Evaluation of Hospital Performance Using the Excess Days in Acute Care Measure in the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wadhera RK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8165741 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundExcess days in acute care (EDAC) after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) represent a large economic burden. We developed an Orthopedic EDAC program that triages TJA patients to the appropriate service line (orthopedic vs medicine) and level of care (observation vs inpatient) on re-presentation. We developed and used evidence-based protocols for the treatment of TJA patients who are rehospitalized.MethodsWe defined Orthopedic EDAC as the length of stay (LOS) during readmission and observation stays. Our target population included TJA and revision TJA patients. Patients between April 2017 and September 2017 and between October 2017 and September 2018 were defined as pre-implementation and post-implementation of the Orthopedic EDAC program, respectively.ResultsA total of 2,662 patients underwent TJA and revision TJA during the pre-implementation and post-implementation periods. Twenty-three patients were managed on observation status during the study period. Readmissions decreased from 49 (6.1%) during pre-implementation to 37 (2.0%) during post-implementation (P = .004). By design, more rehospitalized patients were on the orthopedic surgery service after implementation of the Orthopedic EDAC program (n = 49; 70%) versus before (n = 22; 35%; P = .028). EDAC LOS decreased from 7.75 days to 4.73 days (P = .005).ConclusionIn this single-center, before-after pilot of a novel Orthopedic EDAC program, we demonstrated a reduction in readmissions and Orthopedic EDAC LOS, as well as improved continuity of care for TJA patients on representation.
| S-EPMC7657655 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8922916 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:The strongest evidence for the effectiveness of Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) involves greater reductions in readmissions for hospitals receiving penalties compared with those not receiving penalties. However, the HRRP penalty is an imperfect measure of hospitals' marginal incentive to avoid a readmission for HRRP-targeted diagnoses. Objectives:To assess the association between hospitals' condition-specific incentives and readmission performance and to examine the responsiveness of hospitals to condition-specific incentives compared with aggregate penalty amounts. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective cohort analysis used Medicare readmissions data from 2823 US short-term acute care hospitals participating in HRRP to compare 3-year (fiscal years 2016-2019) follow-up readmission performance according to tertiles of hospitals' baseline (2016) marginal incentives for each of 5 HRRP-targeted conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and hip and/or knee surgery). Main Outcomes and Measures:Linear regression models were used to estimate mean change in follow-up readmission performance, measured using the excess readmissions ratio, with baseline condition-specific incentives and aggregate penalty amounts. Results:Of 2823 hospitals that participated in the HRRP from baseline to follow-up, 2280 (81%) had more than 1 excess readmission for 1 or more applicable condition and 543 (19%) did not have any excess readmissions. The mean (SD) financial incentive to reduce readmissions for incentivized hospitals ranged from $8762 ($3699) to $58?158 ($26?198) per 1 avoided readmission. Hospitals with greater incentives for readmission avoidance had greater decreases in readmissions compared with hospitals with smaller incentives (45% greater for pneumonia, 172% greater for acute myocardial infarction, 40% greater for hip and/or knee surgery, 32% greater for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 13% greater for heart failure), whereas hospitals with no incentives had increases in excess readmissions of 4% to 7% (median, 4% [percentage change for nonincentivized hospitals was 3.7% for pneumonia, 4.2% for acute myocardial infarction, 7.1% for hip and/or knee surgery, 3.7% for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 3.7% for heart failure]; P?<?.001). During the study period, each additional $5000 in the incentive amount was associated with a 0.6- to 1.3-percentage point decrease, or up to a 26% decrease, in excess readmissions (P?<?.001). Regression to the mean explained approximately one-third of the results depending on the condition examined. Conclusions and Relevance:The findings suggest that improvements in readmission avoidance are more strongly associated with incentives from the HRRP than with aggregate penalty amounts, suggesting that the program has elicited sizeable changes. Worsened performance among hospitals with small or no incentives may indicate the need for reconsideration of the program's lack of financial rewards for high-performing hospitals.
| S-EPMC7125432 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5862720 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7557505 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesExamine whether the introduction of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) is associated with changes in post-acute care (PAC) use and 30-day readmission.DesignA retrospective cohort study examined data prepassage, preimplementation, and postimplementation of the HRRP.Setting and participantsIn total, 7,851,430 Medicare beneficiaries discharged from 5116 acute hospitals to PAC settings including inpatient rehabilitation, skilled nursing, home health, or a long-term care hospital during 2007‒2015. We examined HRRP-targeted conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia) and nontargeted conditions (ischemic stroke, total hip arthroplasty/total knee arthroplasty, and hip/femur fractures).MeasuresThe hospital-level of quarterly PAC use and the association with 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates. Outcomes were calculated for HRRP-targeted and nontargeted conditions/diagnoses across 3 phases of HRRP implementation.ResultsAn increase in quarterly PAC use was significantly (P < .001) associated with a decrease in 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and hip/femur fracture. In contrast, an increase in quarterly PAC use was significantly associated with an increase in readmission rate for total hip arthroplasty/total knee arthroplasty (P < 001). PAC quarterly use and readmission rates varied significantly during implementation periods for HRRP- targeted and nontargeted conditions.Conclusions and implicationsThe impact on readmission after PAC for selected impairment groups may be mediated by the type of PAC services received and whether the diagnoses is included in the HRRP. Additional research is necessary to determine if a reduction in readmission is associated with inclusion in the HRRP or is a side effect related to diagnostic group and/or type of PAC services received.
