Dataset Information

Association of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program With Mortality Among Medicare Beneficiaries Hospitalized for Heart Failure, Acute Myocardial Infarction, and Pneumonia.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) has been associated with a reduction in readmission rates for heart failure (HF), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and pneumonia. It is unclear whether the HRRP has been associated with change in patient mortality.

Objective

To determine whether the HRRP was associated with a change in patient mortality.

Design, setting, and participants

Retrospective cohort study of hospitalizations for HF, AMI, and pneumonia among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged at least 65 years across 4 periods from April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2015. Period 1 and period 2 occurred before the HRRP to establish baseline trends (April 2005-September 2007 and October 2007-March 2010). Period 3 and period 4 were after HRRP announcement (April 2010 to September 2012) and HRRP implementation (October 2012 to March 2015).

Exposures

Announcement and implementation of the HRRP.

Main outcomes and measures

Inverse probability-weighted mortality within 30 days of discharge following hospitalization for HF, AMI, and pneumonia, and stratified by whether there was an associated readmission. An additional end point was mortality within 45 days of initial hospital admission for target conditions.

Results

The study cohort included 8.3 million hospitalizations for HF, AMI, and pneumonia, among which 7.9 million (mean age, 79.6 [8.7] years; 53.4% women) were alive at discharge. There were 3.2 million hospitalizations for HF, 1.8 million for AMI, and 3.0 million for pneumonia. There were 270 517 deaths within 30 days of discharge for HF, 128 088 for AMI, and 246 154 for pneumonia. Among patients with HF, 30-day postdischarge mortality increased before the announcement of the HRRP (0.27% increase from period 1 to period 2). Compared with this baseline trend, HRRP announcement (0.49% increase from period 2 to period 3; difference in change, 0.22%, P = .01) and implementation (0.52% increase from period 3 to period 4; difference in change, 0.25%, P = .001) were significantly associated with an increase in postdischarge mortality. Among patients with AMI, HRRP announcement was associated with a decline in postdischarge mortality (0.18% pre-HRRP increase vs 0.08% post-HRRP announcement decrease; difference in change, -0.26%; P = .01) and did not significantly change after HRRP implementation. Among patients with pneumonia, postdischarge mortality was stable before HRRP (0.04% increase from period 1 to period 2), but significantly increased after HRRP announcement (0.26% post-HRRP announcement increase; difference in change, 0.22%, P = .01) and implementation (0.44% post-HPPR implementation increase; difference in change, 0.40%, P < .001). The overall increase in mortality among patients with HF and pneumonia was mainly related to outcomes among patients who were not readmitted but died within 30 days of discharge. For all 3 conditions, HRRP implementation was not significantly associated with an increase in mortality within 45 days of admission, relative to pre-HRRP trends.

Conclusions and relevance

Among Medicare beneficiaries, the HRRP was significantly associated with an increase in 30-day postdischarge mortality after hospitalization for HF and pneumonia, but not for AMI. Given the study design and the lack of significant association of the HRRP with mortality within 45 days of admission, further research is needed to understand whether the increase in 30-day postdischarge mortality is a result of the policy.

SUBMITTER: Wadhera RK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6583517 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Hospital Value-Based Purchasing program uses 30-day mortality rates for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia to evaluate US hospitals, but does not account for neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage when comparing their performance.ObjectiveTo determine if neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with worse 30-day mortality rates after a hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), or pneumonia in the USA, as well as within the subset of counties with a high proportion of Black individuals.Design and participantsThis retrospective, population-based study included all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia between 2012 and 2015.ExposureResidence in most socioeconomically disadvantaged vs. less socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods as measured by the area deprivation index (ADI).Main measure(s)All-cause mortality within 30 days of admission.Key resultsThe study included 3,471,592 Medicare patients. Of these patients, 333,472 resided in most disadvantaged neighborhoods and 3,138,120 in less disadvantaged neighborhoods. Patients living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods were younger (78.4 vs. 80.0 years) and more likely to be Black adults (24.6% vs. 7.5%) and dually enrolled in Medicaid (39.4% vs. 21.8%). After adjustment for demographics (age, sex, race/ethnicity), poverty, and clinical comorbidities, 30-day mortality was higher among beneficiaries residing in most disadvantaged neighborhoods for AMI (adjusted odds ratio 1.08, 95% CI 1.06-1.11) and pneumonia (aOR 1.05, 1.03-1.07), but not for HF (aOR 1.02, 1.00-1.04). These patterns were similar within the subset of US counties with a high proportion of Black adults (AMI, aOR 1.07, 1.03-1.11; HF 1.02, 0.99-1.05; pneumonia 1.03, 1.00-1.07).ConclusionsNeighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with higher 30-day mortality for some conditions targeted by value-based programs, even after accounting for individual-level demographics, clinical comorbidities, and poverty. These findings may have implications as policymakers weigh strategies to advance health equity under value-based programs.

Project description:ImportanceThe US Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was associated with reduced readmissions among Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia. It is important to assess whether there has been a signal for concomitant harm with an increase in mortality.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether the announcement or the implementation of HRRP was associated with an increase in either in-hospital or 30-day postdischarge mortality following hospitalization for AMI, HF, or pneumonia.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cohort study, using Medicare data, all hospitalizations for AMI, HF, and pneumonia were identified among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2014. These were assessed for changes in trends for risk-adjusted rates of in-hospital and 30-day postdischarge mortality after announcement and implementation of the HRRP using an interrupted time series framework. Analyses were done in November 2017 and December 2017.ExposuresAnnouncement of the HRRP in March 2010, and implementation of its penalties in October 2012.Main outcomes and measuresMonthly risk-adjusted rates of in-hospital and 30-day postdischarge mortality.ResultsThe sample included 1.7 million AMI, 4 million HF, and 3.5 million pneumonia hospitalizations. Between 2006 and 2014, in-hospital mortality decreased for the 3 conditions (AMI, from 10.4% to 9.7%; HF, from 4.3% to 3.5%; pneumonia, from 5.3% to 4.0%) while 30-day postdischarge mortality decreased from 7.4% to 7.0% for AMI (P for trend < .001), but increased from 7.4% to 9.2% for HF (P for trend < .001) and from 7.6% to 8.6% for pneumonia (P for trend < .001). Before the HRRP announcement, monthly postdischarge mortality was stable for AMI (slope for monthly change, 0.002%; 95% CI, -0.001% to 0.006% per month), and increased by 0.004% (95% CI, 0.000% to 0.007%) per month for HF and by 0.005% (95% CI, 0.002% to 0.008%) per month for pneumonia. There were no inflections in slope around HRRP announcement or implementation (P > .05 for all). In contrast, there were significant negative deflections in slopes for readmission rates at HRRP announcement for all conditions.Conclusions and relevanceAmong Medicare beneficiaries, there was no evidence for an increase in in-hospital or postdischarge mortality associated with HRRP announcement or implementation-a period with substantial reductions in readmissions. The improvement in readmission was therefore not associated with any increase in in-hospital or 30-day postdischarge mortality.

Project description:ImportancePayers and policy makers have advocated for transitioning toward value-based payment models. However, little is known about what is the extent of hospital variation in the value of care and whether there are any hospital characteristics associated with high-value care.ObjectivesTo investigate the association between hospital-level 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) and 30-day risk-standardized payments (RSPs) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia (PNA); to characterize patterns of value in care; and to identify hospital characteristics associated with high-value care (defined by having lower than median RSMRs and RSPs).Design, setting, and participantsThis national cross-sectional study applied weighted linear correlation to investigate the association between hospital RSMRs and RSPs for AMI, HF, and PNA between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2014, among all hospitals; examined correlations in subgroups of hospitals based on key characteristics; and assessed the proportion and characteristics of hospitals delivering high-value care. The data analysis was completed in October 2017. The setting was acute care hospitals. Participants were Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged with AMI, HF, or PNA.Main outcomes and measuresHospital-level 30-day RSMRs and RSPs for AMI, HF, and PNA.ResultsThe AMI sample consisted of 4339 hospitals with 487 141 hospitalizations for mortality and 462 905 hospitalizations for payment. The HF sample included 4641 hospitals with 960 960 hospitalizations for mortality and 903 721 hospitalizations for payment. The PNA sample contained 4685 hospitals with 952 022 hospitalizations for mortality and 901 764 hospitalizations for payment. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) RSMRs and RSPs, respectively, was 14.3% (IQR, 13.8%-14.8%) and $21 620 (IQR, $20 966-$22 567) for AMI, 11.7% (IQR, 11.0%-12.5%) and $15 139 (IQR, $14 310-$16 118) for HF, and 11.5% (IQR, 10.6%-12.6%) and $14 220 (IQR, $13 342-$15 097) for PNA. There were statistically significant but weak inverse correlations between the RSMRs and RSPs of -0.08 (95% CI, -0.11 to -0.05) for AMI, -0.21 (95% CI, -0.24 to -0.18) for HF, and -0.07 (95% CI, -0.09 to -0.04) for PNA. The largest shared variance between the RSMRs and RSPs was only 4.4% (for HF). The correlations between the RSMRs and RSPs did not differ significantly across teaching status, safety-net status, urban/rural status, or the proportion of patients with low socioeconomic status. Approximately 1 in 4 hospitals (20.9% for AMI, 23.0% for HF, and 23.9% for PNA) had both lower than median RSMRs and RSPs.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that there is significant potential for improvement in the value of AMI, HF, and PNA care and also suggest that high-value care for these conditions is attainable across most hospital types.

