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.

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.

Temporal Trends in Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Multimorbidity Prevalence in the United States, 1999-2018.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in multimorbidity prevalence indicate health inequalities, as the risk of morbidity does not intrinsically differ by race/ethnicity. This study aimed to determine if multimorbidity differences by race/ethnicity are decreasing over time. METHODS: Serial cross-sectional analysis of the National Health Interview Survey, 1999-2018. Included individuals were ≥18 years old and categorized by self-reported race, ethnicity, age, and income. The main outcomes were temporal trends in multimorbidity prevalence based on the self-reported presence of ≥2 of 9 common chronic conditions. FINDINGS: The study sample included 596,355 individuals (4.7% Asian, 11.8% Black, 13.8% Latino/Hispanic, and 69.7% White). In 1999, the estimated prevalence of multimorbidity was 5.9% among Asian, 17.4% among Black, 10.7% among Latino/Hispanic, and 13.5% among White individuals. Prevalence increased for all racial/ethnic groups during the study period (P ≤ .001 for each), with no significant change in the differences between them. In 2018, compared with White individuals, multimorbidity was more prevalent among Black individuals (+2.5 percentage points) and less prevalent among Asian and Latino/Hispanic individuals (-6.6 and -2.1 percentage points, respectively). Among those aged ≥30 years, Black individuals had multimorbidity prevalence equivalent to that of Latino/Hispanic and White individuals aged 5 years older, and Asian individuals aged 10 years older. CONCLUSIONS: From 1999 to 2018, a period of increasing multimorbidity prevalence for all the groups studied, there was no significant progress in eliminating disparities between Black individuals and White individuals. Public health interventions that prevent the onset of chronic conditions in early life may be needed to eliminate these disparities.

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.

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.

Assessing The Effectiveness Of Peer Comparisons As A Way To Improve Health Care Quality.

Policy makers are increasingly using performance feedback that compares physicians to their peers as part of payment policy reforms. However, it is not known whether peer comparisons can improve broad outcomes, beyond changing specific individual behaviors such as reducing inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics. We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Hawaii to examine the impact of providing peer comparisons feedback on the quality of care to primary care providers in the setting of a shift from fee-for-service to population-based payment. Over 74,000 patients and eighty-eight primary care providers across sixty-three sites were included over a period of nine months in 2016. Patients in the peer comparisons intervention group experienced a 3.1-percentage-point increase in quality scores compared to the control group-whose members received individual feedback only. This result underscores the effectiveness of peer comparisons as a way to improve health care quality, and it supports Medicare's decisions to provide comparative feedback as part of recently implemented primary care and specialty payment reform programs.

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.

Trends in 30-Day Readmission Rates for Medicare and Non-Medicare Patients in the Era of the Affordable Care Act.

BACKGROUND: Temporal changes in the readmission rates for patient groups and conditions that were not directly under the purview of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) can help assess whether efforts to lower readmissions extended beyond targeted patients and conditions. METHODS: Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (2010-2015), we assessed trends in all-cause readmission rates for 1 of the 3 HRRP conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia) or conditions not targeted by the HRRP in age-insurance groups defined by age group (≥65 years or <65 years) and payer (Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance). RESULTS: In the group aged ≥65 years, readmission rates for those covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance decreased annually for acute myocardial infarction (risk-adjusted odds ratio [OR; 95% confidence interval] among Medicare patients, 0.94 [0.94-0.95], among Medicaid patients, 0.93 [0.90-0.97], and among patients with private-insurance, 0.95 [0.93-0.97]); heart failure (ORs, 0.96 [0.96-0.97], 0.96 [0.94-0.98], and 0.97 [0.96-0.99], for the 3 payers, respectively), and pneumonia (ORs, 0.96 [0.96-0.97), 0.94 [0.92-0.96], and 0.96 [0.95-0.97], respectively). Readmission rates also decreased in the group aged <65 years for acute myocardial infarction (ORs: Medicare 0.97 [0.96-0.98], Medicaid 0.94 [0.92-0.95], and private insurance 0.93 [0.92-0.94]), heart failure (ORs, 0.98 [0.97-0.98]: 0.96 [0.96-0.97], and 0.97 [0.95-0.98], for the 3 payers, respectively), and pneumonia (ORs, 0.98 [0.97-0.99], 0.98 [0.97-0.99], and 0.98 [0.97-1.00], respectively). Further, readmission rates decreased significantly for non-target conditions. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a systematic improvement in readmission rates for patient groups beyond the population of fee-for-service, older, Medicare beneficiaries included in the HRRP.

