Methods for Estimating Costs for Stays at Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities and Long-Term Care Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare 3 methods for estimating stay-level Medicare facility (Part A) costs using claims and cost report data for inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) and long-term care hospitals (LTCHs), the 2 hospital-based postacute care providers. DESIGN: We calculated stay-level facility costs using different methods. Method 1 used routine costs per day and ancillary cost-to-charge ratios. Method 2 used routine and ancillary cost-to-charge ratios (freestanding IRFs and LTCHs only). Method 3 used facility-specific operating cost-to-charge ratios from the Provider Specific File. For each method, we compared the costs with payments and charges at the claim and facility levels and examined facility margins. SETTING: Data are from 1619 providers, including 266 freestanding IRFs, 909 IRF units, and 444 LTCHs. PARTICIPANTS: The analyses included 239,284 claims from 2014, of which 86,118 claims were from freestanding IRFs, 92,799 claims were from IRF units, and 60,367 claims were from LTCHs. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs and payments in 2014 United States Dollars. RESULTS: For freestanding IRFs, the mean facility stay-level costs were calculated to be $13,610 (method 1), $13,575 (method 2), and $13,783 (method 3). For IRF units, the mean facility stay-level costs were $17,385 (method 1) and $19,093 (method 3). For LTCHs, the mean facility stay-level costs were $36,362 (method 1), $36,407 (method 2), and $37,056 (method 3). CONCLUSIONS: The 3 methods resulted in small differences in facility mean stay-level costs. Using the facility-level cost-to-charge ratio (method 3) is the least resource-intensive method. Although more resource-intensive, using routine cost per day and ancillary cost-to-charge ratios (method 1) for cost calculations allows for differentiation in costs across patients based on differences in the mix of services used. As policymakers consider postacute care payment reforms, cost, rather than charge or payment data, needs to be calculated and the results of the methods compared.

CMS Initiative to Reduce Potentially Avoidable Hospitalizations Among Long-Stay Nursing Facility Residents: Lessons Learned.

Policy Points Misaligned incentives between Medicare and Medicaid may result in avoidable hospitalizations among long-stay nursing home residents. Providing nursing homes with clinical staff, such as nurse practitioners, was more effective in reducing resident hospitalizations than providing Medicare incentive payments alone. CONTEXT: In 2012, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services implemented the Initiative to Reduce Avoidable Hospitalizations Among Nursing Facility Residents. In Phase 1 (2012 to 2016), clinical or education-based interventions (Clinical-Only) aimed to reduce hospitalizations among long-stay nursing home residents. In Phase 2 (2016 to 2020), the Initiative also included a Medicare payment incentive for treating residents with certain conditions within the nursing home. Nursing homes participating in Phase 1 continued their previous interventions and received the incentive (Clinical + Payment) and others received the incentive only (Payment-Only). METHODS: Mixed methods were used to determine the effectiveness of the Initiative and explore facilitators of and barriers to implementation that participating nursing homes experienced. We used telephone and in-person interviews to investigate aspects of implementation and a difference-in-differences regression model framework comparing residents in participating and nonparticipating nursing homes to determine the effect of the Initiative on measures of utilization, expenditures, and quality. FINDINGS: Three key components were necessary for successful implementation of the Initiative-staff retention and leadership stability, leadership and staff support, and provider engagement and support. Nursing homes that lacked one or more of these three components experienced greater challenges. The Clinical-Only intervention in Phase 1 was successful in reducing hospitalizations. We did not find evidence that the Clinical + Payment or Payment-Only interventions were successful in reducing hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing hospitalizations among nursing home residents hinges upon the availability and support of clinical staff who can provide ongoing education to direct-care staff in the nursing home, as well as hands-on care. Use of Medicare payment incentives alone to encourage on-site treatment of residents was insufficient to reduce hospitalizations. Unless nursing homes are adequately staffed to treat residents with acute care needs, further reductions in hospitalizations will be difficult to achieve.

Change in Mobility Quality Measure for Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities: Exclusion Criteria and the Risk Adjustment Model.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the exclusion criteria and updated risk adjustment model developed for the Change in Mobility quality measure in the inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) quality reporting program. Facility-level quality measures focused on patient outcomes usually require risk adjustment to account for varied admission characteristics of patients across facilities. DESIGN: This cohort study analyzed admission demographic and clinical factors associated with mobility change scores using the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Patient Assessment Instrument (IRF-PAI) data for Medicare patients discharged from IRFs in calendar year 2017. SETTING: A total of 1129 IRFs in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 493,209 (N=493, 209) Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage IRF patient stays discharged in calendar year 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mobility change scores using admission and discharge standardized assessment data from the IRF-PAI. RESULTS: Approximately 53% of patients in the study were female, 67% were aged 65-84 years, and nearly 80% were White. In the final risk adjustment model, 105 covariates were included, explaining 20% of variance in mobility change scores. Key risk adjusters included IRF primary diagnosis group, prior indoor ambulation functioning, age older than 90 years, and 14 of the comorbidities. The model showed good calibration across the range of deciles of predicted IRF mobility change scores; the ratio of the average expected to observed change scores ranged from 0.93-1.03, with all but 1 within ±0.03. CONCLUSIONS: The updated risk adjustment model uses IRF patients' demographic and clinical characteristics to predict their mobility change scores. The exclusion criteria and resulting risk model are used to calculate the risk adjusted Change in Mobility quality measure scores, enabling comparisons of Change in Mobility scores across IRFs.

Change in Self-Care Quality Measure for Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities: Exclusion Criteria and Risk-Adjustment Model.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the exclusion criteria and risk-adjustment model developed for the quality measure Change in Self-Care. The exclusion criteria and risk adjustment model are used to calculate Change in Self-Care scores, allowing scores to be compared across inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs). DESIGN: This national cohort study examined admission demographic and clinical factors associated with IRF patients' self-care change scores using standardized self-care data for Medicare patients discharged in calendar year 2017. SETTING: A total of 1129 IRFs in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 493,209 (N=493,209) Medicare Fee-for-Service and Medicare Advantage IRF patient stays INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-care change scores using admission and discharge standardized assessment data elements from the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility-Patient Assessment Instrument. RESULTS: Approximately 53% of patients were female, and 67% were between 65 and 84 years old. The final risk-adjustment model contained 93 clinically relevant risk adjusters and explained 23.1% of variance in self-care change scores. Risk adjusters that had the greatest effect on change scores and included IRF primary diagnosis group (ie, binary risk adjusters representing 13 diagnoses), prior self-care functioning, and age older than 90 years. When split by deciles of expected scores, the ratio of the average expected and observed change scores was within 2% of 1.0 across 8 groups and within 8% at the extremes, showing good predictive accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The risk adjustment model quantifies the relationship between IRF patients' demographic and clinical characteristics and their self-care score changes. The exclusion criteria and model are used to risk-adjust the IRF Change in Self-Care quality measure.

Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Change in Self-Care and Change in Mobility Quality Measures: Development and Reliability and Validity Testing.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development, implementation and reliability and validity testing of the inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) Change in Self-Care and Change in Mobility quality measures. DESIGN: We describe the activities involved in developing and implementing the 2 facility-level quality measures, including public comment opportunities. We examined facility-level reliability using split-half testing and Pearson product-moment correlations, Spearman rank correlations, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,1). We examined validity by comparing facility-level quality measure scores and facility disease-specific certification status. SETTING: All 1117 IRFs in the United States with at least 20 Medicare stays that ended in 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Facility-level quality measure scores (N=1117) were derived from data from 427,517 (self-care) and 427,956 (mobility) Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage IRF patient stays in 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Facility-level Change in Self-Care and Change in Mobility quality measure scores and facility Disease-Specific Certification for Stroke Rehabilitation from The Joint Commission were used in validity analysis. RESULTS: The split-half quality measure scores showed strong, positive correlations for the facility-level self-care (Pearson=0.903, Spearman=0.884, ICC=0.903, P<.0001) and mobility (Pearson=0.903, Spearman=0.884, ICC= 0.903, P<.0001) quality measure scores, providing evidence of reliability. ICCs remained strong when stratifying by provider volume. IRFs with stroke certification had slightly higher mean and median quality measure scores than IRFs without certification, and IRFs with the higher quality measure scores tended to have a higher percentage of certified IRFs. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses support the reliability and validity of the Change in Self-Care and Change in Mobility quality measure scores in IRFs.

Reducing Hospitalizations Among Nursing Facility Residents: Policy Environment and Suggestions for the Future in Seven States.

The current study examined the policy and market context existing in the seven states where the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Initiative to Reduce Avoidable Hospitalizations among Nursing Facility Residents took place. Stakeholder organizations with knowledge of the skilled nursing facility environment but who were not directly involved with the CMS Initiative were interviewed to assess the impact of policies and programs affecting transfers to the hospital from long-term care facilities. Focused interviews were used to identify areas of quality improvement as well as market forces that contributed to hospitalization rates. Interviews were qualitatively coded and emerging patterns and themes were identified. Market pressures were similar across states. Few policies were found that may have affected the Initiative, but most states had regional coalitions focused on improving some aspect of care. When asked what else could be done to reduce hospitalizations among nursing facility residents, participants across the stakeholder organizations suggested greater presence of physicians and nurse practitioners in nursing facilities, better training around behavioral health issues for frontline staff, and more advance care planning and education for families regarding end of life. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 48(8), 10-16.].

Incorporating Prescription Drugs Into Affordable Care Act Risk Adjustment.

BACKGROUND: The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act reformed the individual and small group health insurance markets and established a risk adjustment program to create a level playing field for competition. A new set of predictive models for measuring enrollee risk across plans was developed for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act-reformed markets, referred to as the Department of Health and Human Services Hierarchical Condition Category (HHS-HCC) models. Beginning in 2018, selected prescription drug classes were added to the models as risk markers. OBJECTIVE: We describe the motivations, concerns, methodology, and results of adding prescription drug utilization to the HHS-HCC models. METHODS: Separate HHS-HCC models are estimated by enrollee age and plan actuarial value. We defined and added 10 prescription drug classes, called RXCs, to the HHS-HCC adult models. RESULTS: Using selected RXCs alongside demographic and diagnostic indicators yielded modest overall improvement in HHS-HCC models' predictive power. Also, adding RXCs captures the higher costs of enrollees taking certain expensive pharmaceuticals and allows imputation of diagnoses for enrollees utilizing a drug but lacking the associated diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Including selected drugs in risk adjustment improved the models' predictive power. In addition, inclusion of selected drugs may discourage insurers from using formulary and drug benefit design to avoid enrollment of patients taking high-cost drugs, such as for HIV, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis, and improve access for enrollees taking these drugs. Adding RXCs also may improve plan risk measurement for plans with less complete diagnosis reporting.

Measuring Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Quality of Care: Discharge Self-Care Functional Status Quality Measure.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the calculation and psychometric properties of the discharge self-care functional status quality measure implemented in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) Quality Reporting Program on October 1, 2016. DESIGN: Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) patients from 38 IRFs that participated in the CMS Post-Acute Care Payment Reform Demonstration were included in this cohort study. Data came from the Continuity Assessment Record and Evaluation Item Set, IRF-Patient Assessment Instrument, and Medicare claims. For each patient, we calculated an expected discharge self-care score, risk-adjusted for demographic and baseline clinical characteristics. The performance score of each IRF equaled the percentage of patient stays where the observed discharge self-care score met or exceeded the expected score. We assessed the measure's discriminatory ability across IRFs and reliability. SETTING: IRFs. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare FFS patients aged ≥21 years (N=4769). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Facility-level discharge self-care quality measure performance score. RESULTS: A total of 4769 patient stays were included; 57% of stays were in women, and 12.1% were in patients aged <65 years. Stroke was the most common diagnosis (21.8%). The mean±SD performance score was 55.1%±16.6% (range, 25.8%-100%). About 54% of IRFs had scores significantly different from the percentage of stays that met or exceeded the expected discharge self-care score in the overall demonstration sample. The quality measure showed strong reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficients of .91. CONCLUSIONS: The discharge self-care quality measure showed strong discriminatory ability and reliability, representing an important initial step in evaluation of IRF self-care outcomes. A wide range in performance scores suggested a gap in quality of care across IRFs. Future work should include testing the measure with nationwide data from all IRFs.

Geographic Region and Profit Status Drive Variation in Hospital Readmission Outcomes Among Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether there are differences in inpatient rehabilitation facilities' (IRFs') all-cause 30-day postdischarge hospital readmission rates vary by organizational characteristics and geographic regions. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: IRFs. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged from all IRFs nationally in 2013 and 2014 (N = 1166 IRFs). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We applied specifications for an existing quality measure adopted by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for public reporting that assesses all-cause unplanned hospital readmission measure for 30 days postdischarge from inpatient rehabilitation. We estimated facility-level observed and risk-standardized readmission rates and then examined variation by several organizational characteristics (facility type, profit status, teaching status, proportion of low-income patients, size) and geographic factors (rural/urban, census division, state). RESULTS: IRFs' mean risk-standardized hospital readmission rate was 13.00%±0.77%. After controlling for organizational characteristics and practice patterns, we found substantial variation in IRFs' readmission rates: for-profit IRFs had significantly higher readmission rates than did not-for-profit IRFs (P<.001). We also found geographic variation: IRFs in the South Atlantic and South Central census regions had the highest hospital readmission rates than did IRFs in New England that had the lowest rates. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings point to variation in quality of care as measured by risk-standardized hospital readmission rates after IRF discharge. Thus, monitoring of readmission outcomes is important to encourage quality improvement in discharge care planning, care transitions, and follow-up.

Evaluating Hospital Readmission Rates After Discharge From Inpatient Rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: To examine facility-level rates of all-cause, unplanned hospital readmissions for 30 days after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs). DESIGN: Observational design. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries (N=567,850 patient-stays). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome is all-cause, unplanned hospital readmission rates for IRFs. We adapted previous risk-adjustment and statistical approaches used for acute care hospitals to develop a hierarchical logistic regression model that estimates a risk-standardized readmission rate for each IRF. The IRF risk-adjustment model takes into account patient demographic characteristics, hospital diagnoses and procedure codes, function at IRF admission, comorbidities, and prior hospital utilization. We presented national distributions of observed and risk-standardized readmission rates and estimated confidence intervals to make statistical comparisons relative to the national mean. We also analyzed the number of days from IRF discharge until hospital readmission. RESULTS: The national observed hospital readmission rate by 30 days postdischarge from IRFs was 13.1%. The mean unadjusted readmission rate for IRFs was 12.4%±3.5%, and the mean risk-standardized readmission rate was 13.1%±0.8%. The C-statistic for our risk-adjustment model was .70. Nearly three-quarters of IRFs (73.4%) had readmission rates that were significantly different from the mean. The mean number of days to readmission was 13.0±8.6 days and varied by rehabilitation diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the ability to assess 30-day, all-cause hospital readmission rates postdischarge from IRFs and the ability to discriminate between IRFs with higher- and lower-than-average hospital readmission rates.

Development of a Risk-adjustment Model for the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Discharge Self-care Functional Status Quality Measure.

BACKGROUND: Functional status measures are important patient-centered indicators of inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) quality of care. We developed a risk-adjusted self-care functional status measure for the IRF Quality Reporting Program. This paper describes the development and performance of the measure's risk-adjustment model. METHODS: Our sample included IRF Medicare fee-for-service patients from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' 2008-2010 Post-Acute Care Payment Reform Demonstration. Data sources included the Continuity Assessment Record and Evaluation Item Set, IRF-Patient Assessment Instrument, and Medicare claims. Self-care scores were based on 7 Continuity Assessment Record and Evaluation items. The model was developed using discharge self-care score as the dependent variable, and generalized linear modeling with generalized estimation equation to account for patient characteristics and clustering within IRFs. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics at IRF admission, and clinical characteristics related to the recent hospitalization were tested as risk adjusters. RESULTS: A total of 4769 patient stays from 38 IRFs were included. Approximately 57% of the sample was female; 38.4%, 75-84 years; and 31.0%, 65-74 years. The final model, containing 77 risk adjusters, explained 53.7% of variance in discharge self-care scores (P<0.0001). Admission self-care function was the strongest predictor, followed by admission cognitive function and IRF primary diagnosis group. The range of expected and observed scores overlapped very well, with little bias across the range of predicted self-care functioning. CONCLUSIONS: Our risk-adjustment model demonstrated strong validity for predicting discharge self-care scores. Although the model needs validation with national data, it represents an important first step in evaluation of IRF functional outcomes.

Outcomes for Long-Stay Nursing Facility Residents Following On-Site Acute Care under a CMS Initiative.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to describe outcomes of long-term nursing facility (NF) residents treated for one of 6 conditions on-site in the NF and to compare outcomes to those treated for the same conditions in the hospital. DESIGN: Cross-sectional retrospective study. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Initiative to Reduce Avoidable Hospitalizations among Nursing Facility Residents-Payment Reform enabled participating NFs to bill Medicare for providing on-site care to eligible long-stay residents meeting specified severity criteria due to any of 6 medical conditions, as an alternative to hospitalization. For billing purposes, residents were required to meet clinical criteria severe enough to warrant hospitalization. METHODS: We used the Minimum Data Set assessments to identify eligible long-stay NF residents. We used Medicare data to identify residents who were treated, either on-site or in the hospital, for the 6 conditions and measure outcomes including subsequent hospitalization and death. To compare residents treated in the 2 modes, we used logistic regression models and adjusted for demographics, functional and cognitive status, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Among residents treated on-site for the 6 conditions, 13.6% were subsequently hospitalized and 7.8% died, within 30 days, compared to 26.5% and 17.0%, respectively, among those treated in the hospital. Based on multivariate analysis, those treated in the hospital were more likely to be readmitted (OR = 1.666, P < .001) or to die (OR = 2.251, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Although unable to fully account for differences in unobserved severity of illness between residents treated on-site vs in the hospital, our results do not indicate any harm, but rather a possible benefit, to being treated on-site.

Do Medicare Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Patients' Self-Care and Mobility Outcomes Vary by Dual Eligibility Status, Race and Ethnicity, Rural Residence, Socioeconomic Status, and Living Alone?

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) patients' risk-adjusted functional outcomes varied with five social drivers of health: Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility status, race and ethnicity, rural residence, socioeconomic status (SES), and living alone. DESIGN: This cohort study examined unadjusted and adjusted mobility and self-care change scores during IRF stays for 428,710 Medicare patients with and without social drivers of health. Regression models isolated the mean marginal effect of each of the five social factors on mobility and self-care change scores after adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Patients with full dual status had slightly lower risk-adjusted mobility and self-care improvement (-4.5% and -3.3%, respectively) compared to patients without dual status. Patients who identified as Black, Asian and Native Hawaiian had self-care marginal effects that were slightly lower (-4.8%, -4.1% and -3.7%, respectively) than patients who were White. Patients living in lower SES neighborhoods and patients who lived alone had slightly higher mobility and self-care improvement scores. Risk-adjusted marginal differences in improvement scores for patients with and without these social factors were small and did not meet the meaningfully different criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, IRF patients' risk-adjusted functional outcomes did not vary meaningfully by dual eligibility status, race or ethnicity, rural residence, SES or living alone.

Reliability and Validity of the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Discharge Mobility and Self-Care Quality Measures.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the reliability and validity of the publicly reported facility-level quality measures Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) Discharge Mobility Score for Medical Rehabilitation Patients ("Discharge mobility score") and IRF Discharge Self-Care Score for Medical Rehabilitation Patients ("Discharge self-care score"). DESIGN: Observational study using standardized patient assessment data to examine facility-level split-half reliability and construct validity of quality measure scores. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All IRFs (n = 1117) in the United States with at least 20 Medicare stays. Facility-level quality measure scores were calculated from 2017 data on 428,192 Medicare (fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage) IRF patient stays. METHODS: Using clinician-reported assessment data, we calculated facility-level mobility and self-care quality measure scores and examined reliability of these scores using split-half analysis and Pearson product-moment correlations, Spearman rank correlations, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,1). We examined construct validity of these scores by comparing facility-level quality measure scores by facility stroke disease-specific certification status. RESULTS: Reported as percentages meeting or exceeding expectations, IRF quality measure scores ranged from 8.3% to 90.1% for mobility and 9.0% to 90.3% for self-care. IRF scores, when split in half to examine reliability, showed strong, positive correlations for the mobility (Pearson = 0.898, Spearman = 0.898, ICC = 0.898) and self-care (Pearson = 0.886, Spearman = 0.874, ICC = 0.886) scores. When stratified by provider volume, ICCs remained strong. Construct validity analyses showed IRFs with stroke disease-specific certification had higher mean and median scores than IRFs without certification, and a greater proportion of IRFs that were certified had higher scores. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Our results support the reliability and construct validity of the IRF quality measures Discharge mobility and Discharge self-care scores. Reported as percentages meeting or exceeding expectations, these quality measures are designed to be more consumer-friendly compared to change scores.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Medicare Patients Treated in Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities: 2013-2018.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of Medicare patients treated in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) in 2013 through 2018. DESIGN: A descriptive study was conducted. METHODS: A total of 2,907,046 IRF Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage patient stays that ended in 2013 through 2018 were analyzed. RESULTS: The number of Medicare patients treated in IRFs increased by about 9%, from 466,092 in 2013 to 509,475 in 2018. Although IRF patients' age and racial/ethnic composition remained similar across the years, there was a shift in patients' primary rehabilitation diagnosis, with more patients with stroke, neurological conditions, traumatic and nontraumatic brain injury, fewer patients with orthopedic conditions, and fewer coded as having medically complex conditions. Across the years, the percentage of patients discharged to the community was between 73.0% and 74.4%. CLINICAL RELEVANCE TO THE PRACTICE OF REHABILITATION NURSING: Rehabilitation nurses should have training and expertise in the management of patients with stroke and neurological conditions to provide high-quality IRF care. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2013 and 2018, the number of Medicare patients treated in IRFs increased overall. There were more patients with stroke and neurological conditions and fewer patients with orthopedic conditions. Changes to IRF and other post-acute care policies, Medicaid expansion, and alternative payment programs may partially be driving these changes.

Implementation of a CMS Nursing Facility Initiative: Differences by Racial Minority Resident Population.

Objectives: The CMS Initiative to Reduce Avoidable Hospitalizations Among Nursing Facility Residents: Payment Reform (NFI 2) provided billing opportunities to incentivize participating facilities to keep long-stay residents onsite for acute care, rather than hospitalizing them. We examined cross-facility differences in NFI 2 implementation by racial composition of facility resident populations. Methods: We analyzed Medicare claims in conjunction with in-person and telephone interviews among facility staff to assess NFI 2 engagement in relation to racial minority resident population. Results: Participating facilities with larger racial minority resident populations faced additional barriers to NFI 2 implementation. These facilities submitted fewer NFI 2 claims, reported more challenges engaging resident families, and experienced greater facility staff and leadership instability, compared to facilities with predominantly white resident populations. Discussion: Addressing structural differences within facilities with larger populations of racial minority residents may encourage future development of targeted programs to support diverse nursing facilities.

Inpatient rehabilitation facilities' hospital readmission rates for medicare beneficiaries treated following a stroke.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is the leading cause for admission to the nearly 1,200 Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRFs) nationally in the US. For many patients, post-acute care is an important component of their rehabilitation. Several quality measures have been publicly reported for post-acute care providers, including hospital readmissions. However, to date none have focused on specific medical conditions, limiting the usability for patients and quality improvement. OBJECTIVE: To assess hospital readmission rates for Medicare patients receiving inpatient rehabilitation following stroke and to identify risk factors in order to evaluate the feasibility of a stroke-specific hospital readmission measure. METHODS: Observational study analyzing national Medicare inpatient claims and administrative data to assess hospital readmissions. Using logistic regression, we calculated unadjusted and risk-standardized readmission rates, which adjusted for patient characteristics, including type of stroke and admission function, to capture stroke severity. RESULTS: Our national study included 116,073 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiary discharged from IRFs in 2013-2014 following stroke from 1,162 IRFs nationally. The observed hospital readmission rate among IRF patients following stroke was 11.6% and varied by patients' admission motor function. Patients with greater functional dependence had higher readmission rates on average. Lower admission function, hemorrhagic and other stroke types (relative to ischemic) were significantly associated with higher odds of hospital readmission. CONCLUSION: Results suggest it is feasible to assess hospital readmission rates among a stroke-cohort treated in IRFs. Stroke-focused quality measures would be useful to patients in selecting a provider and for providers in evaluating their stroke rehabilitation program outcomes. Secondary results suggest that admission function (FIM) capture stroke severity, a limitation with other claims-based stroke measures.

Treating in Place: Acute Care for Long-Stay Residents in Nursing Facilities Under a CMS Initiative.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Nursing facility (NF) residents are commonly hospitalized, and many of these hospitalizations may be avoidable. A Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) initiative enables participating NFs to bill Medicare for providing on-site acute care to long-stay residents diagnosed with one of six ambulatory care sensitive conditions (pneumonia, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dehydration, skin infection, and urinary tract infection) that account for many avoidable hospitalizations. This study describes the frequency of initiative-related treatment for the six conditions, both on site and in the hospital, and the health status of residents who were treated. DESIGN: We used the Minimum Data Set V3.0 and Medicare data to identify eligible residents, detect on-site treatment under the initiative as well as in-hospital treatment both before and during the initiative, and measure health status. SETTING: Participating NFs during fiscal years 2017 to 2018. PARTICIPANTS: There were 47,202 long-stay NF residents from 260 facilities in seven states. INTERVENTION: CMS initiative to reduce avoidable hospitalizations among NF residents-payment reform. MEASUREMENTS: Percentage per year who received on-site treatment (2017-2018), and who received in-hospital treatment (2014-2018), for the six conditions. RESULTS: Each year, approximately 20% of residents received treatment on site during 2017 to 2018, and under 10% received treatment in the hospital during 2014 to 2018, with little change over these years. Residents treated on site had less chronic illness than those treated in the hospital. CONCLUSION: Although the initiative sought to reduce hospitalizations, in-hospital treatment for the six conditions did not substantially change after initiative implementation, despite substantial new billing for on-site treatment for those conditions. These findings suggest that many residents treated on site would likely not have been hospitalized even absent the initiative. The residents treated on site tended to have fewer chronic conditions than those treated in the hospital.

Reducing Transfers among Long-Stay Nursing Facility Residents to Acute Care Settings: Effect of the 2013‒2016 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Initiative.

OBJECTIVES: From 2013 to 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Initiative to Reduce Avoidable Hospitalizations among Nursing Facility Residents ("the Initiative") tested a series of clinical interventions and care models, through organizations called Enhanced Care and Coordination Providers (ECCPs), with the goal of reducing avoidable inpatient hospital admissions among long-stay nursing home residents. We identify the effect of the Initiative on the probability and count of acute care transfers [capturing any transfer to the hospital, including hospitalizations (inpatient stays), emergency department visits, and observation stays]. DESIGN: We evaluate the effect of the Initiative on the probability and count of all-cause acute care transfers and potentially avoidable acute care transfers and estimate the average effect of the Initiative per resident per year. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We use 2011-2016 data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Minimum Data Set, version 3.0, nursing home resident assessments linked with Medicare eligibility and enrollment data and Medicare inpatient and outpatient hospital claims. Our sample is limited to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in participating ECCP facilities and a comparison group of long-stay nursing facility residents. METHODS: We evaluate the effect of the Initiative on both the probability and count of all-cause acute care transfers and potentially avoidable acute care transfers using difference-in-differences regression models controlling for both resident-level clinical and demographic characteristics as well as facility-level characteristics. RESULTS: We found statistically significant evidence of a reduction in both the probability and count of all-cause and potentially avoidable acute care transfers among long-stay nursing facility residents who participated in the Initiative, relative to comparison group residents. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The clinical interventions and care models implemented by the ECCPs show that by using staff education, facility leadership and physician engagement, and/or clinical assessment and treatment of residents who experienced a change in condition, it is possible to reduce acute care transfers of nursing facility residents. This could lead to better outcomes and reduced cost of care for this vulnerable patient population.