| S-EPMC7529906 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7195622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:New tools to accurately identify potentially preventable 30-day readmissions are needed. The HOSPITAL score has been internationally validated for medical inpatients, but its performance in select conditions targeted by the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) is unknown.Retrospective cohort study.Six geographically diverse medical centers.All consecutive adult medical patients discharged alive in 2011 with 1 of the 4 medical conditions targeted by the HRRP (acute myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and heart failure) were included. Potentially preventable 30-day readmissions were identified using the SQLape algorithm. The HOSPITAL score was calculated for all patients.A multivariable logistic regression model accounting for hospital effects was used to evaluate the accuracy (Brier score), discrimination (c-statistic), and calibration (Pearson goodness-of-fit) of the HOSPITAL score for each 4 medical conditions.Among the 9181 patients included, the overall 30-day potentially preventable readmission rate was 13.6%. Across all 4 diagnoses, the HOSPITAL score had very good accuracy (Brier score of 0.11), good discrimination (c-statistic of 0.68), and excellent calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, P=0.77). Within each diagnosis, performance was similar. In sensitivity analyses, performance was similar for all readmissions (not just potentially preventable) and when restricted to patients age 65 and above.The HOSPITAL score identifies a high-risk cohort for potentially preventable readmissions in a variety of practice settings, including conditions targeted by the HRRP. It may be a valuable tool when included in interventions to reduce readmissions within or across these conditions.
| S-EPMC5309170 | biostudies-other
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine any changes in total hospital revisits within 30 days of discharge after a hospital stay for medical conditions targeted by the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP). DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING:Hospital stays among Medicare patients for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or pneumonia between 1 January 2012 and 1 October 2015. PARTICIPANTS:Medicare fee-for-service patients aged 65 or over. MAIN OUTCOMES:Total hospital revisits within 30 days of discharge after hospital stays for medical conditions targeted by the HRRP, and by type of revisit: treat-and-discharge visit to an emergency department, observation stay (not leading to inpatient readmission), and inpatient readmission. Patient subgroups (age, sex, race) were also evaluated for each type of revisit. RESULTS:Our study cohort included 3 038 740 total index hospital stays from January 2012 to September 2015: 1 357 620 for heart failure, 634 795 for acute myocardial infarction, and 1 046 325 for pneumonia. Counting all revisits after discharge, the total number of hospital revisits per 100 patient discharges for target conditions increased across the study period (monthly increase 0.023 visits per 100 patient discharges (95% confidence interval 0.010 to 0.035)). This change was due to monthly increases in treat-and-discharge visits to an emergency department (0.023 (0.015 to 0.032) and observation stays (0.022 (0.020 to 0.025)), which were only partly offset by declines in readmissions (-0.023 (-0.035 to -0.012)). Increases in observation stay use were more pronounced among non-white patients than white patients. No significant change was seen in mortality within 30 days of discharge for target conditions (-0.0034 (-0.012 to 0.0054)). CONCLUSIONS:In the United States, total hospital revisits within 30 days of discharge for conditions targeted by the HRRP increased across the study period. This increase was due to a rise in post-discharge emergency department visits and observation stays, which exceeded the decline in readmissions. Although reductions in readmissions have been attributed to improvements in discharge planning and care transitions, our findings suggest that these declines could instead be because hospitals and clinicians have intensified efforts to treat patients who return to a hospital within 30 days of discharge in emergency departments and as observation stays.
| S-EPMC6689820 | biostudies-other
Project description:Rationale: In October 2012, the initial phase of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program imposed financial penalties on hospitals with higher-than-expected risk-adjusted 30-day readmission rates for Medicare beneficiaries with congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, and pneumonia. We hypothesized that these penalties may also be associated with decreased readmissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the general population before COPD became a target condition (October 2014).Objectives: To determine if implementation of the initial financial penalties for other conditions was associated with a decrease in hospital readmissions for COPD.Methods: We used population-level data to examine patients readmitted for any reason or for COPD within 30 days after an initial hospitalization for COPD. The data source was seven states in the State Inpatient Database. The preimplementation period included calendar years 2006 to 2012. The postimplementation period included 2013 to 2015. Using interrupted time series, the level change was examined, which reflected the difference between the expected and actual readmission rates in 2013. The difference in slopes between the pre- and postimplementation periods was also examined.Results: We identified 805,764 hospitalizations for COPD from 904 hospitals. Overall, 26% of patients had primary insurance other than Medicare. After the intervention, patients had lower rates of all-cause 30-day readmissions (level change, -0.93%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.44% to -0.43%; P = 0.004), which was driven by fewer early readmissions (0-7 d). The postimplementation slope became positive; the difference in slopes was 0.39% (95% CI, 0.28% to 0.50%; P < 0.001). Patients also had lower rates of COPD-related readmissions (level decrease, -0.52%; 95% CI, -0.93% to -0.12%; P = 0.02), which was due to decreases in both early and late (8-30 d) readmissions. The postimplementation slope was negative; the difference in slopes was -0.21% (95% CI, -0.35% to -0.07%; P = 0.009).Conclusions: In patients with COPD and any insurance status, there was an association between the initial phase of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program and a decrease in both all-cause and COPD-related readmissions even before COPD became a target diagnosis. The large amount of money at risk to hospitals likely resulted in broad behavioral change. Future research is needed to test which levers can effectively reduce readmission rates for COPD.
| S-EPMC7175978 | biostudies-literature