Project description:ImportanceExcess 30-day readmissions have declined substantially in hospitals initially penalized for high readmission rates under the Medicare Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP). Although a possible explanation is that the policy incentivized penalized hospitals to improve care processes, another is regression to the mean (RTM), a statistical phenomenon that predicts entities farther from the mean in one period are likely to fall closer to the mean in subsequent (or preceding) periods owing to random chance.ObjectiveTo quantify the contribution of RTM to declining readmission rates at hospitals initially penalized under the HRRP.Design, setting, and participantsThis study analyzed data from Medicare Provider and Analysis Review files to assess changes in readmissions going forward and backward in time at hospitals with high and low readmission rates during the measurement window for the first year of the HRRP (fiscal year [FY] 2013) and for a measurement window that predated the FY 2013 measurement window for the HRRP among hospitals participating in the HRRP. Hospital characteristics are based on the 2012 survey by the American Hospital Association. The analysis included fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older with an index hospitalization for 1 of the 3 target conditions of heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or pneumonia or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and who were discharged alive from February 1, 2006, through June 30, 2014, with follow-up completed by July 30, 2014. Data were analyzed from January 23, 2018, through March 29, 2019.ExposuresHospital Readmission Reduction Program penalties.Main outcome and measuresThe excess readmission ratio (ERR), calculated as the ratio of a hospital's readmissions to the readmissions that would be expected based on an average hospital with similar patients. Hospitals with ERRs of greater than 1.0 were penalized.ResultsA total of 3258 hospitals were included in the study. For the 3 target conditions, hospitals with ERRs of greater than 1.0 during the FY 2013 measurement window exhibited decreases in ERRs in the subsequent 3 years, whereas hospitals with ERRs of no greater than 1.0 exhibited increases. For example, for patients with heart failure, mean ERRs declined from 1.086 to 1.038 (-0.048; 95% CI, -0.053 to -0.043; P < .001) at hospitals with ERRs of greater than 1.0 and increased from 0.917 to 0.957 (0.040; 95% CI, 0.036-0.044; P < .001) at hospitals with ERRs of no greater than 1.0. The same results, with ERR changes of similar magnitude, were found when the analyses were repeated using an alternate measurement window that predated the HRRP and followed up hospitals for 3 years (for patients with heart failure, mean ERRs declined from 1.089 to 1.044 [-0.045; 95% CI, -0.050 to -0.040; P < .001] at hospitals with below-mean performance and increased from 0.915 to 0.948 [0.033; 95% CI, 0.029 to 0.037; P < .001] at hospitals with above-mean performance). By comparing actual changes in ERRs with expected changes due to RTM, 74.3% to 86.5% of the improvement in ERRs for penalized hospitals was explained by RTM.Conclusions and relevanceMost of the decline in readmission rates in hospitals with high rates during the measurement window for the first year of the HRRP appeared to be due to RTM. These findings seem to call into question the notion of an HRRP policy effect on readmissions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in an effort to reduce excess hospital readmissions, lower health care costs, and improve patient safety and outcomes. Although studies have examined the policy's overall impacts and differences by hospital types, research is limited on its effects for different types of vulnerable populations. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of the HRRP on readmissions for three targeted conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia) among four types of vulnerable populations, including low-income patients, patients served by hospitals that serve a high percentage of low-income or Medicaid patients, and high-risk patients at the highest quartile of the Elixhauser comorbidity index score. METHODS:Data on patient and hospital information came from the Nationwide Readmission Database (NRD), which contained all discharges from community hospitals in 27 states during 2010-2014. Using difference-in-difference (DD) models, linear probability regressions were conducted for the entire sample and sub-samples of patients and hospitals in order to isolate the effect of the HRRP on vulnerable populations. Multiple combinations of treatment and control groups and triple difference (DDD) methods were used for testing the robustness of the results. All models controlled for the patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS:There have been statistically significant reductions in readmission rates overall as well as for vulnerable populations, especially for acute myocardial infarction patients in hospitals serving the largest percentage of low-income patients and high-risk patients. There is also evidence of spillover effects for non-targeted conditions among Medicare patients compared to privately insured patients. CONCLUSIONS:The HRRP appears to have created the right incentives for reducing readmissions not only overall but also for vulnerable populations, accruing societal benefits in addition to previously found reductions in costs. As the reduction in the rate of readmissions is not consistent across patient and hospital groups, there could be benefits to adjusting the policy according to the socioeconomic status of a hospital's patients and neighborhood.

