Dataset Information

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.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Medical patients discharged from safety-net hospitals (SNHs) experience higher readmission rates compared with those discharged from non-SNHs. However, little is known about whether this association persists for surgical patients.

Objectives

To examine differences in readmission rates between SNHs and non-SNHs among surgical patients after discharge and determine whether hospital characteristics might account for some of the variation.

Design, setting, and participants

This observational retrospective study linked the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2014, for 4 states (New York, Florida, Iowa, and Washington) with data from the 2014 American Hospital Association annual survey. After identifying surgical discharges, SNHs were defined as those with the top quartile of inpatient stays paid by Medicaid or self-paid. Hospital-level risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) for surgical discharges were calculated. The association between hospital RSRRs and hospital characteristics was evaluated with bivariate analyses. An estimated multivariable hierarchical linear regression model was used to examine variation in hospital RSRRs, adjusting for hospital characteristics, state, year, and SNH status. Data were analyzed from June 1, 2017, through March 1, 2018.

Exposures

Surgical care at an SNH.

Main outcomes and measures

Readmission after an index surgical admission.

Results

A total of 1 252 505 patients across all 4 years and states were included in the analysis (51.7% women; mean [SD] age, 52.7 [18.1] years). Bivariate analyses found that SNHs had higher mean (SD) surgical RSRRs compared with non-SNHs; significant differences were found for New York (9.6 [0.1] vs 10.9 [0.1]; P < .001) and Florida (11.6 [0.1] vs 12.1 [0.1]; P = .001). The SNHs also had higher RSRRs in these 2 states when stratified by hospital funding (nonfederal government SNHs in New York, 11.9 [0.2]; for-profit, private SNHs in Florida, 13.1 [0.2]; P < .001 for both); however, bed size was a significant factor for higher mean (SD) RSRRs only for New York (200 to 399 beds, 12.0 [0.4]; P = .006). Similar results were found for multivariable linear regression models; RSRRs were 1.02% higher for SNHs compared with non-SNHs (95% CI, 0.75%-1.29%; P < .001). Increased RSRRs were observed for hospitals in New York and Florida, teaching hospitals, and investor-owned hospitals. Factors associated with reduced RSRRs included presence of an ambulatory surgery center, cardiac catheterization capabilities, and high surgical volume.

Conclusions and relevance

According to results of this study, surgical patients treated at SNHs experienced slightly higher RSRRs compared with those treated at non-SNHs. This association persisted after adjusting for year, state, and hospital factors, including teaching status, hospital bed size, and hospital volume.

SUBMITTER: Talutis SD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6537916 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAlthough readmission rates are declining under Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), concerns remain that the HRRP will harm quality at safety-net hospitals because they are penalized more often. Disparities between white and black patients might widen because more black patients receive care at safety-net hospitals. Disparities may be particularly worse for clinical conditions not targeted by the HRRP because hospitals might reallocate resources toward targeted conditions (acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, and heart failure) at the expense of nontargeted conditions.ObjectiveTo examine disparities in readmission rates between white and black patients discharged from safety-net or non-safety-net hospitals after the HRRP began, evaluating discharges for any clinical condition and the subsets of targeted and nontargeted conditions.Design, setting, and participantsCohort study conducting quasi-experimental analyses of patient hospital discharges for any clinical condition among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries from 2007 to 2015 after controlling for patient and hospital characteristics. Changes in disparities were measured within safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals after the HRRP penalties were enforced and compared with prior trends. These analyses were then stratified by targeted and nontargeted conditions. Analyses were conducted from October 1, 2017, through August 31, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresTrends in 30-day readmission rates among white and black patients by quarter and differences in trends across periods.ResultsThe study sample included 58 237 056 patient discharges (black patients, 9.8%; female, 57.7%; mean age [SD] age, 78.8 [7.9] years; nontargeted conditions, 50 372 806 [86.5%]). Within safety-net hospitals, disparities in readmission rates for all clinical conditions widened between black and white patients by 0.04 percentage point per quarter in the HRRP penalty period (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.07; P = .01). This widening was driven by nontargeted conditions (0.05 percentage point per quarter [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.08]; P = .006), whereas disparities for the HRRP-targeted conditions did not change (with an increase of 0.01 percentage point per quarter [95% CI, -0.07 to 0.10]; P = .74). Within non-safety-net hospitals, racial disparities remained stable in the HRRP penalty period across all conditions, whether the conditions were HRRP-targeted or nontargeted.Conclusions and relevanceFindings from this study suggest that disparities are widening within safety-net hospitals, specifically for non-HRRP-targeted conditions. Although increases in racial disparities for nontargeted conditions were modest, they represent 6 times more discharges in our cohort than targeted conditions.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare trends in readmission rates among safety net and non-safety net hospitals under the US Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP).DesignA retrospective time series analysis using Medicare administrative claims data from January 2008 to June 2015.SettingWe examined 3254 US hospitals eligible for penalties under the HRRP, categorised as safety net or non-safety net hospitals based on the hospital's proportion of patients with low socioeconomic status.ParticipantsAdmissions for Medicare fee-for-service patients, age ≥65 years, discharged alive, who had a valid five-digit zip code and did not have a principal discharge diagnosis of cancer or psychiatric illness were included, for a total of 52 516 213 index admissions.Primary and secondary outcome measuresMean hospital-level, all-condition, 30-day risk-adjusted standardised unplanned readmission rate, measured quarterly, along with quarterly rate of change, and an interrupted time series examining: April-June 2010, after HRRP was passed, and October-December 2012, after HRRP penalties were implemented.Results58.0% (SD 15.3) of safety net hospitals and 17.1% (SD 10.4) of non-safety net hospitals' patients were in the lowest quartile of socioeconomic status. The mean safety net hospital standardised readmission rate declined from 17.0% (SD 3.7) to 13.6% (SD 3.6), whereas the mean non-safety net hospital declined from 15.4% (SD 3.0) to 12.7% (SD 2.5). The absolute difference in rates between safety net and non-safety net hospitals declined from 1.6% (95% CI 1.3 to 1.9) to 0.9% (0.7 to 1.2). The quarterly decline in standardised readmission rates was 0.03 percentage points (95% CI 0.03 to 0.02, p<0.001) greater among safety net hospitals over the entire study period, and no differential change among safety net and non-safety net hospitals was found after either HRRP was passed or penalties enacted.ConclusionsSince HRRP was passed and penalties implemented, readmission rates for safety net hospitals have decreased more rapidly than those for non-safety net hospitals.

Project description:ImportanceThe Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program publicly reports and financially penalizes hospitals according to 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) exclusively among traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries but not persons with Medicare Advantage (MA) coverage. Exclusively reporting readmission rates for the TM population may not accurately reflect hospitals' readmission rates for older adults.ObjectiveTo examine how inclusion of MA patients in hospitals' performance is associated with readmission measures and eligibility for financial penalties.Design, setting, and participantsThis is a retrospective cohort study linking the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review file with the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set at 4070 US acute care hospitals admitting both TM and MA patients. Participants included patients admitted and discharged alive with a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure (CHF), or pneumonia between 2011 and 2015. Data analyses were conducted between April 1, 2018, and November 20, 2020.ExposuresAdmission to an acute care hospital.Main outcomes and measuresThe outcome was readmission for any reason occurring within 30 days after discharge. Each hospital's 30-day RSRR was computed on the basis of TM, MA, and all patients and estimated changes in hospitals' performance and eligibility for financial penalties after including MA beneficiaries for calculating 30-day RSRRs.ResultsThere were 748 033 TM patients (mean [SD] age, 76.8 [83] years; 360 692 [48.2%] women) and 295 928 MA patients (mean [SD] age, 77.5 [7.9] years; 137 422 [46.4%] women) hospitalized and discharged alive for AMI; 1 327 551 TM patients (mean [SD] age, 81 [8.3] years; 735 855 [55.4%] women) and 457 341 MA patients (mean [SD] age, 79.8 [8.1] years; 243 503 [53.2%] women) for CHF; and 2 017 020 TM patients (mean [SD] age, 80.7 [8.5] years; 1 097 151 [54.4%] women) and 610 790 MA patients (mean [SD] age, 79.6 [8.2] years; 321 350 [52.6%] women) for pneumonia. The 30-day RSRRs for TM and MA patients were correlated (correlation coefficients, 0.31 for AMI, 0.40 for CHF, and 0.41 for pneumonia) and the TM-based RSRR systematically underestimated the RSRR for all Medicare patients for each condition. Of the 2820 hospitals with 25 or more admissions for at least 1 of the outcomes of AMI, CHF, and pneumonia, 635 (23%) had a change in their penalty status for at least 1 of these conditions after including MA data. Changes in hospital performance and penalty status with the inclusion of MA patients were greater for hospitals in the highest quartile of MA admissions.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, the inclusion of data from MA patients changed the penalty status of a substantial fraction of US hospitals for at least 1 of 3 reported conditions. This suggests that policy makers should consider including all hospital patients, regardless of insurance status, when assessing hospital quality measures.

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: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.