Likelihood of hospital readmission in Medicare Advantage and Fee-For-Service within same hospital.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To assess the extent to which all-cause 30-day readmission rate varies by Medicare program within the same hospitals.Study design
We used conditional logistic regression clustered by hospital and generalized estimating equations to compare the odds of unplanned all-cause 30-day readmission between Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA).Data collection
Wisconsin Health Information Organization collects claims data from various payers including private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid, twice a year.Principal findings
For 62 of 66 hospitals, hospital-level readmission rates for MA were lower than those for Medicare FFS. The odds of 30-day readmission in MA were 0.92 times lower than Medicare FFS within the same hospital (odds ratio, 0.93; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.89-0.98). The adjusted overall readmission rates of Medicare FFS and MA were 14.9 percent and 11.9 percent, respectively.Conclusion
These findings provide additional evidence of potential variations in readmission risk by payer and support the need for improved monitoring systems in hospitals that incorporate payer-specific data. Further research is needed to delineate specific care delivery factors that contribute to differential readmission risk by payer source.
SUBMITTER: Jung DH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7375992 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Likelihood of hospital readmission in Medicare Advantage and Fee-For-Service within same hospital.
Jung Daniel H DH DuGoff Eva E Smith Maureen M Palta Mari M Gilmore-Bykovskyi Andrea A Mullahy John J
Health services research 20200701 4
<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the extent to which all-cause 30-day readmission rate varies by Medicare program within the same hospitals.<h4>Study design</h4>We used conditional logistic regression clustered by hospital and generalized estimating equations to compare the odds of unplanned all-cause 30-day readmission between Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA).<h4>Data collection</h4>Wisconsin Health Information Organization collects claims data from various payers including ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently identified 30-day readmission after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation facilities as a national quality indicator. Research is needed to determine the rates and factors related to readmission in this patient population.ObjectiveTo determine 30-day readmission rates and factors related to readmission for patients receiving postacute inpatient rehabilitation.Design, setting, and patientsRetrospective cohort study of records for 736,536 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries (mean age, 78.0 [SD, 7.3] years) discharged from 1365 inpatient rehabilitation facilities to the community in 2006 through 2011. Sixty-three percent of patients were women, and 85.1% were non-Hispanic white.Main outcomes and measuresThirty-day readmission rates for the 6 largest diagnostic impairment categories receiving inpatient rehabilitation. These included stroke, lower extremity fracture, lower extremity joint replacement, debility, neurologic disorders, and brain dysfunction.ResultsMean rehabilitation length of stay was 12.4 (SD, 5.3) days. The overall 30-day readmission rate was 11.8% (95% CI, 11.7%-11.8%). Rates ranged from 5.8% (95% CI, 5.8%-5.9%) for patients with lower extremity joint replacement to 18.8% (95% CI, 18.8%-18.9%). for patients with debility. Rates were highest in men (13.0% [ 95% CI, 12.8%-13.1%], vs 11.0% [95% CI, 11.0%-11.1%] in women), non-Hispanic blacks (13.8% [95% CI, 13.5%-14.1%], vs 11.5% [95% CI, 11.5%-11.6%] in whites, 12.5% [95% CI, 12.1%-12.8%] in Hispanics, and 11.9% [95% CI, 11.4%-12.4%] in other races/ethnicities), beneficiaries with dual eligibility (15.1% [95% CI, 14.9%-15.4%], vs 11.1% [95% CI, 11.0%-11.2%] for no dual eligibility), and in patients with tier 1 comorbidities (25.6% [95% CI, 24.9%-26.3%], vs 18.9% [95% CI, 18.5%-19.3%] for tier 2, 15.1% [95% CI, 14.9%-15.3%] for tier 3, and 9.9% [95% CI, 9.9%-10.0%] for no tier comorbidities). Higher motor and cognitive functional status were associated with lower hospital readmission rates across the 6 impairment categories. Adjusted readmission rates by state ranged from 9.2% to 13.6%. Approximately 50% of patients rehospitalized within the 30-day period were readmitted within 11 days of discharge. Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group codes for heart failure, urinary tract infection, pneumonia, septicemia, nutritional and metabolic disorders, esophagitis, gastroenteritis, and digestive disorders were common reasons for readmission.Conclusions and relevanceAmong postacute rehabilitation facilities providing services to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, 30-day readmission rates ranged from 5.8% to 18.8% for selected impairment groups. Further research is needed to understand the causes of readmission.
| S-EPMC4085109 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The prices that private insurers pay hospitals have received considerable attention in recent years, but most of that literature has focused on the commercially insured population. Although nearly one-third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan, little is known about the prices paid to hospitals by the private insurers that administer such plans. More information on the hospital prices paid by MA plans would provide additional insights into whether MA prices are more closely tied to Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) prices or commercial prices. Moreover, information on whether the hospital prices paid by MA plans vary with market characteristics or other factors would be useful for evaluating the performance of the MA program and analyzing proposals to modify it. In this study, we compared the hospital prices paid by MA plans and commercial plans with Medicare FFS prices using 2013 claims from the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI) database. The HCCI claims were used to calculate hospital prices for private insurers, and Medicare's payment rules were used to estimate Medicare FFS prices. We focused on stays at acute care hospitals in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). We found MA prices to be roughly equal to Medicare FFS prices, on average, but commercial prices were 89% higher than FFS prices. In addition, commercial prices varied greatly across and within MSAs, but MA prices varied much less.
| S-EPMC6050995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOlder patients who undergo mitral valve surgery (MVS) have high 1-year survival rates, but little is known about the experience of survivors. Our objective was to determine trends in 1-year hospital readmission rates and length of stay (LOS) in these individuals.MethodsWe included 100% of Medicare Fee-for-Service patients ≥65 years of age who underwent MVS between 1999-2010 and survived to 1 year (N = 146,877). We used proportional hazards regression to analyze the post-MVS 1-year readmission rate in each year, mean hospital LOS (after index admission), and readmission rates by subgroups (age, sex, race).ResultsThe 1-year survival rate among patients undergoing MVS was 81.3%. Among survivors, 49.1% experienced a hospital readmission within 1 year. The post-MVS 1-year readmission rate declined from 1999-2010 (49.5% to 46.9%, P<0.01), and mean hospital LOS decreased from 6.2 to 5.3 (P<0.01). Readmission rates were highest in oldest patients, but declined in all age subgroups (65-74: 47.4% to 44.4%; 75-84: 51.4% to 49.2%, ≥85: 56.4% to 50.0%, all P<0.01). There were declines in women and men (women: 51.7% to 50.8%, P<0.01; men: 46.9% to 43.0%, P<0.01), and in whites and patients of other race, but not in blacks (whites: 49.0% to 46.2%, P<0.01; other: 55.0% to 48.9%, P<0.01; blacks: 58.1% to 59.0%, P = 0.18).ConclusionsAmong older adults surviving MVS to 1 year, slightly fewer than half experience a hospital readmission. There has been a modest decline in both the readmission rate and LOS over time, with worse outcomes in women and blacks.
| S-EPMC4493110 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDecreasing use of low-value care is a major goal for Medicare given the potential to decrease costs and harms. Compared with traditional fee-for-service Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) is more strongly financially incentivized to decrease use of low-value care.ObjectivesTo compare use of low-value care among individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA overall and to examine trends in use of low-value care in both programs from 2006 to 2015.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed individuals enrolled in TM and MA using data from the 2006 to 2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. To account for differences in characteristics between individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA, a propensity score-based approach was used. Data were analyzed from August 2020 through January 2021.ExposuresBeing enrolled in MA or TM.Main outcomes and measuresBinary measures of use were collected for 13 low-value services in 4 categories (ie, [1] cancer screening: cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening in older adults; [2] antibiotic use: antibiotic for acute upper respiratory infection and antibiotic for influenza; [3] medication: anxiolytic, sedative, or hypnotic in an adult older than 65 years; benzodiazepine for depression; opioid for headache; opioid for back pain; and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID] for hypertension, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease; and [4] imaging: magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or computed tomography [CT] for back pain, radiograph for back pain, and MRI or CT for headache) and 4 low-value composites corresponding to the categories (ie, cancer screening composite, antibiotic use composite, medication composite, and imaging composite).ResultsAmong 11 677 individuals enrolled in TM and 5164 individuals enrolled in MA, 9429 (56.0%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 74.5 (6.3) years. Of 13 low-value services and 4 low-value composites, statistically significant differences were found in 2 measures. For the low-value medication composite, 2054 of 11 636 eligible individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 17.6%; 95% CI, 16.8%-18.3%) received the care, and 981 of 5141 eligible individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 19.7%; 95% CI, 18.3%-21.2%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5-3.8 percentage points; P = .02). For the NSAID use for hypertension, heart failure, or kidney disease metric, 807 of 7832 individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 10.0%; 95% CI, 9.2%-10.8%) received the care, and 447 of 3566 individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 12.9%; 95% CI, 19.7%-27.1%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI, 1.3-4.6 percentage points; P = .001). Overall, there were no decreases in use of low-value care in TM or MA over time.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that use of low-value care was similarly prevalent in MA and TM, suggesting that MA enrollment was not associated with decreased provision of low-value care compared with TM.
