Dataset Information

Association of US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital 30-Day Risk-Standardized Readmission Metric With Care Quality and Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Findings From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry/Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With the Guidelines.

ABSTRACT: The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program penalizes hospitals with higher-than-expected risk-adjusted 30-day readmission rates (excess readmission ratio [ERR]?>?1) after acute myocardial infarction (MI). However, the association of ERR with MI care processes and outcomes are not well established.To evaluate the association between ERR for MI with in-hospital process of care measures and 1-year clinical outcomes.Observational analysis of hospitalized patients with MI from National Cardiovascular Data Registry/Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With the Guidelines centers subject to the first cycle of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2011.The ERR for MI (MI-ERR) in 2011.Adherence to process of care measures during index hospitalization in the overall study population and risk of the composite outcome of mortality or all-cause readmission within 1 year of discharge and its individual components among participants with available Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-linked data.The median ages of patients in the MI-ERR greater than 1 and tertiles 1, 2, and 3 of the MI-ERR greater than 1 groups were 64, 63, 64, and 63 years, respectively. Among 380 hospitals that treated a total of 176?644 patients with MI during the study period, 43% had MI-ERR greater than 1. The proportions of patients of black race, those with heart failure signs at admission, and bleeding complications increased with higher MI-ERR. There was no significant association between adherence to MI performance measures and MI-ERR (adjusted odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.81-1.08, per 0.1-unit increase in MI-ERR for overall defect-free care). Among the 51?453 patients with 1-year outcomes data available, higher MI-ERR was associated with higher adjusted risk of the composite outcome and all-cause readmission within 1 year of discharge. This association was largely driven by readmissions early after discharge and was not significant in landmark analyses beginning 30 days after discharge. The MI-ERR was not associated with risk for mortality within 1 year of discharge in the overall and 30-day landmark analyses.During the first cycle of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, participating hospitals' risk-adjusted 30-day readmission rates following MI were not associated with in-hospital quality of MI care or clinical outcomes occurring after the first 30 days after discharge.

SUBMITTER: Pandey A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5815085 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association of US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital 30-Day Risk-Standardized Readmission Metric With Care Quality and Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Findings From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry/Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With the Guidelines.

Pandey Ambarish A Golwala Harsh H Hall Hurst M HM Wang Tracy Y TY Lu Di D Xian Ying Y Chiswell Karen K Joynt Karen E KE Goyal Abhinav A Das Sandeep R SR Kumbhani Dharam D Julien Howard H Fonarow Gregg C GC de Lemos James A JA

JAMA cardiology 20170701 7

<h4>Importance</h4>The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program penalizes hospitals with higher-than-expected risk-adjusted 30-day readmission rates (excess readmission ratio [ERR] > 1) after acute myocardial infarction (MI). However, the association of ERR with MI care processes and outcomes are not well established.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the association between ERR for MI with in-hospital process of care measures and 1-year clinical outcomes. ...[more]

PMID: 28445559

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is beginning to consider adjusting for social risk factors, such as dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid, when evaluating hospital performance under value-based purchasing programs. It is unknown whether dual eligibility represents a unique domain of social risk or instead represents clinical risk unmeasured by variables available in traditional Medicare claims.ObjectiveTo assess how dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid is associated with risk-adjusted readmission rates after surgery.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study was conducted of 55 651 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing general, vascular, and gynecologic surgery at 62 hospitals in Michigan between January 1, 2014, and December 1, 2016. Representative cohorts were derived from traditional Medicare claims (n?=?29?710) and the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) clinical registry (n?=?25?941), which includes additional measures of clinical risk. Statistical analysis was conducted between April 10 and July 15, 2019. The association between dual eligibility and risk-adjusted 30-day readmission rates after surgery was compared between models inclusive and exclusive of additional measurements of clinical risk. The study also examined how dual eligibility is associated with hospital profiling using risk-adjusted readmission rates.ExposuresDual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid.Main outcomes and measuresRisk-adjusted all-cause 30-day readmission after surgery.ResultsThere were a total of 3986 dual-eligible beneficiaries in the Medicare claims cohort (2554 women; mean [SD] age, 72.9 [6.9] years) and 1608 dual-eligible beneficiaries in the MSQC cohort (990 women; mean [SD] age, 72.9 [6.8] years). In both data sets, higher proportions of dual-eligible beneficiaries were younger, female, and nonwhite than Medicare-only beneficiaries (Medicare claims cohort: female, 2554 of 3986 [64.1%] vs 12?879 of 25?724 [50.1%]; nonwhite, 1225 of 3986 [30.7%] vs 2783 of 25?724 [10.8%]; MSQC cohort: female, 990 of 1608 [61.6%] vs 12?578 of 24?333 [51.7%]; nonwhite, 416 of 1608 [25.9%] vs 2176 of 24?333 [8.9%]). In the Medicare claims cohort, dual-eligible beneficiaries were more likely to be readmitted (15.5% [95% CI, 13.7%-17.3%]) than Medicare-only beneficiaries (13.3% [95% CI, 12.7%-13.9%]; difference, 2.2 percentage points [95% CI, 0.4-3.9 percentage points]). In the MSQC cohort, after adjustment for more granular measures of clinical risk, dual eligibility was not significantly associated with readmission (difference, 0.6 percentage points [95% CI, -1.0 to 2.2 percentage points]). In both the Medicare claims and MSQC cohorts, adding dual eligibility to risk-adjustment models had little association with hospital ranking using risk-adjusted readmission rates.Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid may reflect unmeasured clinical risk of readmission in claims data. Policy makers should consider incorporating more robust measures of social risk into risk-adjustment models used by value-based purchasing programs.

Project description:ImportanceIn 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) launched its first mandatory bundled payment program, the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, by randomizing metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) into the payment model.ObjectiveTo evaluate changes in key economic and clinical outcomes associated with the CJR model.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective, national, population-based analysis of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries undergoing lower extremity joint replacement was conducted using 100% Medicare Part A data and 5% Medicare Part B data. Within an intention-to-treat framework, a difference-in-differences approach was used to compare Medicare spending, quality of care, volume of episodes, and patient selection in episodes of lower extremity joint replacements in the first 2 years of the program between propensity score-matched CJR and non-CJR hospitals (episodes initiated from April 1, 2016, through December 31, 2017, with the latter completed by March 31, 2018). Lower extremity joint replacement episodes in MSAs randomly assigned to the CJR model were compared with those in MSAs not assigned to the CJR model.ExposuresRandom assignment of MSAs into the CJR model within prespecified strata.Main outcomes and measuresSpending and its components, quality of care, volume of episodes, and patient characteristics were the main outcomes.ResultsAfter propensity score matching, there were 157 828 primary lower extremity joint replacement cases across 684 hospitals in the CJR (treatment) group (101 641 [64.4%] women; mean [SD] age, 72.8 [8.9] years) and 180 594 cases across 726 hospitals in the non-CJR (control) group (115 580 women [64.0%] women; mean [SD] age, 72.6 [8.8] years). The CJR was associated with a decrease of $582 per episode in Medicare Part A spending, a 2.5% savings on claims (95% CI, -$873 to -$290; P < .001) driven by a 5.5% decline in 90-day postacute care spending, concentrated in skilled nursing facilities (-4.5% change from baseline; 95% CI, -$460 to -$26; P = .03) and inpatient rehabilitation facilities (-22.9% change from baseline; 95% CI,-$497 to -$176; P < .001). Estimated savings on claims, while consistent with changes in practice patterns, may not have exceeded the reconciliation payments to hospitals reported by CMS to date. No significant changes in hospital length of stay, readmissions, complications, 30- or 90-day mortality, volume of episodes, or patient characteristics relative to control were found.Conclusions and relevanceThe CJR was associated with reduced Medicare Part A spending on claims over 2 years, largely through lower postacute spending. Mandatory bundled payments may serve as a useful model for policy efforts to change clinicians' and facilities' behavior without harming quality.

