Dataset Information

Evaluation of the Present-on-Admission Indicator among Hospitalized Fee-for-Service Medicare Patients with a Pressure Ulcer Diagnosis: Coding Patterns and Impact on Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcer Rates.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To evaluate national present-on-admission (POA) reporting for hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs) and examine the impact of quality measure exclusion criteria on HAPU rates. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING:Medicare inpatient, outpatient, and nursing facility data as well as independent provider claims (2010-2011). STUDY DESIGN:Retrospective cross-sectional study. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS:We evaluated acute inpatient hospital admissions among Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries in 2011. Admissions were categorized as follows: (1) no pressure ulcer diagnosis, (2) new pressure ulcer diagnosis, and (3) previously documented pressure ulcer diagnosis. HAPU rates were calculated by varying patient exclusion criteria. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Among admissions with a pressure ulcer diagnosis, we observed a large discrepancy in the proportion of admissions with a HAPU based on hospital-reported POA data (5.2 percent) and the proportion with a new pressure ulcer diagnosis based on patient history in billing claims (49.7 percent). Applying quality measure exclusion criteria resulted in removal of 91.2 percent of admissions with a pressure injury diagnosis from HAPU rate calculations. CONCLUSIONS:As payers and health care organizations expand the use of quality measures, it is important to consider how the measures are implemented, coding revisions to improve measure validity, and the impact of patient exclusion criteria on provider performance evaluation.

SUBMITTER: Squitieri L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6056601 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of the Present-on-Admission Indicator among Hospitalized Fee-for-Service Medicare Patients with a Pressure Ulcer Diagnosis: Coding Patterns and Impact on Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcer Rates.

Squitieri Lee L Waxman Daniel A DA Mangione Carol M CM Saliba Debra D Ko Clifford Y CY Needleman Jack J Ganz David A DA

Health services research 20180125

<h4>Objectives</h4>To evaluate national present-on-admission (POA) reporting for hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs) and examine the impact of quality measure exclusion criteria on HAPU rates.<h4>Data sources/study setting</h4>Medicare inpatient, outpatient, and nursing facility data as well as independent provider claims (2010-2011).<h4>Study design</h4>Retrospective cross-sectional study.<h4>Data collection/extraction methods</h4>We evaluated acute inpatient hospital admissions among Med ...[more]

PMID: 29552746

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMedicare Advantage (MA), a private insurance plan option, now covers one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries. Although patients with cardiovascular disease enrolled in MA have been reported to receive higher quality of care in the ambulatory setting than patients enrolled in fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare, it is unclear whether MA is associated with higher quality in patients hospitalized with heart failure, or alternatively, if incentives to reduce utilization under MA plans may be associated with worse care.ObjectiveTo determine whether there are differences in quality of care received and in-hospital outcomes among patients enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare.Design, setting, and participantsObservational, retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with heart failure in hospitals participating in the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure registry.ExposuresMedicare Advantage enrollment.Main outcomes and measuresIn-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, length of stay, and 4 heart failure achievement measures.ResultsOf 262 626 patients hospitalized with heart failure, 93 549 (35.6%) were enrolled in MA and 169 077 (64.4%) in FFS Medicare. The median (interquartile range) age was 78 (70-85) years for patients enrolled in MA and 78 (69-86) years for patients enrolled in FFS Medicare. Standard mean differences in age, sex, prevalence of comorbidities, or objective measures on admission, including vital signs and laboratory values, were less than 10%. After adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in receipt of evidence-based β-blockers when indicated; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors at discharge; measurement of left ventricular function; and postdischarge appointments by Medicare insurance type. Patients enrolled in MA, however, had higher odds of being discharged directly home (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.19; P < .001) relative to patients enrolled in FFS Medicare and lower odds of being discharged within 4 days (AOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.00; P = .04). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between patients with MA and patients with FFS Medicare (AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.03; P = .42).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients hospitalized with heart failure, no observable benefit was noted in quality of care or in-hospital mortality between those enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare, except lower use of post-acute care facilities. As MA continues to grow, it will be important to ensure that participating private plans provide an added value to the patients they cover to justify the higher administrative costs compared with traditional FFS Medicare.

Project description:ImportancePrescription drug spending is a topic of increased interest to the public and policymakers. However, prior assessments have been limited by focusing on retail spending (Part D-covered drugs), omitting clinician-administered (Part B-covered) drug spending, or focusing on all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of their enrollment into prescription drug coverage.ObjectiveTo estimate the proportion of health care spending contributed by prescription drugs and to assess spending for retail and clinician-administered prescriptions.Design, setting, and participantsDescriptive, serial, cross-sectional analysis of a 20% random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States from 2008 to 2019 who were continuously enrolled in Parts A (hospital), B (medical), and D (prescription drug) benefits, and not in Medicare Advantage.ExposureCalendar year.Main outcomes and measuresNet spending on retail (Part D-covered) and clinician-administered (Part B-covered) prescription drugs; prescription drug spending (spending on Part B-covered and Part D-covered drugs) as a percentage of total per-capita health care spending. Measures were adjusted for inflation and for postsale rebates (for Part D-covered drugs).ResultsThere were 3 201 284 beneficiaries enrolled in Parts A, B, and D in 2008 and 4 502 718 in 2019. In 2019, beneficiaries had a mean (SD) age of 71.7 (12.0) years, documented sex was female for 57.7%, and 69.5% had no low-income subsidies. Total per-capita spending was $16 345 in 2008 and $20 117 in 2019. Comparing 2008 with 2019, per-capita Part A spending was $7106 (95% CI, $7084-$7128) vs $7120 (95% CI, $7098-$7141), Part B drug spending was $720 (95% CI, $713-$728) vs $1641 (95% CI, $1629-$1653), Part B nondrug spending was $5113 (95% CI, $5105-$5122) vs $6702 (95% CI, $6692-$6712), and Part D net spending was $3122 (95% CI, $3117-$3127) vs $3477 (95% CI, $3466-$3489). The proportion of total annual spending attributed to prescription drugs increased from 24.0% in 2008 to 27.2% in 2019, net of estimated rebates and discounts.Conclusions and relevanceIn 2019, spending on prescription drugs represented approximately 27% of total spending among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part D, even after accounting for postsale rebates.