Project description:To better guide strategies intended to reduce high rates of 30-day readmission after hospitalization for heart failure (HF), acute myocardial infarction (MI), or pneumonia, further information is needed about readmission diagnoses, readmission timing, and the relationship of both to patient age, sex, and race.To examine readmission diagnoses and timing among Medicare beneficiaries readmitted within 30 days after hospitalization for HF, acute MI, or pneumonia.We analyzed 2007-2009 Medicare fee-for-service claims data to identify patterns of 30-day readmission by patient demographic characteristics and time after hospitalization for HF, acute MI, or pneumonia. Readmission diagnoses were categorized using an aggregated version of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Condition Categories. Readmission timing was determined by day after discharge.We examined the percentage of 30-day readmissions occurring on each day (0-30) after discharge; the most common readmission diagnoses occurring during cumulative periods (days 0-3, 0-7, 0-15, and 0-30) and consecutive periods (days 0-3, 4-7, 8-15, and 16-30) after hospitalization; median time to readmission for common readmission diagnoses; and the relationship between patient demographic characteristics and readmission diagnoses and timing.From 2007 through 2009, we identified 329,308 30-day readmissions after 1,330,157 HF hospitalizations (24.8% readmitted), 108,992 30-day readmissions after 548,834 acute MI hospitalizations (19.9% readmitted), and 214,239 30-day readmissions after 1,168,624 pneumonia hospitalizations (18.3% readmitted). The proportion of patients readmitted for the same condition was 35.2% after the index HF hospitalization, 10.0% after the index acute MI hospitalization, and 22.4% after the index pneumonia hospitalization. Of all readmissions within 30 days of hospitalization, the majority occurred within 15 days of hospitalization: 61.0%, HF cohort; 67.6%, acute MI cohort; and 62.6%, pneumonia cohort. The diverse spectrum of readmission diagnoses was largely similar in both cumulative and consecutive periods after discharge. Median time to 30-day readmission was 12 days for patients initially hospitalized for HF, 10 days for patients initially hospitalized for acute MI, and 12 days for patients initially hospitalized for pneumonia and was comparable across common readmission diagnoses. Neither readmission diagnoses nor timing substantively varied by age, sex, or race.Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized for HF, acute MI, or pneumonia, 30-day readmissions were frequent throughout the month after hospitalization and resulted from a similar spectrum of readmission diagnoses regardless of age, sex, race, or time after discharge.

Project description:High-intensity statins are recommended following myocardial infarction. However, patients may not continue taking this medication with high adherence.To estimate the proportion of patients filling high-intensity statin prescriptions following myocardial infarction who continue taking this medication with high adherence and to analyze factors associated with continuing a high-intensity statin with high adherence after myocardial infarction.Retrospective cohort study of Medicare patients following hospitalization for myocardial infarction. Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 to 75 years (n?=?29?932) and older than 75 years (n?=?27?956) hospitalized for myocardial infarction between 2007 and 2012 who filled a high-intensity statin prescription (atorvastatin, 40-80 mg, and rosuvastatin, 20-40 mg) within 30 days of discharge. Beneficiaries had Medicare fee-for-service coverage including pharmacy benefits.Sociodemographic, dual Medicare/Medicaid coverage, comorbidities, not filling high-intensity statin prescriptions before their myocardial infarction (ie, new users), and cardiac rehabilitation and outpatient cardiologist visits after discharge.High adherence to high-intensity statins at 6 months and 2 years after discharge was defined by a proportion of days covered of at least 80%, down-titration was defined by switching to a low/moderate-intensity statin with a proportion of days covered of at least 80%, and low adherence was defined by a proportion of days covered less than 80% for any statin intensity without discontinuation. Discontinuation was defined by not having a statin available to take in the last 60 days of each follow-up period.Approximately half of the beneficiaries were women and fourth-fifths were white. At 6 months and 2 years after discharge among beneficiaries 66 to 75 years of age, 17?633 (58.9%) and 10?308 (41.6%) were taking high-intensity statins with high adherence, 2605 (8.7%) and 3315 (13.4%) down-titrated, 5182 (17.3%) and 4727 (19.1%) had low adherence, and 3705 (12.4%) and 4648 (18.8%) discontinued their statin, respectively. The proportion taking high-intensity statins with high adherence increased between 2007 and 2012. African American patients, Hispanic patients, and new high-intensity statin users were less likely to take high-intensity statins with high adherence, and those with dual Medicare/Medicaid coverage and more cardiologist visits after discharge and who participated in cardiac rehabilitation were more likely to take high-intensity statins with high adherence. Results were similar among beneficiaries older than 75 years of age.Many patients filling high-intensity statins following a myocardial infarction do not continue taking this medication with high adherence for 2 years postdischarge. Interventions are needed to increase high-intensity statin use and adherence after myocardial infarction.