Association of Stratification by Dual Enrollment Status With Financial Penalties in the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program

Integrating Social Drivers of Health into Hospital Ratings with Application to the 100 Top Hospitals Study

The objective was to investigate the relationship between social drivers of health (SDOH) and hospital performance within the 100 Top Hospitals study, exploring methods to recognize hospitals serving marginalized communities. Publicly available data sourced from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the 2023 100 Top Hospitals study was used. The study employed multivariable hierarchical generalized linear regression models to assess the association between an SDOH composite variable derived using principal component analysis and overall hospital performance measures within the 100 Top Hospitals study. The analysis revealed a statistically significant association between SDOH factors and study ranking results. The SDOH composite variable is a significant predictor of performance within the 100 Top Hospitals study. Accounting for SDOH is essential to recognize high-performing hospitals serving marginalized communities. The findings suggest a need for broader considerations of SDOH in hospital ranking methodologies across various industry programs.

Health Equity Adjustment and Hospital Performance in the Medicare Value-Based Purchasing Program

Importance

Medicare's Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program will provide a health equity adjustment (HEA) to hospitals that have greater proportions of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and that offer high-quality care beginning in fiscal year 2026. However, which hospitals will benefit most from this policy change and to what extent are unknown.

Objective

To estimate potential changes in hospital performance after HEA and examine hospital patient mix, structural, and geographic characteristics associated with receipt of increased payments.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study analyzed all 2676 hospitals participating in the HVBP program in fiscal year 2021. Publicly available data on program performance and hospital characteristics were linked to Medicare claims data on all inpatient stays for dual-eligible beneficiaries at each hospital to calculate HEA points and HVBP payment adjustments.

Exposures

Hospital Value-Based Purchasing program HEA.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Reclassification of HVBP bonus or penalty status and changes in payment adjustments across hospital characteristics.

Results

Of 2676 hospitals participating in the HVBP program in fiscal year 2021, 1470 (54.9%) received bonuses and 1206 (45.1%) received penalties. After HEA, 102 hospitals (6.9%) were reclassified from bonus to penalty status, whereas 119 (9.9%) were reclassified from penalty to bonus status. At the hospital level, mean (SD) HVBP payment adjustments decreased by $4534 ($90 033) after HEA, ranging from a maximum reduction of $1 014 276 to a maximum increase of $1 523 765. At the aggregate level, net-positive changes in payment adjustments were largest among safety net hospitals ($28 971 708) and those caring for a higher proportion of Black patients ($15 468 445). The likelihood of experiencing increases in payment adjustments was significantly higher among safety net compared with non-safety net hospitals (574 of 683 [84.0%] vs 709 of 1993 [35.6%]; adjusted rate ratio [ARR], 2.04 [95% CI, 1.89-2.20]) and high-proportion Black hospitals compared with non-high-proportion Black hospitals (396 of 523 [75.7%] vs 887 of 2153 [41.2%]; ARR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.29-1.51]). Rural hospitals (374 of 612 [61.1%] vs 909 of 2064 [44.0%]; ARR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.30-1.58]), as well as those located in the South (598 of 1040 [57.5%] vs 192 of 439 [43.7%]; ARR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.10-1.42]) and in Medicaid expansion states (801 of 1651 [48.5%] vs 482 of 1025 [47.0%]; ARR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.06-1.28]), were also more likely to experience increased payment adjustments after HEA compared with their urban, Northeastern, and Medicaid nonexpansion state counterparts, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

Medicare's implementation of HEA in the HVBP program will significantly reclassify hospital performance and redistribute program payments, with safety net and high-proportion Black hospitals benefiting most from this policy change. These findings suggest that HEA is an important strategy to ensure that value-based payment programs are more equitable.

Teaching and Safety-Net Hospital Penalization in the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program

Importance

The Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) evaluates acute care hospitals on the occurrence of patient safety events and health care-associated infections. Since its implementation, several studies have raised concerns about the overpenalization of teaching and safety-net hospitals, and although several changes in the program's methodology have been applied in the last few years, whether these changes reversed the overpenalization of teaching and safety-net hospitals is unknown.

Objective

To determine hospital characteristics associated with HACRP penalization and penalization reversal.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cross-sectional study assessed data from 3117 acute care hospitals participating in the HACRP. The HACRP penalization and hospital characteristics were obtained from Hospital Compare (2020 and 2021), the Inpatient Prospective Payment System impact file (2020), and the American Hospital Association annual survey (2018).

Exposures

Hospital characteristics, including safety-net status and teaching intensity (no teaching and very minor, minor, major, and very major teaching levels).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was HACRP penalization (ie, hospitals that fell within the worst quartile of the program's performance). Multivariable models initially included all covariates, and then backward stepwise variable selection was used.

Results

Of 3117 hospitals that participated in HACRP in 2020, 779 (25.0%) were safety-net hospitals and 1090 (35.0%) were teaching institutions. In total, 771 hospitals (24.7%) were penalized. The HACRP penalization was associated with safety-net status (odds ratio [OR], 1.41 [95% CI, 1.16-1.71]) and very major teaching intensity (OR, 1.94 [95% CI, 1.15-3.28]). In addition, non-federal government hospitals were more likely to be penalized than for-profit hospitals (OR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.23-2.14]), as were level I trauma centers (OR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.43-2.96]) and hospitals located in the New England region (OR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.12-2.43]). Safety-net hospitals with major teaching levels were twice as likely to be penalized as non-safety-net nonteaching hospitals (OR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.14-4.03]). Furthermore, safety-net hospitals penalized in 2020 were less likely (OR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.43-0.96]) to revert their HACRP penalization status in 2021.

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings from this cross-sectional study indicated that teaching and safety-net hospital status continued to be associated with overpenalization in the HACRP despite recent changes in its methodology. Most of these hospitals were also less likely to revert their penalization status. A reevaluation of the program methodology is needed to avoid depleting resources of hospitals caring for underserved populations.

Hospital Performance Under Alternative Readmission Measures Incorporating Observation Stays

OBJECTIVE

To determine the extent to which counting observation stays changes hospital performance on 30-day readmission measures.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of inpatient admissions and observation stays among fee-for-service Medicare enrollees in 2017. We generated 3 specifications of 30-day risk-standardized readmissions measures: the hospital-wide readmission (HWR) measure utilized by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which captures inpatient readmissions within 30 days of inpatient discharge; an expanded HWR measure, which captures any unplanned hospitalization (inpatient admission or observation stay) within 30 days of inpatient discharge; an all-hospitalization readmission (AHR) measure, which captures any unplanned hospitalization following any hospital discharge (observation stays are included in both the numerator and denominator of the measure). Estimated excess readmissions for hospitals were compared across the 3 measures. High performers were defined as those with a lower-than-expected number of readmissions whereas low performers had higher-than-expected or excess readmissions. Multivariable logistic regression identified hospital characteristics associated with worse performance under the measures that included observation stays.

RESULTS

Our sample had 2586 hospitals with 5,749,779 hospitalizations. Observation stays ranged from 0% to 41.7% of total hospitalizations. Mean (SD) readmission rates were 16.6% (5.4) for the HWR, 18.5% (5.7) for the expanded HWR, and 17.9% (5.7) in the all-hospitalization readmission measure. Approximately 1 in 7 hospitals (14.9%) would switch from being classified as a high performer to a low performer or vice-versa if observation stays were fully included in the calculation of readmission rates. Safety-net hospitals and those with a higher propensity to use observation would perform significantly worse.

CONCLUSIONS

Fully incorporating observation stays in readmission measures would substantially change performance in value-based programs for safety-net hospitals and hospitals with high rates of observation stays.

Population Characteristics and Organ Procurement Organization Performance Metrics

Importance

In 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a final rule updating the Organ Procurement Organization (OPO) Conditions for Coverage. This rule evaluates OPO performance based on an unadjusted donation rate and an age-adjusted transplant rate; however, neither considers other underlying population differences.

Objective

To evaluate whether adjusting for age and/or area deprivation index yields the same tier assignments as the cause, age, and location consistent (CALC) tier used by CMS.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cross-sectional study examined the performance of 58 OPOs from 2018 to 2020 across the entire US. A total of 12 041 778 death records were examined from the 2017 to 2020 National Center for Health Statistics' Restricted Vital Statistics Detailed Multiple Cause of Death files; 399 530 of these met the definition of potential deceased donor. Information about 42 572 solid organ donors from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was also used. Statistical analysis was performed from January 2017 to December 2020.

Exposure

Area deprivation of donation service areas and age of potential donors.

Main Outcome and Measures

OPO performance as measured by donation and transplant rates.

Results

A total of 399 530 potential deceased donors and 42 572 actual solid donor organs were assigned to 1 of 58 OPOs. Age and ADI adjustment resulted in 19.0% (11 of 58) to 31.0% (18 of 58) reclassification of tier ratings for the OPOs, with 46.6% of OPOs (27 of 58) changing tier ranking at least once during the 3-year period. Between 6.9% (4 of 58) and 12.1% (7 of 58) moved into tier 1 and up to 8.6% (5 of 58) moved into tier 3.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study of population characteristics and OPO performance metrics found that adjusting for area deprivation and age significantly changed OPO measured performance and tier classifications. These findings suggest that underlying population characteristics may alter processes of care and characterize donation and transplant rates independent of OPO performance. Risk adjustment accounting for population characteristics warrants consideration in prospective policy and further evaluation of quality metrics.

Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes for Patients With Heart Failure at Hospitals Caring for a High Proportion of Black Adults: Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry

Importance

Black adults with heart failure (HF) disproportionately experience higher population-level mortality than White adults with HF. Whether quality of care for HF differs at hospitals with high proportions of Black patients compared with other hospitals is unknown.

Objective

To compare quality and outcomes for patients with HF at hospitals with high proportions of Black patients vs other hospitals.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Patients hospitalized for HF at Get With The Guidelines (GWTG) HF sites from January 1, 2016, through December 1, 2019. These data were analyzed from May 2022 through November 2022.

Exposures

Hospitals caring for high proportions of Black patients.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Quality of HF care based on 14 evidence-based measures, overall defect-free HF care, and 30-day readmissions and mortality in Medicare patients.

Results

This study included 422 483 patients (224 270 male [53.1%] and 284 618 White [67.4%]) with a mean age of 73.0 years. Among 480 hospitals participating in GWTG-HF, 96 were classified as hospitals with high proportions of Black patients. Quality of care was similar between hospitals with high proportions of Black patients compared with other hospitals for 11 of 14 GWTG-HF measures, including use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors for left ventricle systolic dysfunction (high-proportion Black hospitals: 92.7% vs other hospitals: 92.4%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.65-1.27), evidence-based β-blockers (94.7% vs 93.7%; OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.82-1.28), angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors at discharge (14.3% vs 16.8%; OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.54-1.02), anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation/flutter (88.8% vs 87.5%; OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.76-1.45), and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator counseling/placement/prescription at discharge (70.9% vs 71.0%; OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.50-1.13). Patients at high-proportion Black hospitals were less likely to be discharged with a follow-up visit made within 7 days or less (70.4% vs 80.1%; OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.86), receive cardiac resynchronization device placement/prescription (50.6% vs 53.8%; OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42-0.95), or an aldosterone antagonist (50.4% vs 53.5%; OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.97). Overall defect-free HF care was similar between both groups of hospitals (82.6% vs 83.4%; OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.67-1.19) and there were no significant within-hospital differences in quality for Black patients vs White patients. Among Medicare beneficiaries, the risk-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for 30-day readmissions was higher at high-proportion Black vs other hospitals (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.26), but similar for 30-day mortality (HR 0.92; 95% CI,0.84-1.02).

Conclusions and Relevance

Quality of care for HF was similar across 11 of 14 measures at hospitals caring for high proportions of Black patients compared with other hospitals, as was overall defect-free HF care. There were no significant within-hospital differences in quality for Black patients vs White patients.

Differences in Treatment Patterns and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction for Low- and High-Income Patients in 6 Countries

Importance

Differences in the organization and financing of health systems may produce more or less equitable outcomes for advantaged vs disadvantaged populations. We compared treatments and outcomes of older high- and low-income patients across 6 countries.

Objective

To determine whether treatment patterns and outcomes for patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction differ for low- vs high-income individuals across 6 countries.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Serial cross-sectional cohort study of all adults aged 66 years or older hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction from 2013 through 2018 in the US, Canada, England, the Netherlands, Taiwan, and Israel using population-representative administrative data.

Exposures

Being in the top and bottom quintile of income within and across countries.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Thirty-day and 1-year mortality; secondary outcomes included rates of cardiac catheterization and revascularization, length of stay, and readmission rates.

Results

We studied 289 376 patients hospitalized with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 843 046 hospitalized with non-STEMI (NSTEMI). Adjusted 30-day mortality generally was 1 to 3 percentage points lower for high-income patients. For instance, 30-day mortality among patients admitted with STEMI in the Netherlands was 10.2% for those with high income vs 13.1% for those with low income (difference, -2.8 percentage points [95% CI, -4.1 to -1.5]). One-year mortality differences for STEMI were even larger than 30-day mortality, with the highest difference in Israel (16.2% vs 25.3%; difference, -9.1 percentage points [95% CI, -16.7 to -1.6]). In all countries, rates of cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention were higher among high- vs low-income populations, with absolute differences ranging from 1 to 6 percentage points (eg, 73.6% vs 67.4%; difference, 6.1 percentage points [95% CI, 1.2 to 11.0] for percutaneous intervention in England for STEMI). Rates of coronary artery bypass graft surgery for patients with STEMI in low- vs high-income strata were similar but for NSTEMI were generally 1 to 2 percentage points higher among high-income patients (eg, 12.5% vs 11.0% in the US; difference, 1.5 percentage points [95% CI, 1.3 to 1.8 ]). Thirty-day readmission rates generally also were 1 to 3 percentage points lower and hospital length of stay generally was 0.2 to 0.5 days shorter for high-income patients.

Conclusions and Relevance

High-income individuals had substantially better survival and were more likely to receive lifesaving revascularization and had shorter hospital lengths of stay and fewer readmissions across almost all countries. Our results suggest that income-based disparities were present even in countries with universal health insurance and robust social safety net systems.

Social risk adjustment in the hospital readmission reduction program: Pitfalls of peer grouping, measurement challenges, and potential solutions

OBJECTIVE

To examine the limitations of peer grouping and associated challenges measuring social risk in Medicare's Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP). Under peer grouping, hospitals are divided into quintiles based on the proportion of a hospital's Medicare inpatients with Medicaid ("dual share"). This approach was implemented to address concerns that the HRRP unfairly penalized hospitals that disproportionately serve disadvantaged patients.

DATA

Public data on hospitals in the HRRP.

DESIGN

We examined the relationship between hospital dual share and readmission rates within peer groups; changes in hospitals' peer group assignments, readmission rates, and penalties; and the relationship between state Medicaid eligibility rules and peer groups.

DATA COLLECTION

Public data on hospital characteristics and readmission rates for 3119 hospitals from 2019 to 2020.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The proportion of dual inpatients among hospitals of the same peer group varied by as much as 69 percentage points (ppt). Within peer groups, a one ppt increase in dual share was associated with a 0.01 ppt increase in the difference from the median readmission rate (p < 0.001). From 2019 to 2020, 8.8% of hospitals switched peer groups. Compared to hospitals that did not switch, those moving to a lower peer group had a higher mean penalty in 2020 (0.096 ppt; p = 0.006); those moving to a higher group had a lower mean penalty (-0.06 ppt; p = 0.079). However, changes in penalties did not correspond to changes in readmission rates. Hospitals in states with higher Medicaid income eligibility limits were more likely to be in higher peer groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer grouping is limited in the extent to which it accounts for differences in hospitals' patient populations, and it may not fully insulate hospitals from penalties linked to changes in patient mix. These problems arise from the construction of peer groups and the measure of social risk used to define them.

Care Disruption During COVID-19: a National Survey of Hospital Leaders

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic caused massive disruption in usual care delivery patterns in hospitals across the USA, and highlighted long-standing inequities in health care delivery and outcomes. Its effect on hospital operations, and whether the magnitude of the effect differed for hospitals serving historically marginalized populations, is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the perspectives of hospital leaders on the effects of COVID-19 on their facilities' operations and patient outcomes.

METHODS

A survey was administered via print and electronic means to hospital leaders at 588 randomly sampled acute-care hospitals participating in Medicare's Inpatient Prospective Payment System, fielded from November 2020 to June 2021. Summary statistics were tabulated, and responses were adjusted for sampling strategy and non-response.

RESULTS

There were 203 responses to the survey (41.6%), with 20.7% of respondents representing safety-net hospitals and 19.7% representing high-minority hospitals. Over three-quarters of hospitals reported COVID testing shortages, about two-thirds reported staffing shortages, and 78.8% repurposed hospital spaces to intensive care units, with a slightly higher proportion of high-minority hospitals reporting these effects. About half of respondents felt that non-COVID inpatients received worsened quality or outcomes during peak COVID surges, and almost two-thirds reported worsened quality or outcomes for outpatient non-COVID patients as well, with few differences by hospital safety-net or minority status. Over 80% of hospitals participated in alternative payment models prior to COVID, and a third of these reported decreasing these efforts due to the pandemic, with no differences between safety-net and high-minority hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 significantly disrupted the operations of hospitals across the USA, with hospitals serving patients in poverty and racial and ethnic minorities reporting relatively similar care disruption as non-safety-net and lower-minority hospitals.

Race and outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium

BACKGROUND

Current studies show similar in-hospital outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between Black and White patients. Long-term outcomes and the role of individual and community-level socioeconomic factors in differential risk are less understood.

METHODS

We linked clinical registry data from PCIs performed between January, 2013 and March, 2018 at 48 Michigan hospitals to Medicare Fee-for-service claims. We analyzed patients of Black and White race. We used propensity score matching and logistic regression models to estimate the odds of 90-day readmission and Cox regression to evaluate the risk of postdischarge mortality. We used mediation analysis to evaluate the proportion of association mediated by socioeconomic factors.

RESULTS

Of the 29,317 patients included in this study, 10.28% were Black and 89.72% were White. There were minimal differences between groups regarding post-PCI in-hospital outcomes. Compared with White patients, Black patients were more likely to be readmitted within 90-days of discharge (adjusted OR 1.62, 95% CI [1.32-2.00]) and had significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.30-1.61) when adjusting for age and gender. These associations were significantly mediated by dual eligibility (proportion mediated [PM] for readmission: 11.0%; mortality: 21.1%); dual eligibility and economic well-being of the patient's community (PM for readmission: 22.3%; mortality: 43.0%); and dual eligibility, economic well-being of the community, and baseline clinical characteristics (PM for readmission: 45.0%; mortality: 87.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Black patients had a higher risk of 90-day readmission and cumulative mortality following PCI compared with White patients. Associations were mediated by dual eligibility, community economic well-being, and traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Our study highlights the need for improved upstream care and streamlined postdischarge care pathways as potential strategies to improve health care disparities in cardiovascular disease.

Characteristics, utilization, and concentration of outpatient care for dual-eligible Medicare beneficiaries

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the (1) distribution of outpatient care for dual-eligible Medicare beneficiaries ("duals") and (2) intensity of outpatient care utilization of duals vs non-dual-eligible beneficiaries ("nonduals").

STUDY DESIGN

Using data preceding the introduction of several outpatient alternative payment models, as well as Medicaid expansion, we evaluated the distribution of outpatient care across physician practices using a Lorenz curve and compared utilization of different outpatient services between duals and nonduals.

METHODS

We defined practices that did (high dual) and did not (low dual and no dual) account for the large majority of visits based on the Lorenz curve and then performed descriptive statistics between these groups of practices. Practice-level outcomes included patient demographics, practice characteristics, and county measures of structural disadvantage and population health. Patient-level outcomes included number of outpatient visits and unique outpatient physicians, primary vs subspecialty care visits, and expenditures.

RESULTS

Nearly 80% of outpatient visits for duals were provided by 35% of practices. Compared with low-dual and no-dual practices, high-dual practices served more patients (1117.6 patients per high-dual practice vs 683.8 patients per low-dual practice and 447.5 patients per no-dual practice; P < .001) with more comorbidities (3.9 mean total Elixhauser comorbidities among patients served by high-dual practices vs 3.6 among low-dual practices and 3.3 among no-dual practices; P < .001). With regard to utilization, duals had 2 fewer outpatient visits per year compared with nonduals (13.3 vs 15.2; P < .001), with particularly fewer subspecialty care visits (6.5 vs 7.9; P < .001) despite having more comorbidities (3.5 vs 2.7; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient care for duals was concentrated among a small number of practices. Despite having more chronic conditions, duals had fewer outpatient visits. Duals and the practices that serve them may benefit from targeted policies to promote access and improve outcomes.

Society of General Internal Medicine Position Statement on Social Risk and Equity in Medicare's Mandatory Value-Based Payment Programs

The Affordable Care Act (2010) and Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (2015) ushered in a new era of Medicare value-based payment programs. Five major mandatory pay-for-performance programs have been implemented since 2012 with increasing positive and negative payment adjustments over time. A growing body of evidence indicates that these programs are inequitable and financially penalize safety-net systems and systems that care for a higher proportion of racial and ethnic minority patients. Payments from penalized systems are often redistributed to those with higher performance scores, which are predominantly better-financed, large, urban systems that serve less vulnerable patient populations - a "Reverse Robin Hood" effect. This inequity may be diminished by adjusting for social risk factors in payment policy. In this position statement, we review the literature evaluating equity across Medicare value-based payment programs, major policy reports evaluating the use of social risk data, and provide recommendations on behalf of the Society of General Internal Medicine regarding how to address social risk and unmet health-related social needs in these programs. Immediate recommendations include implementing peer grouping (stratification of healthcare systems by proportion of dual eligible Medicare/Medicaid patients served, and evaluation of performance and subsequent payment adjustments within strata) until optimal methods for accounting for social risk are defined. Short-term recommendations include using census-based, area-level indices to account for neighborhood-level social risk, and developing standardized approaches to collecting individual socioeconomic data in a robust but sensitive way. Long-term recommendations include implementing a research agenda to evaluate best practices for accounting for social risk, developing validated health equity specific measures of care, and creating policies to better integrate healthcare and social services.

Hospitals serving nursing home residents disproportionately penalized under hospital readmissions reduction program

BACKGROUND

Risk factors common to nursing home (NH) residents are potentially not fully captured by the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP). The unique challenges faced by hospitals that disproportionately serve NH residents who are at greater risk of readmissions have not been studied.

METHODS

Using 100% Medicare Provider Analysis and Review File and the Minimum Data Set from 2010-2013, we constructed a measure of hospital share of NH-originating hospitalizations (NOHs). We defined hospital share of NOHs as the proportion of inpatient stays by patients aged 65 or older who were directly admitted from NHs. To evaluate the impact of the share of NOHs on readmission penalties, we categorized hospitals into quartiles according to their share of NOHs and estimated the differences in the adjusted penalties across hospital quartiles after accounting for hospital characteristics, market characteristics and state fixed effects. We repeated the analyses for the penalties incurred in each year between 2015 and 2019.

RESULTS

Hospitals varied substantially in the share of NOHs (median [interquartile range], 11.3% [8.2%-15.1%]), with limited variation over time. In 2015, hospitals in the highest quartile of NOH received on average 0.58% Medicare payment reduction compared to 0.44% reduction among those in the lowest quartile (32.9% higher penalties, p < 0.001). The increase in penalties continued to grow in 2017 and 2018 when the HRRP expanded to include additional target conditions (47.3% and 66.7%, respectively, p < 0.001 for both). Although the effect diminished in 2019 following the additional adjustment for hospital's dual-eligible share, hospitals in the highest quartile of NOH still incurred 43.0% (p < 0.001) higher penalties than those in the lowest quartile.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals varied considerably in their share of NOHs. Hospitals having a higher share of NOHs were disproportionately penalized for excess readmissions, even under the revised policy that adjusts for the share of dual-eligible admissions.

Social Risk Adjustment In The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program: A Systematic Review And Implications For Policy

Value-based payment programs adjust payments to providers based on spending, quality, or health outcomes. Concern that these programs penalize providers disproportionately serving vulnerable patients prompted calls to adjust performance measures for social risk factors. We reviewed fourteen studies of social risk adjustment in Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), a value-based payment model that initially did not adjust for social risk factors but subsequently began to do so. Seven studies found that adding social risk factors to the program's base risk-adjustment model (which adjusts only for age, sex, and comorbidities) reduced differences in risk-adjusted readmissions and penalties between safety-net hospitals and other hospitals. Three studies found that peer grouping, the HRRP's current approach to social risk adjustment, reduced penalties among safety-net hospitals. Two studies found that differences in risk-adjusted readmissions and penalties were further narrowed when augmentation of the base model was combined with peer grouping. Two studies showed that it is possible to adjust for social risk factors without obscuring quality differences between hospitals. These findings support the use of social risk adjustment to improve provider payment equity and highlight opportunities to enhance social risk adjustment in value-based payment programs.

Local Supply Of Postdischarge Care Options Tied To Hospital Readmission Rates

The extent to which patients' risk for readmission after a hospitalization is influenced by local availability of postdischarge care options is not currently known. We used national, hospital-level data to assess whether the supply of postdischarge care options in hospitals' catchment areas was associated with readmission rates for Medicare patients after hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia. Overall, readmission rates were negatively associated with per capita supply of primary care physicians (-0.16 percentage points per standard deviation) and licensed nursing home beds (-0.09 percentage points per standard deviation). In contrast, readmission rates were positively associated with per capita supply of nurse practitioners (0.09 percentage points per standard deviation). Our results suggest potential modifications to the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program to account for local health system characteristics when assigning penalties to hospitals.

Three-Year Impact Of Stratification In The Medicare Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program

The Medicare Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) financially penalizes hospitals with high readmission rates. In fiscal year 2019 the program was changed to account for the association between social risk and high readmission rates. The new approach stratifies hospitals into five groups by hospitals' proportion of patients dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, and it evaluates performance within each stratum instead of within the national cohort. Its impact on hospitals caring for vulnerable populations has not been studied. We calculated the change in average annual penalty percentage, before and after stratification, for safety-net hospitals, rural hospitals, and hospitals caring for a high share of Black and Hispanic or Latino patients. We found that stratification by proportion of dual enrollees was associated with a decrease in penalties by -0.09 percentage points at hospitals with the highest proportion of dual enrollees, -0.08 percentage points at rural hospitals, and -0.06 percentage points at hospitals with a large share of Black and Hispanic or Latino patients. Fully adjusted analyses suggest that these patterns were driven by penalty reductions at rural hospitals and hospitals disproportionately serving Black and Hispanic or Latino patients. Given the allocation of fewer penalties to these hospitals, we conclude that the stratification mandate was a modest step toward equity within the HRRP.

Strategies to Reduce Low-Value Cardiovascular Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Low-value health care services that provide little or no benefit to patients are common, potentially harmful, and costly. Nearly half of the patients in the United States will receive at least 1 low-value test or procedure annually, creating risk of avoidable complications from subsequent cascades of care and excess costs to patients and society. Reducing low-value care is of particular importance to cardiovascular health given the high prevalence and costs of cardiovascular disease in the United States. This scientific statement describes the current scope and impact of low-value cardiovascular care; reviews existing literature on patient-, clinician-, health system-, payer-, and policy-level interventions to reduce low-value care; proposes solutions to achieve meaningful and equitable reductions in low-value care; and suggests areas for future research priorities.

Association of Medicare-Medicaid Dual Eligibility and Race and Ethnicity With Ischemic Stroke Severity

Importance

Black and Hispanic US residents are disproportionately affected by stroke incidence, and patients with dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid may be predisposed to more severe strokes. Little is known about differences in stroke severity for individuals with dual eligibility, Black individuals, and Hispanic individuals, but understanding hospital admission stroke severity is the first important step for focusing strategies to reduce disparities in stroke care and outcomes.

Objective

To examine whether dual eligibility and race and ethnicity are associated with stroke severity in Medicare beneficiaries admitted to acute hospitals with ischemic stroke.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using Medicare claims data for patients with ischemic stroke admitted to acute hospitals in the United States from October 1, 2016, to November 30, 2017. Data were analyzed from July 2021 and January 2022.

Exposures

Dual enrollment for Medicare and Medicaid; race and ethnicity categorized as White, Black, Hispanic, and other.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Claim-based National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) categorized into minor (0-7), moderate (8-13), moderate to severe (14-21), and severe (22-42) stroke.

Results

Our sample included 45 459 Medicare fee-for-service patients aged 66 and older (mean [SD] age, 80.2 [8.4]; 25 303 [55.7%] female; 7738 [17.0%] dual eligible; 4107 [9.0%] Black; 1719 [3.8%] Hispanic; 37 715 [83.0%] White). In the fully adjusted models, compared with White patients, Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.21; 95% CI, 1.06-1.39) and Hispanic patients (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.29-1.85) were more likely to have a severe stroke. Using White patients without dual eligibility as a reference group, White patients with dual eligibility were more likely to have a severe stroke (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.56-1.95). Similarly, Black patients with dual eligibility (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.78-2.60) and Hispanic patients with dual eligibility (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.98-3.16) were more likely to have a severe stroke.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, Medicare fee-for-service patients with ischemic stroke admitted to acute hospitals who were Black or Hispanic had a higher likelihood of worse stroke severity. Additionally, dual eligibility status had a compounding association with stroke severity regardless of race and ethnicity. An urgent effort is needed to decrease disparities in access to preventive and poststroke care for dual eligible and minority patients.

Trends in US Ambulatory Care Patterns During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2019-2021

Importance

Following reductions in US ambulatory care early in the pandemic, it remains unclear whether care consistently returned to expected rates across insurance types and services.

Objective

To assess whether patients with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility had significantly lower than expected return to use of ambulatory care rates than patients with commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service insurance.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this retrospective cohort study examining ambulatory care service patterns from January 1, 2019, through February 28, 2021, claims data from multiple US payers were combined using the Milliman MedInsight research database. Using a difference-in-differences design, the extent to which utilization during the pandemic differed from expected rates had the pandemic not occurred was estimated. Changes in utilization rates between January and February 2020 and each subsequent 2-month time frame during the pandemic were compared with the changes in the corresponding months from the year prior. Age- and sex-adjusted Poisson regression models of monthly utilization counts were used, offsetting for total patient-months and stratifying by service and insurance type.

Exposures

Patients with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility compared with patients with commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service insurance, respectively.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Utilization rates per 100 people for 6 services: emergency department, office and urgent care, behavioral health, screening colonoscopies, screening mammograms, and contraception counseling or HIV screening.

Results

More than 14.5 million US adults were included (mean age, 52.7 years; 54.9% women). In the March-April 2020 time frame, the combined use of 6 ambulatory services declined to 67.0% (95% CI, 66.9%-67.1%) of expected rates, but returned to 96.7% (95% CI, 96.6%-96.8%) of expected rates by the November-December 2020 time frame. During the second COVID-19 wave in the January-February 2021 time frame, overall utilization again declined to 86.2% (95% CI, 86.1%-86.3%) of expected rates, with colonoscopy remaining at 65.0% (95% CI, 64.1%-65.9%) and mammography at 79.2% (95% CI, 78.5%-79.8%) of expected rates. By the January-February 2021 time frame, overall utilization returned to expected rates as follows: patients with Medicaid at 78.4% (95% CI, 78.2%-78.7%), Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility at 73.3% (95% CI, 72.8%-73.8%), commercial at 90.7% (95% CI, 90.5%-90.9%), Medicare Advantage at 83.2% (95% CI, 81.7%-82.2%), and Medicare fee-for-service at 82.0% (95% CI, 81.7%-82.2%; P < .001; comparing return to expected utilization rates among patients with Medicaid and Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility, respectively, with each of the other insurance types).

Conclusions and Relevance

Between March 2020 and February 2021, aggregate use of 6 ambulatory care services increased after the preceding decrease in utilization that followed the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the rate of increase in use of these ambulatory care services was significantly lower for participants with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility than for those insured by commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service.

Value-Based Care and Kidney Disease: Emergence and Future Opportunities

The United States health care system has increasingly embraced value-based programs that reward improved outcomes and lower costs. Health care value, defined as quality per unit cost, was a major goal of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act amid high and rising US health care expenditures. Many early value-based programs were specifically designed for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and targeted toward dialysis facilities, including the ESRD Prospective Payment System, ESRD Quality Incentive Program, and ESRD Seamless Care Organizations. While a great deal of attention has been paid to these ESRD-focused programs, other value-based programs targeted toward hospitals and health systems may also affect the quality and costs of care for a broader population of patients with kidney disease. Value-based care for kidney disease is increasingly relevant in light of the Advancing American Kidney Health initiative, which introduces new value-based payment models: the mandatory ESRD Treatment Choices Model in 2021 and voluntary Kidney Care Choices Model in 2022. In this review article, we summarize the emergence and impact of value-based programs on the quality and costs of kidney care, with a focus on federal programs. Key opportunities in value-based kidney care include shifting the focus toward chronic kidney disease, enhancing population health management capabilities, improving quality measurement, and leveraging programs to advance health equity.

Did the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program Reduce Readmissions without Hurting Patient Outcomes at High Dual-Proportion Hospitals Prior to Stratification?

Since the implementation of Medicare’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), safety-net hospitals have received a disproportionate share of financial penalties for excess readmissions, raising concerns about the fairness of the policy. In response, the HRRP now stratifies hospitals into five quintiles by low-income Medicare (dual Medicare–Medicaid eligible) stay proportion and compares readmission rates within quintiles. To better understand the potential effects of the revised policy, we used difference-in-differences models to compare changes in 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and 90th-day community-dwelling rates after discharge of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure and pneumonia during 2007-2014, for hospitals in the highest (N = 677) and lowest (N = 678) dual-proportion quintiles before and after the original HRRP implementation in fiscal year 2013. We find that high dual-proportion hospitals lowered readmissions for all three conditions, while their patients’ health outcomes remained largely stable. We also find that for heart failure, high dual-proportion hospitals reduced readmissions more than low dual-proportion hospitals, albeit with a relative increase in mortality. Contrary to concerns about fairness, our findings imply that, under the original HRRP, high dual-proportion hospitals improved readmissions performance generally without adverse effects on patients’ health. Whether these gains could be retained under the new policy should be closely monitored.

Association of Dual Eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid With Heart Failure Quality and Outcomes Among Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Hospitals

Importance

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services uses a new peer group-based payment system to compare hospital performance as part of its Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, which classifies hospitals into quintiles based on their share of dual-eligible beneficiaries for Medicare and Medicaid. However, little is known about the association of a hospital's share of dual-eligible beneficiaries with the quality of care and outcomes for patients with heart failure (HF).

Objective

To evaluate the association between a hospital's proportion of patients with dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid and HF quality of care and outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study evaluated 436 196 patients hospitalized for HF using the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017. The analysis included patients 65 years or older with available data on dual-eligibility status. Hospitals were divided into quintiles based on their share of dual-eligible patients. Quality and outcomes were analyzed using unadjusted and adjusted multivariable logistic regression models. Data analysis was performed from April 1, 2020, to January 1, 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause readmission. The secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, 30-day HF readmissions, 30-day all-cause mortality, and HF process of care measures.

Results

A total of 436 196 hospitalized HF patients 65 years or older from 535 hospital sites were identified, with 258 995 hospitalized patients (median age, 81 years; interquartile range, 74-87 years) at 455 sites meeting the study criteria and included in the primary analysis. A total of 258 995 HF hospitalizations from 455 sites were included in the primary analysis of the study. Hospitals in the highest dual-eligibility quintile (quintile 5) tended to care for patients who were younger, were more likely to be female, belonged to racial minority groups, or were located in rural areas compared with quintile 1 sites. After multivariable adjustment, hospitals with the highest quintile of dual eligibility were associated with lower rates of key process measures, including evidence-based β-blocker prescription, measure of left ventricular function, and anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. Differences in clinical outcomes were seen with higher 30-day all-cause (adjusted odds ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.14-1.35) and HF (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.27) readmissions in higher dual-eligible quintile 5 sites compared with quintile 1 sites. Risk-adjusted in-hospital and 30-day mortality did not significantly differ in quintile 1 vs quintile 5 hospitals.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, hospitals with a higher share of dual-eligible patients provided care with lower rates of some of the key HF quality of care process measures and with higher 30-day all-cause or HF readmissions compared with lower dual-eligibility quintile hospitals.

Evaluating the impact of social deprivation on Press Ganey® Outpatient Medical Practice Survey Scores

Background

Social deprivation has been shown to affect access to health care services, and influences outcomes for a variety of physical and psychological conditions. However, the impact on patient satisfaction remains less clear. The objective of this study was to determine if social deprivation is an independent predictor of patient satisfaction, as measured by the Press Ganey® Outpatient Medical Practice Survey (PGOMPS).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed unique new adult patient (≥ 18 years of age) seen at a tertiary academic hospital and rural/urban outreach hospitals/clinics between January 2014 and December 2017. Satisfaction was defined a priori as achieving a score above the 33rd percentile. The 2015 Area Deprivation Index (ADI) was used to determine social deprivation (lower score signifies less social deprivation). Univariate and multivariable binary logistic regression were used to determine the impact of ADI on PGOMPS total and provider sub-scores while controlling for variables previously shown to impact scores (wait time, patient age, sex, race, specialty type, provider type, and insurance status).

Results

Univariate analysis of PGOMPS total scores revealed a 4% decrease in odds of patient satisfaction per decile increase in ADI (p < 0.001). Patients within the most deprived quartile were significantly less likely to report satisfaction compared to the least deprived quartile (OR 0.79, p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed that the odds of achieving satisfaction decreased 2% for each decile increase in ADI on the Total Score (p < 0.001), independent of other variables previously shown to impact scores. For PGOMPS Provider Sub-Score, univariate analysis showed that patients in the lowest ADI quartile were significantly less likely be satisfied, as compared to the least deprived quartile (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.70–0.86; p < 0.001). A 5% decrease in a patient being satisfied was observed for each decile increase in ADI (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.94–0.96; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Social deprivation was an independent predictor of outpatient visit dissatisfaction, as measured by the Press Ganey® Outpatient Medical Practice Survey. These results necessitate consideration when developing health care delivery policies that serve to minimize inequalities between patients of differing socioeconomic groups.

Adjusting Quality Measures For Social Risk Factors Can Promote Equity In Health Care

Risk adjustment of quality measures using clinical risk factors is widely accepted; risk adjustment using social risk factors remains controversial. We argue here that social risk adjustment is appropriate and necessary in defined circumstances and that social risk adjustment should be the default option when there are valid empirical arguments for and against adjustment for a given measure. Social risk adjustment is an important way to avoid exacerbating inequity in the health care system.

Perception of Risk: A Poll of American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Members

BACKGROUND

Providers of total hip and knee replacements are being judged regarding quality/cost by payers using competition-based performance measures with poor medical and no socioeconomic risk adjustment. Providers might assume that other providers shed risk and the perception of added risk can influence practice. A poll was collected to examine such perceptions.

METHODS

In 2019 a poll was sent to the 2800 surgeon members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons using Survey Monkey while protecting respondent anonymity/confidentiality. The questions asked whether the perception of poorly risk-adjusted medical comorbidities and socioeconomic risk factors influence surgeons to selectively offer surgery.

RESULTS

There were 474 surgeon responses. Prior to elective total hip arthroplasty/total knee arthroplasty, 95% address modifiable risk factors; 52% require a body mass index <40, 64% smoking cessation, 96% an adequate hemoglobin A1C; 82% check nutrition; and 63% expect control of alcohol 2. Due to lack of socioeconomic risk adjustment, 83% reported feeling pressure to avoid/restrict access to patients with limited social support, specifically the following: Medicaid/underinsured, 81%; African Americans, 29%; Hispanics/ethnicities, 27%; and low socioeconomic status, 73%. Of the respondents, 93% predicted increased access to care with more appropriate risk adjustment.

CONCLUSION

Competition-based quality/cost performance measures influence surgeons to focus on medical risk factors in offering lower extremity arthroplasty. The lack of socioeconomic risk adjustment leads to perceptions of added risk from such factors as well. This leads to marginal loss of access for patients within certain medical and socioeconomic classes, contributing to existing healthcare disparities. This represents an unintended consequence of competition-based performance measures.

Complex Transitions from Skilled Nursing Facility to Home: Patient and Caregiver Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Patients who undergo the complex series of transitions from the hospital to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) back to home represent a unique patient population with multiple comorbidities and impaired functional abilities. The needs and outcomes of patients who are discharged from the hospital to SNF before returning home are understudied in care transitions scholarship.

OBJECTIVE

To study the patient and caregiver challenges and perspectives on transitions from the hospital to the SNF and back to home.

DESIGN

Between 48 h and 1 week after discharge from the SNF, semi-structured interviews were performed with a convenience sample of patients and caregivers in their homes. Within 1 to 2 weeks after the baseline interview, follow-up interviews were performed over the phone.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 39 interviewees comprised older adults undergoing the series of transitions from hospital to skilled nursing facility to home and their informal caregivers.

MAIN MEASURES

A constructionist, grounded-theory approach was used to code the interviews, identify major themes and subthemes, and develop a theoretical model explaining the outcomes of the SNF to home transition.

KEY RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 76.6 years and 64.8 years for the caregivers. Four major themes were identified: comforts of home, information needs, post-SNF care, and independence. Patients noted an extended time away from home and were motivated to return to and remain in the home. Information needs were variably met and affected post-SNF care, including medication management, appointments, and therapy gains and setbacks. Interviewees identified independent function at home as the most important outcome of the transition home.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-SNF in home support is needed rapidly after discharge from the SNF to prevent adverse outcomes. In-home support needs to be highly individualized based on a patient's and caregiver's unique situation and needs.

Readmissions and costs among younger and older adults for targeted conditions during the enactment of the hospital readmission reduction program

Background

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was introduced to reduce readmission rates among Medicare beneficiaries, however little is known about readmissions and costs for HRRP-targeted conditions in younger populations. The primary objective of this study was to examine readmission trends and costs for targeted conditions during policy implementation among younger and older adults in the U.S.

Methods

We analyzed the Nationwide Readmission Database from January 2010 to September 2015 in younger (18–64 years) and older (≥65 years) patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), pneumonia, and acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). Pre- and post-HRRP periods were defined based on implementation of the policy for each condition. Readmission rates were evaluated using an interrupted time series with difference-in-difference analyses and hospital cost differences between early and late readmissions (≤30 vs. > 30 days) were evaluated using generalized linear models.

Results

Overall, this study included 16,884,612 hospitalizations with 3,337,266 readmissions among all age groups and 5,977,177 hospitalizations with 1,104,940 readmissions in those aged 18–64 years. Readmission rates decreased in all conditions. In the HRRP announcement period, readmissions declined significantly for those aged 40–64 years for AMI (p < 0.0001) and HF (p = 0.003). Readmissions decreased significantly in the post-HRRP period for those aged 40–64 years at a slower rate for AMI (p = 0.003) and HF (p = 0.05). Readmission rates among younger patients (18–64 years) varied within all four targeted conditions in HRRP announcement and post-HRRP periods. Adjusted models showed a significantly higher readmission cost in those readmitted within 30 days among younger and older populations for AMI (p < 0.0001), HF (p < 0.0001), pneumonia (p < 0.0001), and AECOPD (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Readmissions for targeted conditions decreased in the U.S. during the enactment of the HRRP policy and younger age groups (< 65 years) not targeted by the policy saw a mixed effect. Healthcare expenditures in younger and older populations were significantly higher for early readmissions with all targeted conditions. Further research is necessary evaluating total healthcare utilization including emergency department visits, observation units, and hospital readmissions in order to better understand the extent of the HRRP on U.S. healthcare.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06399-z.

Association Between the Proportion of Black Patients Cared for at Hospitals and Financial Penalties Under Value-Based Payment Programs

This study evaluates whether US hospitals with mostly Black patients are more likely than other hospitals to have penalties associated with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) value-based payment programs.

Misclassification of Hospital Performance Under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program: Implications for Value-Based Programs

Importance

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) use point estimates of 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) to compare hospitals under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP). An important characteristic of this measure is that it is a point estimate with a margin of error, which may affect the CMS's ability to accurately evaluate and distinguish hospital performance in the program.

Objective

To determine the number and percentage of hospitals with a penalty status misclassified under the HRRP.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used the bayesian deconvolution method to estimate the rate of penalty status misclassification for hospitals participating in the HRRP in fiscal year 2019, using data from the CMS Hospital Compare website that were collected between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2017. Beneficiaries of Medicare fee-for-service coverage who were 65 years or older and hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia in hospitals with 25 or more discharges per condition were included in the data set. Data analysis occurred from November 2019 to July 2020.

Exposures

None.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The rate of penalty status misclassification for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia under the HRRP.

Results

The study included 1633, 2626, and 2705 hospitals for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia, respectively, that participated in the HRRP in fiscal year 2019. The percentages of hospitals that should have been penalized, but were not, were 20.9% (95% CI, 16.0%-25.8%) for acute myocardial infarction, 13.5% (95% CI, 9.8%-17.2%) for heart failure, and 13.2% (95% CI, 10.3%-16.1%) for pneumonia. In contrast, the percentages of hospitals that were incorrectly penalized by the HRRP were 10.1% (95% CI, 5.8%-14.4%) for acute myocardial infarction, 10.9% (95% CI, 7.2%-14.6%) for heart failure, and 12.3% (95% CI, 9.9%-14.6%) for pneumonia.

Conclusions and Relevance

The margin of error associated with the 30-day RSRRs resulted in the misclassification of condition-specific penalty status for up to 31% of hospitals. These findings suggest that the hospital-level 30-day RSRR measure may not reliably distinguish hospital performance in the HRRP. This has important implications for CMS value-based programs that use risk-standardized outcomes to evaluate and compare hospital performance.

Association of Stratification by Proportion of Patients Dually Enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid With Financial Penalties in the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program

Importance

The Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) is a value-based payment program focused on safety events. Prior studies have found that the program disproportionately penalizes safety-net hospitals, which may perform more poorly because of unmeasured severity of illness rather than lower quality. A similar program, the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, stratifies hospitals into 5 peer groups for evaluation based on the proportion of their patients dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, but the effect of stratification on the HACRP is unknown.

Objective

To characterize the hospitals penalized by the HACRP and the distribution of financial penalties before and after stratification.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation used publicly available data on HACRP performance and penalties merged with hospital characteristics and cost reports. A total of 3102 hospitals participating in the HACRP in fiscal year 2020 (covering data from July 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018) were studied.

Exposures

Hospitals were divided into 5 groups based on the proportion of patients dually enrolled, and penalties were assigned to the lowest-performing quartile of hospitals in each group rather than the lowest-performing quartile overall.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Penalties in the prestratification vs poststratification schemes.

Results

The study identified 3102 hospitals evaluated by the HACRP. Safety-net hospitals received $111 333 384 in penalties before stratification compared with an estimated $79 087 744 after stratification-a savings of $32 245 640. Hospitals less likely to receive penalties after stratification included safety-net hospitals (33.6% penalized before stratification vs 24.8% after stratification, Δ = -8.8 percentage points [pp], P < .001), public hospitals (34.1% vs 30.5%, Δ = -3.6 pp, P = .003), hospitals in the West (26.8% vs 23.2%, Δ = -3.6 pp, P < .001), hospitals in Medicaid expansion states (27.3% vs 25.6%, Δ = -1.7 pp, P = .003), and hospitals caring for the most patients with disabilities (32.2% vs 28.3%, Δ = -3.9 pp, P < .001) and from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds (35.1% vs 31.5%, Δ = -3.6 pp, P < .001). In multivariate analyses, safety-net status and treating patients with highly medically complex conditions were associated with higher odds of moving from penalized to nonpenalized status.

Conclusions and Relevance

This economic evaluation suggests that stratification of hospitals would be associated with a narrowing of disparities in penalties and a marked reduction in penalties for safety-net hospitals. Policy makers should consider adopting stratification for the HACRP.

Preventing COPD Readmissions Under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program: How Far Have We Come?

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was developed and implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to curb the rate of 30-day hospital readmissions for certain common, high-impact conditions. In October 2014, COPD became a target condition for which hospitals were penalized for excess readmissions. The appropriateness, utility, and potential unintended consequences of the metric have been a topic of debate since it was first enacted. Nevertheless, there is evidence that hospital policies broadly implemented in response to the HRRP may have been responsible for reducing the rate of readmissions following COPD hospitalizations even before it was added as a target condition. Since the addition of the COPD condition to the HRRP, several predictive models have been developed to predict COPD survival and readmissions, with the intention of identifying modifiable risk factors. A number of interventions have also been studied, with mixed results. Bundled care interventions using the electronic health record and patient education interventions for inhaler education have been shown to reduce readmissions, whereas pulmonary rehabilitation, follow-up visits, and self-management programs have not been consistently shown to do the same. Through this program, COPD has become recognized as a public health priority. However, 5 years after COPD became a target condition for HRRP, there continues to be no single intervention that reliably prevents readmissions in this patient population. Further research is needed to understand the long-term effects of the policy, the role of competing risks in measuring quality, the optimal postdischarge care for patients with COPD, and the integrated use of predictive modeling and advanced technologies to prevent COPD readmissions.

Performance in Federal Value-Based Programs of Hospitals Recognized by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology for High-Quality Heart Failure and Acute Myocardial Infarction Care

Importance

The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have implemented national value-based programs that incentivize hospitals to deliver better cardiovascular care. However, it is unclear how hospitals recognized for high-quality cardiovascular care by American Heart Association (AHA) and American College of Cardiology (ACC) national quality improvement initiatives (termed award hospitals) have performed under value-based programs.

Objective

To determine if hospitals that received awards for high-quality cardiovascular care from the AHA/ACC were less likely to be penalized under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program (VBP) compared with other hospitals.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This national cross-sectional study included data from short-term acute care hospitals in the United States that were participating in the HRRP or VBP in fiscal year 2018.

Exposures

Recognition awards for high-quality care from the AHA's Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure and ACC's Chest Pain-MI (myocardial infarction) Registry national quality improvement initiatives.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportion of hospitals that received a financial penalty or financial reward under the HRRP or VBP, median payment adjustments, and hospital-level 30-day mortality rates.

Results

This study included 3175 hospitals participating in the HRRP and 2781 hospitals participating in the VBP in fiscal year 2018. Under the HRRP, a higher proportion of award hospitals received financial penalties compared with other hospitals (419 [85.5%] vs 2112 [78.7%]; P < .001), although payment reductions were similar (median, 0.39% [interquartile range (IQR), 0.08%-0.84%] vs 0.33% [IQR, 0.03%-0.89%]; P = .17). Under the VBP, a higher proportion of award hospitals received penalties compared with other hospitals (250 [51.7%] vs 950 [41.4%]; P < .001), and fewer award hospitals received financial rewards (234 [48.4%] vs 1347 [58.6%]; P < .001). Median payment reductions were higher for award hospitals than other hospitals (0.01% [IQR, 0.00%-0.38%] vs 0.0% [IQR, 0.00%-0.28%]; P < .001), and median payment increases were lower (0.0% [IQR, 0.00%-0.34%] vs 0.13% [IQR, 0.00%-0.60%]; P < .001). Thirty-day mortality at award hospitals was similar (acute myocardial infarction, 13.2% vs 13.2%; P = .76) or slightly lower (heart failure, 11.3% vs 11.7%; P = .001) compared with other hospitals.

Conclusions and Relevance

Hospitals that received awards for high-quality cardiovascular care from the AHA/ACC were more likely to be penalized and less likely to be financially rewarded by federal value-based programs. These findings highlight the potential need to standardize measurement of cardiovascular care quality.

Evaluation of Hospital Performance Using the Excess Days in Acute Care Measure in the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) has penalized hospitals with higher 30-day readmission rates more than $3 billion to date. Clinicians and policy experts have raised concerns that the 30-day readmission measure used in this program provides an incomplete picture of performance because it does not capture all hospital encounters that may occur after discharge. In contrast, the excess days in acute care (EDAC) measure, which currently is not used in the HRRP, captures the full spectrum of hospital encounters (emergency department, observation stay, inpatient readmission) and their associated lengths of stay within 30 days of discharge. This study of 3173 hospitals that participated in the HRRP in fiscal year 2019 compared performance on the readmission and EDAC measures and evaluated whether using the EDAC measure would change hospitals' penalty status for 3 conditions targeted by the HRRP. Overall, only moderate agreement was found on hospital performance rankings by using the readmission and EDAC measures (weighted κ statistic: heart failure, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.47]; acute myocardial infarction [AMI], 0.37 [CI, 0.35 to 0.40]; and pneumonia, 0.50 [CI, 0.47 to 0.52]). Under the HRRP, the penalty status of 769 (27.0%) of 2845 hospitals for heart failure, 581 (28.3%) of 2055 for AMI, and 724 (24.9%) of 2911 for pneumonia would change if the EDAC measure were used instead of the readmission measure to evaluate performance. Fewer small and rural hospitals would receive penalties. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should consider using the EDAC measure, which provides a more comprehensive picture of postdischarge hospital use, rather than the 30-day readmission measure to evaluate health care system performance under federal quality, reporting, and value-based programs.

The Impact of Social Deprivation on Orthopaedic Outpatient Satisfaction Using the Press Ganey Outpatient Medical Practice Survey

INTRODUCTION

In orthopaedics, multiple factors (patient age, wait time, and depression) have been associated with lower Press Ganey Outpatient Medical Practice Survey (PGOMPS) patient satisfaction scores. We hypothesized that increased social deprivation is an independent predictor of lower patient satisfaction, as measured by the PGOMPS.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed unique new outpatient orthopaedic surgery visits between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2016, at a single tertiary academic institution. Given the high ceiling effects, satisfaction was defined a priori as achieving a score above the 33rd percentile. Social deprivation was determined using the 2015 Area Deprivation Index (ADI). Univariate and multivariable binary logistic regressions were used to detect factors associated with patient satisfaction for both the PGOMPS Total Score and Provider Sub-Score.

RESULTS

Of the 4,881 included patients, the mean age was 53.3 ± 15.9 years, 59.3% were women, and mean ADI was 30.1 ± 19.2. Univariate analysis revealed a significantly decreased odds of achieving satisfaction on the Total Score for each decile increase in ADI (odds ratio [OR] 0.94; P < 0.001). Compared with the least deprived quartile, patients of the most deprived quartile were significantly less likely to report satisfaction for both the Total Score (OR 0.56; P = 0.001) and Provider Sub-Score (OR 0.63; P = 0.011). Multivariable analysis revealed that the odds of achieving satisfaction for each decile increase in ADI were 0.96 for the Total Score (P = 0.014) and 0.95 for the Provider Sub-Score (P = 0.004), independent of age, wait time, race, subspecialty, provider type, and the clinic setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased social deprivation was an independent predictor of orthopaedic outpatient dissatisfaction on the PGOMPS. These findings should be considered when interpreting patient satisfaction scores and lend further support in an effort to improve healthcare inequalities.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Evaluation of Changes in Veterans Affairs Medical Centers' Mortality Rates After Risk Adjustment for Socioeconomic Status

IMPORTANCE

Socioeconomic factors are associated with worse outcomes after hospitalization, but neither the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) nor the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system adjust for socioeconomic factors in profiling hospital mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate changes in Veterans Affairs medical centers' (VAMCs') risk-standardized mortality rates among veterans hospitalized for heart failure and pneumonia after adjusting for socioeconomic factors.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cross-sectional study, retrospective data were used to assess 131 VAMCs' risk-standardized 30-day mortality rates with or without adjustment for socioeconomic covariates. The study population included 42 892 veterans hospitalized with heart failure and 39 062 veterans hospitalized with pneumonia from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2019, to April 1, 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was 30-day mortality after admission. Socioeconomic covariates included neighborhood disadvantage, race/ethnicity, homelessness, rurality, nursing home residence, reason for Medicare eligibility, Medicaid and Medicare dual eligibility, and VA priority.

RESULTS

The study population included 42 892 veterans hospitalized with heart failure (98.2% male; mean [SD] age, 71.9 [11.4] years) and 39 062 veterans hospitalized with pneumonia (96.8% male; mean [SD] age, 71.0 [12.4] years). The addition of socioeconomic factors to the CMS models modestly increased the C statistic from 0.77 (95% CI, 0.77-0.78) to 0.78 (95% CI, 0.78-0.78) for 30-day mortality after heart failure and from 0.73 (95% CI, 0.72-0.73) to 0.74 (95% CI, 0.73-0.74) for 30-day mortality after pneumonia. Mortality rates were highly correlated (Spearman correlations of ≥0.98) in models that included or did not include socioeconomic factors. With the use of the CMS model for heart failure, VAMCs in the lowest quintile had a mean (SD) mortality rate of 6.0% (0.4%), those in the middle 3 quintiles had a mean (SD) mortality rate of 7.2% (0.4%), and those in the highest quintile had a mean (SD) mortality rate of 8.8% (0.6%). After the inclusion of socioeconomic covariates, the adjusted mean (SD) mortality was 6.1% (0.4%) for hospitals in the lowest quintile, 7.2% (0.4%) for those in the middle 3 quintiles, and 8.6% (0.5%) for those in the highest quintile. The mean absolute change in rank after socioeconomic adjustment was 3.0 ranking positions (interquartile range, 1.0-4.0) among hospitals in the highest quintile of mortality after heart failure and 4.4 ranking positions (interquartile range, 1.0-6.0) among VAMCs in the lowest quintile. Similar findings were observed for mortality rankings in pneumonia and after inclusion of clinical covariates.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study suggests that adjustments for socioeconomic factors did not meaningfully change VAMCs' risk-adjusted 30-day mortality rates for veterans hospitalized for heart failure and pneumonia. The implications of such adjustments should be examined for other quality measures and health systems.

Readmission Rates for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program: an Interrupted Time Series Analysis

BACKGROUND

Hospital readmission rates decreased for myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (CHF), and pneumonia with implementation of the first phase of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP). It is not established whether readmissions fell for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), an HRRP condition added in 2014.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine whether HRRP penalties influenced COPD readmissions among Medicare, Medicaid, or privately insured patients.

DESIGN

We analyzed a retrospective cohort, evaluating readmissions across implementation periods for HRRP penalties ("pre-HRRP" January 2010-April 2011, "implementation" May 2011-September 2012, "partial penalty" October 2012-September 2014, and "full penalty" October 2014-December 2016).

PATIENTS

We assessed discharged patients ≥ 40 years old with COPD versus those with HRRP Phase 1 conditions (AMI, CHF, and pneumonia) or non-HRRP residual diagnoses in the Nationwide Readmissions Database.

INTERVENTIONS

HRRP was announced and implemented during this period, forming a natural experiment.

MEASUREMENTS

We calculated differences-in-differences (DID) for 30-day COPD versus HRRP Phase 1 and non-HRRP readmissions.

KEY RESULTS

COPD discharges for 1.2 million Medicare enrollees were compared with 22 million non-HRRP and 3.4 million HRRP Phase 1 discharges. COPD readmissions decreased from 19 to 17% over the study. This reduction was significantly greater than non-HRRP conditions (DID - 0.41%), but not HRRP Phase 1 (DID + 0.02%). A parallel trend was observed in the privately insured, with significant reduction compared with non-HRRP (DID - 0.83%), but not HRRP Phase 1 conditions (DID - 0.45%). Non-significant reductions occurred in Medicaid (DID - 0.52% vs. non-HRRP and - 0.21% vs. Phase 1 conditions).

CONCLUSIONS

In Medicare, HRRP implementation was associated with reductions in COPD readmissions compared with non-HRRP controls but not versus other HRRP conditions. Parallel findings were observed in commercial insurance, but not in Medicaid. Condition-specific penalties may not reduce readmissions further than existing HRRP trends.

Paying for Performance Improvement in Quality and Outcomes of Cardiovascular Care: Challenges and Prospects

Over the past two decades, Medicare and other payers have been looking at ways to base payment for cardiovascular care on the quality and outcomes of care delivered. Public reporting of hospital performance on a series of quality measures began in 2004 with basic processes of care such as aspirin use and influenza vaccination, and it expanded in later years to include outcomes such as mortality and readmission rates. Following the passage of the Affordable Care Act in March 2010, Medicare and other payers moved forward with pay-for-performance programs, more commonly referred to as value-based purchasing (VBP) programs. These programs are largely based on an underlying fee-for-service payment infrastructure and give hospitals and clinicians bonuses or penalties based on their performance. Another new payment mechanism, called alternative payment models (APMs), aims to move towards episode-based or global payments to improve quality and efficiency. The two most relevant APMs for cardiovascular care include Accountable Care Organizations and bundled payments. Both VBP programs and APMs have challenges related to program efficacy, accuracy, and equity. In fact, despite over a decade of progress in measuring and incentivizing high-quality care delivery within cardiology, major limitations remain. Many of the programs have had little benefit in terms of clinical outcomes yet have led to marked administrative burden for participants. However, there are several encouraging prospects to aid the successful implementation of value-based high-quality cardiovascular care, such as more sophisticated data science to improve risk adjustment and flexible electronic health records to decrease administrative burden. Furthermore, payment models designed specifically for cardiovascular care could incentivize innovative care delivery models that could improve quality and outcomes for patients. This review provides an overview of current efforts, largely at the federal level, to pay for high-quality cardiovascular care and discusses the challenges and prospects related to doing so.

Risk adjusting for Medicaid participation in Medicare Advantage

OBJECTIVES

Determining appropriate capitated payments has important access implications for dual-eligible Medicare Advantage (MA) members. In 2017, MA plans began receiving higher capitated payments for beneficiaries with full vs partial Medicaid when payments started being risk adjusted for level of Medicaid benefits instead of any Medicaid participation. This approach could favor MA plans in states with more generous Medicaid programs where more beneficiaries qualify for full Medicaid and thus a higher capitated payment. To understand this issue, we examined adjusted Medicare spending for dual-eligible beneficiaries across states with differing Medicaid eligibility criteria.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of 2007-2015 traditional Medicare data for dual-eligible beneficiaries 65 years and older.

METHODS

We compared predicted per-beneficiary spending levels after adjusting for any Medicaid participation and for level of Medicaid benefits across states with varying Medicaid eligibility requirements.

RESULTS

States with the most generous Medicaid requirements had more dual-eligible beneficiaries with full Medicaid compared with the most restrictive states (median, 82% vs 55%). Nationally, Medicare spending levels were 1.3 times greater for full vs partial Medicaid participants (range across states, 0.8-1.7). When per-beneficiary spending was adjusted for level of Medicaid benefits, rather than any Medicaid participation, states with more generous Medicaid eligibility had larger gains in predicted spending per dual-eligible beneficiary than states with less generous Medicaid coverage (1.7% vs 1.3% increase).

CONCLUSIONS

Distinguishing between partial and full Medicaid in MA payments may disproportionately increase MA payments in states that have more full Medicaid beneficiaries due to more generous Medicaid eligibility.

