Dataset Information

Performance Of Safety-Net Hospitals In Year 1 Of The Comprehensive Care For Joint Replacement Model.

ABSTRACT: The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model introduced in 2016 aims to improve the quality and costs of care for Medicare beneficiaries undergoing hip and knee replacements. However, there are concerns that the safety-net hospitals that care for the greatest number of vulnerable patients may perform poorly in CJR. In this study we used Medicare's CJR data to evaluate the performance of 792 hospitals mandated to participate in the first year of CJR. We found that in comparison to non-safety-net hospitals, 42 percent fewer safety-net hospitals qualified for rewards based on their quality and spending performance (33 percent of safety-net hospitals qualified, compared to 57 percent of non-safety-net hospitals), and safety-net hospitals' rewards per episode were 39 percent smaller ($456 compared to $743). Continuation of this performance trend could place safety-net hospitals at increased risk of penalties in future years. Medicare and hospital strategies such as those that reward high-quality care for vulnerable patients could enable safety-net hospitals to compete effectively in CJR.

SUBMITTER: Thirukumaran CP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6446900 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Performance Of Safety-Net Hospitals In Year 1 Of The Comprehensive Care For Joint Replacement Model.

Thirukumaran Caroline P CP Glance Laurent G LG Cai Xueya X Balkissoon Rishi R Mesfin Addisu A Li Yue Y

Health affairs (Project Hope) 20190201 2

The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model introduced in 2016 aims to improve the quality and costs of care for Medicare beneficiaries undergoing hip and knee replacements. However, there are concerns that the safety-net hospitals that care for the greatest number of vulnerable patients may perform poorly in CJR. In this study we used Medicare's CJR data to evaluate the performance of 792 hospitals mandated to participate in the first year of CJR. We found that in comparison to non ...[more]

PMID: 30715982

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSafety-net hospitals care for a high proportion of uninsured/underinsured patients who may lack access to longitudinal care. The present study characterized the use of mechanical valves and clinical outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement at safety net hospitals.MethodsAll adults undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement were abstracted from the 2016-2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Hospitals were divided into quartiles based on volume of all Medicaid and uninsured admissions, with the highest quartile defined as safety net hospitals. Multivariable regression was used to determine the association between safety net hospitals and several outcomes including mechanical valve use, perioperative complications, index hospitalization costs, 90-day readmission, and complications at readmission.ResultsOf the 94,580 patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement, 14.5% of operations were at safety net hospitals. Patients at safety net hospitals more commonly received mechanical valves (20.3% vs 16.9%, P < .01) compared to those at non-safety net hospitals. After adjustment, safety net hospitals remained associated with a greater odds of mechanical aortic valve use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.13, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.21). However, operation at safety net hospitals was also associated with increased odds of perioperative complications (adjusted odds ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.17) and higher hospitalization costs (β coefficient +$6.15K, 95% confidence interval +$5.26 - +$7.03) despite similar 90-day readmissions. Upon readmission, safety net hospitals patients were more likely to experience mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.87, 95% confidence interval 1.18-2.98) and stroke (adjusted odds ratio 2.41, 95% confidence interval 1.23-4.70) compared to those at non-safety net hospitals.ConclusionHospital safety net status is associated with increased use of mechanical valves for surgical aortic valve replacement despite also being associated with increased perioperative complications, costs, and significant complications upon readmission. Ability to access adequate follow-up care may be an important consideration for surgical aortic valve replacement at safety net hospitals.

Project description:ImportancePrior research concluded that institutional postacute care spending decreased under the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model. Less is known about how changes in institutional postacute care spending varied across different types of hospitals.ObjectiveTo measure hospital-level heterogeneity in the association of the CJR model with changes in institutional postacute care spending and to identify hospital characteristics associated with this variation.Design setting and participantsUsing 100% Medicare claims data, this cross-sectional study assessed institutional postacute care spending from 2016 to 2017 among US hospitals randomly selected to participate in the CJR model and control group hospitals that were eligible but not selected for the participation in the CJR model. A causal forest was used to estimate the treatment effect of the CJR model conditional on hospital characteristics. Analysis was conducted between October 2019 and October 2021.Main outcomes and measuresThe unit of analysis was each hospital; the outcome was the average per-episode Medicare spending for institutional postacute care within 90 days after hospital discharge for hip or knee joint replacement.ResultsThis study included 531 CJR participating hospitals and 658 control group hospitals from 2016 to 2017. The CJR model was associated with a $761 reduction in institutional postacute care spending (95% CI, -$1172 to -$351). The reduction in spending under the CJR model did not vary across conditional on hospital characteristics. Limited evidence was found for greater savings among hospitals with higher pre-CJR spending. However, this finding did not hold for hospitals in the highest quintile of pre-CJR spending.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of 1189 hospitals, findings did not show strong evidence for significant heterogeneity in how the CJR model was associated with reductions in institutional postacute care spending across a range of hospital characteristics. Savings were not concentrated in hospitals with specific characteristics, such as hospitals with high-volume joint replacement or hospitals serving less medically or socially complex patients. Findings suggest that the CJR model created opportunities for savings across a spectrum of different hospitals.

