Does a Reduction in Readmissions Result in Net Savings for Most Hospitals? An Examination of Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Yakusheva O
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6560630 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Does a Reduction in Readmissions Result in Net Savings for Most Hospitals? An Examination of Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.
Yakusheva Olga O Hoffman Geoffrey J GJ
Medical care research and review : MCRR 20180824 4
This study aimed (1) to estimate the impact of an incremental reduction in excess readmissions on a hospital's Medicare reimbursement revenue, for hospitals subject to penalties under the Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program and (2) to evaluate the economic case for an investment in a readmission reduction program. For 2,465 hospitals with excess readmissions in the Fiscal Year 2016 Hospital Compare data set, we (1) used the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program statute to estima ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in March 2010, introduced payment-reduction penalties on acute care hospitals with higher-than-expected readmission rates for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure, and pneumonia. There is concern that hospitals serving large numbers of low-income and uninsured patients (safety-net hospitals) are at greater risk of higher readmissions and penalties, often due to factors that are likely outside the hospital's control. Using publicly reported data, we compared the readmissions performance and penalty experience among safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals.MethodsWe used nationwide hospital level data for 2009-2016 from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare program, CMS Final Impact Rule, and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey. We identified as safety-net hospitals the top quartile of hospitals in terms of the proportion of patients receiving income-based public benefits. Using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences approach based on the comparison of pre- vs. post-HRRP changes in (risk-adjusted) 30-day readmission rate in safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals, we estimated the change in readmissions rate associated with HRRP. We also compared the penalty frequency among safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals.ResultsOur study cohort included 1915 hospitals, of which 479 were safety-net hospitals. At baseline (2009), safety-net hospitals had a slightly higher readmission rate compared to non-safety net hospitals for all three conditions: AMI, 20.3% vs. 19.8% (p value< 0.001); heart failure, 25.2% vs. 24.2% (p-value< 0.001); pneumonia, 18.7% vs. 18.1% (p-value< 0.001). Beginning in 2012, readmission rates declined similarly in both hospital groups for all three cohorts. Based on difference-in-differences analysis, HRRP was associated with similar change in the readmissions rate in safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals for AMI and heart failure. For the pneumonia cohort, we found a larger reduction (0.23%; p < 0.001) in safety-net hospitals. The frequency of readmissions penalty was higher among safety-net hospitals. The proportion of hospitals penalized during all four post-HRRP years was 72% among safety-net and 59% among non-safety-net hospitals.ConclusionsOur results lend support to the concerns of disproportionately higher risk of performance-based penalty on safety-net hospitals.
| S-EPMC8922916 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6324411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe Medicare Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) is associated with reduced readmission rates, but it is unknown how this decrease occurred.ObjectiveTo examine whether the HRRP was associated with changes in the probability of readmission at emergency department (ED) visits after hospital discharge (ED revisits) overall and depending on whether admission is typically indicated for the patient's condition at the ED revisit.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used hospital and ED discharge data from California, Florida, and New York from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2014. A difference-in-differences analysis examined change in readmission probability at ED revisits for recently discharged patients; ED revisits with clinical presentations for which admission is typically indicated vs those for which admission is more variable (ie, discretionary) were examined separately. Inclusion criteria were Medicare patients 65 years and older who revisited an ED within 30 days of inpatient discharge. Data were analyzed from December 18, 2018, to September 11, 2019.ExposuresBefore and after HRRP implementation among patients initially hospitalized for targeted vs nontargeted conditions.Main outcomes and measuresThirty-day unplanned hospital readmissions at the ED revisit.ResultsA total of 9 914 068 index hospitalizations were identified in California, Florida, and New York from 2010 to 2014. Of 2 052 096 discharges in 2010, 1 168 126 (56.9%) discharges were women and 566 957 discharges (27.6%) were among patients older than 85 years. Among 1 421 407 patients with an unplanned readmission within 30 days of discharge, 1 266 107 patients (89.1%) were admitted through the ED. A total of 1 906 498 ED revisits were identified. After adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics from the index hospitalization, HRRP implementation was associated with fewer readmissions from the ED, with a difference-in-difference estimate of -0.9 (95% CI, -1.4 to -0.4) percentage points (P < .001), or a 1.4% relative decrease from the 65.8% pre-HRRP readmission rates. Implementation of the HRRP was associated with fewer readmissions at the ED revisit involving clinical presentations for which admission is typically indicated (difference-in-differences estimate, -1.1 [95% CI, -1.6 to -0.6] percentage points; P < .001), or a 1.2% relative decrease from the 93.6% pre-HRRP rate. These results appear to be associated with patients presenting at the ED revisit with congestive heart failure (difference-in-difference estimate, -1.2 [95% CI, -2.0 to -0.4] percentage points; P = .003).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that implementation of the HRRP was associated with a lower likelihood of readmission for recently discharged patients presenting to the ED, specifically for congestive heart failure. This highlights the critical role of the ED in readmission reduction under the HRRP and suggests that patient outcomes after HRRP implementation should be further studied.
