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.

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 Postdischarge Emergency Department Visitation and Readmission Rates.

BACKGROUND: Hospital readmission rates are publicly reported by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS); however, the implications of emergency department (ED) visits following hospital discharge on readmissions are uncertain. We describe the frequency, diagnoses, and hospital-level variation in ED visitation following hospital discharge, including the relationship between risk-standardized ED visitation and readmission rates. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure, and pneumonia between July 2011 and June 2012. We used Medicare Standard Analytic Files to identify admissions, readmissions, and ED visits consistent with CMS measures. Postdischarge ED visits were defined as treat-and-discharge ED services within 30 days of hospitalization without readmission. We utilized hierarchical generalized linear models to calculate hospital risk-standardized postdischarge ED visit rates and readmission rates. RESULTS: We included 157,035 patients hospitalized at 1656 hospitals for AMI, 391,209 at 3044 hospitals for heart failure, and 342,376 at 3484 hospitals for pneumonia. After hospitalization for AMI, heart failure, and pneumonia, there were 14,714 (9%), 31,621 (8%), and 26,681 (8%) ED visits, respectively. Hospital-level variation in postdischarge ED visit rates was substantial: AMI (median: 8.3%; 5th and 95th percentile: 2.8%-14.3%), heart failure (median: 7.3%; 5th and 95th percentile: 3.0%-13.3%), and pneumonia (median: 7.1%; 5th and 95th percentile: 2.4%-13.2%). There was statistically significant inverse correlation between postdischarge ED visit rates and readmission rates: AMI (-0.23), heart failure (-0.29), and pneumonia (-0.18). CONCLUSIONS: Following hospital discharge, ED treatand- discharge visits are half as common as readmissions for Medicare beneficiaries. There is wide hospital-level variation in postdischarge ED visitation, and hospitals with higher ED visitation rates demonstrated lower readmission rates.

Hospital Characteristics Associated With Postdischarge Hospital Readmission, Observation, and Emergency Department Utilization.

BACKGROUND: Whether types of hospitals with high readmission rates also have high overall postdischarge acute care utilization (including emergency department and observation care) is unknown. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SUBJECTS: Nonfederal United States acute care hospitals. MEASURES: Using methodology established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, we calculated each hospital's "excess days in acute care" for fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries aged over 65 years discharged after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure (HF), or pneumonia, representing the mean difference between predicted and expected total days of acute care utilization in the 30 days following hospital discharge, per 100 discharges. We assessed the multivariable association of 8 hospital characteristics with excess days in acute care and the proportion of hospitals with each characteristic that were statistical outliers (95% credible interval estimate does not include 0). RESULTS: We included 2184 hospitals for acute myocardial infarction [228 (10.4%) better than expected, 549 (25.1%) worse than expected], 3720 hospitals for HF [484 (13.0%) better and 840 (22.6%) worse], and 4195 hospitals for pneumonia [673 (16.0%) better, 1005 (24.0%) worse]. Results for all conditions were similar. Worse than expected outliers for pneumonia included: 18.8% of safety net hospitals versus 26.1% of nonsafety net hospitals; 16.7% of public hospitals versus 33.1% of for-profit hospitals; 19.5% of nonteaching hospitals versus 52.2% of major teaching hospitals; 7.9% of rural hospitals versus 42.1% of large urban hospitals; 5.9% of hospitals with 24-<50 beds versus 58% of hospitals with >500 beds; and 29.0% of hospitals with nurse-to-bed ratios >1.0-1.5 versus 21.7% of hospitals with ratios >2.0. CONCLUSIONS: Including emergency department and observation stays in measures of postdischarge utilization produces similar results as measuring only readmissions in that major teaching, urban and for-profit hospitals still perform disproportionately poorly versus nonteaching or public hospitals. However, it enables identification of more outliers and a more granular assessment of the association of hospital factors and outcomes.

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 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.

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.