Design/setting

Prospective cohort study using 2011-2018 data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), an annual, nationally-representative longitudinal study of aging in the United States.

Participants

Two hundred and sixty seven newly homebound older adults in 2012.

Measurements

Homebound status was defined via self-report as living in the community but rarely/never leaving home in the prior month. Semi-homebound was defined as leaving the house only with difficulty or help.

Results

One year after becoming newly homebound, 33.1% remained homebound, 22.8% were completely independent, 23.8% were semi-homebound, 2.2% were in a nursing home, and 18.0% died. Homebound status is highly dynamic; 6 years after becoming homebound, 13.5% remained homebound and 65.0% had died. Recovering from being homebound at 1 year was associated with younger age and lower baseline rates of receiving help with activities of daily living, in particular, with bathing.

Conclusion

Homebound status is a dynamic state. Even if transient, becoming homebound is strongly associated with functional decline and death. Identifying newly homebound older adults and developing interventions to mitigate associated negative consequences needs to be prioritized.

IMPORTANCE: Increasing numbers of older, community-dwelling adults have functional impairments that prevent them from leaving their homes. It is uncertain how many people who live in the United States are homebound. OBJECTIVES: To develop measures of the frequency of leaving and ability to leave the home and to use these measures to estimate the size of the homebound population in the US population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study collected in 2011 in the contiguous United States. Participants were a nationally representative sample of 7603 noninstitutionalized Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We defined homebound persons as those who never (completely homebound) or rarely (mostly homebound) left the home in the last month. We defined semihomebound persons as those who only left the home with assistance or had difficulty or needed help leaving the home. We compared demographic, clinical, and health care utilization characteristics across different homebound status categories. RESULTS: In 2011, the prevalence of homebound individuals was 5.6% (95% CI, 5.1%-6.2%), including an estimated 395,422 people who were completely homebound and 1,578,984 people who were mostly homebound. Among semihomebound individuals, the prevalence of those who never left home without personal assistance was 3.3% (95% CI, 2.8%-3.8%), and the prevalence of those who required help or had difficulty was 11.7% (95% CI, 10.9%-12.6%). Completely homebound individuals were more likely to be older (83.2 vs 74.3 years, P < .001), female (67.9% vs 53.4%, P < .006), and of nonwhite race (34.1% vs 17.6%, P < .001) and have less education and income than nonhomebound individuals. They also had more chronic conditions (4.9 vs 2.5) and were more likely to have been hospitalized in the last 12 months (52.1% vs 16.2%) (P < .001 for both). Only 11.9% of completely homebound individuals reported receiving primary care services at home. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In total, 5.6% of the elderly, community-dwelling Medicare population (approximately 2 million people) were completely or mostly homebound in 2011. Our findings can inform improvements in clinical and social services for these individuals.

OBJECTIVES: Home-based medical care (HBMC) delivers physician or advanced practice provider-led medical services for patients in private residences and domiciliary settings (eg, assisted living facilities, group/boarding homes). We aimed to examine the time trends in HBMC utilization by care settings. DESIGN: Analyses of HBMC utilization at the national and state levels during the years 2012-2019. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: With Medicare public use files, we calculated the state-level utilization rate of HBMC among fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries, measured by visits per 1000 FFS enrollees, in private residences and domiciliary settings, both separately and combined. METHODS: We assessed the trend of HBMC utilization over time via linear mixed models with random intercept for state, adjusting for the following state-level markers of HBMC supply and demand: number of HBMC providers, state ranking of total assisted living and residential care capacity, and the proportion of FFS beneficiaries with dementia, dual eligibility for Medicaid, receiving home health services, and Medicare Advantage. RESULTS: Total HBMC visits in the United States increased from 3,911,778 in 2012 to 5,524,939 in 2019. The median (interquartile range) state-level HBMC utilization rate per 1000 FFS population was 67.6 (34.1-151.3) visits overall, 17.3 (7.9-41.9) visits in private residences, and 47.7 (23.1-86.6) visits in domiciliary settings. The annual percentage increase of utilization rates was significant for all care settings in crude models (3%-8%), and remained significant for overall visits and visits in domiciliary settings (2%-4%), but not in private residences. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The national-level growth in HBMC from 2012-2019 was largely driven by a growth of HBMC occurring in domiciliary settings. To meet the needs of a growing aging population, future studies should focus efforts on policy and payment issues to address inequities in access to HBMC services for homebound older adults, and examine drivers of HBMC growth at regional and local levels.