| S-EPMC7970337 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAlthough enrollment in both hospice care and Medicare Advantage (MA) have grown substantially, little is known about the quality of hospice care received by MA beneficiaries relative to traditional Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries.ObjectiveTo compare hospice enrollment and the quality of hospices serving MA and FFS beneficiaries.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based cross-sectional study used Medicare enrollment and claims data from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019, and Hospice Quality Reporting Program (HQRP) data released between November 1, 2020, and August 30, 2022, to compare the probability of enrolling in hospice before death and the probability of using high- vs low-quality hospices between MA and FFS beneficiaries. Two sample populations were assessed: (1) all Medicare beneficiaries who died in 2018 or 2019, and (2) all Medicare hospice enrollees in 2018 and 2019, excluding beneficiaries with hospice use in 2017. Data were analyzed between April 1, 2023, and April 30, 2024.ExposuresMA enrollment was assessed 6 months prior to death for decedents and in the month of hospice admission for hospice enrollees. MA beneficiaries were further classified by plan type: regular MA, special needs plan (SNP), and Medicare-Medicaid plan (MMP).Main outcomes and measuresFor decedents, the outcome of interest was the prevalence of any hospice use in the last 6 months of life. For hospice enrollees, the outcome of interest was 9 HQRP measures of hospice quality.ResultsData from 4 215 648 decedents (51.6% female; mean [SD] age, 80.1 [11.6] years) and 2 211 826 hospice enrollees (56.6% female; mean [SD] age, 82.4 [10.5] years) were included. In the decedent sample, beneficiaries enrolled in every type of MA plan were significantly more likely than beneficiaries enrolled in FFS to use hospice care in the last 6 months of life (regular MA beneficiaries were 3.4 percentage points more likely to use hospice; MA SNP beneficiaries, 2.4 percentage points; and MA MMP beneficiaries, 3.6 percentage points). Regular MA and FFS beneficiaries enrolled in hospices of similar quality. However, beneficiaries in SNPs and MMPs were significantly more likely than FFS beneficiaries to use hospices with inferior quality (eg, MA SNP beneficiaries were 4.3 [95% CI, 3.9-4.7] percentage points more likely to use a hospice with a low Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) global rating, and MA MMP beneficiaries were 6.8 [95% CI, 6.0-7.7] percentage points more likely). When beneficiaries entered hospice from the same hospital or nursing home the results were attenuated: the MA SNP beneficiaries entering from the same hospital were 0.9 (95% CI, 0.5-1.4) percentage points more likely to use a hospice with a low CAHPS global rating, and MA MMP beneficiaries were 3.8 (95% CI, 2.4-5.1) percentage points more likely; MA SNP beneficiaries entering from the same nursing home were 2.8 (95% CI, 2.3-3.3) percentage points more likely to use a hospice with a low CAHPS global rating, and MA MMP beneficiaries were 1.9 (95% CI, 0.9-2.9) percentage points more likely. These results suggest that referral networks were an important mechanism of the hospice quality choice.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that policymakers should consider policies for MA programs that incentivize referrals to high-quality hospices and approaches to educating beneficiaries on identifying high-quality hospice care.
