Dataset Information

What Is an Observation Stay? Evaluating the Use of Hospital Observation Stays in Medicare.

ABSTRACT:

Background/objectives

Observation stays are increasingly common for older adults, yet little is known about the extent to which they are being used as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) originally intended for unscheduled or acute problems and whether different types of services are reflected in current billing practices.

Design

Observational cohort study.

Setting/participants

A total of 867,165 qualifying observation stays identified from 451,408 patients using Medicare fee-for-service claims data from a nationally representative 20% beneficiary sample between January 1, 2014, and November 30, 2014.

Measurements

Using descriptive and multivariable logistic model analytic approaches, we evaluated the patient, stay, and hospital characteristics associated with the most common billing practice for observation stays (charge revenue center 0761 exclusively) vs all other practices.

Results

Sixty-three percent of observation stays were billed exclusively under the 0761 revenue center and were more likely to be for preplanned chronic conditions consisting of short-term treatments (eg, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, wound care, paracentesis, epidural spinal injection). These stays appeared to be used for recurrent single-day visits, given their strong association with prior visits and a high rate of reobservation (41.4%), with frequent return stays appearing in a 7-day pattern.

Conclusion

Nearly two-thirds of observation stays are billed using only the 0761 revenue code and appear to be for prescheduled, repeated treatments-differing substantially from CMS' explicitly stated purpose as a form of care used while a healthcare provider determines whether a patient presenting for unscheduled or acute conditions requires inpatient hospital admission or can be safely discharged. Guidance is needed from CMS to clarify the appropriate role of observation stays, with discussion as to whether episodic single-day, planned treatment for chronic conditions not originating in the emergency department should be billed as observation stays or placed under another mechanism. Subsequent research is needed to understand how the current use of observation stays impact patient out-of-pocket costs. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1568-1572, 2020.

SUBMITTER: Powell WR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7363536 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective To characterize rates and trends over time of emergency department treatment-and-discharge stays, repeat observation stays, inpatient stays, any hospital revisit, and death within 30 days of discharge from observation stays.Design Retrospective cohort study.Setting 4750 hospitals in the USA.Participants Nationally representative sample of Medicare fee for service beneficiaries aged 65 or over discharged after 363?037 index observation stays, 2?540?000 index emergency department treatment-and-discharge stays, and 2?667?525 index inpatient stays from 2006-11.Main outcome measures Rates of emergency department treatment-and-discharge stays, observation stays, inpatient stays, any hospital revisit, and death within 30 days of discharge from index observation stays. Rates were compared with corresponding outcomes within 30 days of discharge from both index emergency department treatment-and-discharge stays and index inpatient stays.Results Among 363?037 index observation stays resulting in discharge from 2006-11, 30 day rates of emergency department treatment-and-discharge stays were 8.4%, repeat observation stays were 2.9%, inpatient stays were 11.2%, any hospital revisit was 20.1%, and death was 1.8%. Of all revisits, 49.7% were for inpatient stays. Revisit rates for emergency department treatment-and-discharge stays, repeat observation stays, and any hospital revisit increased from 2006-11 (P<0.001 for trend), while 30 day rates of inpatient stays (P=0.054 for trend) and 30 day mortality (P=0.091 for trend) were both unchanged. Averaged over the study period, 30 day rates of any hospital revisit were similar after discharge from index emergency department treatment-and-discharge stays (19.9%) and index observation stays (20.1%), as was 30 day mortality (1.8% for both). Rates of any hospital revisit (21.8%) and death (5.2%) were highest after discharge from index inpatient stays.Conclusions Hospital revisits are common after discharge from observation stays, frequently result in inpatient hospitalizations, and have increased over time among Medicare beneficiaries. As revisit rates are similar after emergency department and observation stays, strategies shown to enhance emergency department transitional care may be reasonable starting points to improve post-observation outcomes.

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.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Patients are at risk for medication problems after hospital admissions, particularly those with critical illness. Medication problems include continuation of acute medications and discontinuation of chronic medications after discharge. Little is known across a national integrated health care system about the extent of these two medication problems. OBJECTIVE:To examine the extent of statin medication discontinuation and new antipsychotic medication use after hospital discharge. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING:Veterans Affairs healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS:Veterans with an inpatient hospitalization from January 1, 2014-December 31, 2016, survived at least 180 days post-discharge, and received at least one medication through the VA outpatient pharmacy within one year around admission were included. Hospitalizations were grouped into: 1) direct admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and a diagnosis of sepsis, 2) direct admission to the ICU without sepsis diagnosis, and 3) no ICU stay during the hospitalization. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Statin medication discontinuation and new antipsychotic use at six months post-hospital discharge. RESULTS:A total of 520,187 participants were included in the statin medication and 910,629 in the antipsychotic medication cohorts. Statin discontinuation ranged from 10-15% and new antipsychotic prescription fills from 2-4% across the three hospitalization groups, with highest rates in the ICU admission and sepsis diagnosis group. Statin discontinuation and new antipsychotic use after a hospitalization varied by hospital, with worse performing hospitals having 11% higher odds of discontinuing a statin (median odds ratio at hospital-level, adjusted for patient differences, aMOR: 1.11 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.13)) and 29% higher odds of new antipsychotic use (aMOR, 1.29 (95% CI: 1.24, 1.34)). Risk-adjusted hospital rates of these two medication changes were not correlated (p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS:Systemic variation in the rates of statin medication continuation and new antipsychotic use were found.