Project description:ImportanceIn the US, federal value-based incentive programs are more likely to penalize safety-net institutions than non-safety-net institutions. Whether these programs differentially change the rates of targeted health care-associated infections in safety-net vs non-safety-net hospitals is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the association of Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) and Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) implementation with changes in rates of targeted health care-associated infections and disparities in rates among safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsThis interrupted time series included all US acute care hospitals enrolled in the Preventing Avoidable Infectious Complications by Adjusting Payment study that participated in mandatory reporting to the National Healthcare Safety Network from January 1, 2013, through June 30, 2018. Hospital characteristics were obtained from the 2015 American Hospital Association annual survey. Penalty statuses for 2015 to 2018 were obtained from Hospital Compare. Data were analyzed between July 9, 2018, and October 1, 2019.ExposuresHACRP and HVBP implementation in fiscal year 2015 or 2016.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were rates of 4 health care-associated infections: central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), surgical site infection (SSI) after colon surgical procedures, and SSI after abdominal hysterectomy procedures. Regression models were fit using generalized estimating equations to assess the association of HACRP and HVBP implementation with health care-associated infection rates and disparities in infection rates.ResultsOf the 618 acute care hospitals included in this study, 473 (76.5%) were non-safety net and 145 (23.5%) were considered safety net. In these hospitals, HACRP and HVBP implementation was not associated with improvements in level or trend for any health care-associated infection examined (eg, CAUTI in safety-net hospitals: incidence rate ratio [IRR] for level change, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.79-1.23; P = .89]; IRR for change in slope, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.97-1.03; P = .80]). Before program implementation, infection rates were statistically significantly higher for safety-net than for non-safety-net hospitals for CLABSI (IRR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.42; P = .004), CAUTI (IRR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.16-1.64; P < .001), and SSI after colon surgical procedure (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06-1.50; P = .009). The disparity persisted over time when comparing the last year of the study with the first year (CLABSI: ratio of ratios [ROR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.77-1.13; P = .48]; CAUTI: ROR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73-1.10; P = .31]; SSI after colon surgical procedures: ROR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.78-1.20; P = .75]). Rates of SSI after abdominal hysterectomy procedure were similar in safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals before implementation (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.91-1.40; P = .27) but higher after implementation (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.11-1.83; P = .006), although this change was not significant (ROR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.91-1.59; P = .20).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that HACRP and HVBP implementation was not associated with any improvements in targeted health care-associated infections among safety-net or non-safety-net hospitals or with changes in disparities in infection rates. Given the persistent health care-associated infection rate disparities, these programs appear to function as a disproportionate penalty system for safety-net hospitals that offer no measurable benefits for patients.

Project description:ObjectivesEvidence suggests that homeless patients experience worse quality of care and poorer health outcomes across a range of medical conditions. It remains unclear, however, whether differences in care delivery at safety-net versus non-safety-net hospitals explain these disparities. We aimed to investigate whether homeless versus non-homeless adults hospitalised for cardiovascular conditions (acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke) experience differences in care delivery and health outcomes at safety-net versus non-safety-net hospitals.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingData including all hospital admissions in four states (Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New York) in 2014.ParticipantsWe analysed 167 105 adults aged 18 years or older hospitalised for cardiovascular conditions (age mean=64.5 years; 75 361 (45.1%) women; 2123 (1.3%) homeless hospitalisations) discharged from 348 hospitals.Outcome measuresRisk-adjusted diagnostic and therapeutic procedure and in-hospital mortality, after adjusting for patient characteristics and state and quarter fixed effects.ResultsAt safety-net hospitals, homeless adults hospitalised for AMI were less likely to receive coronary angiogram (adjusted OR (aOR), 0.42; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.50; p<0.001), percutaneous coronary intervention (aOR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.62; p<0.001) and coronary artery bypass graft (aOR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.71; p<0.01) compared with non-homeless adults. Homeless patients treated for strokes at safety-net hospitals were less likely to receive cerebral arteriography (aOR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.34; p<0.001), but were as likely to receive thrombolysis therapy. At non-safety-net hospitals, we found no evidence that the probability of receiving these procedures differed between homeless and non-homeless adults hospitalised for AMI or stroke. Finally, there were no differences in in-hospital mortality rates for homeless versus non-homeless patients at either safety-net or non-safety-net hospitals.ConclusionDisparities in receipt of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for homeless patients with cardiovascular conditions were observed only at safety-net hospitals. However, we found no evidence that these differences influenced in-hospital mortality markedly.

Dataset Information

Performance Of Safety-Net Hospitals In Year 1 Of The Comprehensive Care For Joint Replacement Model.

Publications

Performance Of Safety-Net Hospitals In Year 1 Of The Comprehensive Care For Joint Replacement Model.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets