Comparison of Risk-Standardized Readmission Rates of Surgical Patients at Safety-Net and Non-Safety-Net Hospitals Using Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and American Hospital Association Data

Racial and ethnic disparities in emergency department transfers to public hospitals

OBJECTIVE

To examine racial/ethnic differences in emergency department (ED) transfers to public hospitals and factors explaining these differences.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

ED and inpatient data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project for Florida (2010-2019); American Hospital Association Annual Survey (2009-2018).

STUDY DESIGN

Logistic regression examined race/ethnicity and payer on the likelihood of transfer to a public hospital among transferred ED patients. The base model was controlled for patient and hospital characteristics and year fixed effects. Models II and III added urbanicity and hospital referral region (HRR), respectively. Model IV used hospital fixed effects, which compares patients within the same hospital. Models V and VI stratified Model IV by payer and condition, respectively. Conditions were classified as emergency care sensitive conditions (ECSCs), where transfer is protocolized, and non-ECSCs. We reported marginal effects at the means.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We examined 1,265,588 adult ED patients transferred from 187 hospitals.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Black patients were more likely to be transferred to public hospitals compared with White patients in all models except ECSC patients within the same initial hospital (except trauma). Black patients were 0.5-1.3 percentage points (pp) more likely to be transferred to public hospitals than White patients in the same hospital with the same payer. In the base model, Hispanic patients were more likely to be transferred to public hospitals compared with White patients, but this difference reversed after controlling for HRR. Hispanic patients were - 0.6 pp to -1.2 pp less likely to be transferred to public hospitals than White patients in the same hospital with the same payer.

CONCLUSIONS

Large population-level differences in whether ED patients of different races/ethnicities were transferred to public hospitals were largely explained by hospital market and the initial hospital, suggesting that they may play a larger role in explaining differences in transfer to public hospitals, compared with other external factors.

Association of Insurance Type with Inpatient Surgical 30-day Readmissions, Emergency Department Visits/Observation Stays, and Costs

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association of Private, Medicare, and Medicaid/Uninsured insurance type with 30-day Emergency Department visits/Observation Stays (EDOS), readmissions, and costs in a safety-net hospital (SNH) serving diverse socioeconomic status patients.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Medicare's Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) disproportionately penalizes SNHs.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used inpatient National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2013-2019) data merged with cost data. Frailty, expanded Operative Stress Score, case status, and insurance type were used to predict odds of EDOS and readmissions, as well as index hospitalization costs.

RESULTS

The cohort had 1,477 Private; 1,164 Medicare; and 3,488 Medicaid/Uninsured cases with a patient mean age 52.1 years [SD=14.7] and 46.8% of the cases were performed on male patients. Medicaid/Uninsured (aOR=2.69, CI=2.38-3.05, P<.001) and Medicare (aOR=1.32, CI=1.11-1.56, P=.001) had increased odds of urgent/emergent surgeries and complications versus Private patients. Despite having similar frailty distributions, Medicaid/Uninsured compared to Private patients had higher odds of EDOS (aOR=1.71, CI=1.39-2.11, P<.001), and readmissions (aOR=1.35, CI=1.11-1.65, P=.004), after adjusting for frailty, OSS, and case status, while Medicare patients had similar odds of EDOS and readmissions versus Private. Hospitalization variable cost %change was increased for Medicare (12.5%) and Medicaid/Uninsured (5.9%), but Medicaid/Uninsured was similar to Private after adjusting for urgent/emergent cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased rates and odds of urgent/emergent cases in Medicaid/Uninsured patients drive increased odds of complications and index hospitalization costs versus Private. SNHs care for higher cost populations while receiving lower reimbursements and are further penalized by the unintended consequences of HRRP. Increasing access to care, especially for Medicaid/Uninsured patients, could reduce urgent/emergent surgeries resulting in fewer complications, EDOS/readmissions, and costs.

Cost of Failure to Achieve Textbook Outcomes: Association of Insurance Type with Outcomes and Cumulative Cost for Inpatient Surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical outcome/cost analyses typically focus on single outcomes and do not include encounters beyond the index hospitalization.

STUDY DESIGN

This cohort study used NSQIP (2013-2019) data with electronic health record and cost data risk-adjusted for frailty, preoperative acute serious conditions (PASC), case status, and operative stress assessing cumulative costs of failure to achieve textbook outcomes defined as absence of 30-day Clavien-Dindo level III and IV complications, emergency department visits/observation stays (EDOS), and readmissions across insurance types (private, Medicare, Medicaid, uninsured). Return costs were defined as costs of all 30-day emergency department visits/observation stays and readmissions.

RESULTS

Cases were performed on patients (private 1,506; Medicare 1,218; Medicaid 1,420; uninsured 2,178) with a mean age 52.3 years (SD 14.7) and 47.5% male. Medicaid and uninsured patients had higher odds of presenting with preoperative acute serious conditions (adjusted odds ratios 1.89 and 1.81, respectively) and undergoing urgent/emergent surgeries (adjusted odds ratios 2.23 and 3.02, respectively) vs private. Medicaid and uninsured patients had lower odds of textbook outcomes (adjusted odds ratios 0.53 and 0.78, respectively) and higher odds of emergency department visits/observation stays and readmissions vs private. Not achieving textbook outcomes was associated with a greater than 95.1% increase in cumulative costs. Medicaid patients had a relative increase of 23.1% in cumulative costs vs private, which was 18.2% after adjusting for urgent/emergent cases. Return costs were 37.5% and 65.8% higher for Medicaid and uninsured patients, respectively, vs private.

CONCUSIONS

Higher costs for Medicaid patients were partially driven by increased presentation acuity (increased rates/odds of preoperative acute serious conditions and urgent/emergent surgeries) and higher rates of multiple emergency department visits/observation stays and readmission occurrences. Decreasing surgical costs/improving outcomes should focus on reducing urgent/emergent surgeries and improving postoperative care coordination, especially for Medicaid and uninsured populations.

Outcomes, Cost, and Readmission After Surgical Aortic or Mitral Valve Replacement at Safety-Net and Non-Safety-Net Hospitals

BACKGROUND

Safety-net hospitals provide essential services to vulnerable patients with complex medical and socioeconomic circumstances. We hypothesized that matched patients at safety-net hospitals and non-safety-net hospitals would have comparable outcomes, costs, and readmission rates after isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR).

METHODS

The National Readmissions Database was queried to identify patients who underwent isolated AVR (n = 109 744) or MVR (n = 31 475) from 2016 to 2018. Safety-net burden was defined as the percentage of patients who were uninsured or insured with Medicaid, with hospitals in the top quartile designated as safety-net hospitals. After propensity score matching, outcomes for AVR and MVR at safety-net hospitals vs non-safety-net hospitals were compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 17 925 AVRs (16%) and 5516 MVRs (18%) were performed at safety-net hospitals, and these patients had higher comorbidity rates, had lower socioeconomic status, and more frequently required urgent surgery. Observed inhospital mortality was similar between safety-net hospitals and non-safety-net hospitals (AVR 2.2% vs 2.1%, P = .4; MVR 4.8% vs 4.3%, P = .1). After matching, rates of inhospital mortality, major morbidity, and readmission were similar; however, safety-net hospitals had longer length of stay after AVR (7 vs 6 days, P = .001) and higher total cost after AVR ($49 015 vs $42 473, P < .001) and MVR ($59 253 vs $52 392, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Isolated surgical AVR and MVR are both performed at safety-net hospitals with outcomes comparable to those at non-safety-net hospitals, supporting efforts to expand access to these procedures for underserved populations. Investment in care coordination resources to reduce length of stay and curtail cost at safety-net hospitals is warranted.

Contributors to disparities in postpartum readmission rates between safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals: A decomposition analysis

BACKGROUND

Safety-net hospitals (SNHs) treat more maternal patients with risk factors for postpartum readmission.

OBJECTIVE

To assess how patient, hospital, and community characteristics explain the SNH/non-SNH disparity in postpartum readmission rates.

DESIGN

A linear probability model assessed covariates associated with postpartum readmissions. Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition estimates quantified the contribution of covariates to the SNH/non-SNH disparity in postpartum readmission rates.

SETTING

Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project 2016-2018 State Inpatient Databases from 25 states.

PARTICIPANTS

3.5 million maternal delivery stays.

MEASUREMENTS

The outcome was inpatient readmission within 42 days of delivery. SNHs had a share of Medicaid/uninsured stays in the top quartile. A range of patient, hospital, and community characteristics was considered as covariates.

RESULTS

The unadjusted postpartum readmission rate was 4.2 per 1000 index deliveries higher at SNHs than at non-SNHs (19.1 vs. 14.9, p < .001). Adjustment reduced the risk difference to 0.65 per 1000 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.14, 1.44). Patient (66%), hospital (14%), and community (4%) characteristics explained 84% of the disparity. The single largest contributors to the disparity were race/ethnicity (20%), hypertension (12%), hospital preterm delivery rate (10%), and preterm delivery (7%). Collectively, patient comorbidities explained 31% of the disparity.

CONCLUSION

Higher postpartum readmission rates at SNHs versus non-SNHs were largely due to differences in the patient mix rather than hospital factors. Hospital initiatives are needed to reduce the risk of postpartum readmissions among SNH patients. Improving factors that contribute to the disparity, including underlying health conditions and health inequities associated with race, requires enduring investments in public health.

Evaluation of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System and Surgeons Caring for Patients at High Social Risk

Importance

The latest step in the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare transformation to pay-for-value is the Medicare Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Value-based payment designs often do not account for uncaptured clinical status and social determinants of health in patients at high social risk, and the consequences for clinicians and patients associated with their use have not been explored.

Objective

To evaluate MIPS scoring of surgeons caring for patients at high social risk to determine whether this implementation threatens disadvantaged patients' access to surgical care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective cohort study of US general surgeons participating in MIPS during its first year in outpatient surgical practices across the US and territories. The study was conducted from September 1, 2020, to May 1, 2021. Data were analyzed from November 1, 2020, to March 30, 2021 (although data were collected during the 2017 calendar year and reported ahead of 2019 payment adjustments).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Characteristics of surgeons participating in MIPS, overall MIPS score assigned to clinician. and practice-level disadvantage measures. The MIPS scores can range from 0 to 100. For the first year, a score of less than 3 led to negative payment adjustment; a score of greater than 3 but less than 70 to a positive adjustment; and a score of 70 or higher to the exceptional performance bonus.

Results

Of 20 593 general surgeons, 10 252 participated in the first year of MIPS. Surgeons with complete patient data (n = 9867) were evaluated and a wide range of dual-eligible patient caseloads from 0% to 96% (mean [SD], 27.1% [14.5%]) was identified. Surgeons in the highest quintile of dual eligibility cared for a Medicare patient caseload ranging from 37% to 96% dual eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. Surgeons caring for the patients at highest social risk had the lowest final mean (SD) MIPS score compared with the surgeons caring for the patients at least social risk (66.8 [37.3] vs 71.2 [35.9]; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this cohort study suggest that implementation of MIPS value-based care reimbursement without adjustment for caseload of patients at high social risk may penalize surgeons who care for patients at highest social risk.

Services and payer mix of Black-serving hospitals and related severe maternal morbidity

BACKGROUND

Black-serving hospitals are associated with increased maternal risk. However, prior administrative data research on maternal disparities has generally included limited hospital factors. More detailed evaluation of hospital factors related to obstetric outcomes may be important in understanding disparities.

OBJECTIVE

To examine detailed characteristics of Black-serving hospitals and how these characteristics are associated with risk for severe maternal morbidity (SMM).

METHODS

This serial cross-sectional study linked the 2010-2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample and the 2013 American Hospital Association Annual Survey Databases. Delivery hospitalizations occurring to women 15-54 years of age were identified. The proportions of non-Hispanic Black patients within a hospital was categorized into quartiles, and hospital factors such as specialized medical, surgical and safety-net services as well as payer mix were compared across these quartiles. A series of models was performed evaluating risk for SMM with Black-serving hospital quartile as the primary exposure. Log linear regression models with a Poisson distribution (and robust variance) were performed with unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios (aRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as measures of effect.

RESULTS

Overall 965,202 deliveries from 430 hospitals met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. By quartile, non-Hispanic Black patients accounted for 1.3%, 5.4%, 13.4%, and 33.8% of patients. Many services were significantly less common in the lowest compared to the highest Black-serving hospital quartile including cardiac intensive care (48.9% versus 74.5%), neonatal intensive care (28.9% versus 64.9%), pediatric intensive care (20.0% versus 45.7%), pediatric cardiology (29.6% versus 44.7%), and HIV/AIDS services (36.3% versus 71.3%) (p≤0.01 for all). Indigent care clinics, crisis prevention, and enabling services (p≤0.01 for all) were more common at Black-serving hospitals as was Medicaid payer. Following adjustments for detailed hospital factors, the lowest Black serving hospital quartile carried the lowest risk for SMM. However, SMM risks were similar across the 2^nd (aRR 1.31, 95% CI 1.08, 1.59), 3^rd (aRR 1.27, 95% 1.05, 1.55), and 4^th (aRR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07, 1.55) quartiles.

CONCLUSION

Black-serving hospitals were more likely to provide a range of specialized medical, surgical, and safety-net services and to have a higher Medicaid burden. Payer mix and unmeasured confounding may account for some of the maternal risk associated with Black-serving hospitals.

High Acuity of Postoperative Consults to Emergency General Surgery at an Urban Safety Net Hospital

BACKGROUND

Emergency general surgery (EGS) has high rates of morbidity, mortality, and readmission. Therefore, it might be expected that an EGS service fields many consultations for postoperative patients. However, with the known overutilization of emergency department visits for nonurgent conditions, we hypothesized most postoperative consults received by an EGS service would be nonurgent and could be appropriately managed as an outpatient.

METHODS

We reviewed all EGS consults at a single urban safety net hospital over a 12-month period, screening for patients who had undergone surgery in the previous 12 mo. This included consultations from the emergency room and inpatient setting. Demographics, admission status, procedures performed, and other details were abstracted from the chart and Vizient reports. Consultation questions were categorized and then reviewed by an expert panel to determine if conditions could have been managed as an outpatient.

RESULTS

The EGS service received a total of 1112 consults, with 99 (9%) for a postoperative condition. Overall, 85% of postoperative consults were admitted after consultation, 19% underwent surgery and 21% underwent a procedure with gastroenterology or interventional radiology. Expert review classified slightly over one-third (36%) of consults as nonurgent.

CONCLUSIONS

Most postoperative consults seen at our urban safety net hospital represent true morbidity that required admission, intervention, or surgery. Despite this high acuity, one-third of postoperative consults could have been managed as an outpatient. Efforts to improve discharge instructions and set patient expectations could limit unnecessary postoperative emergency department visits.

The Impact of a Colorectal Care Bundle for Surgical Site Infections at an Academic Disproportionate Share Hospital With a Level I Trauma Center

OBJECTIVES

Colorectal care bundles for surgical site infections (CRCB-SSIs) have been shown to reduce SSIs following elective colorectal surgery (CRS). There are limited data evaluating the effect of CRCB-SSI at Academic Disproportionate Share Hospitals (ADSH) with significant rates of urgent and emergent cases.

METHODS

A CRCB-SSI was implemented in April 2016. We reviewed medical records of all patients undergoing colon resections between August 2015 and December 2017. Patients were divided into preimplementation and postimplementation groups. The primary endpoint was the SSI rate, and the secondary endpoint included types of SSI (superficial, deep, organ space). Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed. A subset analysis was performed in elective cases.

RESULTS

We analyzed a total of 417 patients. Of these, 116 (28%) and 301 (72%) patients were in the preimplementation and postimplementation groups, respectively. The rate of SSI decreased from 30.1% to 15.9% in the postimplementation group (P = .0012); however, it was not statistically significant after adjusting for baseline differences (relative risk [RR] 0.65; 95% CI 0.41-1.02).The elective subset included 219 patients. The rate of SSI in this cohort decreased from 25% to 10.5% in the postimplementation group (P = .0012) and remained significant following multivariable analysis (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19- 0.88). There were no differences in the subtypes of SSI.

DISCUSSION

While the CRCB-SSI was effective in decreasing the postoperative SSI rate for elective cases, its effect on the overall patient population was limited. CRCB-SSIs are not enough to bring SSI rates to accepted rates in high-risk patients such as those seen at ADSH.

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.

Increased 30-day readmission rate after craniotomy for tumor resection at safety net hospitals in small metropolitan areas

PURPOSE

Unplanned readmission of post-operative brain tumor patients is often attributed to hospital and patient characteristics and is associated with higher mortality and cost. Previous studies demonstrate multiple patient outcome disparities in safety net hospitals (SNHs) when compared to non-SNHs. This study uses the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) to determine if initial brain tumor resection at SNHs is associated with increased 30-day non-elective readmission rates.

METHODS

Patients with benign or malignant primary or metastatic brain tumor undergoing craniotomy for surgical resection were retrospectively identified in the NRD from 2010 to 2014. SNHs were defined as hospitals with Medicaid and uninsured patient burden in the top quartile. Descriptive and multivariate analyses employing survey-adjusted logistic regression evaluated patient and hospital level factors influencing 30-day readmissions.

RESULTS

During the study period, 83,367 patients met inclusion criteria. 44.7% of patients had a benign tumor, and 55.3% had a malignant tumor. Secondary CNS neoplasm (5.99%), post-operative infection (5.96%), and septicemia (4.26%) caused most readmissions within 30 days. Patients had increased unplanned readmission rates if they underwent craniotomy for tumor resection at a SNH in a small metropolitan area (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.21, p = 0.01), but not at a SNH in a large metropolitan area (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93-1.05, p = 0.73).

CONCLUSION

This finding may reflect differences in access to care and disparities in neurosurgical resources between small and large metropolitan areas. Inequities in expertise and capacity are relevant as surgical volume was also related to readmission rates. Further studies may be warranted to address such disparities.