Project description:ImportanceThe association of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) with reductions in racial disparities in 30-day outcomes for myocardial infarction (MI), is unknown, including whether this varies by HRRP hospital penalty status.ObjectiveTo assess temporal trends in 30-day readmission and mortality rates among black and nonblack patients discharged after hospitalization for acute MI at low-performing and high-performing hospitals, as defined by readmission penalty status after HRRP implementation.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational cohort analysis used data from the multicenter National Cardiovascular Data Registry Chest Pain-MI Registry centers that were subject to the first cycle of HRRP, between January 1, 2008, and November 30, 2016. All patients hospitalized with MI who were included in National Cardiovascular Data Registry Chest Pain-MI Registry were included in the analysis. Data were analyzed from April 2018 to September 2019.ExposuresHospital performance category and race (black compared with nonblack patients). Centers were classified as high performing or low performing based on the excess readmission ratio (predicted to expected 30-day risk adjusted readmission rate) for MI during the first HRRP cycle (in October 2012).Main outcomes and measuresThirty-day all-cause readmission and mortality rates.ResultsAmong 753 hospitals that treated 155 397 patients with acute MI (of whom 11 280 [7.3%] were black), 399 hospitals (53.0%) were high performing. Thirty-day readmission rates declined over time in both black and nonblack patients (annualized 30-day readmission rate: 17.9% vs 20.8%). Black (compared with nonblack) race was associated with higher unadjusted odds of 30-day readmission in both low-performing and high-performing centers (odds ratios: before HRRP: low-performing hospitals, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.26]; P = .01; high-performing hospitals, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.04-1.32]; P = .01; after HRRP: low-performing hospitals, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.13-1.34]; P < .001; high-performing hospitals, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.12-1.39]; P < .001). However, these racial differences were not significant after adjustment for patient characteristics. The 30-day mortality rates declined significantly over time in nonblack patients, with stable (nonsignificant) temporal trends among black patients. Adjusted associations between race and 30-day mortality showed that 30-day mortality rates were significantly lower among black (compared with nonblack) patients in the low-performing hospitals (odds ratios: pre-HRRP, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.63-0.97]; P = .03; post-HRRP, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.68-0.95]; P = .01) but not in high-performing hospitals. Finally, the association between race and 30-day outcomes did not vary after the HRRP period began in either high-performing or low-performing hospitals.Conclusions and relevanceIn this analysis, 30-day readmission rates among patients with MI declined over time for both black and nonblack patients. Differences in race-specific 30-day readmission rates persisted but appeared to be attributable to patient-level factors. The 30-day mortality rates have declined for nonblack patients and remained stable among black patients. Implementation of the HRRP was not associated with improvement or worsening of racial disparities in readmission and mortality rates.