Association of Medicaid Eligibility With Surgical Readmission Among Medicare Beneficiaries

IMPORTANCE

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is beginning to consider adjusting for social risk factors, such as dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid, when evaluating hospital performance under value-based purchasing programs. It is unknown whether dual eligibility represents a unique domain of social risk or instead represents clinical risk unmeasured by variables available in traditional Medicare claims.

OBJECTIVE

To assess how dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid is associated with risk-adjusted readmission rates after surgery.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted of 55 651 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing general, vascular, and gynecologic surgery at 62 hospitals in Michigan between January 1, 2014, and December 1, 2016. Representative cohorts were derived from traditional Medicare claims (n = 29 710) and the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) clinical registry (n = 25 941), which includes additional measures of clinical risk. Statistical analysis was conducted between April 10 and July 15, 2019. The association between dual eligibility and risk-adjusted 30-day readmission rates after surgery was compared between models inclusive and exclusive of additional measurements of clinical risk. The study also examined how dual eligibility is associated with hospital profiling using risk-adjusted readmission rates.

EXPOSURES

Dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Risk-adjusted all-cause 30-day readmission after surgery.

RESULTS

There were a total of 3986 dual-eligible beneficiaries in the Medicare claims cohort (2554 women; mean [SD] age, 72.9 [6.9] years) and 1608 dual-eligible beneficiaries in the MSQC cohort (990 women; mean [SD] age, 72.9 [6.8] years). In both data sets, higher proportions of dual-eligible beneficiaries were younger, female, and nonwhite than Medicare-only beneficiaries (Medicare claims cohort: female, 2554 of 3986 [64.1%] vs 12 879 of 25 724 [50.1%]; nonwhite, 1225 of 3986 [30.7%] vs 2783 of 25 724 [10.8%]; MSQC cohort: female, 990 of 1608 [61.6%] vs 12 578 of 24 333 [51.7%]; nonwhite, 416 of 1608 [25.9%] vs 2176 of 24 333 [8.9%]). In the Medicare claims cohort, dual-eligible beneficiaries were more likely to be readmitted (15.5% [95% CI, 13.7%-17.3%]) than Medicare-only beneficiaries (13.3% [95% CI, 12.7%-13.9%]; difference, 2.2 percentage points [95% CI, 0.4-3.9 percentage points]). In the MSQC cohort, after adjustment for more granular measures of clinical risk, dual eligibility was not significantly associated with readmission (difference, 0.6 percentage points [95% CI, -1.0 to 2.2 percentage points]). In both the Medicare claims and MSQC cohorts, adding dual eligibility to risk-adjustment models had little association with hospital ranking using risk-adjusted readmission rates.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study suggests that dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid may reflect unmeasured clinical risk of readmission in claims data. Policy makers should consider incorporating more robust measures of social risk into risk-adjustment models used by value-based purchasing programs.

Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations

Health systems rely on commercial prediction algorithms to identify and help patients with complex health needs. We show that a widely used algorithm, typical of this industry-wide approach and affecting millions of patients, exhibits significant racial bias: At a given risk score, Black patients are considerably sicker than White patients, as evidenced by signs of uncontrolled illnesses. Remedying this disparity would increase the percentage of Black patients receiving additional help from 17.7 to 46.5%. The bias arises because the algorithm predicts health care costs rather than illness, but unequal access to care means that we spend less money caring for Black patients than for White patients. Thus, despite health care cost appearing to be an effective proxy for health by some measures of predictive accuracy, large racial biases arise. We suggest that the choice of convenient, seemingly effective proxies for ground truth can be an important source of algorithmic bias in many contexts.

Association Between Financial Incentives in Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program and Hospital Readmission Performance

IMPORTANCE

The strongest evidence for the effectiveness of Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) involves greater reductions in readmissions for hospitals receiving penalties compared with those not receiving penalties. However, the HRRP penalty is an imperfect measure of hospitals' marginal incentive to avoid a readmission for HRRP-targeted diagnoses.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the association between hospitals' condition-specific incentives and readmission performance and to examine the responsiveness of hospitals to condition-specific incentives compared with aggregate penalty amounts.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort analysis used Medicare readmissions data from 2823 US short-term acute care hospitals participating in HRRP to compare 3-year (fiscal years 2016-2019) follow-up readmission performance according to tertiles of hospitals' baseline (2016) marginal incentives for each of 5 HRRP-targeted conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and hip and/or knee surgery).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Linear regression models were used to estimate mean change in follow-up readmission performance, measured using the excess readmissions ratio, with baseline condition-specific incentives and aggregate penalty amounts.

RESULTS

Of 2823 hospitals that participated in the HRRP from baseline to follow-up, 2280 (81%) had more than 1 excess readmission for 1 or more applicable condition and 543 (19%) did not have any excess readmissions. The mean (SD) financial incentive to reduce readmissions for incentivized hospitals ranged from $8762 ($3699) to $58 158 ($26 198) per 1 avoided readmission. Hospitals with greater incentives for readmission avoidance had greater decreases in readmissions compared with hospitals with smaller incentives (45% greater for pneumonia, 172% greater for acute myocardial infarction, 40% greater for hip and/or knee surgery, 32% greater for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 13% greater for heart failure), whereas hospitals with no incentives had increases in excess readmissions of 4% to 7% (median, 4% [percentage change for nonincentivized hospitals was 3.7% for pneumonia, 4.2% for acute myocardial infarction, 7.1% for hip and/or knee surgery, 3.7% for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 3.7% for heart failure]; P < .001). During the study period, each additional $5000 in the incentive amount was associated with a 0.6- to 1.3-percentage point decrease, or up to a 26% decrease, in excess readmissions (P < .001). Regression to the mean explained approximately one-third of the results depending on the condition examined.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings suggest that improvements in readmission avoidance are more strongly associated with incentives from the HRRP than with aggregate penalty amounts, suggesting that the program has elicited sizeable changes. Worsened performance among hospitals with small or no incentives may indicate the need for reconsideration of the program's lack of financial rewards for high-performing hospitals.

How Have Hospitals in the Mississippi Delta Fared Under the 2019 Revised Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program?

In 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (2013 HRRP), which financially penalized hospitals if their 30-day readmissions were higher than the national average. Without adjusting for socioeconomic status of patients, the 2013 HRRP overly penalized hospitals caring for the poor, especially hospitals in the Mississippi Delta region, one of the poorest regions in the U.S. In 2019, CMS revised the HRRP (2019 Revised HRRP) to stratify hospitals into quintiles based on the proportion of patients that are dual-eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. This study aimed to examine the effect of the 2019 Revised HRRP on financial penalties for Delta hospitals using a difference-in-difference (DID) approach with data from the 2018 and 2019 HRRP Supplemental Files. The DID analysis found that relative to non-Delta hospitals, penalties in Delta hospitals were reduced by 0.08 percentage points from 2018 to 2019 (95% CI for the coefficient: -0.15, -0.01; P = .02), and the probability of a penalty was reduced by 6.64 percentage points (95% CI for the coefficient: -9.54, -3.75; P < .001). The stratification under the 2019 Revised HRRP is an important first step in reducing unfair penalties to hospitals that serve poor populations.

Relative Effects of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program on Hospitals That Serve Poorer Patients

IMPORTANCE

Hospitals that serve poorer populations have higher readmission rates. It is unknown whether these hospitals effectively lowered readmission rates in response to the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP).

OBJECTIVE

To compare pre-post differences in readmission rates among hospitals with different proportion of dual-eligible patients both generally and among the most highly penalized (ie, low performing) hospitals.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using piecewise linear model with estimated hospital-level risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) as the dependent variable and a change point at HRRP passage (2010). Economic burden was assessed by proportion of dual-eligibles served.

SETTING

Acute care hospitals within the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older discharged alive from January 1, 2003 to November 30, 2014 with a principal discharge diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure (CHF), and pneumonia.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE

Decrease in hospital-level RSRRs in the post-law period, after controlling for the pre-law trend.

RESULTS

For AMI, the pre-post difference between hospitals that service high and low proportion of dual-eligibles was not significant (-65 vs. -64 risk-standardized readmissions per 10000 discharges per year, P=0.0678). For CHF, RSRRs declined more at high than low dual-eligible hospitals (-79 vs. -75 risk-standardized readmissions per 10000 discharges per year, P=0.0006). For pneumonia, RSRRs declined less at high than low dual-eligible hospitals (-44 vs. -47 risk-standardized readmissions per 10000 discharges per year, P=0.0003). Among the 742 highest penalized hospitals and all conditions, the pre-post decline in rate of change of RSRRs was less for high dual-eligible hospitals than low dual-eligible hospitals (-68 vs. -74 risk-standardized readmissions per 10000 discharges per year for AMI, -88 vs. -97 for CHF, and -47 vs. -56 for pneumonia, P<0.0001 for all).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

For all hospitals, differences in pre-post trends in RSRRs varied with disease conditions. However, for the highest-penalized hospitals, the pre-post decline in RSRRs was greater for low than high dual-eligible hospitals for all penalized conditions. These results suggest that high penalty, high dual-eligible hospitals may be less able to improve performance on readmission metrics.