Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Performance Measures in Alternative Payment Models: Current Use, Implementation Barriers, and Principles to Succeed.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based performance measures (PRO-PMs) offer opportunities to aggregate survey data into a reliable and valid assessment of performance at the entity-level (eg, clinician, hospital, and accountable care organization). Our objective was to address the existing literature gap regarding the implementation barriers, current use, and principles for PRO-PMs to succeed. METHODS: As quality measurement experts, we first highlighted key principles of PRO-PMs and how alternative payment models (APMs) may be integral in promoting more widespread use. In May 2023, we reviewed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Measures Inventory Tool for active PRO-PM usage within CMS programs. We finally present principles to prioritize as part PRO-PMs succeeding within APMs. RESULTS: We identified 5 implementation barriers to PRO-PM use: original development of instrument, response rate sufficiency, provider burden, hesitancy regarding fairness, and attribution of desired outcomes. There existed 54 instances of active PRO-PM usage across CMS programs, including 46 unique PRO-PMs within 14 CMS programs. Five principles to prioritize as part of greater PRO-PM development and incorporation within APMs include the following: (1) clinical salience, (2) adequate sample size, (3) meaningful range of performance among measured entities and the ability to detect performance change in a reasonable time frame, (4) equity focus, and (5) appropriate risk adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Identified barriers and principles to prioritize should be considered during PRO-PM development and implementation phases to link available and novel measures to payment programs while ensuring provider and stakeholder engagement.

Timely estimation of National Admission, readmission, and observation-stay rates in medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia using near real-time claims data.

BACKGROUND: To estimate, prior to finalization of claims, the national monthly numbers of admissions and rates of 30-day readmissions and post-discharge observation-stays for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), or pneumonia. METHODS: The centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Integrated Data Repository, including the Medicare beneficiary enrollment database, was accessed in June 2015, February 2017, and February 2018. We evaluated patterns of delay in Medicare claims accrual, and used incomplete, non-final claims data to develop and validate models for real-time estimation of admissions, readmissions, and observation stays. RESULTS: These real-time reporting models accurately estimate, within 2 months from admission, the monthly numbers of admissions, 30-day readmission and observation-stay rates for patients with AMI, HF, or pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: This work will allow CMS to track the impact of policy decisions in real time and enable hospitals to better monitor their performance nationally.

Patterns and Costs of 90-Day Readmission for Surgical and Medical Complications Following Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned readmissions following elective total hip (THA) and knee (TKA) arthroplasty as a result of surgical complications likely have different quality improvement targets and cost implications than those for nonsurgical readmissions. We compared payments, timing, and location of unplanned readmissions with Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)-defined surgical complications to readmissions without such complications. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis on unplanned readmissions within 90 days of discharge following elective primary THA/TKA among Medicare patients discharged between April 2013 and March 2016. We categorized unplanned readmissions into groups with and without CMS-defined complications. We compared the location, timing, and payments for unplanned readmissions between both readmission categories. RESULTS: Among THA (N = 23,231) and TKA (N = 43,655) patients with unplanned 90-day readmissions, 27.1% (n = 6307) and 16.4% (n = 7173) had CMS-defined surgical complications, respectively. These readmissions with surgical complications were most commonly at the hospital of index procedure (THA: 84%; TKA: 80%) and within 30 days postdischarge (THA: 73%; TKA: 77%). In comparison, it was significantly less likely for patients without CMS-defined surgical complications to be rehospitalized at the index hospital (THA: 63%; TKA: 63%; P < .001) or within 30 days of discharge (THA: 58%; TKA: 59%; P < .001). Generally, payments associated with 90-day readmissions were higher for THA and TKA patients with CMS-defined complications than without (P < .001 for all). CONCLUSION: Readmissions associated with surgical complications following THA and TKA are more likely to occur at the hospital of index surgery, within 30 days of discharge, and cost more than readmissions without CMS-defined surgical complications, yet they account for only 1 in 5 readmissions.

Incorporating Stroke Severity Into Hospital Measures of 30-Day Mortality After Ischemic Stroke Hospitalization.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services publicly reports a hospital-level stroke mortality measure that lacks stroke severity risk adjustment. Our objective was to describe novel measures of stroke mortality suitable for public reporting that incorporate stroke severity into risk adjustment. METHODS: We linked data from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Get With The Guidelines-Stroke registry with Medicare fee-for-service claims data to develop the measures. We used logistic regression for variable selection in risk model development. We developed 3 risk-standardized mortality models for patients with acute ischemic stroke, all of which include the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score: one that includes other risk variables derived only from claims data (claims model); one that includes other risk variables derived from claims and clinical variables that could be obtained from electronic health record data (hybrid model); and one that includes other risk variables that could be derived only from electronic health record data (electronic health record model). RESULTS: The cohort used to develop and validate the risk models consisted of 188 975 hospital admissions at 1511 hospitals. The claims, hybrid, and electronic health record risk models included 20, 21, and 9 risk-adjustment variables, respectively; the C statistics were 0.81, 0.82, and 0.79, respectively (as compared with the current publicly reported model C statistic of 0.75); the risk-standardized mortality rates ranged from 10.7% to 19.0%, 10.7% to 19.1%, and 10.8% to 20.3%, respectively; the median risk-standardized mortality rate was 14.5% for all measures; and the odds of mortality for a high-mortality hospital (+1 SD) were 1.51, 1.52, and 1.52 times those for a low-mortality hospital (-1 SD), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We developed 3 quality measures that demonstrate better discrimination than the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' existing stroke mortality measure, adjust for stroke severity, and could be implemented in a variety of settings.

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.

Hospital Use of Observation Stays: Cross-sectional Study of the Impact on Readmission Rates.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services publicly reports hospital risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) as a measure of quality and performance; mischaracterizations may occur because observation stays are not captured by current measures. OBJECTIVES: To describe variation in hospital use of observation stays, the relationship between hospitals observation stay use and RSRRs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure, or pneumonia between July 2011 and June 2012. We calculated 3 hospital-specific 30-day outcomes: (1) observation rate, the proportion of all discharges followed by an observation stay without a readmission; (2) observation proportion, the proportion of observation stays among all patients with an observation stay or readmission; and (3) RSRR. RESULTS: For all 3 conditions, hospitals' observation rates were <2.5% and observation proportions were <12%, although there was variation across hospitals, including 28% of hospital with no observation stay use for AMI, 31% for heart failure, and 43% for pneumonia. There were statistically significant, but minimal, correlations between hospital observation rates and RSRRs: AMI (r=-0.02), heart failure (r=-0.11), and pneumonia (r=-0.02) (P<0.001). There were modest inverse correlations between hospital observation proportion and RSRR: AMI (r=-0.34), heart failure (r=-0.26), and pneumonia (r=-0.21) (P<0.001). If observation stays were included in readmission measures, <4% of top performing hospitals would be recategorized as having average performance. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals' observation stay use in the postdischarge period is low, but varies widely. Despite modest correlation between the observation proportion and RSRR, counting observation stays in readmission measures would minimally impact public reporting of performance.

Association of Admission to Veterans Affairs Hospitals vs Non-Veterans Affairs Hospitals With Mortality and Readmission Rates Among Older Men Hospitalized With Acute Myocardial Infarction, Heart Failure, or Pneumonia.

IMPORTANCE: Little contemporary information is available about comparative performance between Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA hospitals, particularly related to mortality and readmission rates, 2 important outcomes of care. OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare mortality and readmission rates among men in VA and non-VA hospitals. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional analysis involving male Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older hospitalized between 2010 and 2013 in VA and non-VA acute care hospitals for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), or pneumonia using the Medicare Standard Analytic Files and Enrollment Database together with VA administrative claims data. To avoid confounding geographic effects with health care system effects, we studied VA and non-VA hospitals within the same metropolitan statistical area (MSA). EXPOSURES: Hospitalization in a VA or non-VA hospital in MSAs that contained at least 1 VA and non-VA hospital. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: For each condition, 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates and risk-standardized readmission rates for VA and non-VA hospitals. Mean aggregated within-MSA differences in mortality and readmission rates were also assessed. RESULTS: We studied 104 VA and 1513 non-VA hospitals, with each condition-outcome analysis cohort for VA and non-VA hospitals containing at least 7900 patients (men; ≥65 years), in 92 MSAs. Mortality rates were lower in VA hospitals than non-VA hospitals for AMI (13.5% vs 13.7%, P = .02; -0.2 percentage-point difference) and HF (11.4% vs 11.9%, P = .008; -0.5 percentage-point difference), but higher for pneumonia (12.6% vs 12.2%, P = .045; 0.4 percentage-point difference). In contrast, readmission rates were higher in VA hospitals for all 3 conditions (AMI, 17.8% vs 17.2%, 0.6 percentage-point difference; HF, 24.7% vs 23.5%, 1.2 percentage-point difference; pneumonia, 19.4% vs 18.7%, 0.7 percentage-point difference, all P < .001). In within-MSA comparisons, VA hospitals had lower mortality rates for AMI (percentage-point difference, -0.22; 95% CI, -0.40 to -0.04) and HF (-0.63; 95% CI, -0.95 to -0.31), and mortality rates for pneumonia were not significantly different (-0.03; 95% CI, -0.46 to 0.40); however, VA hospitals had higher readmission rates for AMI (0.62; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.75), HF (0.97; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.34), or pneumonia (0.66; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.91). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among older men with AMI, HF, or pneumonia, hospitalization at VA hospitals, compared with hospitalization at non-VA hospitals, was associated with lower 30-day risk-standardized all-cause mortality rates for AMI and HF, and higher 30-day risk-standardized all-cause readmission rates for all 3 conditions, both nationally and within similar geographic areas, although absolute differences between these outcomes at VA and non-VA hospitals were small.

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.

Calculation of Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings With and Without Inclusion of the Peer Grouping Step.

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Overall Star Rating is widely used by patients and consumers, and there is continued stakeholder curiosity surrounding the inclusion of a peer grouping step, implemented to the 2021 Overall Star Rating methods. Objective: To calculate hospital star rating scores with and without the peer grouping step, with the former approach stratifying hospitals into 3-, 4-, and 5-measure group peer groups based on the number of measure groups with at least 3 reported measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used Care Compare website data from January 2023 for 3076 hospitals that received a star rating in 2023. Data were analyzed from April 2023 to December 2023. Exposure: Peer grouping vs no peer grouping. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the distribution of star ratings, with 1 star being the lowest-performing hospitals and 5 stars, the highest. Analyses additionally identified the number of hospitals with a higher, lower, or identical star rating with the use of the peer grouping step compared with its nonuse, stratified by certain hospital characteristics. Results: Among 3076 hospitals that received a star rating in 2023, most were nonspecialty (1994 hospitals [64.8%]), nonteaching (1807 hospitals [58.7%]), non-safety net (2326 hospitals [75.6%]), non-critical access (2826 hospitals [91.9%]) hospitals with fewer than 200 beds (1822 hospitals [59.2%]) and located in an urban geographic designations (1935 hospitals [62.9%]). The presence of the peer grouping step resulted in 585 hospitals (19.0%) being assigned a different star rating than if the peer grouping step was absent, including considerably more hospitals receiving a higher star rating (517 hospitals) rather than a lower (68 hospitals) star rating. Hospital characteristics associated with a higher star rating included urbanicity (351 hospitals [67.9%]), non-safety net status (414 hospitals [80.1%]), and fewer than 200 beds (287 hospitals [55.6%]). Collectively, the presence of the peer grouping step supports a like-to-like comparison among hospitals and supports the ability of patients to assess overall hospital quality. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, inclusion of the peer grouping in the CMS star rating method resulted in modest changes in hospital star ratings compared with application of the method without peer grouping. Given improvement in face validity and the close association between the current peer grouping approach and stakeholder needs for peer-comparison, the current CMS Overall Star Rating method allows for durable comparisons in hospital performance.

Processing and validation of inpatient Medicare Advantage data for use in hospital outcome measures.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of integrating Medicare Advantage (MA) admissions into the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) hospital outcome measures through combining Medicare Advantage Organization (MAO) encounter- and hospital-submitted inpatient claims. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Beneficiary enrollment data and inpatient claims from the Integrated Data Repository for 2018 Medicare discharges. STUDY DESIGN: We examined timeliness of MA claims, compared diagnosis and procedure codes for admissions with claims submitted both by the hospital and the MAO (overlapping claims), and compared demographic characteristics and principal diagnosis codes for admissions with overlapping claims versus admissions with a single claim. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We combined hospital- and MAO-submitted claims to capture MA admissions from all hospitals and identified overlapping claims. For admissions with only an MAO-submitted claim, we used provider history data to match the National Provider Identifier on the claim to the CMS Certification Number used for reporting purposes in CMS outcome measures. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: After removing void and duplicate claims, identifying overlapped claims between the hospital- and MAO-submitted datasets, restricting claims to acute care and critical access hospitals, and bundling same admission claims, we identified 5,078,611 MA admissions. Of these, 76.1% were submitted by both the hospital and MAO, 14.2% were submitted only by MAOs, and 9.7% were submitted only by hospitals. Nearly all (96.6%) hospital-submitted claims were submitted within 3 months after a one-year performance period, versus 85.2% of MAO-submitted claims. Among the 3,864,524 admissions with overlapping claims, 98.9% shared the same principal diagnosis code between the two datasets, and 97.5% shared the same first procedure code. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient MA data are feasible for use in CMS claims-based hospital outcome measures. We recommend prioritizing hospital-submitted over MAO-submitted claims for analyses. Monitoring, data audits, and ongoing policies to improve the quality of MA data are important approaches to address potential missing data and errors.

Pre-COVID-19 hospital quality and hospital response to COVID-19: examining associations between risk-adjusted mortality for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 hospital quality.

OBJECTIVES: The extent to which care quality influenced outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. Our objective was to determine if prepandemic hospital quality is associated with mortality among Medicare patients hospitalised with COVID-19. DESIGN: This is a retrospective observational study. We calculated hospital-level risk-standardised in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates (risk-standardised mortality rates, RSMRs) for patients hospitalised with COVID-19, and correlation coefficients between RSMRs and pre-COVID-19 hospital quality, overall and stratified by hospital characteristics. SETTING: Short-term acute care hospitals and critical access hospitals in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalised Medicare beneficiaries (Fee-For-Service and Medicare Advantage) age 65 and older hospitalised with COVID-19, discharged between 1 April 2020 and 30 September 2021. INTERVENTION/EXPOSURE: Pre-COVID-19 hospital quality. OUTCOMES: Risk-standardised COVID-19 in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates (RSMRs). RESULTS: In-hospital (n=4256) RSMRs for Medicare patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (April 2020-September 2021) ranged from 4.5% to 59.9% (median 18.2%; IQR 14.7%-23.7%); 30-day RSMRs ranged from 12.9% to 56.2% (IQR 24.6%-30.6%). COVID-19 RSMRs were negatively correlated with star rating summary scores (in-hospital correlation coefficient -0.41, p<0.0001; 30 days -0.38, p<0.0001). Correlations with in-hospital RSMRs were strongest for patient experience (-0.39, p<0.0001) and timely and effective care (-0.30, p<0.0001) group scores; 30-day RSMRs were strongest for patient experience (-0.34, p<0.0001) and mortality (-0.33, p<0.0001) groups. Patients admitted to 1-star hospitals had higher odds of mortality (in-hospital OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.83 to 1.91; 30-day OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.48) compared with 5-star hospitals. If all hospitals performed like an average 5-star hospital, we estimate 38 000 fewer COVID-19-related deaths would have occurred between April 2020 and September 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals with better prepandemic quality may have care structures and processes that allowed for better care delivery and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the relationship between pre-COVID-19 hospital quality and COVID-19 outcomes will allow policy-makers and hospitals better prepare for future public health emergencies.

Incorporating Medicare Advantage Admissions Into the CMS Hospital-Wide Readmission Measure.

Importance: Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment is rapidly expanding, yet Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) claims-based hospital outcome measures, including readmission rates, have historically included only fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries. Objective: To assess the outcomes of incorporating MA data into the CMS claims-based FFS Hospital-Wide All-Cause Unplanned Readmission (HWR) measure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assessed differences in 30-day unadjusted readmission rates and demographic and risk adjustment variables for MA vs FFS admissions. Inpatient FFS and MA administrative claims data were extracted from the Integrated Data Repository for all admissions for Medicare beneficiaries from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019. Measure reliability and risk-standardized readmission rates were calculated for the FFS and MA cohort vs the FFS-only cohort, overall and within specialty subgroups (cardiorespiratory, cardiovascular, medicine, surgery, neurology), then changes in hospital performance quintiles were assessed after adding MA admissions. Main Outcome and Measure: Risk-standardized readmission rates. Results: The cohort included 11 029 470 admissions (4 077 633 [37.0%] MA; 6 044 060 [54.8%] female; mean [SD] age, 77.7 [8.2] years). Unadjusted readmission rates were slightly higher for MA vs FFS admissions (15.7% vs 15.4%), yet comorbidities were generally lower among MA beneficiaries. Test-retest reliability for the FFS and MA cohort was higher than for the FFS-only cohort (0.78 vs 0.73) and signal-to-noise reliability increased in each specialty subgroup. Mean hospital risk-standardized readmission rates were similar for the FFS and MA cohort and FFS-only cohorts (15.5% vs 15.3%); this trend was consistent across the 5 specialty subgroups. After adding MA admissions to the FFS-only HWR measure, 1489 hospitals (33.1%) had their performance quintile ranking changed. As their proportion of MA admissions increased, more hospitals experienced a change in their performance quintile ranking (147 hospitals [16.3%] in the lowest quintile of percentage MA admissions; 408 [45.3%] in the highest). The combined cohort added 63 hospitals eligible for public reporting and more than 4 million admissions to the measure. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, adding MA admissions to the HWR measure was associated with improved measure reliability and precision and enabled the inclusion of more hospitals and beneficiaries. After MA admissions were included, 1 in 3 hospitals had their performance quintile changed, with the greatest shifts among hospitals with a high percentage of MA admissions.

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.

Implementation of a Best Practice Advisory to Improve Infection Screening Prior to New Prescriptions of Biologics and Targeted Synthetic Drugs.

OBJECTIVE: Use of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in patients with preexisting tuberculosis (TB), hepatitis B virus (HBV), or hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection can have serious consequences. Although various society guidelines recommend routine screening for these infections before initiating certain b/tsDMARDs, adherence to these recommendations varies widely. This quality improvement initiative evaluated local compliance with screening and assessed whether an automated computerized decision support system in the form of a best practice advisory (BPA) in the electronic health record could improve patient screening. METHODS: Established patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease (ARD) aged 18 years or older with at least one visit to our rheumatology practice between October 1, 2017, and March 3, 2022, were included. When prescribing a new b/tsDMARD, clinicians were alerted via a BPA that showed the most recent results for TB, HBV, and HCV. Screening proportions for TB, HBV, and HCV before BPA initiation were compared with those of eligible patients after the BPA implementation. RESULTS: A total of 711 patients pre-BPA and 257 patients post-BPA implementation were included in the study. The BPA implementation was associated with statistically significant improvement in screening for TB from 66% to 82% (P ≤ 0.001), HCV from 60% to 79% (P ≤ 0.001), hepatitis B core antibody 32% to 51% (P ≤ 0.001), and hepatitis B surface antigen from 51% to 70% (P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: Implementation of a BPA can improve infectious disease screening for patients with ARD who are started on b/tsDMARDs and has potential to improve patient safety.

Cost-Effectiveness of Surgical Weight-Loss Interventions for Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis and Class III Obesity.

OBJECTIVE: Class III obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥40 kg/m2 ) is associated with worse knee pain and total knee replacement (TKR) outcomes. Because bariatric surgery yields sustainable weight loss for individuals with BMI ≥40 kg/m2 , our objective was to establish the value of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in conjunction with usual care for knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients with BMI ≥40 kg/m2 . METHODS: We used the Osteoarthritis Policy model to assess long-term clinical benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of RYGB and LSG. We derived model inputs for efficacy, costs, and complications associated with these treatments from published data. Primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), all discounted at 3%/year. This analysis was conducted from a health care sector perspective. We performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate uncertainty in input parameters. RESULTS: The usual care + RYGB strategy increased the quality-adjusted life expectancy by 1.35 years and lifetime costs by $7,209, compared to usual care alone (ICER = $5,300/QALY). The usual care + LSG strategy yielded less benefit than usual care + RYGB and was dominated. Relative to usual care alone, both usual care + RYGB and usual care + LSG reduced opioid use from 13% to 4%, and increased TKR usage from 30% to 50% and 41%, respectively. For cohorts with BMI between 38 and 41 kg/m2 , usual care + LSG dominated usual care + RYGB. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, usual care + RYGB and usual care + LSG were cost-effective in 70% and 30% of iterations, respectively. CONCLUSION: RYGB offers good value among knee OA patients with BMI ≥40 kg/m2 , while LSG may provide good value among those with BMI between 35 and 41 kg/m2 .

Development of American College of Rheumatology Quality Measures for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Modified Delphi Process With Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) Registry Data Review.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop readily measurable digital quality measure statements for clinical care in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) using a multistep process guided by consensus methods. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi process, an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) workgroup of SLE experts reviewed all North American and European guidelines from 2000 to 2020 on treatment, monitoring, and phenotyping of patients with lupus. Workgroup members extracted quality constructs from guidelines, rated these by importance and feasibility, and generated evidence-based quality measure statements. The ACR Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) Registry was queried for measurement data availability. In 3 consecutive Delphi sessions, a multidisciplinary Delphi panel voted on the importance and feasibility of each statement. Proposed measures with consensus on feasibility and importance were ranked to identify the top 3 measures. RESULTS: Review of guidelines and distillation of 57 quality constructs resulted in 15 quality measure statements. Among these, 5 met high consensus for importance and feasibility, including 2 on treatment and 3 on laboratory monitoring measures. The 3 highest-ranked statements were recommended for further measure specification as SLE digital quality measures: 1) hydroxychloroquine use, 2) limiting glucocorticoid use >7.5 mg/day to <6 months, and 3) end-organ monitoring of kidney function and urine protein excretion at least every 6 months. CONCLUSION: The Delphi process selected 3 quality measures for SLE care on hydroxychloroquine, glucocorticoid reduction, and kidney monitoring. Next, measures will undergo specification and validity testing in RISE and US rheumatology practices as the foundation for national implementation and use in quality improvement programs.