The Financial Impact of an Avoided Readmission for Teaching and Safety-Net Hospitals Under Medicare's Hospital Readmission Reduction Program.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hoffman GJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6656617 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The Financial Impact of an Avoided Readmission for Teaching and Safety-Net Hospitals Under Medicare's Hospital Readmission Reduction Program.
Hoffman Geoffrey J GJ Tilson Sibyl S Yakusheva Olga O
Medical care research and review : MCRR 20180824 4
We examined the financial incentives to avoid readmissions under Medicare's Hospital Readmission Reduction Program for safety-net hospitals (SNHs) and teaching hospitals (THs) compared with other hospitals. Using Medicare's FY2016 Hospital Compare and readmissions data for 2,465 hospitals, we tested for differential revenue gains for SNHs (<i>n</i> = 658) relative to non-SNHs (<i>n</i> = 1,807), and for major (<i>n</i> = 231) and minor (<i>n</i> = 591) THs relative to non-THs (<i>n</i> = 1,643). ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Importance:The strongest evidence for the effectiveness of Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) involves greater reductions in readmissions for hospitals receiving penalties compared with those not receiving penalties. However, the HRRP penalty is an imperfect measure of hospitals' marginal incentive to avoid a readmission for HRRP-targeted diagnoses. Objectives:To assess the association between hospitals' condition-specific incentives and readmission performance and to examine the responsiveness of hospitals to condition-specific incentives compared with aggregate penalty amounts. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective cohort analysis used Medicare readmissions data from 2823 US short-term acute care hospitals participating in HRRP to compare 3-year (fiscal years 2016-2019) follow-up readmission performance according to tertiles of hospitals' baseline (2016) marginal incentives for each of 5 HRRP-targeted conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and hip and/or knee surgery). Main Outcomes and Measures:Linear regression models were used to estimate mean change in follow-up readmission performance, measured using the excess readmissions ratio, with baseline condition-specific incentives and aggregate penalty amounts. Results:Of 2823 hospitals that participated in the HRRP from baseline to follow-up, 2280 (81%) had more than 1 excess readmission for 1 or more applicable condition and 543 (19%) did not have any excess readmissions. The mean (SD) financial incentive to reduce readmissions for incentivized hospitals ranged from $8762 ($3699) to $58 158 ($26 198) per 1 avoided readmission. Hospitals with greater incentives for readmission avoidance had greater decreases in readmissions compared with hospitals with smaller incentives (45% greater for pneumonia, 172% greater for acute myocardial infarction, 40% greater for hip and/or knee surgery, 32% greater for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 13% greater for heart failure), whereas hospitals with no incentives had increases in excess readmissions of 4% to 7% (median, 4% [percentage change for nonincentivized hospitals was 3.7% for pneumonia, 4.2% for acute myocardial infarction, 7.1% for hip and/or knee surgery, 3.7% for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 3.7% for heart failure]; P < .001). During the study period, each additional $5000 in the incentive amount was associated with a 0.6- to 1.3-percentage point decrease, or up to a 26% decrease, in excess readmissions (P < .001). Regression to the mean explained approximately one-third of the results depending on the condition examined. Conclusions and Relevance:The findings suggest that improvements in readmission avoidance are more strongly associated with incentives from the HRRP than with aggregate penalty amounts, suggesting that the program has elicited sizeable changes. Worsened performance among hospitals with small or no incentives may indicate the need for reconsideration of the program's lack of financial rewards for high-performing hospitals.
| S-EPMC7125432 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAlthough readmission rates are declining under Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), concerns remain that the HRRP will harm quality at safety-net hospitals because they are penalized more often. Disparities between white and black patients might widen because more black patients receive care at safety-net hospitals. Disparities may be particularly worse for clinical conditions not targeted by the HRRP because hospitals might reallocate resources toward targeted conditions (acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, and heart failure) at the expense of nontargeted conditions.ObjectiveTo examine disparities in readmission rates between white and black patients discharged from safety-net or non-safety-net hospitals after the HRRP began, evaluating discharges for any clinical condition and the subsets of targeted and nontargeted conditions.Design, setting, and participantsCohort study conducting quasi-experimental analyses of patient hospital discharges for any clinical condition among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries from 2007 to 2015 after controlling for patient and hospital characteristics. Changes in disparities were measured within safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals after the HRRP penalties were enforced and compared with prior trends. These analyses were then stratified by targeted and nontargeted conditions. Analyses were conducted from October 1, 2017, through August 31, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresTrends in 30-day readmission rates among white and black patients by quarter and differences in trends across periods.ResultsThe study sample included 58 237 056 patient discharges (black patients, 9.8%; female, 57.7%; mean age [SD] age, 78.8 [7.9] years; nontargeted conditions, 50 372 806 [86.5%]). Within safety-net hospitals, disparities in readmission rates for all clinical conditions widened between black and white patients by 0.04 percentage point per quarter in the HRRP penalty period (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.07; P = .01). This widening was driven by nontargeted conditions (0.05 percentage point per quarter [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.08]; P = .006), whereas disparities for the HRRP-targeted conditions did not change (with an increase of 0.01 percentage point per quarter [95% CI, -0.07 to 0.10]; P = .74). Within non-safety-net hospitals, racial disparities remained stable in the HRRP penalty period across all conditions, whether the conditions were HRRP-targeted or nontargeted.Conclusions and relevanceFindings from this study suggest that disparities are widening within safety-net hospitals, specifically for non-HRRP-targeted conditions. Although increases in racial disparities for nontargeted conditions were modest, they represent 6 times more discharges in our cohort than targeted conditions.
| S-EPMC6324411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), implemented beginning in 2013, seeks to incentivize Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) hospitals to reduce 30-day readmissions for selected inpatient cohorts including acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia. Performance-based penalties, which take the form of a percentage reduction in Medicare reimbursement for all inpatient care services, have a risk of unintended financial burden on hospitals that care for a larger proportion of Medicare patients. To examine the role of this unintended risk on 30-day readmissions, we estimated the association between the extent of their Medicare share of total hospital bed days and changes in 30-day readmissions.MethodsWe used publicly available nationwide hospital level data for 2009-2016 from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare program, CMS Final Impact Rule, and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey. Using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences approach, we compared pre- vs. post-HRRP changes in 30-day readmission rate in hospitals with high and moderate Medicare share of total hospital bed days ("Medicare bed share") vs. low Medicare bed share hospitals.ResultsWe grouped the 1904 study hospitals into tertiles (low, moderate and high) by Medicare bed share; the average bed share in the three tertile groups was 31.2, 47.8 and 59.9%, respectively. Compared to low Medicare bed share hospitals, high bed share hospitals were more likely to be non-profit, have smaller bed size and less likely to be a teaching hospital. High bed share hospitals were more likely to be in rural and non-large-urban areas, have fewer lower income patients and have a less complex patient case-mix profile. At baseline, the average readmissions rate in the low Medicare bed share (control) hospitals was 20.0% (AMI), 24.7% (HF) and 18.4% (pneumonia). The observed pre- to post-program change in the control hospitals was - 1.35% (AMI), - 1.02% (HF) and - 0.35% (pneumonia). Difference in differences model estimates indicated no differential change in readmissions among moderate and high Medicare bed share hospitals.ConclusionsHRRP penalties were not associated with any change in readmissions rate. The CMS should consider alternative options - including working collaboratively with hospitals - to reduce readmissions.
| S-EPMC7980319 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in March 2010, introduced payment-reduction penalties on acute care hospitals with higher-than-expected readmission rates for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure, and pneumonia. There is concern that hospitals serving large numbers of low-income and uninsured patients (safety-net hospitals) are at greater risk of higher readmissions and penalties, often due to factors that are likely outside the hospital's control. Using publicly reported data, we compared the readmissions performance and penalty experience among safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals.MethodsWe used nationwide hospital level data for 2009-2016 from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare program, CMS Final Impact Rule, and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey. We identified as safety-net hospitals the top quartile of hospitals in terms of the proportion of patients receiving income-based public benefits. Using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences approach based on the comparison of pre- vs. post-HRRP changes in (risk-adjusted) 30-day readmission rate in safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals, we estimated the change in readmissions rate associated with HRRP. We also compared the penalty frequency among safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals.ResultsOur study cohort included 1915 hospitals, of which 479 were safety-net hospitals. At baseline (2009), safety-net hospitals had a slightly higher readmission rate compared to non-safety net hospitals for all three conditions: AMI, 20.3% vs. 19.8% (p value< 0.001); heart failure, 25.2% vs. 24.2% (p-value< 0.001); pneumonia, 18.7% vs. 18.1% (p-value< 0.001). Beginning in 2012, readmission rates declined similarly in both hospital groups for all three cohorts. Based on difference-in-differences analysis, HRRP was associated with similar change in the readmissions rate in safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals for AMI and heart failure. For the pneumonia cohort, we found a larger reduction (0.23%; p < 0.001) in safety-net hospitals. The frequency of readmissions penalty was higher among safety-net hospitals. The proportion of hospitals penalized during all four post-HRRP years was 72% among safety-net and 59% among non-safety-net hospitals.ConclusionsOur results lend support to the concerns of disproportionately higher risk of performance-based penalty on safety-net hospitals.
| S-EPMC8922916 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed (1) to estimate the impact of an incremental reduction in excess readmissions on a hospital's Medicare reimbursement revenue, for hospitals subject to penalties under the Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program and (2) to evaluate the economic case for an investment in a readmission reduction program. For 2,465 hospitals with excess readmissions in the Fiscal Year 2016 Hospital Compare data set, we (1) used the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program statute to estimate hospital-specific Medicare reimbursement gains per an avoided readmission and (2) carried out a pro forma analysis of investment in a broad-scale readmission reduction program under conservative assumptions regarding program effectiveness and using program costs from earlier studies. For an average hospital, avoiding one excess readmission would result in reimbursement gains of $10,000 to $58,000 for Medicare discharges. The economic case for investments in a readmission reduction effort was strong overall, with the possible exception of hospitals with low excess readmissions.
| S-EPMC6560630 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was associated with a reduction in severe fall-related injuries (FRIs).Data sources and study settingSecondary data from Medicare were used.Study designUsing an event study design, among older (≥65) Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, we assessed changes in 30- and 90-day FRI readmissions before and after HRRP's announcement (April 2010) and implementation (October 2012) for conditions targeted by the HRRP (acute myocardial infarction [AMI], congestive heart failure [CHF], and pneumonia) versus "non-targeted" (gastrointestinal) conditions. We tested for modification by hospitals with "high-risk" before HRRP and accounted for potential upcoding. We also explored changes in 30-day FRI readmissions involving emergency department (ED) or outpatient care, care processes (length of stay, discharge destination, and primary care visit), and patient selection (age and comorbidities).Data collectionNot applicable.Principal findingsWe identified 1.5 million (522,596 pre-HRRP, 514,844 announcement, and 474,029 implementation period) index discharges. After its announcement, HRRP was associated with 12%-20% reductions in 30- and 90-day FRI readmissions for patients with CHF (-0.42 percentage points [ppt], p = 0.02; -1.53 ppt, p < 0.001) and AMI (-0.35, p = 0.047; -0.97, p = 0.001). Two years after implementation, HRRP was associated with reductions in 90-day FRI readmission for AMI (-1.27 ppt, p = 0.01) and CHF (-0.98 ppt, p = 0.02) patients. Results were similar for hospitals at higher versus lower baseline risk of FRI readmission. After HRRP's announcement, decreases were observed in home health (AMI: -2.43 ppt, p < 0.001; CHF: -8.83 ppt, p < 0.001; pneumonia: -1.97 ppt, p < 0.001) and skilled nursing facility referrals (AMI: -5.95 ppt, p < 0.001; CHF: -3.19 ppt, p < 0.001; pneumonia: -10.27 ppt, p < 0.001).ConclusionsHRRP was associated with reductions in FRIs, primarily for HF and pneumonia patients. These decreases may reflect improvements in transitional care including changes in post-acute referral patterns that benefit patients at risk for falls.
| S-EPMC10771912 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMedicare is experimenting with numerous concurrent reforms aimed at improving quality and value for hospitals. It is unclear if these myriad reforms are mutually reinforcing or in conflict with each other.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether hospital participation in voluntary value-based reforms was associated with greater improvement under Medicare's Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP).Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective, longitudinal study using publicly available national data from Hospital Compare on hospital readmissions for 2837 hospitals from 2008 to 2015. We assessed hospital participation in 3 voluntary value-based reforms: Meaningful Use of Electronic Health Records; the Bundled Payment for Care Initiative episode-based payment program (BPCI); and Medicare's Pioneer and Shared Savings accountable care organization (ACO) programs. We used an interrupted time series design to test whether hospitals' time-varying participation in these value-based reforms was associated with greater improvement in Medicare's HRRP.Main outcomes and measuresThirty-day risk standardized readmission rates for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure, and pneumonia.ResultsAmong the 2837 hospitals in this study, participation in value-based reforms varied considerably over the study period. In 2010, no hospitals were participating in the meaningful use, ACO, or BPCI programs. By 2015, only 56 hospitals were not participating in at least 1 of these programs. Among hospitals that did not participate in any voluntary reforms, the association between the HRRP and 30-day readmission was -0.76 percentage points for AMI (95% CI, -0.93 to -0.60), -1.30 percentage points for heart failure (95% CI, -1.47 to -1.13), and -0.82 percentage points for pneumonia (95% CI, -0.97 to -0.67). Participation in the meaningful use program alone was associated with an additional change in 30-day readmissions of -0.78 percentage points for AMI (95% CI, -0.89 to -0.67), -0.97 percentage points for heart failure (95% CI, -1.08 to -0.86), and -0.56 percentage points for pneumonia (95% CI, -0.65 to -0.47). Participation in ACO programs alone was associated with an additional change in 30-day readmissions of -0.94 percentage points for AMI (95% CI, -1.29 to -0.59), -0.83 percentage points for heart failure (95% CI, -1.26 to -0.41), and -0.59 percentage points for pneumonia (95% CI, -1.00 to -0.18). Participation in multiple reforms led to greater improvement: participation in all 3 programs was associated with an additional change in 30-day readmissions of -1.27 percentage points for AMI (95% CI, -1.58 to -0.97), -1.64 percentage points for heart failure (95% CI, -2.02 to -1.26), and -1.05 percentage points for pneumonia (95% CI, -1.32 to -0.78).Conclusions and relevanceHospital participation in voluntary value-based reforms was associated with greater reductions in readmissions. Our findings lend support for Medicare's multipronged strategy to improve hospital quality and value.
| S-EPMC5800776 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) evaluates acute care hospitals on the occurrence of patient safety events and health care-associated infections. Since its implementation, several studies have raised concerns about the overpenalization of teaching and safety-net hospitals, and although several changes in the program's methodology have been applied in the last few years, whether these changes reversed the overpenalization of teaching and safety-net hospitals is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine hospital characteristics associated with HACRP penalization and penalization reversal.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cross-sectional study assessed data from 3117 acute care hospitals participating in the HACRP. The HACRP penalization and hospital characteristics were obtained from Hospital Compare (2020 and 2021), the Inpatient Prospective Payment System impact file (2020), and the American Hospital Association annual survey (2018).ExposuresHospital characteristics, including safety-net status and teaching intensity (no teaching and very minor, minor, major, and very major teaching levels).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was HACRP penalization (ie, hospitals that fell within the worst quartile of the program's performance). Multivariable models initially included all covariates, and then backward stepwise variable selection was used.ResultsOf 3117 hospitals that participated in HACRP in 2020, 779 (25.0%) were safety-net hospitals and 1090 (35.0%) were teaching institutions. In total, 771 hospitals (24.7%) were penalized. The HACRP penalization was associated with safety-net status (odds ratio [OR], 1.41 [95% CI, 1.16-1.71]) and very major teaching intensity (OR, 1.94 [95% CI, 1.15-3.28]). In addition, non-federal government hospitals were more likely to be penalized than for-profit hospitals (OR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.23-2.14]), as were level I trauma centers (OR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.43-2.96]) and hospitals located in the New England region (OR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.12-2.43]). Safety-net hospitals with major teaching levels were twice as likely to be penalized as non-safety-net nonteaching hospitals (OR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.14-4.03]). Furthermore, safety-net hospitals penalized in 2020 were less likely (OR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.43-0.96]) to revert their HACRP penalization status in 2021.Conclusions and relevanceFindings from this cross-sectional study indicated that teaching and safety-net hospital status continued to be associated with overpenalization in the HACRP despite recent changes in its methodology. Most of these hospitals were also less likely to revert their penalization status. A reevaluation of the program methodology is needed to avoid depleting resources of hospitals caring for underserved populations.
| S-EPMC10873765 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare trends in readmission rates among safety net and non-safety net hospitals under the US Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP).DesignA retrospective time series analysis using Medicare administrative claims data from January 2008 to June 2015.SettingWe examined 3254 US hospitals eligible for penalties under the HRRP, categorised as safety net or non-safety net hospitals based on the hospital's proportion of patients with low socioeconomic status.ParticipantsAdmissions for Medicare fee-for-service patients, age ≥65 years, discharged alive, who had a valid five-digit zip code and did not have a principal discharge diagnosis of cancer or psychiatric illness were included, for a total of 52 516 213 index admissions.Primary and secondary outcome measuresMean hospital-level, all-condition, 30-day risk-adjusted standardised unplanned readmission rate, measured quarterly, along with quarterly rate of change, and an interrupted time series examining: April-June 2010, after HRRP was passed, and October-December 2012, after HRRP penalties were implemented.Results58.0% (SD 15.3) of safety net hospitals and 17.1% (SD 10.4) of non-safety net hospitals' patients were in the lowest quartile of socioeconomic status. The mean safety net hospital standardised readmission rate declined from 17.0% (SD 3.7) to 13.6% (SD 3.6), whereas the mean non-safety net hospital declined from 15.4% (SD 3.0) to 12.7% (SD 2.5). The absolute difference in rates between safety net and non-safety net hospitals declined from 1.6% (95% CI 1.3 to 1.9) to 0.9% (0.7 to 1.2). The quarterly decline in standardised readmission rates was 0.03 percentage points (95% CI 0.03 to 0.02, p<0.001) greater among safety net hospitals over the entire study period, and no differential change among safety net and non-safety net hospitals was found after either HRRP was passed or penalties enacted.ConclusionsSince HRRP was passed and penalties implemented, readmission rates for safety net hospitals have decreased more rapidly than those for non-safety net hospitals.
| S-EPMC5541519 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether a hospital's percentage of Black patients associates with variations in FY2017 overall/domain-specific Hospital Acquired-Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) scores and penalty receipt. Differences in socioeconomic status and receipt of disproportionate share hospital payments (a marker of safety-net status) were also assessed.Summary of background dataIn FY2015, Medicare began reducing payments to hospitals with high adverse event rates. Concern has been expressed that HACRP penalties could adversely affect minority-serving hospitals, leading to reductions in resources and exasperation of disparities among hospitals with the greatest need.Methods100% Medicare FFS claims from 2013 to 2014 identified older adult inpatients, aged ≥65 years, presenting for 8 common surgical conditions. Multilevel mixed-effects regression determined differences in FY2017 HACRP scores/penalties among hospitals managing the highest decile of minority patients.ResultsA total of 695,775 patients from 2923 hospitals were included. As a hospital's percentage of Black patients increased, climbing from 0.6% to 32.5% (lowest vs highest decile), average HACRP scores also increased, rising from 5.33 to 6.36 (higher values indicate worse scores). Increases in HACRP penalties did not follow the same stepwise increase, instead exhibiting a marked jump within the highest decile of racial minority-serving extent (45.7% vs 36.7%; OR [95% CI]: 1.45[1.42-1.47]). Similar patterns were observed for high disproportionate share hospital (OR [95% CI]: 1.44 [1.42-1.47]; absolute difference: +7.4 percentage-points) and low socioeconomic status-serving (1.38[1.35-1.40]; +7.3% percentage-points) hospitals. Restricted analyses accounting for the influence of teaching status and severity of patient case-mix both accentuated disparities in HACRP penalties when limiting hospitals to those at the highest known penalty-risk (more residents-to-beds, more severe), absolute differences +13.9, +20.5 percentage-points. Restriction to high operative volume, in contrast, reduced the penalty difference, +6.6 percentage-points.ConclusionsMinority-serving hospitals are being disproportionately penalized by the HACRP. As the program continues to develop, efforts are needed to identify and protect patients in vulnerable institutions to ensure that disparities do not increase.
| S-EPMC8106480 | biostudies-literature