Search

Importance: Predicting payments for particular conditions or populations is essential for research, benchmarking, public reporting, and calculations for population-based programs. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) models often group codes into disease categories, but using single, rather than grouped, diagnostic codes and leveraging present on admission (POA) codes may enhance these models., Objective: To determine whether changes to the candidate variables in CMS models would improve risk models predicting patient total payment within 30 days of hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia., Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness research study used data from Medicare fee-for-service hospitalizations for AMI, HF, and pneumonia at acute care hospitals from July 1, 2013, through September 30, 2015. Payments across multiple care settings, services, and supplies were included and adjusted for geographic and policy variations, corrected for inflation, and winsorized. The same data source was used but varied for the candidate variables and their selection, and the method used by CMS for public reporting that used grouped codes was compared with variations that used POA codes and single diagnostic codes. Combinations of use of POA codes, separation of index admission diagnoses from those in the previous 12 months, and use of individual International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes instead of grouped diagnostic categories were tested. Data analysis was performed from December 4, 2017, to June 10, 2019., Main Outcomes and Measures: The models' goodness of fit was compared using root mean square error (RMSE) and the McFadden pseudo R2., Results: Among the 1 943 049 total hospitalizations of the study participants, 343 116 admissions were for AMI (52.5% male; 37.4% aged ≤74 years), 677 044 for HF (45.5% male; 25.9% aged ≤74 years), and 922 889 for pneumonia (46.4% male; 28.2% aged ≤74 years). The mean (SD) 30-day payment was $23 103 ($18 221) for AMI, $16 365 ($12 527) for HF, and $17 097 ($12 087) for pneumonia. Each incremental model change improved the pseudo R2 and RMSE. Incorporating all 3 changes improved the pseudo R2 of the patient-level models from 0.077 to 0.129 for AMI, from 0.042 to 0.129 for HF, and from 0.114 to 0.237 for pneumonia. Parallel improvements in RMSE were found for all 3 conditions., Conclusions and Relevance: Leveraging POA codes, separating index from previous diagnoses, and using single diagnostic codes improved payment models. Better models can potentially improve research, benchmarking, public reporting, and calculations for population-based programs.

Background: Safety-net and teaching hospitals are somewhat more likely to be penalized for excess readmissions, but the association of other hospital characteristics with readmission rates is uncertain and may have relevance for hospital-centered interventions., Objective: To examine the independent association of 8 hospital characteristics with hospital-wide 30-day risk-standardized readmission rate (RSRR)., Design: This is a retrospective cross-sectional multivariable analysis., Subjects: US hospitals., Measures: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services specification of hospital-wide RSRR from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014 with race and Medicaid dual-eligibility added., Results: We included 6,789,839 admissions to 4474 hospitals of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged over 64 years. In multivariable analyses, there was regional variation: hospitals in the mid-Atlantic region had the highest RSRRs [0.98 percentage points higher than hospitals in the Mountain region; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84-1.12]. For-profit hospitals had an average RSRR 0.38 percentage points (95% CI, 0.24-0.53) higher than public hospitals. Both urban and rural hospitals had higher RSRRs than those in medium metropolitan areas. Hospitals without advanced cardiac surgery capability had an average RSRR 0.27 percentage points (95% CI, 0.18-0.36) higher than those with. The ratio of registered nurses per hospital bed was not associated with RSRR. Variability in RSRRs among hospitals of similar type was much larger than aggregate differences between types of hospitals., Conclusions: Overall, larger, urban, academic facilities had modestly higher RSRRs than smaller, suburban, community hospitals, although there was a wide range of performance. The strong regional effect suggests that local practice patterns are an important influence. Disproportionately high readmission rates at for-profit hospitals may highlight the role of financial incentives favoring utilization.

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]

There is an active public debate about whether patients' socioeconomic status should be included in the readmission measures used to determine penalties in Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP). Using the current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services methodology, we compared risk-standardized readmission rates for hospitals caring for high and low proportions of patients of low socioeconomic status (as defined by their Medicaid status or neighborhood income). We then calculated risk-standardized readmission rates after additionally adjusting for patients' socioeconomic status. Our results demonstrate that hospitals caring for large proportions of patients of low socioeconomic status have readmission rates similar to those of other hospitals. Moreover, readmission rates calculated with and without adjustment for patients' socioeconomic status are highly correlated. Readmission rates of hospitals caring for patients of low socioeconomic status changed by approximately 0.1 percent with adjustment for patients' socioeconomic status, and only 3-4 percent fewer such hospitals reached the threshold for payment penalty in Medicare's HRRP. Overall, adjustment for socioeconomic status does not change hospital results in meaningful ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Temporal changes in the readmission rates for patient groups and conditions that were not directly under the purview of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) can help assess whether efforts to lower readmissions extended beyond targeted patients and conditions.Methods: Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (2010-2015), we assessed trends in all-cause readmission rates for 1 of the 3 HRRP conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia) or conditions not targeted by the HRRP in age-insurance groups defined by age group (≥65 years or <65 years) and payer (Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance).Results: In the group aged ≥65 years, readmission rates for those covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance decreased annually for acute myocardial infarction (risk-adjusted odds ratio [OR; 95% confidence interval] among Medicare patients, 0.94 [0.94-0.95], among Medicaid patients, 0.93 [0.90-0.97], and among patients with private-insurance, 0.95 [0.93-0.97]); heart failure (ORs, 0.96 [0.96-0.97], 0.96 [0.94-0.98], and 0.97 [0.96-0.99], for the 3 payers, respectively), and pneumonia (ORs, 0.96 [0.96-0.97), 0.94 [0.92-0.96], and 0.96 [0.95-0.97], respectively). Readmission rates also decreased in the group aged <65 years for acute myocardial infarction (ORs: Medicare 0.97 [0.96-0.98], Medicaid 0.94 [0.92-0.95], and private insurance 0.93 [0.92-0.94]), heart failure (ORs, 0.98 [0.97-0.98]: 0.96 [0.96-0.97], and 0.97 [0.95-0.98], for the 3 payers, respectively), and pneumonia (ORs, 0.98 [0.97-0.99], 0.98 [0.97-0.99], and 0.98 [0.97-1.00], respectively). Further, readmission rates decreased significantly for non-target conditions.Conclusions: There appears to be a systematic improvement in readmission rates for patient groups beyond the population of fee-for-service, older, Medicare beneficiaries included in the HRRP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]