| S-EPMC7195622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:The strongest evidence for the effectiveness of Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) involves greater reductions in readmissions for hospitals receiving penalties compared with those not receiving penalties. However, the HRRP penalty is an imperfect measure of hospitals' marginal incentive to avoid a readmission for HRRP-targeted diagnoses. Objectives:To assess the association between hospitals' condition-specific incentives and readmission performance and to examine the responsiveness of hospitals to condition-specific incentives compared with aggregate penalty amounts. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective cohort analysis used Medicare readmissions data from 2823 US short-term acute care hospitals participating in HRRP to compare 3-year (fiscal years 2016-2019) follow-up readmission performance according to tertiles of hospitals' baseline (2016) marginal incentives for each of 5 HRRP-targeted conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and hip and/or knee surgery). Main Outcomes and Measures:Linear regression models were used to estimate mean change in follow-up readmission performance, measured using the excess readmissions ratio, with baseline condition-specific incentives and aggregate penalty amounts. Results:Of 2823 hospitals that participated in the HRRP from baseline to follow-up, 2280 (81%) had more than 1 excess readmission for 1 or more applicable condition and 543 (19%) did not have any excess readmissions. The mean (SD) financial incentive to reduce readmissions for incentivized hospitals ranged from $8762 ($3699) to $58 158 ($26 198) per 1 avoided readmission. Hospitals with greater incentives for readmission avoidance had greater decreases in readmissions compared with hospitals with smaller incentives (45% greater for pneumonia, 172% greater for acute myocardial infarction, 40% greater for hip and/or knee surgery, 32% greater for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 13% greater for heart failure), whereas hospitals with no incentives had increases in excess readmissions of 4% to 7% (median, 4% [percentage change for nonincentivized hospitals was 3.7% for pneumonia, 4.2% for acute myocardial infarction, 7.1% for hip and/or knee surgery, 3.7% for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 3.7% for heart failure]; P < .001). During the study period, each additional $5000 in the incentive amount was associated with a 0.6- to 1.3-percentage point decrease, or up to a 26% decrease, in excess readmissions (P < .001). Regression to the mean explained approximately one-third of the results depending on the condition examined. Conclusions and Relevance:The findings suggest that improvements in readmission avoidance are more strongly associated with incentives from the HRRP than with aggregate penalty amounts, suggesting that the program has elicited sizeable changes. Worsened performance among hospitals with small or no incentives may indicate the need for reconsideration of the program's lack of financial rewards for high-performing hospitals.
| S-EPMC7125432 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We examined the financial incentives to avoid readmissions under Medicare's Hospital Readmission Reduction Program for safety-net hospitals (SNHs) and teaching hospitals (THs) compared with other hospitals. Using Medicare's FY2016 Hospital Compare and readmissions data for 2,465 hospitals, we tested for differential revenue gains for SNHs (n = 658) relative to non-SNHs (n = 1,807), and for major (n = 231) and minor (n = 591) THs relative to non-THs (n = 1,643). We examined hospital-level factors predicting differences in revenue gains by hospital type. The revenue gains of an avoided readmission were 10% to 15% greater for major THs compared with non-THs ($18,047 vs. $15,478 for acute myocardial infarction) but no different for SNHs compared with non-SNHs. The greater revenue gains for THs were strongly positively predicted by hospitals' poor initial readmission performance. We found little evidence that the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program creates disincentives for SNHs and THs to invest in readmission reduction efforts, and THs have greater returns from readmissions avoidance than non-THs.
| S-EPMC6656617 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDecreases in 30-day readmissions following the implementation of the Medicare Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) have occurred against the backdrop of increasing hospital observation stay use, yet observation stays are not captured in readmission measures.ObjectiveTo examine whether the HRRP was associated with decreases in 30-day readmissions after accounting for observation stays.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included a 20% sample of inpatient admissions and observation stays among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2015. Data analysis was performed from November 2021 to June 2022. A differences-in-differences analysis assessed changes in 30-day readmissions after the announcement of the HRRP and implementation of penalties for target conditions (heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia) vs nontarget conditions under scenarios that excluded and included observation stays.Main outcomes and measuresThirty-day inpatient admissions and observation stays.ResultsThe study included 8 944 295 hospitalizations (mean [SD] age, 78.7 [8.2] years; 58.6% were female; 1.3% Asian; 10.0% Black; 2.0% Hispanic; 0.5% North American Native; 85.0% White; and 1.2% other or unknown). Observation stays increased from 2.3% to 4.4% (91.3% relative increase) of index hospitalizations among target conditions and 14.1% to 21.3% (51.1% relative increase) of index hospitalizations for nontarget conditions. Readmission rates decreased significantly after the announcement of the HRRP and returned to baseline by the time penalties were implemented for both target and nontarget conditions regardless of whether observation stays were included. When only inpatient hospitalizations were counted, decreasing readmissions accrued into a -1.48 percentage point (95% CI, -1.65 to -1.31 percentage points) absolute reduction in readmission rates by the postpenalty period for target conditions and -1.13 percentage point (95% CI, -1.30 to -0.96 percentage points) absolute reduction in readmission rates by the postpenalty period for nontarget conditions. This reduction corresponded to a statistically significant differential change of -0.35 percentage points (95% CI, -0.59 to -0.11 percentage points). Accounting for observation stays more than halved the absolute decrease in readmission rates for target conditions (-0.66 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.49 percentage points). Nontarget conditions showed an overall greater decrease during the same period (-0.76 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.92 to -0.59 percentage points), corresponding to a differential change in readmission rates of 0.10 percentage points (95% CI, -0.14 to 0.33 percentage points) that was not statistically significant.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this study suggest that the reduction of readmissions associated with the implementation of the HRRP was smaller than originally reported. More than half of the decrease in readmissions for target conditions appears to be attributable to the reclassification of inpatient admission to observation stays.
| S-EPMC9672971 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRisk factors common to nursing home (NH) residents are potentially not fully captured by the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP). The unique challenges faced by hospitals that disproportionately serve NH residents who are at greater risk of readmissions have not been studied.MethodsUsing 100% Medicare Provider Analysis and Review File and the Minimum Data Set from 2010-2013, we constructed a measure of hospital share of NH-originating hospitalizations (NOHs). We defined hospital share of NOHs as the proportion of inpatient stays by patients aged 65 or older who were directly admitted from NHs. To evaluate the impact of the share of NOHs on readmission penalties, we categorized hospitals into quartiles according to their share of NOHs and estimated the differences in the adjusted penalties across hospital quartiles after accounting for hospital characteristics, market characteristics and state fixed effects. We repeated the analyses for the penalties incurred in each year between 2015 and 2019.ResultsHospitals varied substantially in the share of NOHs (median [interquartile range], 11.3% [8.2%-15.1%]), with limited variation over time. In 2015, hospitals in the highest quartile of NOH received on average 0.58% Medicare payment reduction compared to 0.44% reduction among those in the lowest quartile (32.9% higher penalties, p < 0.001). The increase in penalties continued to grow in 2017 and 2018 when the HRRP expanded to include additional target conditions (47.3% and 66.7%, respectively, p < 0.001 for both). Although the effect diminished in 2019 following the additional adjustment for hospital's dual-eligible share, hospitals in the highest quartile of NOH still incurred 43.0% (p < 0.001) higher penalties than those in the lowest quartile.ConclusionsHospitals varied considerably in their share of NOHs. Hospitals having a higher share of NOHs were disproportionately penalized for excess readmissions, even under the revised policy that adjusts for the share of dual-eligible admissions.
| S-EPMC9795916 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), implemented beginning in 2013, seeks to incentivize Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) hospitals to reduce 30-day readmissions for selected inpatient cohorts including acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia. Performance-based penalties, which take the form of a percentage reduction in Medicare reimbursement for all inpatient care services, have a risk of unintended financial burden on hospitals that care for a larger proportion of Medicare patients. To examine the role of this unintended risk on 30-day readmissions, we estimated the association between the extent of their Medicare share of total hospital bed days and changes in 30-day readmissions.MethodsWe used publicly available nationwide hospital level data for 2009-2016 from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare program, CMS Final Impact Rule, and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey. Using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences approach, we compared pre- vs. post-HRRP changes in 30-day readmission rate in hospitals with high and moderate Medicare share of total hospital bed days ("Medicare bed share") vs. low Medicare bed share hospitals.ResultsWe grouped the 1904 study hospitals into tertiles (low, moderate and high) by Medicare bed share; the average bed share in the three tertile groups was 31.2, 47.8 and 59.9%, respectively. Compared to low Medicare bed share hospitals, high bed share hospitals were more likely to be non-profit, have smaller bed size and less likely to be a teaching hospital. High bed share hospitals were more likely to be in rural and non-large-urban areas, have fewer lower income patients and have a less complex patient case-mix profile. At baseline, the average readmissions rate in the low Medicare bed share (control) hospitals was 20.0% (AMI), 24.7% (HF) and 18.4% (pneumonia). The observed pre- to post-program change in the control hospitals was - 1.35% (AMI), - 1.02% (HF) and - 0.35% (pneumonia). Difference in differences model estimates indicated no differential change in readmissions among moderate and high Medicare bed share hospitals.ConclusionsHRRP penalties were not associated with any change in readmissions rate. The CMS should consider alternative options - including working collaboratively with hospitals - to reduce readmissions.
| S-EPMC7980319 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IMPORTANCE:Hospitals that serve poorer populations have higher readmission rates. It is unknown whether these hospitals effectively lowered readmission rates in response to the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP). OBJECTIVE:To compare pre-post differences in readmission rates among hospitals with different proportion of dual-eligible patients both generally and among the most highly penalized (ie, low performing) hospitals. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study using piecewise linear model with estimated hospital-level risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) as the dependent variable and a change point at HRRP passage (2010). Economic burden was assessed by proportion of dual-eligibles served. SETTING:Acute care hospitals within the United States. PARTICIPANTS:Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older discharged alive from January 1, 2003 to November 30, 2014 with a principal discharge diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure (CHF), and pneumonia. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE:Decrease in hospital-level RSRRs in the post-law period, after controlling for the pre-law trend. RESULTS:For AMI, the pre-post difference between hospitals that service high and low proportion of dual-eligibles was not significant (-65 vs. -64 risk-standardized readmissions per 10000 discharges per year, P=0.0678). For CHF, RSRRs declined more at high than low dual-eligible hospitals (-79 vs. -75 risk-standardized readmissions per 10000 discharges per year, P=0.0006). For pneumonia, RSRRs declined less at high than low dual-eligible hospitals (-44 vs. -47 risk-standardized readmissions per 10000 discharges per year, P=0.0003). Among the 742 highest penalized hospitals and all conditions, the pre-post decline in rate of change of RSRRs was less for high dual-eligible hospitals than low dual-eligible hospitals (-68 vs. -74 risk-standardized readmissions per 10000 discharges per year for AMI, -88 vs. -97 for CHF, and -47 vs. -56 for pneumonia, P<0.0001 for all). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:For all hospitals, differences in pre-post trends in RSRRs varied with disease conditions. However, for the highest-penalized hospitals, the pre-post decline in RSRRs was greater for low than high dual-eligible hospitals for all penalized conditions. These results suggest that high penalty, high dual-eligible hospitals may be less able to improve performance on readmission metrics.
| S-EPMC6856430 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the impact of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) on hospitals serving vulnerable populations.Data sources/study settingMedicare inpatient claims to calculate condition-specific readmission rates. Medicare cost reports and other sources to determine a hospital's share of duals, profit margin, and characteristics.Study designRegression analyses and projections were used to estimate risk-adjusted readmission rates and financial penalties under the HRRP. Findings were compared across groups of hospitals, determined based on their share of duals, to assess differential impacts of the HRRP.Principal findingsBoth patient dual-eligible status and a hospital's dual-eligible share of Medicare discharges have a positive impact on risk-adjusted hospital readmission rates. Under current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service methodology, which does not adjust for socioeconomic status, high-dual hospitals are more likely to have excess readmissions than low-dual hospitals. As a result, HRRP penalties will disproportionately fall on high-dual hospitals, which are more likely to have negative all-payer margins, raising concerns of unintended consequences of the program for vulnerable populations.ConclusionsPolicies to reduce hospital readmissions must balance the need to ensure continued access to quality care for vulnerable populations.
| S-EPMC4231573 | biostudies-literature