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.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the association between hospital penalization in the US Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) and subsequent changes in clinical outcomes. DESIGN:Regression discontinuity design applied to a retrospective cohort from inpatient Medicare claims. SETTING:3238 acute care hospitals in the United States. PARTICIPANTS:Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged from acute care hospitals between 23 July 2014 and 30 November 2016 and eligible for at least one targeted hospital acquired condition (n=15 470 334). INTERVENTION:Hospital receipt of a penalty in the first year of the HACRP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Episode level count of targeted hospital acquired conditions per 1000 episodes, 30 day readmissions, and 30 day mortality. RESULTS:Of 724 hospitals penalized under the HACRP in fiscal year 2015, 708 were represented in the study. Mean counts of hospital acquired conditions were 2.72 per 1000 episodes for penalized hospitals and 2.06 per 1000 episodes for non-penalized hospitals; 30 day readmissions were 14.4% and 14.0%, respectively, and 30 day mortality was 9.0% for both hospital groups. Penalized hospitals were more likely to be large, teaching institutions, and have a greater share of patients with low socioeconomic status than non-penalized hospitals. HACRP penalties were associated with a non-significant change of -0.16 hospital acquired conditions per 1000 episodes (95% confidence interval -0.53 to 0.20), -0.36 percentage points in 30 day readmission (-1.06 to 0.33), and -0.04 percentage points in 30 day mortality (-0.59 to 0.52). No clear patterns of clinical improvement were observed across hospital characteristics. CONCLUSIONS:Penalization was not associated with significant changes in rates of hospital acquired conditions, 30 day readmission, or 30 day mortality, and does not appear to drive meaningful clinical improvements. By disproportionately penalizing hospitals caring for more disadvantaged patients, the HACRP could exacerbate inequities in care.

Project description:ImportanceReadmission 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.ObjectiveTo compare trends in readmission rates for target and nontarget conditions, stratified by hospital penalty status.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective 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.ExposureHospital penalty status or target condition under the HRRP.Main outcomes and measuresThirty-day risk adjusted, all-cause unplanned readmission rates for target and nontarget conditions.ResultsThe 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 relevanceMedicare 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.

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.

Project description:BackgroundPrevention of hospital-acquired conditions (HACs) is a focus of trauma center quality improvement. The relative contributions of various HACs to postinjury hospital outcomes are unclear. We sought to quantify and compare the impacts of six HACs on early clinical outcomes and resource utilization in hospitalized trauma patients.MethodsAdult patients from the 2013 to 2016 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Data Files who required 5 days or longer of hospitalization and had an Injury Severity Score of 9 or greater were included. Multiple imputation with chained equations was used for observations with missing data. The frequencies of six HACs and five adverse outcomes were determined. Multivariable Poisson regression with log link and robust error variance was used to produce relative risk estimates, adjusting for patient-, hospital-, and injury-related factors. Risk-adjusted population attributable fractions estimates were derived for each HAC-outcome pair, with the adjusted population attributable fraction estimate for a given HAC-outcome pair representing the estimated percentage decrease in adverse outcome that would be expected if exposure to the HAC had been prevented.ResultsA total of 529,856 patients requiring 5 days or longer of hospitalization were included. The incidences of HACs were as follows: pneumonia, 5.2%; urinary tract infection, 3.4%; venous thromboembolism, 3.3%; surgical site infection, 1.3%; pressure ulcer, 1.3%; and central line-associated blood stream infection, 0.2%. Pneumonia demonstrated the strongest association with in-hospital outcomes and resource utilization. Prevention of pneumonia in our cohort would have resulted in estimated reductions of the following: 22.1% for end organ dysfunction, 7.8% for mortality, 8.7% for prolonged hospitalization, 7.1% for prolonged intensive care unit stay, and 6.8% for need for mechanical ventilation. The impact of other HACs was comparatively small.ConclusionWe describe a method for comparing the contributions of HACs to outcomes of hospitalized trauma patients. Our findings suggest that trauma program improvement efforts should prioritize pneumonia prevention.Level of evidenceTherapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Dataset Information

Accuracy of quality measurement for the Hospital Acquired Conditions Reduction Program.

Publications

Accuracy of quality measurement for the Hospital Acquired Conditions Reduction Program.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets