Search

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Accounting For Patients' Socioeconomic Status Does Not Change Hospital Readmission Rates," by Susannah Bernheim in the August 2016 issue.

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]

Background: Drug-eluting stents (DES) improve outcomes in elderly patients with small coronary artery disease compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), but randomized data in elderly patients in need of large coronary stents are not available. Methods: Planned secondary analysis of patients ≥75 years recruited to the "BASKET-PROVE" trial, in which 2,314 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for large (≥3.0 mm) native vessel disease were randomized 2:1 to DES (everolimus- vs sirolimus-eluting stents 1:1) versus BMS. All patients received 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy. The primary end point was a composite of cardiac death or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 2 years. Results: Comparison of DES versus BMS among 405 patients ≥75 years showed significantly lower rates of the primary end point for DES (5.0% vs 11.6%; hazard ration (HR) 0.64 [0.44-0.91]; P = .014). Rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction (1.2% vs 5.5%, hazard ration (HR) 0.44 [0.21-0.83]; P = .009), all-cause death (7.4% vs 14.4%; HR 0.7 [0.51-0.95]; P = .02), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (2.3% vs 6.2%; HR 0.59 [0.34-0.99]; P = .046) were also lower, whereas stent thrombosis and bleeding rates were similar. In contrast, among patients <75 years (n = 1,909), the only significant benefit of DES was a reduced rate of TVR (4.0% vs 8.7%, HR 0.66 [0.55-0.80]; P < .0001). Conclusions: In patients ≥75 years requiring large (≥3.0 mm) coronary stents, use of DES was beneficial compared with BMS and reduced the rate of ischemic events, mortality, and TVR. These data suggest that DES should be preferred over BMS in elderly patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response from the authors of the article "Considering the role of socioeconomic status in hospital outcomes measures" that was published in a 2014 issue of the periodical, is presented.

The article presents the study which examined the readmission performance and patterns of readmission of high performing hospitals with low 30 day readmission rates and lower performing hospitals with higher rates of readmission. The study was conducted to Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older in the U.S. The results showed that hospitals could best lessen readmissions with strategies that reduce readmission risk worldwide.

Background: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provides public reporting on the quality of hospital care for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Core Measures allow discretion in excluding patients because of relative contraindications to aspirin, β-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. We describe trends in the proportion of patients with AMI with contraindications that could lead to discretionary exclusion from public reporting. Methods: We completed cross-sectional analyses of 3 nationally representative data cohorts of AMI admissions among Medicare patients in 1994-1995 (n = 170,928), 1998-1999 (n = 27,432), and 2000-2001 (n = 27,300) from the national Medicare quality improvement projects. Patients were categorized as ineligible (eg, transfer patients), automatically excluded (specified absolute medical contraindications), discretionarily excluded (potentially excluded based on relative contraindications), or “ideal” for treatment for each measure. Results: For 4 of 5 measures, the percentage of discretionarily excluded patients increased over the 3 periods (admission aspirin 15.8% to 16.9%, admission β-blocker 14.3% to 18.3%, discharge aspirin 10.3% to 12.3%, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors 2.8% to 3.9%; P < .001). Of patients potentially included in measures (those who were not ineligible or automatically excluded), the discretionarily excluded represented 25.5% to 69.2% in 2000-2001. Treatment rates among patients with discretionary exclusions also increased for 4 of 5 measures (all except angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors). Conclusions: A sizeable and growing proportion of patients with AMI have relative contraindications to treatments that may result in discretionary exclusion from publicly reported quality measures. These patients represent a large population for which there is insufficient evidence as to whether measure exclusion or inclusion and treatment represents best care. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Given the inclusion of orthopaedic quality measures in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services national hospital payment programs, the present study sought to assess whether the public reporting of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) and complication rates (RSCRs) was temporally associated with a decrease in the rates of these outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries.Methods: Annual trends in national observed and hospital-level RSRRs and RSCRs were evaluated for patients who underwent hospital-based inpatient hip and/or knee replacement procedures from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2016. Hospital-level rates were calculated with use of the same measures and methodology that were utilized in public reporting. Annual trends in the distribution of hospital-level outcomes were then examined with use of density plots.Results: Complication and readmission rates and variation declined steadily from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2016. Reductions of 33% and 25% were noted in hospital-level RSCRs and RSRRs, respectively. The interquartile range decreased by 18% (relative reduction) for RSCRs and by 34% (relative reduction) for RSRRs. The frequency of risk variables in the complication and readmission models did not systematically change over time, suggesting no evidence of widespread bias or up-coding.Conclusions: This study showed that hospital-level complication and readmission rates following THA and TKA and the variation in hospital-level performance declined during a period coinciding with the start of public reporting and financial incentives associated with measurement. The consistently decreasing trend in rates of and variation in outcomes suggests steady improvements and greater consistency among hospitals in clinical outcomes for THA and TKA patients in the 2016 fiscal year compared with the 2010 fiscal year. The interactions between public reporting, payment, and hospital coding practices are complex and require further study.Level Of Evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To estimate, prior to finalization of claims, the national monthly numbers of admissions and rates of 30-day readmissions and post-discharge observation-stays for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), or pneumonia.Methods: The centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Integrated Data Repository, including the Medicare beneficiary enrollment database, was accessed in June 2015, February 2017, and February 2018. We evaluated patterns of delay in Medicare claims accrual, and used incomplete, non-final claims data to develop and validate models for real-time estimation of admissions, readmissions, and observation stays.Results: These real-time reporting models accurately estimate, within 2 months from admission, the monthly numbers of admissions, 30-day readmission and observation-stay rates for patients with AMI, HF, or pneumonia.Conclusions: This work will allow CMS to track the impact of policy decisions in real time and enable hospitals to better monitor their performance nationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Publicly reported hospital risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are calculated for Medicare beneficiaries. Outcomes for older patients with AMI may not reflect general outcomes.Objective: To examine the relationship between hospital 30-day RSMRs for older patients (aged ≥65 years) and those for younger patients (aged 18 to 64 years) and all patients (aged ≥18 years) with AMI.Design: Retrospective cohort study.Setting: 986 hospitals in the ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) Registry-Get With the Guidelines.Participants: Adults hospitalized for AMI from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2014.Measurements: Hospital 30-day RSMRs were calculated for older, younger, and all patients using an electronic health record measure of AMI mortality endorsed by the National Quality Forum. Hospitals were ranked by their 30-day RSMRs for these 3 age groups, and agreement in rankings was plotted. The correlation in hospital AMI achievement scores for each age group was also calculated using the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) Program method computed with the electronic health record measure.Results: 267 763 and 276 031 AMI hospitalizations among older and younger patients, respectively, were identified. Median hospital 30-day RSMRs were 9.4%, 3.0%, and 6.2% for older, younger, and all patients, respectively. Most top- and bottom-performing hospitals for older patients were neither top nor bottom performers for younger patients. In contrast, most top and bottom performers for older patients were also top and bottom performers for all patients. Similarly, HVBP achievement scores for older patients correlated weakly with those for younger patients (R = 0.30) and strongly with those for all patients (R = 0.92).Limitation: Minority of U.S. hospitals.Conclusion: Hospital mortality rankings for older patients with AMI inconsistently reflect rankings for younger patients. Incorporation of younger patients into assessment of hospital outcomes would permit further examination of the presence and effect of age-related quality differences.Primary Funding Source: American College of Cardiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To isolate hospital effects on risk-standardized hospital-readmission rates, we examined readmission outcomes among patients who had multiple admissions for a similar diagnosis at more than one hospital within a given year.Methods: We divided the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services hospital-wide readmission measure cohort from July 2014 through June 2015 into two random samples. All the patients in the cohort were Medicare recipients who were at least 65 years of age. We used the first sample to calculate the risk-standardized readmission rate within 30 days for each hospital, and we classified hospitals into performance quartiles, with a lower readmission rate indicating better performance (performance-classification sample). The study sample (identified from the second sample) included patients who had two admissions for similar diagnoses at different hospitals that occurred more than 1 month and less than 1 year apart, and we compared the observed readmission rates among patients who had been admitted to hospitals in different performance quartiles.Results: In the performance-classification sample, the median risk-standardized readmission rate was 15.5% (interquartile range, 15.3 to 15.8). The study sample included 37,508 patients who had two admissions for similar diagnoses at a total of 4272 different hospitals. The observed readmission rate was consistently higher among patients admitted to hospitals in a worse-performing quartile than among those admitted to hospitals in a better-performing quartile, but the only significant difference was observed when the patients were admitted to hospitals in which one was in the best-performing quartile and the other was in the worst-performing quartile (absolute difference in readmission rate, 2.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 0.4 to 3.5; P=0.001).Conclusions: When the same patients were admitted with similar diagnoses to hospitals in the best-performing quartile as compared with the worst-performing quartile of hospital readmission performance, there was a significant difference in rates of readmission within 30 days. The findings suggest that hospital quality contributes in part to readmission rates independent of factors involving patients. (Funded by Yale-New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation and others.). [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]

Background In chronic heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is considered to be stable. Intensified therapy may improve survival, but little is known whether this is associated with reverse remodeling and dependent on age and NT-proBNP guidance. We aimed to define the evolution of LVEF under intensified therapy in relation to age and NT-proBNP guidance. Methods and results Echocardiography was performed at baseline, 12 and 18 months in TIME-CHF, a trial comparing NT-proBNP versus symptom-guided therapy in patients aged 60 to 74 and ≥ 75 years. LVEF, LV end diastolic volume index (LVEDVI) and end systolic volume index (LVESVI) were assessed. LVEF increased from 31.3 ± 10.7% to 39.1 ± 11.8% at 18 months (p < 0.001) in symptom-guided, and from 30.3 ± 11.7% to 44.0 ± 13.2% (p < 0.001) in NT-proBNP-guided patients. The increase in LVEF was significantly larger in the NT-proBNP-guided treatment group (p for interaction = 0.006), which was true for both age groups (p for interaction in both = 0.091). LVEDVI and LVESVI decreased without influence by study group allocation. Conclusions In elderly heart failure patients, intensified medical therapy leads to an improvement in LVEF and to reverse remodeling. NT-proBNP guided therapy was associated with a larger improvement in LVEF than symptom guided therapy both in patients aged 60 to 74 and ≥ 75 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Existing publicly reported readmission measures are condition-specific, representing less than 20% of adult hospitalizations. An all-condition measure may better measure quality and promote innovation. OBJECTIVE: To develop an all-condition, hospital-wide readmission measure. DESIGN: Measure development study. SETTING: 4821 U.S. hospitals. PATIENTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older. MEASUREMENTS: Hospital-level, risk-standardized unplanned readmissions within 30 days of discharge. The measure uses Medicare fee-for-service claims and is a composite of 5 specialty-based, risk-standardized rates for medicine, surgery/gynecology, cardiorespiratory, cardiovascular, and neurology cohorts. The 2007-2008 admissions were randomly split for development and validation. Models were adjusted for age, principal diagnosis, and comorbid conditions. Calibration in Medicare and all-payer data was examined, and hospital rankings in the development and validation samples were compared. RESULTS: The development data set contained 8 018 949 admissions associated with 1 276 165 unplanned readmissions (15.9%). The median hospital risk-standardized unplanned readmission rate was 15.8 (range, 11.6 to 21.9). The 5 specialty cohort models accurately predicted readmission risk in both Medicare and all-payer data sets for average-risk patients but slightly overestimated readmission risk at the extremes. Overall hospital risk-standardized readmission rates did not differ statistically in the split samples (P = 0.71 for difference in rank), and 76% of hospitals' validation-set rankings were within 2 deciles of the development rank (24% were more than 2 deciles). Of hospitals ranking in the top or bottom deciles, 90% remained within 2 deciles (10% were more than 2 deciles) and 82% remained within 1 decile (18% were more than 1 decile). LIMITATION: Risk adjustment was limited to that available in claims data. CONCLUSION: A claims-based, hospital-wide unplanned readmission measure for profiling hospitals produced reasonably consistent results in different data sets and was similarly calibrated in both Medicare and all-payer data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a medical research study that examined self-reported financial barriers to medical care services or medication in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Data was achieved through the Prospective Registry Evaluating Myocardial Infarction: Event and Recovery study. The health status symptoms, overall health status function, and rehospitalization rates of the patients were measured. The authors found that financial barriers to health care services and medications are associated with worse recovery after acute myocardial function, as evidenced by more angina, a poorer quality of life, and a greater risk of rehospitalization.

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]

An exaggerated increase in pulmonary arterial pressure is the hallmark of high-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) and is associated with endothelial dysfunction of the pulmonary vasculature. Whether the myocardial circulation is affected as well is not known. The aim of this study was, therefore, to investigate whether myocardial blood flow reserve (MBFr) is altered in mountaineers developing HAPE. Healthy mountaineers taking part in a trial of prophylactic treatment of HAPE were examined at low (490 m) and high altitude (4,559 m). MBFr was derived from low mechanical index contrast echocardiography, performed at rest and during submaximal exercise. Among 24 subjects evaluated for MBFr, 9 were HAPE-susceptible individuals on prophylactic treatment with dexamethasone or tadalafil, 6 were HAPE-susceptible individuals on placebo, and 9 persons without HAPE susceptibility served as controls. At low altitude, MBFr did not differ between groups. At high altitude, MBFr increased significantly in HAPE-susceptible individuals on treatment (from 2.2 +/- 0.8 at low to 2.9 +/- 1.0 at high altitude, P = 0.04) and in control persons (from 1.9 +/- 0.8 to 2.8 +/- 1.0, P = 0.02), but not in HAPE-susceptible individuals on placebo (2.5 +/- 0.3 and 2.0 +/- 1.3 at low and high altitude, respectively, P > 0.1). The response to high altitude was significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.01). There was a significant inverse relation between the increase in the pressure gradient across the tricuspid valve and the change in myocardial blood flow reserve. HAPE-susceptible individuals not taking prophylactic treatment exhibit a reduced MBFr compared with either treated HAPE-susceptible individuals or healthy controls at high altitude.