Variation in Risk-standardized Rates and Causes of Unplanned Hospital Visits Within 7 Days of Hospital Outpatient Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to compare risk-standardized hospital visit ratios of the predicted to expected number of unplanned hospital visits within 7 days of same-day surgeries performed at US hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) and to describe the causes of hospital visits. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: More than half of procedures in the US are performed in outpatient settings, yet little is known about facility-level variation in short-term safety outcomes. METHODS: The study cohort included 1,135,441 outpatient surgeries performed at 4058 hospitals between October 1, 2015 and September 30, 2016 among Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries aged ≥65 years. Hospital-level, risk-standardized measure scores of unplanned hospital visits (emergency department visits, observation stays, and unplanned inpatient admissions) within 7 days of hospital outpatient surgery were calculated using hierarchical logistic regression modeling that adjusted for age, clinical comorbidities, and surgical procedural complexity. RESULTS: Overall, 7.8% of hospital outpatient surgeries were followed by an unplanned hospital visit within 7 days. Many of the leading reasons for unplanned visits were for potentially preventable conditions, such as urinary retention, infection, and pain. We found considerable variation in the risk-standardized ratio score across hospitals. The 203 best-performing HOPDs, at or below the 5th percentile, had at least 22% fewer unplanned hospital visits than expected, whereas the 202 worst-performing HOPDs, at or above the 95th percentile, had at least 29% more post-surgical visits than expected, given their case and surgical procedure mix. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients experience an unplanned hospital visit within 7 days of hospital outpatient surgery, often for potentially preventable reasons. The observed variation in performance across hospitals suggests opportunities for quality improvement.

The 2018 Merit-based Incentive Payment System: Participation, Performance, and Payment Across Specialties.

BACKGROUND: The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) incorporates financial incentives and penalties intended to drive clinicians towards value-based purchasing, including alternative payment models (APMs). Newly available Medicare-approved qualified clinical data registries (QCDRs) offer specialty-specific quality measures for clinician reporting, yet their impact on clinician performance and payment adjustments remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: We sought to characterize clinician participation, performance, and payment adjustments in the MIPS program across specialties, with a focus on clinician use of QCDRs. RESEARCH DESIGN: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the 2018 MIPS program. RESULTS: During the 2018 performance year, 558,296 clinicians participated in the MIPS program across the 35 specialties assessed. Clinicians reporting as individuals had lower overall MIPS performance scores (median [interquartile range (IQR)], 80.0 [39.4-98.4] points) than those reporting as groups (median [IQR], 96.3 [76.9-100.0] points), who in turn had lower adjustments than clinicians reporting within MIPS APMs (median [IQR], 100.0 [100.0-100.0] points) (P<0.001). Clinicians reporting as individuals had lower payment adjustments (median [IQR], +0.7% [0.1%-1.6%]) than those reporting as groups (median [IQR], +1.5% [0.6%-1.7%]), who in turn had lower adjustments than clinicians reporting within MIPS APMs (median [IQR], +1.7% [1.7%-1.7%]) (P<0.001). Within a subpopulation of 202,685 clinicians across 12 specialties commonly using QCDRs, clinicians had overall MIPS performance scores and payment adjustments that were significantly greater if reporting at least 1 QCDR measure compared with those not reporting any QCDR measures. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, these findings highlight that performance score and payment adjustments varied by reporting affiliation and QCDR use in the 2018 MIPS.

Trends in Adverse Event Rates in Hospitalized Patients, 2010-2019.

Importance: Patient safety is a US national priority, yet lacks a comprehensive assessment of progress over the past decade. Objective: To determine the change in the rate of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This serial cross-sectional study used data from the Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System from 2010 to 2019 to assess in-hospital adverse events in patients. The study included 244 542 adult patients hospitalized in 3156 US acute care hospitals across 4 condition groups from 2010 through 2019: acute myocardial infarction (17%), heart failure (17%), pneumonia (21%), and major surgical procedures (22%); and patients hospitalized from 2012 through 2019 for all other conditions (22%). Exposures: Adults aged 18 years or older hospitalized during each included calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Information on adverse events (abstracted from medical records) included 21 measures across 4 adverse event domains: adverse drug events, hospital-acquired infections, adverse events after a procedure, and general adverse events (hospital-acquired pressure ulcers and falls). The outcomes were the total change over time for the observed and risk-adjusted adverse event rates in the subpopulations. Results: The study sample included 190 286 hospital discharges combined in the 4 condition-based groups of acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, and major surgical procedures (mean age, 68.0 [SD, 15.9] years; 52.6% were female) and 54 256 hospital discharges for the group including all other conditions (mean age, 57.7 [SD, 20.7] years; 59.8% were female) from 3156 acute care hospitals across the US. From 2010 to 2019, the total change was from 218 to 139 adverse events per 1000 discharges for acute myocardial infarction, from 168 to 116 adverse events per 1000 discharges for heart failure, from 195 to 119 adverse events per 1000 discharges for pneumonia, and from 204 to 130 adverse events per 1000 discharges for major surgical procedures. From 2012 to 2019, the rate of adverse events for all other conditions remained unchanged at 70 adverse events per 1000 discharges. After adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics, the annual change represented by relative risk in all adverse events per 1000 discharges was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.94) for acute myocardial infarction, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.94-0.96) for heart failure, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.95) for pneumonia, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.94) for major surgical procedures, and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99) for all other conditions. The risk-adjusted adverse event rates declined significantly in all patient groups for adverse drug events, hospital-acquired infections, and general adverse events. For patients in the major surgical procedures group, the risk-adjusted rates of events after a procedure declined significantly. Conclusions and Relevance: In the US between 2010 and 2019, there was a significant decrease in the rates of adverse events abstracted from medical records for patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, and major surgical procedures and there was a significant decrease in the adjusted rates of adverse events between 2012 and 2019 for all other conditions. Further research is needed to understand the extent to which these trends represent a change in patient safety.