| S-EPMC11650393 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMedicare Advantage is associated with improved health outcomes, increased care efficiency, and lower out-of-pocket costs compared with fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare. When engaged in 2-sided risk arrangements, physicians are incented to offer high value for patients; however, no studies have explored the quality and efficiency outcomes in 2-sided risk Medicare Advantage models compared with FFS Medicare.ObjectiveTo compare quality and efficiency of care between physicians using a Medicare Advantage 2-sided risk model and FFS Medicare.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort analysis with exact and propensity score-matched design used claims data from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019. Participants included beneficiaries enrolled in a Medicare Advantage 2-sided risk model (ie, physicians assumed the financial risk of total costs of care) and those in an FFS Medicare program in a 5% limited data set with part A and B coverage residing in 6 states (Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada, Texas, and Utah). Data were analyzed from February 1 to June 15, 2022.ExposuresMedicare Advantage 2-sided risk model seen in practices that are part of a nationwide health care delivery organization compared with traditional FFS Medicare.Main outcomes and measuresComparative analysis of 8 quality and efficiency metrics in populations enrolled in a 2-sided risk-model Medicare Advantage program and 5% FFS Medicare.ResultsIn this analytic cohort of 316 312 individuals (158 156 in each group), 46.11% were men and 53.89% were women; 32.72% were aged 65-69 years, 29.44% were aged 70-74 years, 19.05% were aged 75-79 years, 10.84% were aged 80-85 years, and 7.95% were 85 years or older. The Medicare Advantage model was associated with care of higher quality and efficiency in all 8 metrics compared with the FFS model. This included lower odds of inpatient admission (-18%; odds ratio [OR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.79-0.84]), inpatient admission through the emergency department (ED) (-6%; OR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.91-0.97]), ED visits (-11%; OR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.86-0.91]), avoidable ED visits (-14%; OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.82-0.89]), 30-day inpatient readmission (-9%; rate ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86-0.98]), admission for stroke or myocardial infarction (-10%; OR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.98]), and hospitalization for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma exacerbation (-44%; OR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.50-0.62]).Conclusions and relevanceThe improvements observed in this study may be partly or fully attributed to the Medicare Advantage model. The Medicare Advantage risk adjustment system appears to be meeting its intended goal by aligning the capitation payments to the health care burden of the individual beneficiary and aggregate population served, thus providing revenue to develop infrastructure that supports improvements in quality and efficiency for the patients enrolled in Medicare Advantage models with 2-sided risk.
| S-EPMC9856238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies have identified disparities in readmissions among Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program's (HRRP's) priority conditions. Evidence suggests timely follow-up is associated with reduced risk of readmission, but it is unknown whether timely follow-up reduces disparities in readmission.ObjectiveTo assess whether follow-up within 7 days after discharge from a hospitalization reduces risk of readmission and mitigates identified readmission disparities.DesignA retrospective cohort study using Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the associations between sociodemographic characteristics (race and ethnicity, dual-eligibility status, rurality, and area social deprivation), follow-up, and readmission. Mediation analysis was used to examine if disparities in readmission were mitigated by follow-up.ParticipantsWe analyzed data from 749,402 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, or pneumonia, and discharged home between January 1 and December 1, 2018.Main measureAll-cause unplanned readmission within 30 days after discharge.Key resultsPost-discharge follow-up within 7 days of discharge was associated with a substantially lower risk of readmission (HR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.52-0.53). Across all four HRRP conditions, beneficiaries with dual eligibility and beneficiaries living in areas with high social deprivation had a higher risk of readmission. Non-Hispanic Black beneficiaries had higher risk of readmission after hospitalization for pneumonia relative to non-Hispanic Whites. Mediation analysis suggested that 7-day follow-up mediated 21.2% of the disparity in the risk of readmission between dually and non-dually eligible beneficiaries and 50.7% of the disparity in the risk of readmission between beneficiaries living in areas with the highest and lowest social deprivation. Analysis suggested that after hospitalization for pneumonia, 7-day follow-up mediated nearly all (97.5%) of the increased risk of readmission between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White beneficiaries.ConclusionsImproving rates of follow-up could be a strategy to reduce readmissions for all beneficiaries and reduce disparities in readmission based on sociodemographic characteristics.