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.

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.).

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.

Describing the performance of U.S. hospitals by applying big data analytics.

Public reporting of measures of hospital performance is an important component of quality improvement efforts in many countries. However, it can be challenging to provide an overall characterization of hospital performance because there are many measures of quality. In the United States, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reports over 100 measures that describe various domains of hospital quality, such as outcomes, the patient experience and whether established processes of care are followed. Although individual quality measures provide important insight, it is challenging to understand hospital performance as characterized by multiple quality measures. Accordingly, we developed a novel approach for characterizing hospital performance that highlights the similarities and differences between hospitals and identifies common patterns of hospital performance. Specifically, we built a semi-supervised machine learning algorithm and applied it to the publicly-available quality measures for 1,614 U.S. hospitals to graphically and quantitatively characterize hospital performance. In the resulting visualization, the varying density of hospitals demonstrates that there are key clusters of hospitals that share specific performance profiles, while there are other performance profiles that are rare. Several popular hospital rating systems aggregate some of the quality measures included in our study to produce a composite score; however, hospitals that were top-ranked by such systems were scattered across our visualization, indicating that these top-ranked hospitals actually excel in many different ways. Our application of a novel graph analytics method to data describing U.S. hospitals revealed nuanced differences in performance that are obscured in existing hospital rating systems.

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.

Accounting For Patients' Socioeconomic Status Does Not Change Hospital Readmission Rates.

There is an active public debate about whether patients' socioeconomic status should be included in the readmission measures used to determine penalties in Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP). Using the current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services methodology, we compared risk-standardized readmission rates for hospitals caring for high and low proportions of patients of low socioeconomic status (as defined by their Medicaid status or neighborhood income). We then calculated risk-standardized readmission rates after additionally adjusting for patients' socioeconomic status. Our results demonstrate that hospitals caring for large proportions of patients of low socioeconomic status have readmission rates similar to those of other hospitals. Moreover, readmission rates calculated with and without adjustment for patients' socioeconomic status are highly correlated. Readmission rates of hospitals caring for patients of low socioeconomic status changed by approximately 0.1 percent with adjustment for patients' socioeconomic status, and only 3-4 percent fewer such hospitals reached the threshold for payment penalty in Medicare's HRRP. Overall, adjustment for socioeconomic status does not change hospital results in meaningful ways.

Declining Admission Rates And Thirty-Day Readmission Rates Positively Associated Even Though Patients Grew Sicker Over Time.

Programs from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services simultaneously promote strategies to lower hospital admissions and readmissions. However, there is concern that hospitals in communities that successfully reduce admissions may be penalized, as patients that are ultimately hospitalized may be sicker and at higher risk of readmission. We therefore examined the relationship between changes from 2010 to 2013 in admission rates and thirty-day readmission rates for elderly Medicare beneficiaries. We found that communities with the greatest decline in admission rates also had the greatest decline in thirty-day readmission rates, even though hospitalized patients did grow sicker as admission rates declined. The relationship between changing admission and readmission rates persisted in models that measured observed readmission rates, risk-standardized readmission rates, and the combined rate of readmission and death. Our findings suggest that communities can reduce admission rates and readmission rates in parallel, and that federal policy incentivizing reductions in both outcomes does not create contradictory incentives.

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.

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.

Development and Validation of an Algorithm to Identify Planned Readmissions From Claims Data.

BACKGROUND: It is desirable not to include planned readmissions in readmission measures because they represent deliberate, scheduled care. OBJECTIVES: To develop an algorithm to identify planned readmissions, describe its performance characteristics, and identify improvements. DESIGN: Consensus-driven algorithm development and chart review validation study at 7 acute-care hospitals in 2 health systems. PATIENTS: For development, all discharges qualifying for the publicly reported hospital-wide readmission measure. For validation, all qualifying same-hospital readmissions that were characterized by the algorithm as planned, and a random sampling of same-hospital readmissions that were characterized as unplanned. MEASUREMENTS: We calculated weighted sensitivity and specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the algorithm (version 2.1), compared to gold standard chart review. RESULTS: In consultation with 27 experts, we developed an algorithm that characterizes 7.8% of readmissions as planned. For validation we reviewed 634 readmissions. The weighted sensitivity of the algorithm was 45.1% overall, 50.9% in large teaching centers and 40.2% in smaller community hospitals. The weighted specificity was 95.9%, positive predictive value was 51.6%, and negative predictive value was 94.7%. We identified 4 minor changes to improve algorithm performance. The revised algorithm had a weighted sensitivity 49.8% (57.1% at large hospitals), weighted specificity 96.5%, positive predictive value 58.7%, and negative predictive value 94.5%. Positive predictive value was poor for the 2 most common potentially planned procedures: diagnostic cardiac catheterization (25%) and procedures involving cardiac devices (33%). CONCLUSIONS: An administrative claims-based algorithm to identify planned readmissions is feasible and can facilitate public reporting of primarily unplanned readmissions.

Association of hospital volume with readmission rates: a retrospective cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of hospital volume (a marker of quality of care) with hospital readmission rates. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: 4651 US acute care hospitals. STUDY DATA: 6,916,644 adult discharges, excluding patients receiving psychiatric or medical cancer treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used Medicare fee-for-service data from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 to calculate observed-to-expected, unplanned, 30 day, standardized readmission rates for hospitals and for specialty cohorts medicine, surgery/gynecology, cardiorespiratory, cardiovascular, and neurology. We assessed the association of hospital volume by quintiles with 30 day, standardized readmission rates, with and without adjustment for hospital characteristics (safety net status, teaching status, geographic region, urban/rural status, nurse to bed ratio, ownership, and cardiac procedure capability. We also examined associations with the composite outcome of 30 day, standardized readmission or mortality rates. RESULTS: Mean 30 day, standardized readmission rate among the fifth of hospitals with the lowest volume was 14.7 (standard deviation 5.3) compared with 15.9 (1.7) among the fifth of hospitals with the highest volume (P<0.001). We observed the same pattern of lower readmission rates in the lowest versus highest volume hospitals in the specialty cohorts for medicine (16.6 v 17.4, P<0.001), cardiorespiratory (18.5 v 20.5, P<0.001), and neurology (13.2 v 14.0, p=0.01) cohorts; the cardiovascular cohort, however, had an inverse association (14.6 v 13.7, P<0.001). These associations remained after adjustment for hospital characteristics except in the cardiovascular cohort, which became non-significant, and the surgery/gynecology cohort, in which the lowest volume fifth of hospitals had significantly higher standardized readmission rates than the highest volume fifth (difference 0.63 percentage points (95% confidence interval 0.10 to 1.17), P=0.02). Mean 30 day, standardized mortality or readmission rate was not significantly different between highest and lowest volume fifths (20.4 v 20.2, P=0.19) and was highest in the middle fifth of hospitals (range 20.6-20.8). CONCLUSIONS: Standardized readmission rates are lowest in the lowest volume hospitals-opposite from the typical association of greater hospital volume with better outcomes. This association was independent of hospital characteristics and was only partially attenuated by examining mortality and readmission together. Our findings suggest that readmissions are associated with different aspects of care than mortality or complications.