Search

Key Points: Question: Do hospitals achieve equitable readmission rates (ie, fewer readmissions with narrow gaps in readmission rates between populations)? What characterizes hospitals with equitable readmissions? Findings: Of eligible hospitals, 17% had equitable readmissions by insurance, and 30% had equitable readmissions by race. Hospitals with and without equitable readmissions were characteristically different. Achieving equitable readmissions did not consistently correlate with quality, cost, or value. Many hospitals were not eligible for a disparities assessment due to insufficient numbers of dual-eligible and Black patients. Meaning: A minority of hospitals achieve equitable readmissions. Equity-focused outcome measures assess new dimensions of hospital performance distinct from traditional accountability measures. Importance: Equity is an essential domain of health care quality. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) developed 2 Disparity Methods that together assess equity in clinical outcomes. Objectives: To define a measure of equitable readmissions; identify hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance (dual eligible vs non–dual eligible) or patient race (Black vs White); and compare hospitals with and without equitable readmissions by hospital characteristics and performance on accountability measures (quality, cost, and value). Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of US hospitals eligible for the CMS Hospital-Wide Readmission measure using Medicare data from July 2018 through June 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: We created a definition of equitable readmissions using CMS Disparity Methods, which evaluate hospitals on 2 methods: outcomes for populations at risk for disparities (across-hospital method); and disparities in care within hospitals' patient populations (within-a-single-hospital method). Exposures: Hospital patient demographics; hospital characteristics; and 3 measures of hospital performance—quality, cost, and value (quality relative to cost). Results: Of 4638 hospitals, 74% served a sufficient number of dual-eligible patients, and 42% served a sufficient number of Black patients to apply CMS Disparity Methods by insurance and race. Of eligible hospitals, 17% had equitable readmission rates by insurance and 30% by race. Hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance or race cared for a lower percentage of Black patients (insurance, 1.9% [IQR, 0.2%-8.8%] vs 3.3% [IQR, 0.7%-10.8%], P <.01; race, 7.6% [IQR, 3.2%-16.6%] vs 9.3% [IQR, 4.0%-19.0%], P =.01), and differed from nonequitable hospitals in multiple domains (teaching status, geography, size; P <.01). In examining equity by insurance, hospitals with low costs were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.38-1.77), and there was no relationship between quality and value, and equity. In examining equity by race, hospitals with high overall quality were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.26]), and there was no relationship between cost and value, and equity. Conclusion and Relevance: A minority of hospitals achieved equitable readmissions. Notably, hospitals with equitable readmissions were characteristically different from those without. For example, hospitals with equitable readmissions served fewer Black patients, reinforcing the role of structural racism in hospital-level inequities. Implementation of an equitable readmission measure must consider unequal distribution of at-risk patients among hospitals. This cross-sectional study of US hospitals compared hospital and patient characteristics to evaluate equitable rates of readmission by insurance (dual eligible [Medicare and Medicaid] vs non–dual eligible) and race (Black vs White). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The financial barriers to health care services or medication among individuals following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and their association with subsequent health care outcomes are evaluated. The results have shown that the financial barriers to health care services and medications are increasingly associated with worse recovery after AMI, manifested as more angina, poorer quality of life and higher risk of rehospitalization.

Importance: The Affordable Care Act has led to US national reductions in hospital 30-day readmission rates for heart failure (HF), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and pneumonia. Whether readmission reductions have had the unintended consequence of increasing mortality after hospitalization is unknown.Objective: To examine the correlation of paired trends in hospital 30-day readmission rates and hospital 30-day mortality rates after discharge.Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older hospitalized with HF, AMI, or pneumonia from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2014.Exposure: Thirty-day risk-adjusted readmission rate (RARR).Main Outcomes and Measures: Thirty-day RARRs and 30-day risk-adjusted mortality rates (RAMRs) after discharge were calculated for each condition in each month at each hospital in 2008 through 2014. Monthly trends in each hospital's 30-day RARRs and 30-day RAMRs after discharge were examined for each condition. The weighted Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for hospitals' paired monthly trends in 30-day RARRs and 30-day RAMRs after discharge for each condition.Results: In 2008 through 2014, 2 962 554 hospitalizations for HF, 1 229 939 for AMI, and 2 544 530 for pneumonia were identified at 5016, 4772, and 5057 hospitals, respectively. In January 2008, mean hospital 30-day RARRs and 30-day RAMRs after discharge were 24.6% and 8.4% for HF, 19.3% and 7.6% for AMI, and 18.3% and 8.5% for pneumonia. Hospital 30-day RARRs declined in the aggregate across hospitals from 2008 through 2014; monthly changes in RARRs were -0.053% (95% CI, -0.055% to -0.051%) for HF, -0.044% (95% CI, -0.047% to -0.041%) for AMI, and -0.033% (95% CI, -0.035% to -0.031%) for pneumonia. In contrast, monthly aggregate changes across hospitals in hospital 30-day RAMRs after discharge varied by condition: HF, 0.008% (95% CI, 0.007% to 0.010%); AMI, -0.003% (95% CI, -0.005% to -0.001%); and pneumonia, 0.001% (95% CI, -0.001% to 0.003%). However, correlation coefficients in hospitals' paired monthly changes in 30-day RARRs and 30-day RAMRs after discharge were weakly positive: HF, 0.066 (95% CI, 0.036 to 0.096); AMI, 0.067 (95% CI, 0.027 to 0.106); and pneumonia, 0.108 (95% CI, 0.079 to 0.137). Findings were similar in secondary analyses, including with alternate definitions of hospital mortality.Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or pneumonia, reductions in hospital 30-day readmission rates were weakly but significantly correlated with reductions in hospital 30-day mortality rates after discharge. These findings do not support increasing postdischarge mortality related to reducing hospital readmissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Readmission rates declined after announcement of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), which penalizes hospitals for excess readmissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia.Objective: To compare trends in readmission rates for target and nontarget conditions, stratified by hospital penalty status.Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries older than 64 years discharged between January 1, 2008, and June 30, 2015, from 2214 penalty hospitals and 1283 nonpenalty hospitals. Difference-interrupted time-series models were used to compare trends in readmission rates by condition and penalty status.Exposure: Hospital penalty status or target condition under the HRRP.Main Outcomes and Measures: Thirty-day risk adjusted, all-cause unplanned readmission rates for target and nontarget conditions.Results: The study included 48 137 102 hospitalizations of 20 351 161 Medicare beneficiaries. In January 2008, the mean readmission rates for AMI, HF, pneumonia, and nontarget conditions were 21.9%, 27.5%, 20.1%, and 18.4%, respectively, at hospitals later subject to financial penalties and 18.7%, 24.2%, 17.4%, and 15.7% at hospitals not subject to penalties. Between January 2008 and March 2010, prior to HRRP announcement, readmission rates were stable across hospitals (except AMI at nonpenalty hospitals). Following announcement of HRRP (March 2010), readmission rates for both target and nontarget conditions declined significantly faster for patients at hospitals later subject to financial penalties compared with those at nonpenalized hospitals (for AMI, additional decrease of -1.24 [95% CI, -1.84 to -0.65] percentage points per year relative to nonpenalty discharges; for HF, -1.25 [95% CI, -1.64 to -0.86]; for pneumonia, -1.37 [95% CI, -1.80 to -0.95]; and for nontarget conditions, -0.27 [95% CI, -0.38 to -0.17]; P < .001 for all). For penalty hospitals, readmission rates for target conditions declined significantly faster compared with nontarget conditions (for AMI, additional decline of -0.49 [95% CI, -0.81 to -0.16] percentage points per year relative to nontarget conditions [P = .004]; for HF, -0.90 [95% CI, -1.18 to -0.62; P < .001]; and for pneumonia, -0.57 [95% CI, -0.92 to -0.23; P < .001]). In contrast, among nonpenalty hospitals, readmissions for target conditions declined similarly or more slowly compared with nontarget conditions (for AMI, additional increase of 0.48 [95% CI, 0.01-0.95] percentage points per year [P = .05]; for HF, 0.08 [95% CI, -0.30 to 0.46; P = .67]; for pneumonia, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.13-0.93; P = .01]). After HRRP implementation in October 2012, the rate of change for readmission rates plateaued (P < .05 for all except pneumonia at nonpenalty hospitals), with the greatest relative change observed among hospitals subject to financial penalty.Conclusions and Relevance: Medicare fee-for-service patients at hospitals subject to penalties under the HRRP had greater reductions in readmission rates compared with those at nonpenalized hospitals. Changes were greater for target vs nontarget conditions for patients at the penalized hospitals but not at the other hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Little contemporary information is available about comparative performance between Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA hospitals, particularly related to mortality and readmission rates, 2 important outcomes of care.Objective: To assess and compare mortality and readmission rates among men in VA and non-VA hospitals.Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional analysis involving male Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older hospitalized between 2010 and 2013 in VA and non-VA acute care hospitals for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), or pneumonia using the Medicare Standard Analytic Files and Enrollment Database together with VA administrative claims data. To avoid confounding geographic effects with health care system effects, we studied VA and non-VA hospitals within the same metropolitan statistical area (MSA).Exposures: Hospitalization in a VA or non-VA hospital in MSAs that contained at least 1 VA and non-VA hospital.Main Outcomes and Measures: For each condition, 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates and risk-standardized readmission rates for VA and non-VA hospitals. Mean aggregated within-MSA differences in mortality and readmission rates were also assessed.Results: We studied 104 VA and 1513 non-VA hospitals, with each condition-outcome analysis cohort for VA and non-VA hospitals containing at least 7900 patients (men; ≥65 years), in 92 MSAs. Mortality rates were lower in VA hospitals than non-VA hospitals for AMI (13.5% vs 13.7%, P = .02; -0.2 percentage-point difference) and HF (11.4% vs 11.9%, P = .008; -0.5 percentage-point difference), but higher for pneumonia (12.6% vs 12.2%, P = .045; 0.4 percentage-point difference). In contrast, readmission rates were higher in VA hospitals for all 3 conditions (AMI, 17.8% vs 17.2%, 0.6 percentage-point difference; HF, 24.7% vs 23.5%, 1.2 percentage-point difference; pneumonia, 19.4% vs 18.7%, 0.7 percentage-point difference, all P < .001). In within-MSA comparisons, VA hospitals had lower mortality rates for AMI (percentage-point difference, -0.22; 95% CI, -0.40 to -0.04) and HF (-0.63; 95% CI, -0.95 to -0.31), and mortality rates for pneumonia were not significantly different (-0.03; 95% CI, -0.46 to 0.40); however, VA hospitals had higher readmission rates for AMI (0.62; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.75), HF (0.97; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.34), or pneumonia (0.66; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.91).Conclusions and Relevance: Among older men with AMI, HF, or pneumonia, hospitalization at VA hospitals, compared with hospitalization at non-VA hospitals, was associated with lower 30-day risk-standardized all-cause mortality rates for AMI and HF, and higher 30-day risk-standardized all-cause readmission rates for all 3 conditions, both nationally and within similar geographic areas, although absolute differences between these outcomes at VA and non-VA hospitals were small. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the association between hospital readmission and mortality rates for cardiac patients who were presented with clinical case of acute myocardial infarction, heart failure and pneumonia. It highlights the impact of quality of medical care provided by health care centers in resolving the risk associated with cardiac patients. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in the U.S. on the basis of a cohort analysis revealed that differences in performance of hospitals and diagnostic parameters implied by hospital were of immense use in determination of readmission rate and mortality rate of cardiac patients.

The article focuses on a study regarding the evaluation of readmission and timing among Medicare beneficiaries who are readmitted for heart failure (HF), acute myocardial infarction (MI) and pneumonia. It mentions that hospital readmissions report poor health care facility and states that the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has started public reporting of outcomes for improving the hospital care quality. The study reveals that 30-day readmissions were frequent throughout the month after rehospitalization for HF, MI and pneumonia. It also presents statistics which depict the readmission of patients.

The article discusses the results of a study which used a system developed by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to examine the national performance in door-in to door-out (DIDO) time. The study examined the association of the national median DIDO time with patient and hospital characteristics. The study concluded that rarely does the DIDO time met the recommended 30 minutes among patients requiring transfer to another facility for percutaneous coronary intervention.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Refusal of care: patients' well being and physicians' ethical obligations: 'but doctor, I want to go home'," by Joseph A. Carrese, published in the August 9, 2006 issue (Volume 296, Number 6).

Importance: Hospitals can face significant clinical and financial challenges in caring for patients with social risk factors. Currently the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program stratifies hospitals by proportion of patients eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid when calculating payment penalties to account for the patient population. However, additional social risk factors should be considered., Objective: To evaluate 7 different definitions of social risk and understand the degree to which differing definitions identify the same hospitals caring for a high proportion of patients with social risk factors., Design Setting and Participants: Across 18 publicly reported Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) hospital performance measures, highly disadvantaged hospitals were identified by the the proportion of patients with social risk factors using the following 7 commonly used definitions of social risk: living below the US poverty line, educational attainment of less than high school, unemployment, living in a crowded household, African American race (as a proxy for the social risk factor of exposure to racism), Medicaid coverage, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality index of socioeconomic status score. In this cross-sectional study, social risk factors were evaluated by measure because hospitals may serve a disadvantaged patient population for one measure but not another. Data were collected from April 1, 2014, to June 30, 2017, and analyzed from July 25, 2019, to April 25, 2021., Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of hospitals identified as caring for patients with social risk factors using 7 definitions of social risk, across 18 publicly reported CMS hospital performance measures., Results: Among 4465 hospitals, a mean of 31.0% (range, 28.9%-32.3%) were identified at least once when using the 7 definitions of social risk as caring for a high proportion of patients with social risk factors. Among all hospitals meeting at least 1 definition of social risk, a mean of 0.7% (range, 0%-1.0%) were identified as highly disadvantaged by all 7 definitions. Among hospitals meeting at least 1 definition of social risk, a mean of 2.7% (range, 1.3%-5.1%) were identified by 6 definitions; 6.5% (range, 5.9%-7.1%), by 5 definitions; 10.4% (range, 9.5%-12.1%), by 4 definitions; 13.2% (range, 10.1%-14.4%), by 3 definitions; 21.4% (range, 20.1%-22.4%), by 2 definitions; and 45.2% (range, 42.6%-47.1%), by only 1 definition. This pattern was consistent across all 18 performance measures., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, there were inconsistencies in the identification of hospitals caring for disadvantaged populations using different definitions of social risk factors. Without consensus on how to define disadvantaged hospitals, policies to support such hospitals may be applied inconsistently., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Ms Matty reported receiving salary support from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to develop, implement, and maintain hospital performance outcome measures, including those related to this report, that are publicly reported. Dr Heckmann reported receiving salary support from the CMS to develop, implement, and maintain hospital performance outcome measures, including those related to this report, that are publicly reported, in addition to receiving research support from the FDA as part of a Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation program through Yale as part of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention project designed to strengthen prescription drug overdose prevention efforts, from Connecticut Department of Public Health as part of a public health project designed to assess the impact of Good Samaritan Laws, and from the Community Health Network of Connecticut for her work as a medical consultant. Ms George reported receiving salary support from the CMS to develop, implement, and maintain hospital performance outcome measures, including those related to this report, that are publicly reported. Ms Barthel reported receiving salary support from the CMS to develop, implement, and maintain hospital performance outcome measures, including those related to this report, that are publicly reported. Dr Suter reported receiving salary support from the CMS to develop, implement, and maintain hospital performance outcome measures, including those related to this report, that are publicly reported. Dr Ross reported receiving salary support from the CMS to develop, implement, and maintain hospital performance outcome measures, including those related to this report, that are publicly reported; receiving research support through Yale University from Medtronic, Inc, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to develop methods for postmarket surveillance of medical devices and from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association to better understand medical technology evaluation, through Yale University from Johnson & Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, and from the FDA to establish the Yale–Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation program; and receiving grants from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health, and from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation to establish the Good Pharma Scorecard at Bioethics International and the Collaboration for Research Integrity and Transparency at Yale. Dr Bernheim reported receiving salary support from the CMS to develop, implement, and maintain hospital performance outcome measures, including those related to this report, that are publicly reported, and Humana, Inc, to advise on quality strategy., (Copyright 2021 Matty R et al. JAMA Health Forum.)

Importance: Payers and policy makers have advocated for transitioning toward value-based payment models. However, little is known about what is the extent of hospital variation in the value of care and whether there are any hospital characteristics associated with high-value care., Objectives: To investigate the association between hospital-level 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) and 30-day risk-standardized payments (RSPs) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia (PNA); to characterize patterns of value in care; and to identify hospital characteristics associated with high-value care (defined by having lower than median RSMRs and RSPs)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This national cross-sectional study applied weighted linear correlation to investigate the association between hospital RSMRs and RSPs for AMI, HF, and PNA between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2014, among all hospitals; examined correlations in subgroups of hospitals based on key characteristics; and assessed the proportion and characteristics of hospitals delivering high-value care. The data analysis was completed in October 2017. The setting was acute care hospitals. Participants were Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged with AMI, HF, or PNA., Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital-level 30-day RSMRs and RSPs for AMI, HF, and PNA., Results: The AMI sample consisted of 4339 hospitals with 487 141 hospitalizations for mortality and 462 905 hospitalizations for payment. The HF sample included 4641 hospitals with 960 960 hospitalizations for mortality and 903 721 hospitalizations for payment. The PNA sample contained 4685 hospitals with 952 022 hospitalizations for mortality and 901 764 hospitalizations for payment. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) RSMRs and RSPs, respectively, was 14.3% (IQR, 13.8%-14.8%) and $21 620 (IQR, $20 966-$22 567) for AMI, 11.7% (IQR, 11.0%-12.5%) and $15 139 (IQR, $14 310-$16 118) for HF, and 11.5% (IQR, 10.6%-12.6%) and $14 220 (IQR, $13 342-$15 097) for PNA. There were statistically significant but weak inverse correlations between the RSMRs and RSPs of -0.08 (95% CI, -0.11 to -0.05) for AMI, -0.21 (95% CI, -0.24 to -0.18) for HF, and -0.07 (95% CI, -0.09 to -0.04) for PNA. The largest shared variance between the RSMRs and RSPs was only 4.4% (for HF). The correlations between the RSMRs and RSPs did not differ significantly across teaching status, safety-net status, urban/rural status, or the proportion of patients with low socioeconomic status. Approximately 1 in 4 hospitals (20.9% for AMI, 23.0% for HF, and 23.9% for PNA) had both lower than median RSMRs and RSPs., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that there is significant potential for improvement in the value of AMI, HF, and PNA care and also suggest that high-value care for these conditions is attainable across most hospital types.

Importance: Although studies have described differences in hospital outcomes by patient race and socioeconomic status, it is not clear whether such disparities are driven by hospitals themselves or by broader systemic effects., Objective: To determine patterns of racial and socioeconomic disparities in outcomes within and between hospitals for patients with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia., Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study initiated before February 2013, with additional analyses conducted during the peer-review process. Hospitals in the United States treating at least 25 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older in each race (ie, black and white) and neighborhood income level (ie, higher income and lower income) for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia between 2009 and 2011 were included., Main Outcomes and Measures: For within-hospital analyses, risk-standardized mortality rates and risk-standardized readmission rates for race and neighborhood income subgroups were calculated at each hospital. The corresponding ratios using intraclass correlation coefficients were then compared. For between-hospital analyses, risk-standardized rates were assessed according to hospitals' proportion of patients in each subgroup. These analyses were performed for each of the 12 analysis cohorts reflecting the unique combinations of outcomes (mortality and readmission), demographics (race and neighborhood income), and conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia)., Results: Between 74% (3545 of 4810) and 91% (4136 of 4554) of US hospitals lacked sufficient racial and socioeconomic diversity to be included in this analysis, with the number of hospitals eligible for analysis varying among cohorts. The 12 analysis cohorts ranged in size from 418 to 1265 hospitals and from 144 417 to 703 324 patients. Within included hospitals, risk-standardized mortality rates tended to be lower among black patients (mean [SD] difference between risk-standardized mortality rates in black patients compared with white patients for acute myocardial infarction, -0.57 [1.1] [P = .47]; for heart failure, -4.7 [1.3] [P < .001]; and for pneumonia, -1.0 [2.0] [P = .05]). However, risk-standardized readmission rates among black patients were higher (mean [SD] difference between risk-standardized readmission rates in black patients compared with white patients for acute myocardial infarction, 4.3 [1.4] [P < .001]; for heart failure, 2.8 [1.8] [P < .001], and for pneumonia, 3.7 [1.3] [P < .001]). Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.68 to 0.79, indicating that hospitals generally delivered consistent quality to patients of differing races. While the coefficients in the neighborhood income analysis were slightly lower (0.46-0.60), indicating some heterogeneity in within-hospital performance, differences in mortality rates and readmission rates between the 2 neighborhood income groups were small. There were no strong, consistent associations between risk-standardized outcomes for white or higher-income neighborhood patients and hospitals' proportion of black or lower-income neighborhood patients., Conclusions and Relevance: Hospital performance according to race and socioeconomic status was generally consistent within and between hospitals, even as there were overall differences in outcomes by race and neighborhood income. This finding indicates that disparities are likely to be systemic, rather than localized to particular hospitals.

Importance: The US Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was associated with reduced readmissions among Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia. It is important to assess whether there has been a signal for concomitant harm with an increase in mortality., Objective: To evaluate whether the announcement or the implementation of HRRP was associated with an increase in either in-hospital or 30-day postdischarge mortality following hospitalization for AMI, HF, or pneumonia., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, using Medicare data, all hospitalizations for AMI, HF, and pneumonia were identified among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2014. These were assessed for changes in trends for risk-adjusted rates of in-hospital and 30-day postdischarge mortality after announcement and implementation of the HRRP using an interrupted time series framework. Analyses were done in November 2017 and December 2017., Exposures: Announcement of the HRRP in March 2010, and implementation of its penalties in October 2012., Main Outcomes and Measures: Monthly risk-adjusted rates of in-hospital and 30-day postdischarge mortality., Results: The sample included 1.7 million AMI, 4 million HF, and 3.5 million pneumonia hospitalizations. Between 2006 and 2014, in-hospital mortality decreased for the 3 conditions (AMI, from 10.4% to 9.7%; HF, from 4.3% to 3.5%; pneumonia, from 5.3% to 4.0%) while 30-day postdischarge mortality decreased from 7.4% to 7.0% for AMI (P for trend < .001), but increased from 7.4% to 9.2% for HF (P for trend < .001) and from 7.6% to 8.6% for pneumonia (P for trend < .001). Before the HRRP announcement, monthly postdischarge mortality was stable for AMI (slope for monthly change, 0.002%; 95% CI, -0.001% to 0.006% per month), and increased by 0.004% (95% CI, 0.000% to 0.007%) per month for HF and by 0.005% (95% CI, 0.002% to 0.008%) per month for pneumonia. There were no inflections in slope around HRRP announcement or implementation (P > .05 for all). In contrast, there were significant negative deflections in slopes for readmission rates at HRRP announcement for all conditions., Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare beneficiaries, there was no evidence for an increase in in-hospital or postdischarge mortality associated with HRRP announcement or implementation-a period with substantial reductions in readmissions. The improvement in readmission was therefore not associated with any increase in in-hospital or 30-day postdischarge mortality.