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]

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: 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: The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) incorporates financial incentives and penalties intended to drive clinicians towards value-based purchasing, including alternative payment models (APMs). Newly available Medicare-approved qualified clinical data registries (QCDRs) offer specialty-specific quality measures for clinician reporting, yet their impact on clinician performance and payment adjustments remains unknown., Objectives: We sought to characterize clinician participation, performance, and payment adjustments in the MIPS program across specialties, with a focus on clinician use of QCDRs., Research Design: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the 2018 MIPS program., Results: During the 2018 performance year, 558,296 clinicians participated in the MIPS program across the 35 specialties assessed. Clinicians reporting as individuals had lower overall MIPS performance scores (median [interquartile range (IQR)], 80.0 [39.4-98.4] points) than those reporting as groups (median [IQR], 96.3 [76.9-100.0] points), who in turn had lower adjustments than clinicians reporting within MIPS APMs (median [IQR], 100.0 [100.0-100.0] points) (P<0.001). Clinicians reporting as individuals had lower payment adjustments (median [IQR], +0.7% [0.1%-1.6%]) than those reporting as groups (median [IQR], +1.5% [0.6%-1.7%]), who in turn had lower adjustments than clinicians reporting within MIPS APMs (median [IQR], +1.7% [1.7%-1.7%]) (P<0.001). Within a subpopulation of 202,685 clinicians across 12 specialties commonly using QCDRs, clinicians had overall MIPS performance scores and payment adjustments that were significantly greater if reporting at least 1 QCDR measure compared with those not reporting any QCDR measures., Conclusions: Collectively, these findings highlight that performance score and payment adjustments varied by reporting affiliation and QCDR use in the 2018 MIPS., Competing Interests: A.K.V. serves on the Clinical Emergency Data Registry (CEDR) Committee and within several other quality measurement related roles in the American College of Emergency Physicians. A.K.V. is also supported by the Moore Foundation, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American College of Radiology, and the Foundation for Opioid Response Efforts for work developing quality measures or programs such as the Emergency Quality Network intended to be used for CMS MIPS Program participation. A.K.V., S.M.B., and E.E.D. also receive support for contracted work from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to develop hospital and health care outcome and efficiency quality measures and rating systems. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)