Project description:ImportanceDecreasing use of low-value care is a major goal for Medicare given the potential to decrease costs and harms. Compared with traditional fee-for-service Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) is more strongly financially incentivized to decrease use of low-value care.ObjectivesTo compare use of low-value care among individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA overall and to examine trends in use of low-value care in both programs from 2006 to 2015.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed individuals enrolled in TM and MA using data from the 2006 to 2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. To account for differences in characteristics between individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA, a propensity score-based approach was used. Data were analyzed from August 2020 through January 2021.ExposuresBeing enrolled in MA or TM.Main outcomes and measuresBinary measures of use were collected for 13 low-value services in 4 categories (ie, [1] cancer screening: cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening in older adults; [2] antibiotic use: antibiotic for acute upper respiratory infection and antibiotic for influenza; [3] medication: anxiolytic, sedative, or hypnotic in an adult older than 65 years; benzodiazepine for depression; opioid for headache; opioid for back pain; and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID] for hypertension, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease; and [4] imaging: magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or computed tomography [CT] for back pain, radiograph for back pain, and MRI or CT for headache) and 4 low-value composites corresponding to the categories (ie, cancer screening composite, antibiotic use composite, medication composite, and imaging composite).ResultsAmong 11 677 individuals enrolled in TM and 5164 individuals enrolled in MA, 9429 (56.0%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 74.5 (6.3) years. Of 13 low-value services and 4 low-value composites, statistically significant differences were found in 2 measures. For the low-value medication composite, 2054 of 11 636 eligible individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 17.6%; 95% CI, 16.8%-18.3%) received the care, and 981 of 5141 eligible individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 19.7%; 95% CI, 18.3%-21.2%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5-3.8 percentage points; P = .02). For the NSAID use for hypertension, heart failure, or kidney disease metric, 807 of 7832 individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 10.0%; 95% CI, 9.2%-10.8%) received the care, and 447 of 3566 individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 12.9%; 95% CI, 19.7%-27.1%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI, 1.3-4.6 percentage points; P = .001). Overall, there were no decreases in use of low-value care in TM or MA over time.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that use of low-value care was similarly prevalent in MA and TM, suggesting that MA enrollment was not associated with decreased provision of low-value care compared with TM.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies have identified disparities in readmissions among Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program's (HRRP's) priority conditions. Evidence suggests timely follow-up is associated with reduced risk of readmission, but it is unknown whether timely follow-up reduces disparities in readmission.ObjectiveTo assess whether follow-up within 7 days after discharge from a hospitalization reduces risk of readmission and mitigates identified readmission disparities.DesignA retrospective cohort study using Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the associations between sociodemographic characteristics (race and ethnicity, dual-eligibility status, rurality, and area social deprivation), follow-up, and readmission. Mediation analysis was used to examine if disparities in readmission were mitigated by follow-up.ParticipantsWe analyzed data from 749,402 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, or pneumonia, and discharged home between January 1 and December 1, 2018.Main measureAll-cause unplanned readmission within 30 days after discharge.Key resultsPost-discharge follow-up within 7 days of discharge was associated with a substantially lower risk of readmission (HR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.52-0.53). Across all four HRRP conditions, beneficiaries with dual eligibility and beneficiaries living in areas with high social deprivation had a higher risk of readmission. Non-Hispanic Black beneficiaries had higher risk of readmission after hospitalization for pneumonia relative to non-Hispanic Whites. Mediation analysis suggested that 7-day follow-up mediated 21.2% of the disparity in the risk of readmission between dually and non-dually eligible beneficiaries and 50.7% of the disparity in the risk of readmission between beneficiaries living in areas with the highest and lowest social deprivation. Analysis suggested that after hospitalization for pneumonia, 7-day follow-up mediated nearly all (97.5%) of the increased risk of readmission between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White beneficiaries.ConclusionsImproving rates of follow-up could be a strategy to reduce readmissions for all beneficiaries and reduce disparities in readmission based on sociodemographic characteristics.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of the Present-on-Admission Indicator among Hospitalized Fee-for-Service Medicare Patients with a Pressure Ulcer Diagnosis: Coding Patterns and Impact on Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcer Rates.

Publications

Evaluation of the Present-on-Admission Indicator among Hospitalized Fee-for-Service Medicare Patients with a Pressure Ulcer Diagnosis: Coding Patterns and Impact on Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcer Rates.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets