30-day Risk-standardized Readmission Rates Research Articles

Including socioeconomic status reduces readmission penalties to safety-net hospitals

ObjectiveMedicare’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) financially penalizes “excessive” postoperative readmissions. Concerned with creating a double standard for institutions treating a high percentage of economically vulnerable patients, Medicare elected to exclude socioeconomic status (SES) from its risk-adjustment model. However, recent evidence suggests that safety-net hospitals (SNHs) caring for many low-SES patients are disproportionately penalized under the HRRP. We sought to simulate the impact of including SES-sensitive models on HRRP penalties for hospitals performing lower extremity revascularization (LER). MethodsThis is a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of national data on Medicare patients undergoing open or endovascular LER procedures between 2007 and 2009. We used hierarchical logistic regression to generate hospital risk-standardized 30-day readmission rates under Medicare’s current model (adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and procedure type) compared with models that also adjust for SES. We estimated the likelihood of a penalty and penalty size for SNHs compared with non-SNHs under the current Medicare model and these SES-sensitive models. ResultsOur study population comprised 1708 hospitals performing 284,724 LER operations with an overall unadjusted readmission rate of 14.4% (standard deviation: 5.3%). Compared with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services model, adjusting for SES would not change the proportion of SNHs penalized for excess readmissions (55.1% vs 53.4%, P = .101) but would reduce penalty amounts for 38% of SNHs compared with only 17% of non-SNHs, P < .001. ConclusionsFor LER, changing national Medicare policy to including SES in readmission risk-adjustment models would reduce penalty amounts to SNHs, especially for those that are also teaching institutions. Making further strides toward reducing the national disparity between SNHs and non-SHNs on readmissions, performance measures require strategies beyond simply altering the risk-adjustment model to include SES.

Achieving Equity in Hospital Performance Assessments Using Composite Race-Specific Measures of Risk-Standardized Readmission and Mortality Rates for Heart Failure.

The contemporary measures of hospital performance for heart failure hospitalization and 30-day risk-standardized readmission rate (RSRR) and risk-standardized mortality rate (RSMR) are estimated using the same risk adjustment model and overall event rate for all patients. Thus, these measures are mainly driven by the care quality and outcomes for the majority racial and ethnic group, and may not adequately represent the hospital performance for patients of Black and other races. Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries from January 2014 to December 2019 hospitalized with heart failure were identified. Hospital-level 30-day RSRR and RSMR were estimated using the traditional race-agnostic models and the race-specific approach. The composite race-specific performance metric was calculated as the average of the RSRR/RMSR measures derived separately for each race and ethnicity group. Correlation and concordance in hospital performance for all patients and patients of Black and other races were assessed using the composite race-specific and race-agnostic metrics. The study included 1 903 232 patients (75.7% White [n=1 439 958]; 14.5% Black [n=276 684]; and 9.8% other races [n=186 590]) with heart failure from 1860 hospitals. There was a modest correlation between hospital-level 30-day performance metrics for patients of White versus Black race (Pearson correlation coefficient: RSRR=0.42; RSMR=0.26). Compared with the race-agnostic RSRR and RSMR, composite race-specific metrics for all patients demonstrated stronger correlation with RSRR (correlation coefficient: 0.60 versus 0.74) and RSMR (correlation coefficient: 0.44 versus 0.51) for Black patients. Concordance in hospital performance for all patients and patients of Black race was also higher with race-specific (versus race-agnostic) metrics (RSRR=64% versus 53% concordantly high-performing; 61% versus 51% concordantly low-performing). Race-specific RSRR and RSMR metrics (versus race-agnostic) led to reclassification in performance ranking of 35.8% and 39.2% of hospitals, respectively, with better 30-day and 1-year outcomes for patients of all race groups at hospitals reclassified as high-performing. Among patients hospitalized with heart failure, race-specific 30-day RSMR and RSRR are more equitable in representing hospital performance for patients of Black and other races.

Abstract 157: Association Of Hospital Performance With 1-Year Mortality And Recurrence After Ischemic Stroke Among US Medicare Beneficiaries

Background: Whether stroke patients treated at hospitals with better short-term quality performance metrics have better long-term outcomes is unknown. We determined if ischemic stroke patients treated at US hospitals with better past performance on the Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services (CMS) 30-day mortality and readmission outcome measures for stroke had better 1-year outcomes compared to those treated at other hospitals. Methods: We included all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged ≥65 years discharged alive from US hospitals with a principal diagnosis of ischemic stroke from 07/01/2015 to 12/31/2018. We categorized patients by the treating hospital’s performance on the CMS hospital-specific 30-day risk-standardized all-cause mortality and readmission rate measures for stroke from 07/01/2012 to 06/30/2015: Low-Low (both CMS mortality and readmission rates for the hospital were &lt;25 th percentile of national rates), High-High (both &gt;75 th percentile), and Intermediate (all others). We balanced characteristics between hospital performance categories using stabilized inverse probability weights (IPW) based on patient demographic and clinical factors. We fit Cox models to assess patient risks of 1-year mortality and recurrent stroke across hospital performance categories, weighted by the IPW and accounting for competing risks. Results: There were 595,929 stroke patients (mean age 78.9y, 54.4% women, 82.2% White) discharged from 134 Low-Low, 2288 Intermediate, and 141 High-High hospitals. For patients treated at Low-Low, Intermediate, and High-High hospitals, respectively, 1-year mortality rates were 23.8% (95% CI 23.3-24.3%), 25.2% (25.1-25.3%), and 26.5% (26.1-26.9%), and recurrence rates were 8.0% (7.6-8.3%), 7.9% (7.8-8.0%), and 8.0% (7.7-8.3%). Compared with patients at High-High hospitals, those at Low-Low and Intermediate hospitals, respectively, had 15% (hazard ratio 0.85; 95% CI 0.82-0.87) and 9% (0.91; 0.89-0.93) lower risks of 1-year mortality but no difference in 1-year recurrence. Conclusions: Ischemic stroke patients treated at better-performing hospitals had lower risks of post-discharge 1-year mortality but similar risks of recurrent stroke compared with patients treated at other hospitals.

Association of readmission penalty amount with subsequent 30-day risk standardized readmission and mortality rates among patients hospitalized with heart failure: An analysis of get with the guidelines – heart failure participating centers

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program penalizes hospitals with excess 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRR) for heart failure (HF). The association of financial penalty amount with subsequent short-term clinical outcomes is unknown. Patients admitted to American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-HF registry participating centers from October 1, 2012 through December 1, 2015 who had Medicare-linked data were included. October 2012 hospital-specific penalty amounts were calculated based on diagnosis-related group payments and excess readmission ratios. Adjusted Cox models were created to evaluate the association of penalty amount categories (non-penalized: 0%; low-penalized: >0%-<0.50%; mid-penalized ≥0.50%-<0.99%; high-penalized ≥0.99%) with subsequent 30-day RSRR and risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMR). Trends in post-discharge 30-day RSRR and RSMR from 2012 to 2015 were analyzed across hospitals stratified by penalty amount categories. The present study included 61,329 patients who were admitted across 262 hospitals. Compared with patients admitted to non-penalized hospitals (36.3%), those admitted to increasingly penalized hospitals were more likely to have higher 30-day RSRR (low-penalized [43.9%]: HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.04-1.16]; mid-penalized [12.0%]: HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.99-1.16]; high-penalized [7.9%]: HR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.12-1.35]) but not 30-day RSMR. Over time, 30-day RSRR and RSMR did not meaningfully change across penalized versus non-penalized hospitals. Financial penalties based on 30-day RSRR are not associated with declines in 30-day RSRR or RSMR from 2012 to 2015 among patients hospitalized with HF. Financially penalizing hospitals based on current Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program metrics may not incentivize improvements in short-term clinical outcomes for HF.

Association of Inclusion of Medicare Advantage Patients in Hospitals’ Risk-Standardized Readmission Rates, Performance, and Penalty Status

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program publicly reports and financially penalizes hospitals according to 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) exclusively among traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries but not persons with Medicare Advantage (MA) coverage. Exclusively reporting readmission rates for the TM population may not accurately reflect hospitals' readmission rates for older adults. To examine how inclusion of MA patients in hospitals' performance is associated with readmission measures and eligibility for financial penalties. This is a retrospective cohort study linking the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review file with the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set at 4070 US acute care hospitals admitting both TM and MA patients. Participants included patients admitted and discharged alive with a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure (CHF), or pneumonia between 2011 and 2015. Data analyses were conducted between April 1, 2018, and November 20, 2020. Admission to an acute care hospital. The outcome was readmission for any reason occurring within 30 days after discharge. Each hospital's 30-day RSRR was computed on the basis of TM, MA, and all patients and estimated changes in hospitals' performance and eligibility for financial penalties after including MA beneficiaries for calculating 30-day RSRRs. There were 748 033 TM patients (mean [SD] age, 76.8 [83] years; 360 692 [48.2%] women) and 295 928 MA patients (mean [SD] age, 77.5 [7.9] years; 137 422 [46.4%] women) hospitalized and discharged alive for AMI; 1 327 551 TM patients (mean [SD] age, 81 [8.3] years; 735 855 [55.4%] women) and 457 341 MA patients (mean [SD] age, 79.8 [8.1] years; 243 503 [53.2%] women) for CHF; and 2 017 020 TM patients (mean [SD] age, 80.7 [8.5] years; 1 097 151 [54.4%] women) and 610 790 MA patients (mean [SD] age, 79.6 [8.2] years; 321 350 [52.6%] women) for pneumonia. The 30-day RSRRs for TM and MA patients were correlated (correlation coefficients, 0.31 for AMI, 0.40 for CHF, and 0.41 for pneumonia) and the TM-based RSRR systematically underestimated the RSRR for all Medicare patients for each condition. Of the 2820 hospitals with 25 or more admissions for at least 1 of the outcomes of AMI, CHF, and pneumonia, 635 (23%) had a change in their penalty status for at least 1 of these conditions after including MA data. Changes in hospital performance and penalty status with the inclusion of MA patients were greater for hospitals in the highest quartile of MA admissions. In this cohort study, the inclusion of data from MA patients changed the penalty status of a substantial fraction of US hospitals for at least 1 of 3 reported conditions. This suggests that policy makers should consider including all hospital patients, regardless of insurance status, when assessing hospital quality measures.

828. Evaluation of Home Time as a Patient-Centered Metric for Pneumonia Hospitalizations: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Medicare Fee-For-Service Beneficiaries

BackgroundThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) uses hospital readmission to incentivize hospital care delivery for acute conditions including pneumonia. However, current CMS performance metrics do not account for the competing risk of mortality in the post-discharge period or during the hospital stay. Our objective was to assess home time within 30 days after discharge among pneumonia hospitalizations, as a patient-centered metric.MethodsA retrospective observational study was conducted in a cohort of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries admitted between 01/01/2015 and 11/30/2017. Home time was the number of days spent alive, out of an acute care setting, skilled nursing facility, or a rehabilitation facility within 30 days of discharge. If a patient spends any part of a day in a care facility or died after discharge, then that day was not included in the calculation for home time. Hospital-level rates of risk-adjusted home time were calculated using multilevel regression models. We compared hospital performance on 30-day risk-standardized home time with its performance on 30-day risk standardized readmission rate (RSRR) and mortality rate (RSMR). Characteristics of hospitals with high and low risk-adjusted home-time were compared.ResultsAmong 1.7 million pneumonia admissions admitted to 3,116 hospitals, the median 30-day risk-standardized home time was 20.5 days (interquartile range: 18.9-21.9 days). Hospital-level characteristics such as case volume, bed size, for-profit ownership, rural location of hospital, teaching status, and participation in the bundle payment program were significantly associated with home-time. RSRR (rho: -0.233, p< 0.0001) and RSMR (rho: -0.223, p< 0.0001) had weak, inverse correlations with home time. Using the home time metric, 35.5% of hospitals were reclassified as high performers compared with their average or poor performance on the RSRR or RSMR metric.ConclusionHome time is a novel, patient-centered, hospital-level metric that can be easily calculated using claims data, accounts for differences in post-discharge mortality and can be intuitively interpreted. Utilization of this metric could potentially have policy implications in assessing hospital performance on delivery of healthcare to pneumonia patients.DisclosuresRajeshwari Nair, PhD, Merck and Company, Inc. (Research Grant or Support)

Evaluation of Risk-Adjusted Home Time After Hospitalization for Heart Failure as a Potential Hospital Performance Metric

Thirty-day home time, defined as time spent alive and out of a hospital or facility, is a novel, patient-centered performance metric that incorporates readmission and mortality. To characterize risk-adjusted 30-day home time in patients discharged with heart failure (HF) as a hospital-level quality metric and evaluate its association with the 30-day risk-standardized readmission rate (RSRR), 30-day risk-standardized mortality rate (RSMR), and 1-year RSMR. This hospital-level cohort study retrospectively analyzed 100% of Medicare claims data from 2 968 341 patients from 3134 facilities from January 1, 2012, to November 30, 2017. Home time, defined as time spent alive and out of a short-term hospital, skilled nursing facility, or intermediate/long-term facility 30 days after discharge. For each hospital, a risk-adjusted 30-day home time for HF was calculated similar to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services risk-adjustment models for 30-day RSRR and RSMR. Hospitals were categorized into quartiles (lowest to highest risk-adjusted home time). The correlations between hospital rates of risk-adjusted 30-day home time and 30-day RSRR, 30-day RSMR, and 1-year RSMR were estimated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Distribution of days lost from a perfect 30-day home time were calculated. Reclassification of hospital performance using 30-day home time vs 30-day RSRR was also evaluated. Overall, 2 968 341 patients (mean [SD] age, 81.0 [8.3] years; 53.6% female) from 3134 hospitals were included in this study. The median hospital risk-adjusted 30-day home time for patients with HF was 21.77 days (range, 8.22-28.41 days). Hospitals in the highest quartile of risk-adjusted 30-day home time (best-performing hospitals) were larger (mean [SD] number of beds, 285 [275]), with a higher volume of patients with HF (median, 797 patients; interquartile range, 395-1484) and were more likely academic hospitals (59.9%) with availability of cardiac surgery (51.1%) and cardiac rehabilitation (68.8%). A total of 72% of home time lost was attributable to stays in an intermediate- or long-term care facility (mean [SD], 2.65 [6.44] days) or skilled nursing facility (mean [SD], 3.96 [9.04] days), 13% was attributable to short-term readmissions (mean [SD], 1.25 [3.25] days), and 15% was attributable to death (mean [SD], 1.37 [6.04] days). Among 30-day outcomes, the 30-day RSRR and 30-day RSMR decreased in a graded fashion across increasing 30-day home time categories (correlation coefficients: 30-day RSRR and 30-day home time, -0.23, P < .001; 30-day RSMR and 30-day home time, -0.31, P < .001). Similar patterns of association were also noted for 1-year RSMR and 30-day home time (correlation coefficient, -0.35, P < .001). Thirty-day home time meaningfully reclassified hospital performance in 30% of the hospitals compared with 30-day RSRR and in 25% of hospitals compared with 30-day RSMR. In this study, 30-day home time among patients discharged after a hospitalization for HF was objectively assessed as a hospital-level quality metric using Medicare claims data and was associated with readmission and mortality outcomes and with reclassification of hospital performance compared with 30-day RSRR and 30-day RSMR.

Magnet Hospitals and 30-Day Readmission and Mortality Rates for Medicare Beneficiaries.

US hospitals are penalized for excess 30-day readmissions and mortality for select conditions. Under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services policy, readmission prevention is incentivized to a greater extent than mortality reduction. A strategy to potentially improve hospital performance on either measure is by improving nursing care, as nurses provide the largest amount of direct patient care. However, little is known as to whether achieving nursing excellence, such as Magnet status, is associated with improved hospital performance on readmissions and mortality. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between hospitals' Magnet status and performance on readmission and mortality rates for Medicare beneficiaries. This is a cross-sectional analysis of Medicare readmissions and mortality reduction programs from 2013 to 2016. A propensity score-matching approach was used to take into account differences in baseline characteristics when comparing Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals. The sample was comprised of 3877 hospitals. The outcome measures were 30-day risk-standardized readmission and mortality rates. Following propensity score matching on hospital characteristics, we found that Magnet hospitals outperformed non-Magnet hospitals in reducing mortality; however, Magnet hospitals performed worse in reducing readmissions for acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting, and stroke. Magnet hospitals performed better on the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Mortality Program than the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. The results of this study suggest the need for The Magnet Recognition Program to examine the role of nurses in postdischarge activities as a component of its evaluation criteria.

Association of Do-Not-Resuscitate Patient Case Mix With Publicly Reported Risk-Standardized Hospital Mortality and Readmission Rates

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services's (CMS's) 30-day risk-standardized mortality rate (RSMR) and risk-standardized readmission rate (RSRR) models do not adjust for do-not-resuscitate (DNR) status of hospitalized patients and may bias Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) financial penalties and Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings. To identify the association between hospital-level DNR prevalence and condition-specific 30-day RSMR and RSRR and the implications of this association for HRRP financial penalty. This cross-sectional study obtained patient-level data from the Medicare Limited Data Set Inpatient Standard Analytical File and hospital-level data from the CMS Hospital Compare website for all consecutive Medicare inpatient encounters from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2018, in 4484 US hospitals. Hospitalized patients had a principal diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), stroke, pneumonia, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Incoming acute care transfers, discharges against medical advice, and patients coming from or discharged to hospice were among those excluded from the analysis. Present-on-admission (POA) DNR status was defined as an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis code of V49.86 (before October 1, 2015) or as an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision diagnosis code of Z66 (beginning October 1, 2015). Hospital-level prevalence of POA DNR status was calculated for each of the 5 conditions. Hospital-level 30-day RSMRs and RSRRs for 5 condition-specific cohorts (mortality cohorts: AMI, HF, stroke, pneumonia, and COPD; readmission cohorts: AMI, HF, pneumonia, and COPD) and HRRP financial penalty status (yes or no). Included in the study were 4 884 237 inpatient encounters across condition-specific 30-day mortality cohorts (patient mean [SD] age, 78.8 [8.5] years; 2 608 182 women [53.4%]) and 4 450 378 inpatient encounters across condition-specific 30-day readmission cohorts (patient mean [SD] age, 78.6 [8.5] years; 2 349 799 women [52.8%]). Hospital-level median (interquartile range [IQR]) prevalence of POA DNR status in the mortality cohorts varied: 11% (7%-16%) for AMI, 13% (7%-23%) for HF, 14% (9%-22%) for stroke, 17% (9%-26%) for pneumonia, and 10% (5%-18%) for COPD. For the readmission cohorts, the hospital-level median (IQR) POA DNR prevalence was 9% (6%-15%) for AMI, 12% (6%-22%) for HF, 16% (8%-24%) for pneumonia, and 9% (4%-17%) for COPD. The 30-day RSMRs were significantly higher for hospitals in the highest quintiles vs the lowest quintiles of DNR prevalence (eg, AMI: 12.9 [95% CI, 12.8-13.1] vs 12.5 [95% CI, 12.4-12.7]; P < .001). The inverse was true among the readmission cohorts, with the highest quintiles of DNR prevalence exhibiting the lowest RSRRs (eg, AMI: 15.3 [95% CI, 15.1-15.5] vs 15.9 [95% CI, 15.7-16.0]; P < .001). A 1% absolute increase in risk-adjusted hospital-level DNR prevalence was associated with greater odds of avoiding HRRP financial penalty (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.08; P < .001). This cross-sectional study found that the lack of adjustment in CMS 30-day RSMR and RSRR models for POA DNR status of hospitalized patients may be associated with biased readmission penalization and hospital-level performance.

Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program and Post-Acute Care: Implications for Service Delivery and 30-Day Hospital Readmission

ObjectivesExamine whether the introduction of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) is associated with changes in post-acute care (PAC) use and 30-day readmission. DesignA retrospective cohort study examined data prepassage, preimplementation, and postimplementation of the HRRP. Setting and ParticipantsIn total, 7,851,430 Medicare beneficiaries discharged from 5116 acute hospitals to PAC settings including inpatient rehabilitation, skilled nursing, home health, or a long-term care hospital during 2007‒2015. We examined HRRP-targeted conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia) and nontargeted conditions (ischemic stroke, total hip arthroplasty/total knee arthroplasty, and hip/femur fractures). MeasuresThe hospital-level of quarterly PAC use and the association with 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates. Outcomes were calculated for HRRP-targeted and nontargeted conditions/diagnoses across 3 phases of HRRP implementation. ResultsAn increase in quarterly PAC use was significantly (P < .001) associated with a decrease in 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and hip/femur fracture. In contrast, an increase in quarterly PAC use was significantly associated with an increase in readmission rate for total hip arthroplasty/total knee arthroplasty (P < 001). PAC quarterly use and readmission rates varied significantly during implementation periods for HRRP- targeted and nontargeted conditions. Conclusions and ImplicationsThe impact on readmission after PAC for selected impairment groups may be mediated by the type of PAC services received and whether the diagnoses is included in the HRRP. Additional research is necessary to determine if a reduction in readmission is associated with inclusion in the HRRP or is a side effect related to diagnostic group and/or type of PAC services received.

Evaluation of Risk-Adjusted Home Time After Acute Myocardial Infarction as a Novel Hospital-Level Performance Metric for Medicare Beneficiaries.

The utility of 30-day risk-standardized readmission rate (RSRR) as a hospital performance metric has been a matter of debate. Home time is a patient-centered outcome measure that accounts for rehospitalization, mortality, and postdischarge care. We aim to characterize risk-adjusted 30-day home time in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) as a hospital-level performance metric and to evaluate associations with 30-day RSRR, 30-day risk-standardized mortality rate (RSMR), and 1-year RSMR. The study included 984 612 patients with AMI hospitalization across 2379 hospitals between 2009 and 2015 derived from 100% Medicare claims data. Home time was defined as the number of days alive and spent outside of a hospital, skilled nursing facility, or intermediate-/long-term acute care facility 30 days after discharge. Correlations between hospital-level risk-adjusted 30-day home time and 30-day RSRR, 30-day RSMR, and 1-year RSMR were estimated with the Pearson correlation. Reclassification in hospital performance using 30-day home time versus 30-day RSRR and 30-day RSMR was also evaluated. Median hospital-level risk-adjusted 30-day home time was 24.0 days (range, 15.3-29.0 days). Hospitals with higher home time were more commonly academic centers, had available cardiac surgery and rehabilitation services, and had higher AMI volume and percutaneous coronary intervention use during the AMI hospitalization. Of the mean 30-day home time days lost, 58% were to intermediate-/long-term care or skilled nursing facility stays (4.7 days), 30% to death (2.5 days), and 12% to readmission (1.0 days). Hospital-level risk-adjusted 30-day home time was inversely correlated with 30-day RSMR (r=-0.22, P<0.0001) and 30-day RSRR (r=-0.25, P<0.0001). Patients admitted to hospitals with higher risk-adjusted 30-day home time had lower 30-day readmission (quartile 1 versus 4, 21% versus 17%), 30-day mortality rate (5% versus 3%), and 1-year mortality rate (18% versus 12%). Furthermore, 30-day home time reclassified hospital performance status in ≈30% of hospitals versus 30-day RSRR and 30-day RSMR. Thirty-day home time for patients with AMI can be assessed as a hospital-level performance metric with the use of Medicare claims data. It varies across hospitals, is associated with postdischarge readmission and mortality outcomes, and meaningfully reclassifies hospital performance compared with the 30-day RSRR and 30-day RSMR metrics.

Impact of left ventricular assist devices and heart transplants on acute myocardial infarction and heart failure mortality and readmission measures.

Concern has been raised about consequences of including patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or heart transplantation in readmission and mortality measures. We calculated unadjusted and hospital-specific 30-day risk-standardized mortality (RSMR) and readmission (RSRR) rates for all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with a primary diagnosis of AMI or HF discharged between July 2010 and June 2013. Hospitals were compared before and after excluding LVAD and heart transplantation patients. LVAD indication was measured. In the AMI mortality (n = 506,543) and readmission (n = 526,309) cohorts, 1,166 and 1,016 patients received an LVAD while 3 and 2 had a heart transplantation, respectively. In the HF mortality (n = 1,015,335) and readmission (n = 1,254,124) cohorts, 789 and 931 received an LVAD, while 212 and 202 received a heart transplantation, respectively. Less than 2% of hospitals had either ≥6 patients who received an LVAD or, independently, had ≥1 heart transplantation. The AMI mortality and readmission cohorts used 1.8% and 2.8% of LVADs for semi-permanent/permanent indications, versus 73.8% and 78.0% for HF patients, respectively. The rest were for temporary/external indications. In the AMI cohort, RSMR for hospitals without LVAD patients versus hospitals with ≥6 LVADs was 14.8% and 14.3%, and RSRR was 17.8% and 18.3%, respectively; the HF cohort RSMR was 11.9% and 9.7% and RSRR was 22.6% and 23.4%, respectively. In the AMI cohort, RSMR for hospitals without versus with heart transplantation patients was 14.7% and 13.9% and RSRR was 17.8% and 17.7%, respectively; in the HF cohort, RSMR was 11.9% and 11.0%, and RSRR was 22.6% and 22.6%, respectively. Estimations changed ≤0.1% after excluding LVAD or heart transplantation patients. Hospitals caring for ≥6 patients with LVAD or ≥1 heart transplantation typically had a trend toward lower RSMRs but higher RSRRs. Rates were insignificantly changed when these patients were excluded. LVADs were primarily for acute-care in the AMI cohort and chronic support in the HF cohort. LVAD and heart transplantation patients are a distinct group with differential care requirements and outcomes, thus should be considered separately from the rest of the HF cohort.

Effect of Hospital Readmission Reduction Program on Hospital Readmissions and Mortality Rates.

Although the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) has reduced the 30-day readmission rates for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) across hospitals, the effect of HRRP on hospital mortality remains unknown. Therefore, we examined the association between hospital readmissions and mortality rates for patients discharged with acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD). The all-cause hospital-specific 30-day risk-standardized mortality rate (RSMR) and the 30-day risk-standardized readmission rate (RSRR) for patients with COPD from 2010 to 2017 were obtained from the Hospital Compare website. Hospital service area (HSA) information was obtained from the Dartmouth Atlas of Healthcare. The longitudinal relationship between the mortality and readmission rates of a hospital was assessed using mixed linear models. Of the 3,685 hospitals analyzed, the unadjusted mean RSMRs increased from 7.8% to 8.4% during the study period at a yearly rate of 0.13 (95% CI = 0.12 to 0.14; P < .001), whereas the mean RSRRs declined from 20.7% to 19.6%. When examined according to the baseline readmission rate and interaction with time, each 1% higher-than-baseline readmission rate was associated with a smaller increase in mortality rate by 0.015% (95% CI = -0.02 to -0.01; P < .0001). Inclusion of change in readmissions in the model showed that each 1% decrease in readmission rate was associated with 0.04% (95% CI = -0.01 to -0.06; P = .008) increase in mortality. This hospital-level analysis of AECOPD showed that although the 30-day all-cause readmission rates declined, the mortality rates increased. Hospitals with lower readmission rates had higher mortality rates over time.

Post-Acute-Care (PAC) Utilization on 30-Day Risk-Standardized Readmission Rate (RSRR)

Abstract Date Presented 04/06/19 This study is the first in examining the relationship between PAC utilization, Medicare HRRP, and 30-day unplanned RSRR for HRRP targeted and nontargeted impairment conditions. The study finding provides healthcare policy makers with preliminary information to understand the impact of PAC utilization on RSRRs. Primary Author and Speaker: Chih-Ying Li Additional Authors and Speakers: Amol Karmarkar, Yu-Li Lin, Yong-Fang Kuo, Kenneth Ottenbacher

Examining the Utility of 30-day Readmission Rates and Hospital Profiling in the Veterans Health Administration.

The Veterans Health Administration (VA) reports hospital-specific 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) using CMS-derived models. The aim of this study was to examine and describe the interfacility variability of 30-day RSRRs for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia as a means to assess its utility for VA quality improvement and hospital comparison. A retrospective analysis of VA and Medicare claims data using one-year (2012) and three-year (2010-2012) data given their use for quality improvement or for hospital comparison, respectively. This study included 3,571 patients hospitalized for AMI at 56 hospitals, 10,609 patients hospitalized for HF at 102 hospitals, and 10,191 patients hospitalized for pneumonia at 106 hospitals. Hospital-specific 30-day RSRRs for AMI, HF, and pneumonia hospitalizations were calculated using hierarchical generalized linear models. Of 164 qualifying VA hospitals, 56 (34%), 102 (62%), and 106 (64%) qualified for analysis based on CMS criteria for AMI, HF, and pneumonia cohorts, respectively. Using 2012 data, we found that two hospitals (2%) had CHF RSRRs worse than the national average (+95% CI), whereas no hospital demonstrated worse-than-average risk-stratified readmission Rate (RSRR; +95% CI) for AMI or pneumonia. After increasing the number of facility admissions by combining three years of data, we found that four (range: 3.5%-5.3%) hospitals had RSRRs worse than the national average (+95% CI) for all three conditions. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-derived 30-day readmission measure may not be a useful measure to distinguish VA interfacility performance or drive quality improvement given the low facility-level volume of such readmissions.

Greater Reductions in Readmission Rates Achieved by Urban Hospitals Participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program.

Accountable Care Organizations in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) have financial incentives to reduce the cost and improve the quality of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries that they serve. However, previous research about the impact of the MSSP on readmissions is limited and mixed. To examine the association between hospital participation in the MSSP during the 2012-2013 period and reductions in 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates for Medicare patients initially admitted for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure (HF), pneumonia, or any cause. Difference-in-differences estimation to compare the change in readmission rates for hospitals participating in the MSSP with that of other hospitals. Acute care hospitals that either participated in the MSSP or did not participate in any of Medicare Accountable Care Organization programs (for acute myocardial infarction, n=1631; for HF, n=1889; for pneumonia, n=1896; for any cause, n=2067). Compared with nonparticipating hospitals, MSSP-participating hospitals showed greater reductions in readmission rates for Medicare patients originally admitted for HF by 0.47 percentage points [95% confidence interval (CI), -0.76 to -0.17] and for pneumonia by 0.26 percentage points (95% CI, -0.49 to -0.03). MSSP-participating hospitals also showed more reductions in hospital-wide all-cause readmission by 0.10 percentage points (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.01), relative to nonparticipating hospitals during the first year of MSSP. MSSP-participating hospitals showed slightly greater reductions in readmissions during postimplementation years for Medicare patients initially admitted for HF or pneumonia, compared with other hospitals.

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program-learning from failure of a healthcare policy.

Heart failure is the leading cause of readmissions in patients aged ≥65 years with high associated societal and economic costs. The utilization metric of 30-day risk standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) has therefore become a target to reduce healthcare costs. In this review, we discuss in detail the implementation, effectiveness, and unintended consequences of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP)-the major healthcare policy approach in the U.S. to reduce readmissions by financially penalizing hospitals with higher than average 30-day RSRRs. The HRRP was enacted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (popularly known as 'Obamacare'). The public reporting of RSRRs began in June 2009 and the HRRP readmission penalties went into effect starting fiscal year 2013. The policy had limited success in achieving its primary objective of reducing readmissions as the achieved reduction in heart failure readmissions was much smaller (∼9%) than anticipated (∼25%) with some of the reduction in RSRRs attributable to the artifact of administrative upcoding post-HRRP rather than an actual decline in readmissions. From the time of passage of this law, there have been significant concerns regarding gaming of the system such as increase in observation stays, delaying readmissions beyond discharge day 30, and inappropriate triage strategies in emergency departments in order to achieve lower readmission rates to avoid penalties. A series of independent reports have now suggested that implementation of the HRRP was associated with an increase in 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year risk-adjusted heart failure mortality in the U.S. with reversal in decade long trend of declining heart failure mortality. We review the evidence behind effect of the HRRP on readmissions and mortality outcomes as well as discuss various lessons to be learned from the design, implementation, and consequences of this policy.

National Trends of Hospital Performance in Acute Myocardial Infarction Care: Department of Veterans Affairs, 2011-2014.

Rates of mortality and readmission, both within 30 days of an admission with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), are key measures of hospital performance. A recent report demonstrated that Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals had lower AMI mortality but higher readmission rates at 30 days compared with Medicare fee for service hospitals from 2010 to 2013.1 Although this information provides an overall assessment of the quality of care provided, it is also important to understand facility-level and temporal variations of these performance metrics to inform ongoing quality improvement efforts. Accordingly, we sought to characterize contemporary facility-level variations (ie, variation across hospitals not explained by variation in patient risk) in 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) and 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) across the VA, to identify underperforming or overperforming sites, and to assess temporal variations in these metrics. Data from the VA External Peer Review Program, in which trained staff abstracted clinical data from comprehensive chart reviews, were linked with the VA Corporate Data Warehouse—a source of inpatient and outpatient administrative data inclusive of vital status. Patients who were admitted to a VA hospital from January 1, 2011, to February 28, 2014, and assigned an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision: Clinical Modification diagnosis code of 410.xx irrespective of age were included. Those transferred into the VA system were excluded. If a patient had multiple AMIs in the study time period, 1 AMI was randomly chosen for inclusion in the study. Outcome measures of interest were 30-day all-cause mortality and 30-day unplanned, all-cause readmission. The latter included VA and non-VA hospital readmissions for which the VA was billed. Hospitals with <20 AMI admissions during the study period were excluded. To assess outcome variation across hospitals, hospital-specific RSMRs and RSRRs were estimated using hierarchical log-binomial regression models to account for the clustering …

A Hospital Level Analysis of 30-Day Readmission Performance for Heart Failure Patients and Long-Term Survival: Findings from Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure

BackgroundMedicare utilizes 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRR) as a measure of hospital quality and applies penalties based on this measure. The objective of this study was to identify the relationship between hospital performance on 30-day RSRR in heart failure (HF) patients and long-term patient survival. MethodsData were collected from Get With The Guidelines (GWTG)-HF and linked with Medicare data. Based on hospital performance for 30-day RSRR, hospitals were grouped into performance quartiles: top 25% (N=11,181), 25-50% (N=10,367), 50-75% (N=8729), and bottom 25% (N=7180). The primary outcome was mortality at 3 years applying Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics. ResultsThe overall 30-day readmission rate was 19.8% and the 3-year mortality rates were 61.8%, 61.0%, 62.6%, and 59.9% for top 25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, and bottom 25% hospitals for 30-day RSRR performance, respectively. Compared to bottom 25% performing hospitals, adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for 3-year mortality were HR 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-1.01), HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.94), HR 1.01 (95% CI 0.95-1.06) for the top 25%, 25-50% and 50-75% hospitals respectively. Median survival time was highest for the bottom 25% hospitals on the 30-day RSRR metric. ConclusionHospital performance on 30-day readmissions in HF has no or little association with risk adjusted 3-year mortality or median survival. There is a compelling need to utilize more meaningful and patient-centered outcome measures for reporting and incentivizing quality care for HF.

Readmissions After Revascularization Procedures for Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

Limited data suggest high rates of unplanned rehospitalization after endovascular and surgical revascularization for peripheral arterial disease. However, the overall burden of readmissions has not been comprehensively explored. To evaluate nationwide readmissions after peripheral arterial revascularization for peripheral arterial disease and to assess whether readmission risk varies among hospitals. Retrospective cohort study. 1085 U.S. acute care hospitals participating in the Nationwide Readmissions Database. 61969 unweighted hospitalizations of patients with peripheral arterial disease who had peripheral arterial revascularization and were discharged alive between 1 January and 30 November 2014. 30-day readmission rates, causes, and costs of unplanned rehospitalizations after peripheral arterial revascularization; 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs), calculated using hierarchical logistic regression, to assess for heterogeneity of readmission risk between hospitals. Among 61969 hospitalizations of patients with peripheral arterial disease who were discharged alive after peripheral arterial revascularization, the 30-day nonelective readmission rate was 17.6%. The most common cause of readmission was procedural complications (28.0%), followed by sepsis (8.3%) and complications due to diabetes mellitus (7.5%). Among rehospitalized patients, 21.0% underwent a subsequent peripheral arterial revascularization or lower extremity amputation, 4.6% died, and the median cost of a readmission was $11013. Thirty-day RSRRs varied from 10.0% to 27.3% (interquartile range, 16.6% to 18.8%). Inability to distinguish out-of-hospital deaths after discharge and potential misclassification bias due to use of billing codes to ascertain diagnoses and interventions. More than 1 in 6 patients with peripheral arterial disease who undergo peripheral arterial revascularization have unplanned readmission within 30 days, with high associated mortality risks and costs. Procedure- and patient-related factors were the primary reasons for readmission. Readmission rates varied moderately between institutions after hospital case mix was accounted for, suggesting that differences in hospital quality may only partially account for readmission. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.