Safety-Net Hospitals, Neighborhood Disadvantage, and Readmissions Under Maryland's All-Payer Program: An Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Safety-net hospitals have higher-than-expected readmission rates. The relative roles of the mean disadvantage of neighborhoods the hospitals serve and the disadvantage of individual patients in predicting a patient's readmission are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the independent contributions of the patient's neighborhood and the hospital's service area to risk for 30-day readmission.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

Maryland.

PARTICIPANTS

All Maryland residents discharged from a Maryland hospital in 2015.

MEASUREMENTS

Predictors included the disadvantage of neighborhoods for each Maryland resident (area disadvantage index) and the mean disadvantage of each hospital's discharged patients (safety-net index). The primary outcome was unplanned 30-day hospital readmission. Generalized estimating equations and marginal modeling were used to estimate readmission rates. Results were adjusted for clinical readmission risk.

RESULTS

13.4% of discharged patients were readmitted within 30 days. Patients living in neighborhoods at the 90th percentile of disadvantage had a readmission rate of 14.1% (95% CI, 13.6% to 14.5%) compared with 12.5% (CI, 11.8% to 13.2%) for similar patients living in neighborhoods at the 10th percentile. Patients discharged from hospitals at the 90th percentile of safety-net status had a readmission rate of 14.8% (CI, 13.4% to 16.1%) compared with 11.6% (CI, 10.5% to 12.7%) for similar patients discharged from hospitals at the 10th percentile of safety-net status. The association of readmission risk with the hospital's safety-net index was approximately twice the observed association with the patient's neighborhood disadvantage status.

LIMITATIONS

Generalizability outside Maryland is unknown. Confounding may be present.

CONCLUSION

In Maryland, residing in a disadvantaged neighborhood and being discharged from a hospital serving a large proportion of disadvantaged neighborhoods are independently associated with increased risk for readmission.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities and Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission.

Changes In Hospital Utilization Three Years Into Maryland's Global Budget Program For Rural Hospitals

In a substantial shift in payment policy, the State of Maryland implemented a global budget program for acute care hospitals in 2010. Goals of the program include controlling hospital use and spending. Eight rural hospitals entered the program in 2010, while urban and suburban hospitals joined in 2014. Prior analyses, which focused on urban and suburban hospitals, did not find consistent evidence that Maryland's program had contributed to changes in hospital use after two years. However, these studies were limited by short follow-up periods, may have failed to isolate impacts of Maryland's payment change from other state trends, and had limited generalizability to rural settings. To understand the effects of Maryland's global budget program on rural hospitals, we compared changes in hospital use among Medicare beneficiaries served by affected rural hospitals versus an in-state control population from before to after 2010. By 2013-three years after the rural program began-there were no differential changes in acute hospital use or price-standardized hospital spending among beneficiaries served by the affected hospitals, versus the within-state control group. Our results suggest that among Medicare beneficiaries, global budgets in rural Maryland hospitals did not reduce hospital use or price-standardized spending as policy makers had anticipated.

Changes in Health Care Use Associated With the Introduction of Hospital Global Budgets in Maryland

Importance

In 2014, the State of Maryland placed the majority of its hospitals under all-payer global budgets for inpatient, hospital outpatient, and emergency department care. Goals of the program included reducing unnecessary hospital utilization and encouraging greater use of primary care.

Objective

To compare changes in hospital and primary care use through the first 2 years of Maryland's hospital global budget program among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in Maryland vs matched control areas.

Design, Setting, and Participants

We matched 8 Maryland counties (94 967 beneficiaries) with hospitals in the program to 27 non-Maryland control counties (206 389 beneficiaries). Using difference-in-differences analysis, we compared changes in hospital and primary care use in Maryland vs the control counties from before (2009-2013) to after (2014-2015) the payment change, using 2 different assumptions. First, we assumed that preintervention differences between Maryland and the control counties would have remained constant past 2014 had Maryland not implemented global budgets (parallel trend assumption). Second, we assumed that differences in preintervention trends would have continued without the payment change (differential trend assumption).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Hospital stays (defined as admissions and observation stays); return hospital stays within 30 days of a prior hospital stay; emergency department visits that did not result in admission; price-standardized hospital outpatient department (HOPD) utilization; and visits with primary care physicians (overall and within 7 days of a hospital stay).

Results

We matched 8 Maryland counties with hospitals in the program (94 967 beneficiaries; 41.8% male; mean [SD] age, 72.3 [12.2] years) to 27 non-Maryland control counties (206 389 beneficiaries; 42.8% male; mean [SD] age, 71.7 [12.5] years). Assuming parallel trends, we estimated a differential change in Maryland of -0.47 annual hospital stays per 100 beneficiaries (95% CI, -1.65 to 0.72; P = .43) from the preintervention period (2009-2013) to 2015, but assuming differential trends, we estimated a differential change in Maryland of -1.24 stays per 100 beneficiaries (95% CI, -2.46 to -0.02; P = .047). Assuming parallel trends, we found a significant increase in primary care visits (+10.6 annual visits/100 beneficiaries; 95% CI, 4.6 to 16.6 annual visits/100 beneficiaries; P = .001), but assuming differential trends, we found no change (-0.8 visits/100 beneficiaries; 95% CI, -10.6 to 9.0 visits/100 beneficiaries; P = .87). Comparing estimates with both trend assumptions, we found no consistent changes in emergency department visits, return hospital stays, HOPD use, or posthospitalization primary care visits associated with Maryland's program.

Conclusions and Relevance

We did not find consistent evidence that Maryland's hospital global budget program was associated with reductions in hospital use or increases in primary care visits among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries after 2 years. Evaluations over longer periods should be pursued.