Project description:STUDY OBJECTIVES:Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reimbursement for positive airway pressure (PAP) devices for obstructive sleep apnea treatment is dependent on patients meeting adherence expectations within the first 3 months on therapy. Adherence is defined as usage of the device for at least 4 hours per night on 70% of nights during a consecutive 30-day period. We hypothesize that the adherence pattern may be established beyond this initial period, which may limit the opportunity to treat many patients. METHODS:Treatment and adherence data from PAP devices were monitored via wireless modems for 42 consecutive PAP-naïve military veterans who completed 1 year of nightly monitoring. Their baseline characteristics were as follows: age (mean ± standard deviation) 58.5 ± 12.5 years; body mass index 33.7 ± 5.7 kg/m2; diagnostic apnea-hypopnea index (pretreatment) 28.1 ± 18.5 events/h; apnea-hypopnea index on PAP: 4.3 ± 3.3 events/h. We examined daily, monthly, quarterly, semiannual, and annual reports, and the best 30-day adherence report for each quarter. RESULTS:In the first 3 months, 19 of 42 participants were adherent by CMS criteria, and 23 of 42 participants were not. Of the 19 adherent participants, 13 remained adherent and 6 became nonadherent or stopped PAP treatment for the remainder of the year. In the 23 initially nonadherent participants, 16 stopped PAP treatment, and 7 participants (30.4%) became adherent (using CMS criteria) during the rest of the year. Thus, PAP adherence during the first 3 months was predictive for the rest of the year in only 68.4%. PAP nonadherence during the first 3 months was predictive for further nonadherence in only 69.6% of the cases. Overall, this led to a 65% sensitivity and 72% specificity of using adherence at 3 months in predicting adherence at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS:CMS adherence criteria affecting PAP coverage are restrictive and can result in the withholding of therapy in many patients who otherwise might become adherent. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov, Title: Remote Monitoring in Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Identifier: NCT01678560, URL: https:// clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01678560.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Recent policy efforts have focused on improving the value of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) care. Medicare payment programs, for example, increasingly evaluate hospital performance based on spending, as determined by payments made to institutions and providers, and outcome measures for a longitudinal episode of AMI care. Little is known about the relationship between total 30-day payments-both in the inpatient and immediate postdischarge timeframe-and outcomes after an admission for AMI. METHODS AND RESULTS:Using Medicare claims data, we identified Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries ?65 years of age who were hospitalized at an acute-care hospital for AMI between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2014, and examined the association between hospital-level 30-day payments for an episode of AMI care and patient 30-day mortality using mixed regression models with a logit link function and random hospital intercepts. Our cohort included 642 105 index hospitalizations for AMI at 2319 acute-care hospitals. Overall mean 30-day episode payments per beneficiary were $22 128 (SD, $1750). The observed 30-day mortality rate was 12.9%. Higher 30-day payments were associated with lower 30-day mortality after adjustment for patient characteristics and comorbidities (adjusted odds ratio for additional $1000 payments, 0.986; 95% confidence interval, 0.979-0.992; P<0.001). Additional adjustment for potential mediating factors, including hospital characteristics, coronary revascularization rates, and discharge disposition, did not significantly attenuate the relationship (adjusted odds ratio for additional $1000 payments, 0.987; 95% confidence interval, 0.980-0.994; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Higher hospital-level 30-day payments-both inpatient and in multiple settings after discharge-for AMI care were associated with lower 30-day mortality among beneficiaries. This may have implications for payment programs that incent reduction in payments without considering value.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To determine national readmission rates among sepsis survivors, variations in rates between hospitals, and determine whether measures of quality correlate with performance on sepsis readmissions. DESIGN:Cross-sectional study of sepsis readmissions between 2008 and 2011 in the Medicare fee-for-service database. SETTING:Acute care, Medicare participating hospitals from 2008 to 2011. PATIENTS:Septic patients as identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes using the Angus method. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:We generated hospital-level, risk-standardized, 30-day readmission rates among survivors of sepsis and compared rates across region, ownership, teaching status, sepsis volume, hospital size, and proportion of underserved patients. We examined the relationship between risk-standardized readmission rates and hospital-level composite measures of quality and mortality. From 633,407 hospitalizations among 3,315 hospitals from 2008 to 2011, median risk-standardized readmission rates was 28.7% (interquartile range, 26.1-31.9). There were differences in risk-standardized readmission rates by region (Northeast, 30.4%; South, 29.6%; Midwest, 28.8%; and West, 27.7%; p < 0.001), teaching versus nonteaching status (31.1% vs 29.0%; p < 0.001), and hospitals serving the highest proportion of underserved patients (30.6% vs 28.7%; p < 0.001). The best performing hospitals on a composite quality measure had highest risk-standardized readmission rates compared with the lowest (32.0% vs 27.5%; p < 0.001). Risk-standardized readmission rates was lower in the highest mortality hospitals compared with those in the lowest (28.7% vs 30.7%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:One third of sepsis survivors were readmitted and wide variation exists between hospitals. Several demographic and structural factors are associated with this variation. Measures of higher quality in-hospital care were correlated with higher readmission rates. Several potential explanations are possible including poor risk standardization, more research is needed.

Dataset Information

Publications

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets