Dataset Information

Association of Stratification by Proportion of Patients Dually Enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid With Financial Penalties in the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) is a value-based payment program focused on safety events. Prior studies have found that the program disproportionately penalizes safety-net hospitals, which may perform more poorly because of unmeasured severity of illness rather than lower quality. A similar program, the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, stratifies hospitals into 5 peer groups for evaluation based on the proportion of their patients dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, but the effect of stratification on the HACRP is unknown.

Objective

To characterize the hospitals penalized by the HACRP and the distribution of financial penalties before and after stratification.

Design, setting, and participants

This economic evaluation used publicly available data on HACRP performance and penalties merged with hospital characteristics and cost reports. A total of 3102 hospitals participating in the HACRP in fiscal year 2020 (covering data from July 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018) were studied.

Exposures

Hospitals were divided into 5 groups based on the proportion of patients dually enrolled, and penalties were assigned to the lowest-performing quartile of hospitals in each group rather than the lowest-performing quartile overall.

Main outcomes and measures

Penalties in the prestratification vs poststratification schemes.

Results

The study identified 3102 hospitals evaluated by the HACRP. Safety-net hospitals received $111 333 384 in penalties before stratification compared with an estimated $79 087 744 after stratification-a savings of $32 245 640. Hospitals less likely to receive penalties after stratification included safety-net hospitals (33.6% penalized before stratification vs 24.8% after stratification, Δ = -8.8 percentage points [pp], P < .001), public hospitals (34.1% vs 30.5%, Δ = -3.6 pp, P = .003), hospitals in the West (26.8% vs 23.2%, Δ = -3.6 pp, P < .001), hospitals in Medicaid expansion states (27.3% vs 25.6%, Δ = -1.7 pp, P = .003), and hospitals caring for the most patients with disabilities (32.2% vs 28.3%, Δ = -3.9 pp, P < .001) and from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds (35.1% vs 31.5%, Δ = -3.6 pp, P < .001). In multivariate analyses, safety-net status and treating patients with highly medically complex conditions were associated with higher odds of moving from penalized to nonpenalized status.

Conclusions and relevance

This economic evaluation suggests that stratification of hospitals would be associated with a narrowing of disparities in penalties and a marked reduction in penalties for safety-net hospitals. Policy makers should consider adopting stratification for the HACRP.

SUBMITTER: Shashikumar SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7754078 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Medicare beneficiaries who are also enrolled in Medicaid (dually enrolled beneficiaries) have drawn the attention of policy makers because they comprise the poorest subset of the Medicare population; however, it is unclear how their outcomes have changed over time compared with those only enrolled in Medicare (nondually enrolled beneficiaries). Objective:To evaluate annual changes in all-cause mortality, hospitalization rates, and hospitalization-related mortality among dually enrolled beneficiaries and nondually enrolled beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants:Serial cross-sectional study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older between January 2004 and December 2017. The final date of follow-up was September 30, 2018. Exposures:Dual vs nondual enrollment status. Main Outcomes and Measures:Annual all-cause mortality rates; all-cause hospitalization rates; and in-hospital, 30-day, 1-year hospitalization-related mortality rates. Results:There were 71?017?608 unique Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older (mean age, 75.6 [SD, 9.2] years; 54.9% female) enrolled in Medicare for at least 1 month from 2004 through 2017. Of these beneficiaries, 11?697?900 (16.5%) were dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid for at least 1 month. After adjusting for age, sex, and race, annual all-cause mortality rates declined from 8.5% (95% CI, 8.45%-8.56%) in 2004 to 8.1% (95% CI, 8.05%-8.13%) in 2017 among dually enrolled beneficiaries and from 4.1% (95% CI, 4.08%-4.13%) in 2004 to 3.8% (95% CI, 3.76%-3.79%) in 2017 among nondually enrolled beneficiaries. The difference in annual all-cause mortality between dually and nondually enrolled beneficiaries increased between 2004 (adjusted odds ratio, 2.09 [95% CI, 2.08-2.10]) and 2017 (adjusted odds ratio, 2.22 [95% CI, 2.21-2.23]) (P?<?.001 for interaction between dual enrollment status and time). All-cause hospitalizations per 100?000 beneficiary-years declined from 49?888 in 2004 to 41?121 in 2017 among dually enrolled beneficiaries (P?<?.001) and from 29?000 in 2004 to 22?601 in 2017 among nondually enrolled beneficiaries (P?<?.001); however, the difference between these groups widened between 2004 (adjusted risk ratio, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.71-1.73]) and 2017 (adjusted risk ratio, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.82-1.83]) (P?<?.001 for interaction). Among hospitalized beneficiaries, the risk-adjusted 30-day mortality rates declined from 10.3% (95% CI, 10.22%-10.33%) in 2004 to 10.1% (95% CI, 10.02%-10.20%) in 2017 among dually enrolled beneficiaries and from 8.5% (95% CI, 8.50%-8.56%) in 2004 to 8.1% (95% CI, 8.06%-8.13%) in 2017 among nondually enrolled beneficiaries. In contrast, 1-year mortality increased among hospitalized beneficiaries from 23.1% (95% CI, 23.05%-23.20%) in 2004 to 26.7% (95% CI, 26.58%-26.84%) in 2017 among dually enrolled beneficiaries and from 18.1% (95% CI, 18.11%-18.17%) in 2004 to 20.3% (95% CI, 20.21%-20.31%) in 2017 among nondually enrolled beneficiaries. The difference in hospitalization-related outcomes between dually and nondually enrolled beneficiaries persisted during the study period. Conclusions and Relevance:Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, dually enrolled beneficiaries had higher annual all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalizations, and hospitalization-related mortality compared with nondually enrolled beneficiaries. Between 2004 and 2017, these differences did not decrease.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Individuals dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage are among the sickest patients in the United States. Prior literature has identified a lack of care coordination or even conflicts of interest between the two programs as barriers to more efficient care and better health outcomes among dual-eligibles. The purpose of this study is to assess characteristics of dual eligibles who participated in South Carolina's 2015 voluntary Medicare-Medicaid financial alignment demonstration project, and to evaluate whether their participation led to better observable health outcomes. METHODS:We obtained all inpatient and emergency department visits, and all Medicaid outpatient visits of individuals identified as Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibles from 2011 to 2016 from South Carolina's Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office. We employed logistic regressions to assess the characteristics of participants and quitters in the Medicare-Medicaid financial alignment demonstration project. To evaluate the impact of participation on health outcomes, we used an event study analysis that examines trends in outcomes over time, with participation in the demonstration project as the triggering event, and a difference-in-differences methodology that compares changes in health outcomes before and after participation in the demonstration project compared with a control group. RESULTS:Urban patients, female patients, and patients with heart problems, social and mental disorders, and importantly, patients with multiple comorbidities (as indicated by a higher Charlson comorbidity index) are less likely to join South Carolina's demonstration project. Once having joined, female patients and patients with a higher Charlson index appear to be more likely to quit. Those who joined did not appear to enjoy better health outcomes in the short time frame. CONCLUSIONS:Policy makers should explore and address reasons why dual eligibles with complex health problems hesitate to join the alignment project, and continue to monitor whether such a program improves health given that a prolonged period of exposure to the program may be required to achieve better health among the nation's most vulnerable 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.