Safety-Net Hospitals, Neighborhood Disadvantage, and Readmissions Under Maryland's All-Payer Program: An Observational Study.

Background: Safety-net hospitals have higher-than-expected readmission rates. The relative roles of the mean disadvantage of neighborhoods the hospitals serve and the disadvantage of individual patients in predicting a patient's readmission are unclear. Objective: To examine the independent contributions of the patient's neighborhood and the hospital's service area to risk for 30-day readmission. Design: Retrospective observational study. Setting: Maryland. Participants: All Maryland residents discharged from a Maryland hospital in 2015. Measurements: Predictors included the disadvantage of neighborhoods for each Maryland resident (area disadvantage index) and the mean disadvantage of each hospital's discharged patients (safety-net index). The primary outcome was unplanned 30-day hospital readmission. Generalized estimating equations and marginal modeling were used to estimate readmission rates. Results were adjusted for clinical readmission risk. Results: 13.4% of discharged patients were readmitted within 30 days. Patients living in neighborhoods at the 90th percentile of disadvantage had a readmission rate of 14.1% (95% CI, 13.6% to 14.5%) compared with 12.5% (CI, 11.8% to 13.2%) for similar patients living in neighborhoods at the 10th percentile. Patients discharged from hospitals at the 90th percentile of safety-net status had a readmission rate of 14.8% (CI, 13.4% to 16.1%) compared with 11.6% (CI, 10.5% to 12.7%) for similar patients discharged from hospitals at the 10th percentile of safety-net status. The association of readmission risk with the hospital's safety-net index was approximately twice the observed association with the patient's neighborhood disadvantage status. Limitations: Generalizability outside Maryland is unknown. Confounding may be present. Conclusion: In Maryland, residing in a disadvantaged neighborhood and being discharged from a hospital serving a large proportion of disadvantaged neighborhoods are independently associated with increased risk for readmission. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities and Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission.

Regardless of age: Incorporating principles from geriatric medicine to improve care transitions for patients with complex needs.

With its focus on holistic approaches to patient care, caregiver support, and delivery system redesign, geriatrics has advanced our understanding of optimal care during transitions. This article provides a framework for incorporating geriatrics principles into care transition activities by discussing the following elements: (1) identifying factors that make transitions more complex, (2) engaging care "receivers" and tailoring home care to meet patient needs, (3) building "recovery plans" into transitional care, (4) predicting and avoiding preventable readmissions, and (5) adopting a palliative approach, when appropriate, that optimizes patient and family goals of care. The article concludes with a discussion of practical aspects of designing, implementing, and evaluating care transitions programs for those with complex care needs, as well as implications for public policy.

Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program.

BACKGROUND: Reducing rates of rehospitalization has attracted attention from policymakers as a way to improve quality of care and reduce costs. However, we have limited information on the frequency and patterns of rehospitalization in the United States to aid in planning the necessary changes. METHODS: We analyzed Medicare claims data from 2003-2004 to describe the patterns of rehospitalization and the relation of rehospitalization to demographic characteristics of the patients and to characteristics of the hospitals. RESULTS: Almost one fifth (19.6%) of the 11,855,702 Medicare beneficiaries who had been discharged from a hospital were rehospitalized within 30 days, and 34.0% were rehospitalized within 90 days; 67.1% [corrected] of patients who had been discharged with medical conditions and 51.5% of those who had been discharged after surgical procedures were rehospitalized or died within the first year after discharge. In the case of 50.2% [corrected] of the patients who were rehospitalized within 30 days after a medical discharge to the community, there was no bill for a visit to a physician's office between the time of discharge and rehospitalization. Among patients who were rehospitalized within 30 days after a surgical discharge, 70.5% were rehospitalized for a medical condition. We estimate that about 10% of rehospitalizations were likely to have been planned. The average stay of rehospitalized patients was 0.6 day longer than that of patients in the same diagnosis-related group whose most recent hospitalization had been at least 6 months previously. We estimate that the cost to Medicare of unplanned rehospitalizations in 2004 was $17.4 billion. CONCLUSIONS: Rehospitalizations among Medicare beneficiaries are prevalent and costly.

Containing U.S. health care costs: What bullet to bite?

In this article, the authors provide an overview of the problem of health care cost containment. Both the growth of health care spending and its underlying causes are discussed. Further, the authors define cost containment, provide a framework for describing cost-containment strategies, and describe the major cost-containment strategies. Finally, the role of research in choosing such a strategy for the United States is examined.

Using population segmentation to provide better health care for all: the "Bridges to Health" model.

The model discussed in this article divides the population into eight groups: people in good health, in maternal/infant situations, with an acute illness, with stable chronic conditions, with a serious but stable disability, with failing health near death, with advanced organ system failure, and with long-term frailty. Each group has its own definitions of optimal health and its own priorities among services. Interpreting these population-focused priorities in the context of the Institute of Medicine's six goals for quality yields a framework that could shape planning for resources, care arrangements, and service delivery, thus ensuring that each person's health needs can be met effectively and efficiently. Since this framework would guide each population segment across the institute's "Quality Chasm," it is called the "Bridges to Health" model.

Change in the quality of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries, 1998-1999 to 2000-2001.

CONTEXT: Despite widespread concern regarding the quality and safety of health care, and a Medicare Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) program intended to improve that care in the United States, there is only limited information on whether quality is improving. OBJECTIVE: To track national and state-level changes in performance on 22 quality indicators for care of Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN, PATIENTS, AND SETTING: National observational cross-sectional studies of national and state-level fee-for-service data for Medicare beneficiaries during 1998-1999 (baseline) and 2000-2001 (follow-up). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Twenty-two QIO quality indicators abstracted from state-wide random samples of medical records for inpatient fee-for-service care and from Medicare beneficiary surveys or Medicare claims for outpatient care. Absolute improvement is defined as the change in performance from baseline to follow-up (measured in percentage points for all indicators except those measured in minutes); relative improvement is defined as the absolute improvement divided by the difference between the baseline performance and perfect performance (100%). RESULTS: The median state's performance improved from baseline to follow-up on 20 of the 22 indicators. In the median state, the percentage of patients receiving appropriate care on the median indicator increased from 69.5% to 73.4%, a 12.8% relative improvement. The average relative improvement was 19.9% for outpatient indicators combined and 11.9% for inpatient indicators combined (P<.001). For all but one indicator, absolute improvement was greater in states in which performance was low at baseline than those in which it was high at baseline (median r = -0.43; range: 0.12 to -0.93). When states were ranked on each indicator, the state's average rank was highly stable over time (r = 0.93 for 1998-1999 vs 2000-2001). CONCLUSIONS: Care for Medicare fee-for-service plan beneficiaries improved substantially between 1998-1999 and 2000-2001, but a much larger opportunity remains for further improvement. Relative rankings among states changed little. The improved care is consistent with QIO activities over this period, but these cross-sectional data do not provide conclusive information about the degree to which the improvement can be attributed to the QIOs' quality improvement efforts.