Hospital-Readmission Risk - Isolating Hospital Effects from Patient Effects.

BACKGROUND: To isolate hospital effects on risk-standardized hospital-readmission rates, we examined readmission outcomes among patients who had multiple admissions for a similar diagnosis at more than one hospital within a given year. METHODS: We divided the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services hospital-wide readmission measure cohort from July 2014 through June 2015 into two random samples. All the patients in the cohort were Medicare recipients who were at least 65 years of age. We used the first sample to calculate the risk-standardized readmission rate within 30 days for each hospital, and we classified hospitals into performance quartiles, with a lower readmission rate indicating better performance (performance-classification sample). The study sample (identified from the second sample) included patients who had two admissions for similar diagnoses at different hospitals that occurred more than 1 month and less than 1 year apart, and we compared the observed readmission rates among patients who had been admitted to hospitals in different performance quartiles. RESULTS: In the performance-classification sample, the median risk-standardized readmission rate was 15.5% (interquartile range, 15.3 to 15.8). The study sample included 37,508 patients who had two admissions for similar diagnoses at a total of 4272 different hospitals. The observed readmission rate was consistently higher among patients admitted to hospitals in a worse-performing quartile than among those admitted to hospitals in a better-performing quartile, but the only significant difference was observed when the patients were admitted to hospitals in which one was in the best-performing quartile and the other was in the worst-performing quartile (absolute difference in readmission rate, 2.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 0.4 to 3.5; P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When the same patients were admitted with similar diagnoses to hospitals in the best-performing quartile as compared with the worst-performing quartile of hospital readmission performance, there was a significant difference in rates of readmission within 30 days. The findings suggest that hospital quality contributes in part to readmission rates independent of factors involving patients. (Funded by Yale-New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation and others.).

Admission diagnoses among patients with heart failure: Variation by ACO performance on a measure of risk-standardized acute admission rates.

BACKGROUND: A key quality metric for Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) is the rate of hospitalization among patients with heart failure (HF). Among this patient population, non-HF-related hospitalizations account for a substantial proportion of admissions. Understanding the types of admissions and the distribution of admission types across ACOs of varying performance may provide important insights for lowering admission rates. METHODS: We examined admission diagnoses among 220 Medicare Shared Savings Program ACOs in 2013. ACOs were stratified into quartiles by their performance on a measure of unplanned risk-standardized acute admission rates (RSAARs) among patients with HF. Using a previously validated algorithm, we categorized admissions by principal discharge diagnosis into: HF, cardiovascular/non-HF, and noncardiovascular. We compared the mean admission rates by admission type as well as the proportion of admission types across RSAAR quartiles (Q1-Q4). RESULTS: Among 220 ACOs caring for 227,356 patients with HF, the median (IQR) RSAARs per 100 person-years ranged from 64.5 (61.7-67.7) in Q1 (best performers) to 94.0 (90.1-99.9) in Q4 (worst performers). The mean admission rates by admission types for ACOs in Q1 compared with Q4 were as follows: HF admissions: 9.8 (2.2) vs 14.6 (2.8) per 100 person years (P < .0001); cardiovascular/non-HF admissions: 11.1 (1.6) vs 15.9 (2.6) per 100 person-years (P < .0001); and noncardiovascular admissions: 42.7 (5.4) vs 69.6 (11.3) per 100 person-years (P < .0001). The proportion of admission due to HF, cardiovascular/non-HF, and noncardiovascular conditions was 15.4%, 17.5%, and 67.1% in Q1 compared with 14.6%, 15.9%, and 69.4% in Q4 (P < .007). CONCLUSIONS: Although ACOs with the best performance on a measure of all-cause admission rates among people with HF tended to have fewer admissions for HF, cardiovascular/non-HF, and noncardiovascular conditions compared with ACOs with the worst performance (highest admission rates), the largest difference in admission rates were for noncardiovascular admission types. Across all ACOs, two-thirds of admissions of patients with HF were for noncardiovascular causes. These findings suggest that comprehensive approaches are needed to reduce the diverse admission types for which HF patients are at risk.

Association Between the Implementation of a Population-Based Primary Care Payment System and Achievement on Quality Measures in Hawaii.

Importance: Hawaii Medical Service Association (HMSA), the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Hawaii, introduced Population-based Payments for Primary Care (3PC), a new capitation-based primary care payment system, in 2016. The effect of this system on quality measures has not been evaluated. Objective: To evaluate whether the 3PC system was associated with changes in quality, utilization, or spending in its first year. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational study using HMSA claims and clinical registry data from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2016, and a propensity-weighted difference-in-differences method to compare 77 225 HMSA members in Hawaii attributed to 107 primary care physicians (PCPs) and 4 physician organizations participating in the first wave of the 3PC and 222 233 members attributed to 312 PCPs and 14 physician organizations that continued in a fee-for-service model in 2016 but had 3PC start dates thereafter. Exposures: Participation in the 3PC system. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the change in a composite measure score reflecting the probability that a member achieved an eligible measure out of 13 pooled Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set quality measures. Primary care visits and total cost of care were among 15 secondary outcomes. Results: In total, the study included 299 458 HMSA members (mean age, 42.1 years; 51.5% women) and 419 primary care physicians (mean age, 54.9 years; 34.8% women). The risk-standardized composite measure scores for 2012 to 2016 changed from 75.1% to 86.6% (+11.5 percentage points) in the 3PC group and 74.3% to 83.5% (+9.2 percentage points) in the non-3PC group (differential change, 2.3 percentage points [95% CI, 2.1 to 2.6 percentage points]; P < .001). Of 15 prespecified secondary end points for utilization and spending, 11 showed no significant difference. Compared with the non-3PC group, the 3PC system was associated with a significant reduction in the mean number of primary care visits (3.3 to 3.0 visits vs 3.3 to 3.1 visits; adjusted differential change, -3.9 percentage points [95% CI, -4.6 to -3.2 percentage points]; P < .001), but there was no significant difference in mean total cost of care ($3344 to $4087 vs $2977 to $3564; adjusted differential change, 1.0% [95% CI, -1.3% to 3.4%]; P = .39). Conclusions and Relevance: In its first year, the 3PC population-based primary care payment system in Hawaii was associated with small improvements in quality and a reduction in PCP visits but no significant difference in the total cost of care. Additional research is needed to assess longer-term outcomes as the program is more fully implemented and to determine whether results are generalizable to other health care markets.

Defining Multiple Chronic Conditions for Quality Measurement.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) are a critical but undefined group for quality measurement. We present a generally applicable systematic approach to defining an MCC cohort of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries that we developed for a national quality measure, risk-standardized rates of unplanned admissions for Accountable Care Organizations. RESEARCH DESIGN: To define the MCC cohort we: (1) identified potential chronic conditions; (2) set criteria for cohort conditions based on MCC framework and measure concept; (3) applied the criteria informed by empirical analysis, experts, and the public; (4) described "broader" and "narrower" cohorts; and (5) selected final cohort with stakeholder input. SUBJECTS: Subjects were patients with chronic conditions. Participants included 21.8 million Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in 2012 aged 65 years and above with ≥1 of 27 Medicare Chronic Condition Warehouse condition(s). RESULTS: In total, 10 chronic conditions were identified based on our criteria; 8 of these 10 were associated with notably increased admission risk when co-occurring. A broader cohort (2+ of the 8 conditions) included 4.9 million beneficiaries (23% of total cohort) with an admission rate of 70 per 100 person-years. It captured 53% of total admissions. The narrower cohort (3+ conditions) had 2.2 million beneficiaries (10%) with 100 admissions per 100 person-years and captured 32% of admissions. Most stakeholders viewed the broader cohort as best aligned with the measure concept. CONCLUSIONS: By systematically narrowing chronic conditions to those most relevant to the outcome and incorporating stakeholder input, we defined an MCC admission measure cohort supported by stakeholders. This approach can be used as a model for other MCC outcome measures.

Differences in Colonoscopy Quality Among Facilities: Development of a Post-Colonoscopy Risk-Standardized Rate of Unplanned Hospital Visits.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonoscopy is a common procedure, yet little is known about variations in colonoscopy quality among outpatient facilities. We developed an outcome measure to profile outpatient facilities by estimating risk-standardized rates of unplanned hospital visits within 7 days of colonoscopy. METHODS: We used a 20% sample of 2010 Medicare outpatient colonoscopy claims (331,880 colonoscopies performed at 8140 facilities) from patients ≥65 years or older, and developed a patient-level logistic regression model to estimate the risk of unplanned hospital visits (ie, emergency department visits, observation stays, and inpatient admissions) within 7 days of colonoscopy. We then used the patient-level risk model variables and hierarchical logistic regression to estimate facility rates of risk-standardized unplanned hospital visits using data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (325,811 colonoscopies at 992 facilities), from 4 states containing 100% of colonoscopies per facility. RESULTS: Outpatient colonoscopies were followed by 5412 unplanned hospital visits within 7 days (16.3/1000 colonoscopies). Hemorrhage, abdominal pain, and perforation were the most common causes of unplanned hospital visits. Fifteen variables were independently associated with unplanned hospital visits (c = 0.67). A history of fluid and electrolyte imbalance (odds ratio [OR] = 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.29-1.58), psychiatric disorders (OR = 1.34; 95% CI: 1.22-1.46), and, in the absence of prior arrhythmia, increasing age past 65 years (aged >85 years vs 65-69 years: OR = 1.87; 95% CI: 1.54-2.28) were most strongly associated. The facility risk-standardized unplanned hospital visits calculated using Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project data showed significant variation (median 12.3/1000; 5th-95th percentile, 10.5-14.6/1000). Median risk-standardized unplanned hospital visits were comparable between ambulatory surgery centers and hospital outpatient departments (each was 10.2/1000), and ranged from 16.1/1000 in the Northeast to 17.2/1000 in the Midwest. CONCLUSIONS: We calculated a risk-adjusted measure of outpatient colonoscopy quality, which shows important variation in quality among outpatient facilities. This measure can make transparent the extent to which patients require follow-up hospital care, help inform patient choices, and assist in quality-improvement efforts.

Hospital Characteristics Associated With Risk-standardized Readmission Rates.

BACKGROUND: Safety-net and teaching hospitals are somewhat more likely to be penalized for excess readmissions, but the association of other hospital characteristics with readmission rates is uncertain and may have relevance for hospital-centered interventions. OBJECTIVE: To examine the independent association of 8 hospital characteristics with hospital-wide 30-day risk-standardized readmission rate (RSRR). DESIGN: This is a retrospective cross-sectional multivariable analysis. SUBJECTS: US hospitals. MEASURES: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services specification of hospital-wide RSRR from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014 with race and Medicaid dual-eligibility added. RESULTS: We included 6,789,839 admissions to 4474 hospitals of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged over 64 years. In multivariable analyses, there was regional variation: hospitals in the mid-Atlantic region had the highest RSRRs [0.98 percentage points higher than hospitals in the Mountain region; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84-1.12]. For-profit hospitals had an average RSRR 0.38 percentage points (95% CI, 0.24-0.53) higher than public hospitals. Both urban and rural hospitals had higher RSRRs than those in medium metropolitan areas. Hospitals without advanced cardiac surgery capability had an average RSRR 0.27 percentage points (95% CI, 0.18-0.36) higher than those with. The ratio of registered nurses per hospital bed was not associated with RSRR. Variability in RSRRs among hospitals of similar type was much larger than aggregate differences between types of hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, larger, urban, academic facilities had modestly higher RSRRs than smaller, suburban, community hospitals, although there was a wide range of performance. The strong regional effect suggests that local practice patterns are an important influence. Disproportionately high readmission rates at for-profit hospitals may highlight the role of financial incentives favoring utilization.

Association of Changing Hospital Readmission Rates With Mortality Rates After Hospital Discharge.

IMPORTANCE: The Affordable Care Act has led to US national reductions in hospital 30-day readmission rates for heart failure (HF), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and pneumonia. Whether readmission reductions have had the unintended consequence of increasing mortality after hospitalization is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine the correlation of paired trends in hospital 30-day readmission rates and hospital 30-day mortality rates after discharge. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older hospitalized with HF, AMI, or pneumonia from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2014. EXPOSURE: Thirty-day risk-adjusted readmission rate (RARR). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Thirty-day RARRs and 30-day risk-adjusted mortality rates (RAMRs) after discharge were calculated for each condition in each month at each hospital in 2008 through 2014. Monthly trends in each hospital's 30-day RARRs and 30-day RAMRs after discharge were examined for each condition. The weighted Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for hospitals' paired monthly trends in 30-day RARRs and 30-day RAMRs after discharge for each condition. RESULTS: In 2008 through 2014, 2 962 554 hospitalizations for HF, 1 229 939 for AMI, and 2 544 530 for pneumonia were identified at 5016, 4772, and 5057 hospitals, respectively. In January 2008, mean hospital 30-day RARRs and 30-day RAMRs after discharge were 24.6% and 8.4% for HF, 19.3% and 7.6% for AMI, and 18.3% and 8.5% for pneumonia. Hospital 30-day RARRs declined in the aggregate across hospitals from 2008 through 2014; monthly changes in RARRs were -0.053% (95% CI, -0.055% to -0.051%) for HF, -0.044% (95% CI, -0.047% to -0.041%) for AMI, and -0.033% (95% CI, -0.035% to -0.031%) for pneumonia. In contrast, monthly aggregate changes across hospitals in hospital 30-day RAMRs after discharge varied by condition: HF, 0.008% (95% CI, 0.007% to 0.010%); AMI, -0.003% (95% CI, -0.005% to -0.001%); and pneumonia, 0.001% (95% CI, -0.001% to 0.003%). However, correlation coefficients in hospitals' paired monthly changes in 30-day RARRs and 30-day RAMRs after discharge were weakly positive: HF, 0.066 (95% CI, 0.036 to 0.096); AMI, 0.067 (95% CI, 0.027 to 0.106); and pneumonia, 0.108 (95% CI, 0.079 to 0.137). Findings were similar in secondary analyses, including with alternate definitions of hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or pneumonia, reductions in hospital 30-day readmission rates were weakly but significantly correlated with reductions in hospital 30-day mortality rates after discharge. These findings do not support increasing postdischarge mortality related to reducing hospital readmissions.

Risk-standardized Acute Admission Rates Among Patients With Diabetes and Heart Failure as a Measure of Quality of Accountable Care Organizations: Rationale, Methods, and Early Results.

BACKGROUND: Population-based measures of admissions among patients with chronic conditions are important quality indicators of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), yet there are challenges in developing measures that enable fair comparisons among providers. METHODS: On the basis of consensus standards for outcome measure development and with expert and stakeholder input on methods decisions, we developed and tested 2 models of risk-standardized acute admission rates (RSAARs) for patients with diabetes and heart failure using 2010-2012 Medicare claims data. Model performance was assessed with deviance R; score reliability was tested with intraclass correlation coefficient. We estimated RSAARs for 114 Shared Savings Program ACOs in 2012 and we assigned ACOs to 3 performance categories: no different, worse than, and better than the national rate. RESULTS: The diabetes and heart failure cohorts included 6.5 and 2.6 million Medicare Fee-For-Service beneficiaries aged 65 years and above, respectively. Risk-adjustment variables were age, comorbidities, and condition-specific severity variables, but not socioeconomic status or other contextual factors. We selected hierarchical negative binomial models with the outcome of acute, unplanned hospital admissions per 100 person-years. For the diabetes and heart failure measures, respectively, the models accounted for 22% and 12% of the deviance in outcomes and score reliability was 0.89 and 0.81. For the diabetes measure, 51 (44.7%) ACOs were no different, 45 (39.5%) were better, and 18 (15.8%) were worse than the national rate. The distribution of performance for the heart failure measure was 61 (53.5%), 37 (32.5%), and 16 (14.0%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Measures of RSAARs for patients with diabetes and heart failure meet criteria for scientific soundness and reveal important variation in quality across ACOs.

Development of a clinical registry-based 30-day readmission measure for coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.

BACKGROUND: Reducing readmissions is a major healthcare reform goal, and reimbursement penalties are imposed for higher-than-expected readmission rates. Most readmission risk models and performance measures are based on administrative rather than clinical data. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined rates and predictors of 30-day all-cause readmission following coronary artery bypass grafting surgery by using nationally representative clinical data (2008-2010) from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database linked to Medicare claims records. Among 265 434 eligible Medicare records, 226 960 (86%) were successfully linked to Society of Thoracic Surgeons records; 162 572 (61%) isolated coronary artery bypass grafting admissions constituted the study cohort. Logistic regression was used to identify readmission risk factors; hierarchical regression models were then estimated. Risk-standardized readmission rates ranged from 12.6% to 23.6% (median, 16.8%) among 846 US hospitals with ≥30 eligible cases and ≥90% of eligible Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services records linked to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. Readmission predictors (odds ratios [95% confidence interval]) included dialysis (2.02 [1.87-2.19]), severe chronic lung disease (1.58 [1.49-1.68]), creatinine (2.5 versus 1.0 or lower:1.49 [1.41-1.57]; 2.0 versus 1.0 or lower: 1.37 [1.32-1.43]), insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (1.45 [1.39-1.51]), obesity in women (body surface area 2.2 versus 1.8: 1.44 [1.35-1.53]), female sex (1.38 [1.33-1.43]), immunosuppression (1.38 [1.28-1.49]), preoperative atrial fibrillation (1.36 [1.30-1.42]), age per 10-year increase (1.36 [1.33-1.39]), recent myocardial infarction (1.24 [1.08-1.42]), and low body surface area in men (1.22 [1.14-1.30]). C-statistic was 0.648. Fifty-two hospitals (6.1%) had readmission rates statistically better or worse than expected. CONCLUSIONS: A coronary artery bypass grafting surgery readmission measure suitable for public reporting was developed by using the national Society of Thoracic Surgeons clinical data linked to Medicare readmission claims.

Development and use of an administrative claims measure for profiling hospital-wide performance on 30-day unplanned readmission.