| S-EPMC8966846 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMedicare Advantage (MA), a private insurance plan option, now covers one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries. Although patients with cardiovascular disease enrolled in MA have been reported to receive higher quality of care in the ambulatory setting than patients enrolled in fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare, it is unclear whether MA is associated with higher quality in patients hospitalized with heart failure, or alternatively, if incentives to reduce utilization under MA plans may be associated with worse care.ObjectiveTo determine whether there are differences in quality of care received and in-hospital outcomes among patients enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare.Design, setting, and participantsObservational, retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with heart failure in hospitals participating in the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure registry.ExposuresMedicare Advantage enrollment.Main outcomes and measuresIn-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, length of stay, and 4 heart failure achievement measures.ResultsOf 262 626 patients hospitalized with heart failure, 93 549 (35.6%) were enrolled in MA and 169 077 (64.4%) in FFS Medicare. The median (interquartile range) age was 78 (70-85) years for patients enrolled in MA and 78 (69-86) years for patients enrolled in FFS Medicare. Standard mean differences in age, sex, prevalence of comorbidities, or objective measures on admission, including vital signs and laboratory values, were less than 10%. After adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in receipt of evidence-based β-blockers when indicated; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors at discharge; measurement of left ventricular function; and postdischarge appointments by Medicare insurance type. Patients enrolled in MA, however, had higher odds of being discharged directly home (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.19; P < .001) relative to patients enrolled in FFS Medicare and lower odds of being discharged within 4 days (AOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.00; P = .04). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between patients with MA and patients with FFS Medicare (AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.03; P = .42).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients hospitalized with heart failure, no observable benefit was noted in quality of care or in-hospital mortality between those enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare, except lower use of post-acute care facilities. As MA continues to grow, it will be important to ensure that participating private plans provide an added value to the patients they cover to justify the higher administrative costs compared with traditional FFS Medicare.
| S-EPMC7489427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether prescription fills of opioids and central nervous system (CNS) depressants are lower in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which aim to provide more coordinated and integrated care, than fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare.MethodsData from the 2015 National Health and Aging Trends Study linked with Medicare claims. Community-dwelling adults ≥65 enrolled in Medicare Part D were included (n = 5,652). Prescription fills of opioids, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids, and co-prescriptions of opioids with the other medications in MA versus FFS Medicare were examined using multivariate logistic models. Propensity score weighting was applied to account for differences in characteristics between MA and FFS beneficiaries.ResultsMA enrollees were less likely to fill prescriptions for benzodiazepines (15.6% versus 19.0%; marginal difference: -3.4%, t = -2.54, df = 56, p = 0.01), and co-prescriptions of opioids and gabapentinoids (5.1% versus 6.7%; marginal difference: -1.6%, t = -2.07, df = 56, p = 0.04) than FFS beneficiaries. There were no significant differences among the other prescription outcomes.ConclusionsMA was associated with slightly lower likelihood of receiving opioids and some CNS depressants.
| S-EPMC8810693 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program reports risk-standardized readmission rates for traditional Medicare but not Medicare Advantage beneficiaries.ObjectiveTo compare readmission rates between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare.DesignRetrospective cohort study linking the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file with the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS).Setting4748 U.S. acute care hospitals.PatientsPatients aged 65 years or older hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (n = 841 613), congestive heart failure (CHF) (n = 1 458 652), or pneumonia (n = 2 020 365) between 2011 and 2014.Measurements30-day readmissions.ResultsAmong admissions for AMI, CHF, and pneumonia identified in MedPAR, 29.2%, 38.0%, and 37.2%, respectively, did not have a corresponding record in HEDIS. Of these, 18.9% for AMI, 23.7% for CHF, and 18.3% for pneumonia resulted in a readmission that was identified in MedPAR. However, among index admissions appearing in HEDIS, 14.4% for AMI, 18.4% for CHF, and 13.9% for pneumonia resulted in a readmission. Patients in Medicare Advantage had lower unadjusted readmission rates than those in traditional Medicare for all 3 conditions (16.6% vs. 17.1% for AMI, 21.4% vs. 21.7% for CHF, and 16.3% vs. 16.4% for pneumonia). However, after standardization, patients in Medicare Advantage had higher readmission rates than patients in traditional Medicare for AMI (17.2% vs. 16.9%; difference, 0.3 percentage point [95% CI, 0.1 to 0.5 percentage point]), CHF (21.7% vs. 21.4%; difference, 0.3 percentage point [CI, 0.2 to 0.5 percentage point]), and pneumonia (16.5% vs. 16.0%; difference, 0.5 percentage point [95% CI, 0.4 to 0.6 percentage point]). Rate differences increased between 2011 and 2014.LimitationPotential unobserved differences between populations.ConclusionThe HEDIS data underreported hospital admissions for 3 common medical conditions, and readmission rates were higher among patients with underreported admissions. Medicare Advantage beneficiaries had higher risk-adjusted 30-day readmission rates than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.Primary funding sourceNational Institute on Aging.
| S-EPMC6736728 | biostudies-literature