Dataset Information

Patient Coded Severity and Payment Penalties Under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program: A Machine Learning Approach.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The objective of this study was to examine variation in hospital responses to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid's expansion of allowable secondary diagnoses in January 2011 and its association with financial penalties under the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP).

Data sources/study setting

Medicare administrative claims for discharges between July 2008 and June 2011 (N=3102 hospitals).

Research design

We examined hospital variation in response to the expansion of secondary diagnoses by describing changes in comorbidity coding before and after the policy change. We used random forest machine learning regression to examine hospital characteristics associated with coded severity. We then used a 2-part model to assess whether variation in coded severity was associated with readmission penalties.

Results

Changes in severity coding varied considerably across hospitals. Random forest models indicated that greater baseline levels of condition categories, case-mix index, and hospital size were associated with larger changes in condition categories. Hospital coding of an additional condition category was associated with a nonsignificant 3.8 percentage point increase in the probability for penalties under the HRRP (SE=2.2) and a nonsignificant 0.016 percentage point increase in penalty amount (SE=0.016).

Conclusion

Changes in patient coded severity did not affect readmission penalties.

SUBMITTER: Li J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7572594 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) is a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services policy that levies hospital reimbursement penalties based on excess readmissions of patients with 4 medical conditions and 3 surgical procedures. A greater understanding of factors associated with the 3 surgical reimbursement penalties is needed for clinicians in surgical practice.ObjectiveTo investigate the first year of HRRP readmission penalties applied to 2 surgical procedures-elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA)-in the context of hospital and patient characteristics.Design, setting, and participantsFiscal year 2015 HRRP penalization data from Hospital Compare were linked with the American Hospital Association Annual Survey and with the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database for hospitals in the state of Florida. By using a case-control framework, those hospitals were separated based on HRRP penalty severity, as measured with the HRRP THA and TKA excess readmission ratio, and compared according to orthopedic volume as well as hospital-level and patient-level characteristics. The first year of HRRP readmission penalties applied to surgery in Florida Medicare subsection (d) hospitals was examined, identifying 60 663 Medicare patients who underwent elective THA or TKA in 143 Florida hospitals. The data analysis was conducted from February 2016 to January 2017.ExposuresAnnual hospital THA and TKA volume, other hospital-level characteristics, and patient factors used in HRRP risk adjustment.Main outcomes and measuresThe HRRP penalties with HRRP excess readmission ratios were measured, and their association with annual THA and TKA volume, a common measure of surgical quality, was evaluated. The HRRP penalties for surgical care according to hospital and readmitted patient characteristics were then examined.ResultsAmong 143 Florida hospitals, 2991 of 60 663 Medicare patients (4.9%) who underwent THA or TKA were readmitted within 30 days. Annual hospital arthroplasty volume seemed to follow an inverse association with both unadjusted readmission rates (r = -0.16, P = .06) and HRRP risk-adjusted readmission penalties (r = -0.12, P = .14), but these associations were not statistically significant. Other hospital characteristics and readmitted patient characteristics were similar across HRRP orthopedic penalty severity.Conclusions and relevanceThis study's findings suggest that higher-volume hospitals had less severe, but not significantly different, rates of readmission and HRRP penalties, without systematic differences across readmitted patients.

Project description:ImportanceBeginning in fiscal year 2019, Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) stratifies hospitals into 5 peer groups based on the proportion of each hospital's patient population that is dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. The effect of this policy change is largely unknown.ObjectiveTo identify hospital and state characteristics associated with changes in HRRP-related performance and penalties after stratification.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional analysis was performed of all 3049 hospitals participating in the HRRP in fiscal years 2018 and 2019, using publicly available data on hospital penalties, merged with information on hospital characteristics and state Medicaid eligibility cutoffs.ExposuresThe HRRP, under the 2018 traditional method and the 2019 stratification method.Main outcomes and measuresPerformance on readmissions, as measured by the excess readmissions ratio, and penalties under the HRRP both in relative percentage change and in absolute dollars.ResultsThe study sample included 3049 hospitals. The mean proportion of dually enrolled beneficiaries ranged from 9.5% in the lowest quintile to 44.7% in the highest quintile. At the hospital level, changes in penalties ranged from an increase of $225 000 to a decrease of more than $436 000 after stratification. In total, hospitals in the lowest quintile of dual enrollment saw an increase of $12 330 157 in penalties, while those in the highest quintile of dual enrollment saw a decrease of $22 445 644. Teaching hospitals (odds ratio [OR], 2.13; 95% CI, 1.76-2.57; P < .001) and large hospitals (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.22-1.86; P < .001) had higher odds of receiving a reduced penalty. Not-for-profit hospitals (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.80; P < .001) were less likely to have a penalty reduction than for-profit hospitals, and hospitals in the Midwest (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.34-0.57; P < .001) and South (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30-0.57; P < .001) were less likely to do so than hospitals in the Northeast. Hospitals with patients from the most disadvantaged neighborhoods (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 2.03-3.38; P < .001) and those with the highest proportion of beneficiaries with disabilities (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 2.50-3.90; P < .001) were markedly more likely to see a reduction in penalties, as were hospitals in states with the highest Medicaid eligibility cutoffs (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.50-2.14; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceStratification of the hospitals under the HRRP was associated with a significant shift in penalties for excess readmissions. Policymakers should monitor the association of this change with readmission rates as well as hospital financial performance as the policy is fully implemented.

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.

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.

Project description:ImportanceThe Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) use point estimates of 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) to compare hospitals under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP). An important characteristic of this measure is that it is a point estimate with a margin of error, which may affect the CMS's ability to accurately evaluate and distinguish hospital performance in the program.ObjectiveTo determine the number and percentage of hospitals with a penalty status misclassified under the HRRP.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used the bayesian deconvolution method to estimate the rate of penalty status misclassification for hospitals participating in the HRRP in fiscal year 2019, using data from the CMS Hospital Compare website that were collected between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2017. Beneficiaries of Medicare fee-for-service coverage who were 65 years or older and hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia in hospitals with 25 or more discharges per condition were included in the data set. Data analysis occurred from November 2019 to July 2020.ExposuresNone.Main outcomes and measuresThe rate of penalty status misclassification for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia under the HRRP.ResultsThe study included 1633, 2626, and 2705 hospitals for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia, respectively, that participated in the HRRP in fiscal year 2019. The percentages of hospitals that should have been penalized, but were not, were 20.9% (95% CI, 16.0%-25.8%) for acute myocardial infarction, 13.5% (95% CI, 9.8%-17.2%) for heart failure, and 13.2% (95% CI, 10.3%-16.1%) for pneumonia. In contrast, the percentages of hospitals that were incorrectly penalized by the HRRP were 10.1% (95% CI, 5.8%-14.4%) for acute myocardial infarction, 10.9% (95% CI, 7.2%-14.6%) for heart failure, and 12.3% (95% CI, 9.9%-14.6%) for pneumonia.Conclusions and relevanceThe margin of error associated with the 30-day RSRRs resulted in the misclassification of condition-specific penalty status for up to 31% of hospitals. These findings suggest that the hospital-level 30-day RSRR measure may not reliably distinguish hospital performance in the HRRP. This has important implications for CMS value-based programs that use risk-standardized outcomes to evaluate and compare hospital performance.

Project description:Importance:The Medicare Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) is associated with reduced readmission rates, but it is unknown how this decrease occurred. Objective:To 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 Participants:This 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. Exposures:Before and after HRRP implementation among patients initially hospitalized for targeted vs nontargeted conditions. Main Outcomes and Measures:Thirty-day unplanned hospital readmissions at the ED revisit. Results:A 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 Relevance:These 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.