BACKGROUND: Existing publicly reported readmission measures are condition-specific, representing less than 20% of adult hospitalizations. An all-condition measure may better measure quality and promote innovation. OBJECTIVE: To develop an all-condition, hospital-wide readmission measure. DESIGN: Measure development study. SETTING: 4821 U.S. hospitals. PATIENTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older. MEASUREMENTS: Hospital-level, risk-standardized unplanned readmissions within 30 days of discharge. The measure uses Medicare fee-for-service claims and is a composite of 5 specialty-based, risk-standardized rates for medicine, surgery/gynecology, cardiorespiratory, cardiovascular, and neurology cohorts. The 2007-2008 admissions were randomly split for development and validation. Models were adjusted for age, principal diagnosis, and comorbid conditions. Calibration in Medicare and all-payer data was examined, and hospital rankings in the development and validation samples were compared. RESULTS: The development data set contained 8 018 949 admissions associated with 1 276 165 unplanned readmissions (15.9%). The median hospital risk-standardized unplanned readmission rate was 15.8 (range, 11.6 to 21.9). The 5 specialty cohort models accurately predicted readmission risk in both Medicare and all-payer data sets for average-risk patients but slightly overestimated readmission risk at the extremes. Overall hospital risk-standardized readmission rates did not differ statistically in the split samples (P = 0.71 for difference in rank), and 76% of hospitals' validation-set rankings were within 2 deciles of the development rank (24% were more than 2 deciles). Of hospitals ranking in the top or bottom deciles, 90% remained within 2 deciles (10% were more than 2 deciles) and 82% remained within 1 decile (18% were more than 1 decile). LIMITATION: Risk adjustment was limited to that available in claims data. CONCLUSION: A claims-based, hospital-wide unplanned readmission measure for profiling hospitals produced reasonably consistent results in different data sets and was similarly calibrated in both Medicare and all-payer data. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

National patterns of risk-standardized mortality and readmission after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia: update on publicly reported outcomes measures based on the 2013 release.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services publicly reports risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) within 30-days of admission and, in 2013, risk-standardized unplanned readmission rates (RSRRs) within 30-days of discharge for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia. Current publicly reported data do not focus on variation in national results or annual changes. OBJECTIVE: Describe U.S. hospital performance on AMI, HF, and pneumonia mortality and updated readmission measures to provide perspective on national performance variation. DESIGN: To identify recent changes and variation in national hospital-level mortality and readmission for AMI, HF, and pneumonia, we performed cross-sectional panel analyses of national hospital performance on publicly reported measures. PARTICIPANTS: Fee-for-service Medicare and Veterans Health Administration beneficiaries, 65 years or older, hospitalized with principal discharge diagnoses of AMI, HF, or pneumonia between July 2009 and June 2012. RSMRs/RSRRs were calculated using hierarchical logistic models risk-adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, and patients' clustering among hospitals. RESULTS: Median (range) RSMRs for AMI, HF, and pneumonia were 15.1% (9.4-21.0%), 11.3% (6.4-17.9%), and 11.4% (6.5-24.5%), respectively. Median (range) RSRRs for AMI, HF, and pneumonia were 18.2% (14.4-24.3%), 22.9% (17.1-30.7%), and 17.5% (13.6-24.0%), respectively. Median RSMRs declined for AMI (15.5% in 2009-2010, 15.4% in 2010-2011, 14.7% in 2011-2012) and remained similar for HF (11.5% in 2009-2010, 11.9% in 2010-2011, 11.7% in 2011-2012) and pneumonia (11.8% in 2009-2010, 11.9% in 2010-2011, 11.6% in 2011-2012). Median hospital-level RSRRs declined: AMI (18.5% in 2009-2010, 18.5% in 2010-2011, 17.7% in 2011-2012), HF (23.3% in 2009-2010, 23.1% in 2010-2011, 22.5% in 2011-2012), and pneumonia (17.7% in 2009-2010, 17.6% in 2010-2011, 17.3% in 2011-2012). CONCLUSIONS: We report the first national unplanned readmission results demonstrating declining rates for all three conditions between 2009-2012. Simultaneously, AMI mortality continued to decline, pneumonia mortality was stable, and HF mortality experienced a small increase.

The business case for quality: estimating lives saved and harms avoided in a value-based purchasing model.

Ever-increasing concern about the cost and burden of quality measurement and reporting raises the question: How much do patients benefit from provider arrangements that incentivize performance improvements? We used national performance data to estimate the benefits in terms of lives saved and harms avoided if US health plans improved performance on 2 widely used quality measures: blood pressure control and colorectal cancer screening. We modeled potential results both in California Marketplace plans, where a value-based purchasing initiative incentivizes improvement, and for the US population across 4 market segments (Medicare, Medicaid, Marketplace, commercial). The results indicate that if the lower-performing health plans improve to 66th percentile benchmark scores, it would decrease annual hypertension and colorectal cancer deaths by approximately 7% and 2%, respectively. These analyses highlight the value of assessing performance accountability initiatives for their potential lives saved and harms avoided, as well as their costs and efforts.

Hospital volume and 30-day mortality for three common medical conditions.

BACKGROUND: The association between hospital volume and the death rate for patients who are hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia remains unclear. It is also not known whether a volume threshold for such an association exists. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional analyses of data from Medicare administrative claims for all fee-for-service beneficiaries who were hospitalized between 2004 and 2006 in acute care hospitals in the United States for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia. Using hierarchical logistic-regression models for each condition, we estimated the change in the odds of death within 30 days associated with an increase of 100 patients in the annual hospital volume. Analyses were adjusted for patients' risk factors and hospital characteristics. Bootstrapping procedures were used to estimate 95% confidence intervals to identify the condition-specific volume thresholds above which an increased volume was not associated with reduced mortality. RESULTS: There were 734,972 hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction in 4128 hospitals, 1,324,287 for heart failure in 4679 hospitals, and 1,418,252 for pneumonia in 4673 hospitals. An increased hospital volume was associated with reduced 30-day mortality for all conditions (P<0.001 for all comparisons). For each condition, the association between volume and outcome was attenuated as the hospital's volume increased. For acute myocardial infarction, once the annual volume reached 610 patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 539 to 679), an increase in the hospital volume by 100 patients was no longer significantly associated with reduced odds of death. The volume threshold was 500 patients (95% CI, 433 to 566) for heart failure and 210 patients (95% CI, 142 to 284) for pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Admission to higher-volume hospitals was associated with a reduction in mortality for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia, although there was a volume threshold above which an increased condition-specific hospital volume was no longer significantly associated with reduced mortality.

Comparison of hospital risk-standardized mortality rates calculated by using in-hospital and 30-day models: an observational study with implications for hospital profiling.

BACKGROUND: In-hospital mortality measures, which are widely used to assess hospital quality, are not based on a standardized follow-up period and may systematically favor hospitals with shorter lengths of stay (LOSs). OBJECTIVE: To assess the agreement between performance measures of U.S. hospitals by using risk-standardized in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Nonfederal acute care hospitals in the United States with at least 30 admissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia from 2004 to 2006. PATIENTS: Medicare fee-for-service patients admitted for AMI, HF, or pneumonia from 2004 to 2006. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcomes were in-hospital and 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs). RESULTS: Included patients comprised 718,508 admissions to 3135 hospitals for AMI, 1,315,845 admissions to 4209 hospitals for HF, and 1,415,237 admissions to 4498 hospitals for pneumonia. The hospital-level mean patient LOS varied across hospitals for each condition, ranging from 2.3 to 13.7 days for AMI, 3.5 to 11.9 days for HF, and 3.8 to 14.8 days for pneumonia. The mean RSMR differences (30-day RSMR minus in-hospital RSMR) were 5.3% (SD, 1.3) for AMI, 6.0% (SD, 1.3) for HF, and 5.7% (SD, 1.4) for pneumonia; distributions varied widely across hospitals. Performance classifications differed between the in-hospital and 30-day models for 257 hospitals (8.2%) for AMI, 456 (10.8%) for HF, and 662 (14.7%) for pneumonia. Hospital mean LOS was positively correlated with in-hospital RSMRs for all 3 conditions. LIMITATION: Medicare claims data were used for risk adjustment. CONCLUSION: In-hospital mortality measures provide a different assessment of hospital performance than 30-day mortality and are biased in favor of hospitals with shorter LOSs. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Diagnoses and timing of 30-day readmissions after hospitalization for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or pneumonia.

IMPORTANCE: To better guide strategies intended to reduce high rates of 30-day readmission after hospitalization for heart failure (HF), acute myocardial infarction (MI), or pneumonia, further information is needed about readmission diagnoses, readmission timing, and the relationship of both to patient age, sex, and race. OBJECTIVE: To examine readmission diagnoses and timing among Medicare beneficiaries readmitted within 30 days after hospitalization for HF, acute MI, or pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: We analyzed 2007-2009 Medicare fee-for-service claims data to identify patterns of 30-day readmission by patient demographic characteristics and time after hospitalization for HF, acute MI, or pneumonia. Readmission diagnoses were categorized using an aggregated version of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Condition Categories. Readmission timing was determined by day after discharge. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We examined the percentage of 30-day readmissions occurring on each day (0-30) after discharge; the most common readmission diagnoses occurring during cumulative periods (days 0-3, 0-7, 0-15, and 0-30) and consecutive periods (days 0-3, 4-7, 8-15, and 16-30) after hospitalization; median time to readmission for common readmission diagnoses; and the relationship between patient demographic characteristics and readmission diagnoses and timing. RESULTS: From 2007 through 2009, we identified 329,308 30-day readmissions after 1,330,157 HF hospitalizations (24.8% readmitted), 108,992 30-day readmissions after 548,834 acute MI hospitalizations (19.9% readmitted), and 214,239 30-day readmissions after 1,168,624 pneumonia hospitalizations (18.3% readmitted). The proportion of patients readmitted for the same condition was 35.2% after the index HF hospitalization, 10.0% after the index acute MI hospitalization, and 22.4% after the index pneumonia hospitalization. Of all readmissions within 30 days of hospitalization, the majority occurred within 15 days of hospitalization: 61.0%, HF cohort; 67.6%, acute MI cohort; and 62.6%, pneumonia cohort. The diverse spectrum of readmission diagnoses was largely similar in both cumulative and consecutive periods after discharge. Median time to 30-day readmission was 12 days for patients initially hospitalized for HF, 10 days for patients initially hospitalized for acute MI, and 12 days for patients initially hospitalized for pneumonia and was comparable across common readmission diagnoses. Neither readmission diagnoses nor timing substantively varied by age, sex, or race. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized for HF, acute MI, or pneumonia, 30-day readmissions were frequent throughout the month after hospitalization and resulted from a similar spectrum of readmission diagnoses regardless of age, sex, race, or time after discharge.

Relationship between hospital readmission and mortality rates for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia.

IMPORTANCE: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services publicly reports hospital 30-day, all-cause, risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) and 30-day, all-cause, risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia. The evaluation of hospital performance as measured by RSMRs and RSRRs has not been well characterized. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between hospital RSMRs and RSRRs overall and within subgroups defined by hospital characteristics. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We studied Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2008 (4506 hospitals for acute myocardial infarction, 4767 hospitals for heart failure, and 4811 hospitals for pneumonia). We quantified the correlation between hospital RSMRs and RSRRs using weighted linear correlation; evaluated correlations in groups defined by hospital characteristics; and determined the proportion of hospitals with better and worse performance on both measures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital 30-day RSMRs and RSRRs. RESULTS: Mean RSMRs and RSRRs, respectively, were 16.60% and 19.94% for acute myocardial infarction, 11.17% and 24.56% for heart failure, and 11.64% and 18.22% for pneumonia. The correlations between RSMRs and RSRRs were 0.03 (95% CI, -0.002 to 0.06) for acute myocardial infarction, -0.17 (95% CI, -0.20 to -0.14) for heart failure, and 0.002 (95% CI, -0.03 to 0.03) for pneumonia. The results were similar for subgroups defined by hospital characteristics. Although there was a significant negative linear relationship between RSMRs and RSRRs for heart failure, the shared variance between them was only 2.9% (r2 = 0.029), with the correlation most prominent for hospitals with RSMR <11%. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Risk-standardized mortality rates and readmission rates were not associated for patients admitted with an acute myocardial infarction or pneumonia and were only weakly associated, within a certain range, for patients admitted with heart failure.

Adjustment for Social Risk Factors in a Measure of Clinician Quality Assessing Acute Admissions for Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions.

Importance: Adjusting quality measures used in pay-for-performance programs for social risk factors remains controversial. Objective: To illustrate a structured, transparent approach to decision-making about adjustment for social risk factors for a measure of clinician quality that assesses acute admissions for patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used 2017 and 2018 Medicare administrative claims and enrollment data, 2013 to 2017 American Community Survey data, and 2018 and 2019 Area Health Resource Files. Patients were Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries 65 years or older with at least 2 of 9 chronic conditions (acute myocardial infarction, Alzheimer disease/dementia, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma, depression, diabetes, heart failure, and stroke/transient ischemic attack). Patients were attributed to clinicians in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS; primary health care professionals or specialists) using a visit-based attribution algorithm. Analyses were conducted between September 30, 2017, and August 30, 2020. Exposures: Social risk factors included low Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Socioeconomic Status Index, low physician-specialist density, and Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of acute unplanned hospital admissions per 100 person-years at risk for admission. Measure scores were calculated for MIPS clinicians with at least 18 patients with MCCs assigned to them. Results: There were 4 659 922 patients with MCCs (mean [SD] age, 79.0 [8.0] years; 42.5% male) assigned to 58 435 MIPS clinicians. The median (IQR) risk-standardized measure score was 38.9 (34.9-43.6) per 100 person-years. Social risk factors of low Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Socioeconomic Status Index, low physician-specialist density, and Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility were significantly associated with the risk of hospitalization in the univariate models (relative risk [RR], 1.14 [95% CI, 1.13-1.14], RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.04-1.06], and RR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.43-1.45], respectively), but the association was attenuated in adjusted models (RR, 1.11 [95% CI 1.11-1.12] for dual eligibility). Across MIPS clinicians caring for variable proportions of dual-eligible patients with MCCs (quartile 1, 0%-3.1%; quartile 2, >3.1%-9.5%; quartile 3, >9.5%-24.5%, and quartile 4, >24.5%-100%), median measure scores per quartile were 37.4, 38.6, 40.0, and 39.8 per 100 person-years, respectively. Balancing conceptual considerations, empirical findings, programmatic structure, and stakeholder input, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services decided to adjust the final model for the 2 area-level social risk factors but not dual Medicare-Medicaid eligibility. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study demonstrated that adjustment for social risk factors in outcome measures requires weighing high-stake, competing concerns. A structured approach that includes evaluation of conceptual and contextual factors, as well as empirical findings, with active engagement of stakeholders can be used to make decisions about social risk factor adjustment.