  Objective: To evaluate differences in major outcomes between Bundled Payments
for Care Improvement (BPCI) participating providers and non-participating
providers for both Major Joint Replacement of the Lower Extremity (MJRLE) and
Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) episodes. Methods: A
difference-in-differences approach estimated the differential change in
outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries who had an MJRLE or AMI at a BPCI
participating hospital between the baseline (January 2011 through September
2013) and intervention (October 2013 through December 2016) periods and
beneficiaries with the same episode (MJRLE or AMI) at a matched comparison
hospital. Main Outcomes and Measures: Medicare payments, LOS, and readmissions
during the episode, which includes the anchor hospitalization and the 90-day
post discharge period. Results: Mean total Medicare payments for an MJRLE
episode and the 90-day post discharge period declined $444 more (p < 0.0001)
for Medicare beneficiaries with episodes initiated in a BPCI-participating
provider than for the beneficiaries in a comparison provider. This reduction
was mainly due to reduced institutional post-acute care (PAC) payments. Slight
reductions in carrier payments and LOS were estimated. Readmission rates were
not statistically different between the BPCI and the comparison populations.
These findings suggest that PAC use can be reduced without adverse effects on
recovery from MJRLE. The lack of statistically significant differences in
effects for AMI could be explained by a smaller sample size or more
heterogenous recovery paths in AMI. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that, as
currently designed, bundled payments can be effective in reducing payments for
MJRLE episodes of care, but not necessarily for AMI. Most savings came from the
declines in PAC. These findings are consistent with the results reported in the
BPCI model evaluation for CMS.
