Effect of a Hospital-wide Measure on the Readmissions Reduction Program.

BACKGROUND: The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program penalizes hospitals that have high 30-day readmission rates across specific conditions. There is support for changing to a hospital-wide readmission measure to broaden hospital eligibility and provide incentives for improvement across more conditions. METHODS: We used Medicare claims from 2011 through 2013 to evaluate the number of hospitals that were eligible for penalties, in that they met a volume threshold of 25 admissions over a 3-year period for a specific condition or 25 admissions over a 1-year period for the cohorts included in the hospital-wide measure. We estimated the expected effects that changing from the condition-specific readmission measures to a hospital-wide measure would have on average penalties for safety-net hospitals (i.e., hospitals that treat a large proportion of low-income patients) and other hospitals. RESULTS: Our sample included 6,807,899 admissions for the hospital-wide measure and 4,392,658 admissions for the condition-specific measures. Of 3443 hospitals, 688 were considered to be safety-net hospitals. Changing to the hospital-wide measure would result in 76 more hospitals being eligible to receive penalties. The hospital-wide measure would increase penalties (mean [±SE] Medicare payment reductions across all hospitals) from 0.42±0.01% to 0.89±0.01% of Medicare base diagnosis-related-group payments. It would also increase the disparity in penalties between safety-net hospitals and other hospitals from -0.03±0.02 to 0.41±0.06 percentage points. CONCLUSIONS: A transition to a hospital-wide readmission measure would only modestly increase the number of hospitals eligible for penalties and would substantially increase the penalties for safety-net hospitals.

Racial Differences in Long-Term Outcomes Among Older Survivors of In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Black patients have worse in-hospital survival than white patients after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA), but less is known about long-term outcomes. We sought to assess among IHCA survivors whether there are additional racial differences in survival after hospital discharge and to explore potential reasons for differences. METHODS: This was alongitudinal study of patients ≥65 years of age who had an IHCA and survived until hospital discharge between 2000 and 2011 from the national Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry whose data could be linked to Medicare claims data. Sequential hierarchical modified Poisson regression models evaluated the proportion of racial differences explained by patient, hospital, and unmeasured factors. Our exposure was black or white race. Our outcome was survival at 1, 3, and 5 years. RESULTS: Among 8764 patients who survived to discharge, 7652 (87.3%) were white and 1112 (12.7%) were black. Black patients with IHCA were younger, more frequently female, sicker with more comorbidities, less likely to have a shockable initial cardiac arrest rhythm, and less likely to be evaluated with coronary angiography after initial resuscitation. At discharge, black patients were also more likely to have at least moderate neurological disability and less likely to be discharged home. Compared with white patients and after adjustment only for hospital site, black patients had lower 1-year (43.6% versus 60.2%; relative risk [RR], 0.72), 3-year (31.6% versus 45.3%; RR, 0.71), and 5-year (23.5% versus 35.4%; RR, 0.67; all P<0.001) survival. Adjustment for patient factors explained 29% of racial differences in 1-year survival (RR, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.86), and further adjustment for hospital treatment factors explained an additional 17% of racial differences (RR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.92). Approximately half of the racial difference in 1-year survival remained unexplained, and the degree to which patient and hospital factors explained racial differences in 3-year and 5-year survival was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Black survivors of IHCA have lower long-term survival compared with white patients, and about half of this difference is not explained by patient factors or treatments after IHCA. Further investigation is warranted to better understand to what degree unmeasured but modifiable factors such as postdischarge care account for unexplained disparities.

Readmission Rates and Skilled Nursing Facility Utilization After Major Inpatient Surgery.

BACKGROUND: There is widespread interest in reducing use of postacute care (ie, care after hospital discharge) following major surgery, provided that such reductions do not worsen quality outcomes such as readmission rates. OBJECTIVES: To describe the association between changes in skilled nursing facility (SNF) use and changes in readmission rates after surgery. RESEARCH DESIGN: This was a observational study. SUBJECTS: Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or total hip replacement (THR) from 2008 to 2013. MEASURES: Primary exposure was risk-adjusted SNF use initiated 0-2 days after hospital discharge, and the primary outcome was risk-adjusted readmission rates from 3 to 30 days after discharge. RESULTS: Among 176,994 patients who underwent CABG at 804 hospitals and 233,955 patients who underwent THR at 1220 hospitals, hospital-level SNF utilization increased after CABG (16.4%-19.0%, P=0.001) and THR (40.8%-45.5%, P<0.001), from 2008 to 2013. Hospital readmission rates decreased for CABG (14.7%-12.7%, P<0.001) but did not change for THR (4.9%-4.8%, P=0.55), from 2008 to 2013. However, there was wide variation in hospital-level change in readmission rates. After adjusting for hospital characteristics and baseline readmission rates, there was no statistically significant association between change in SNF use and change in readmission rates (0.017 and 0.011 percentage point increase in SNF use for every one percentage point increase in readmission rates for CABG and THR respectively, P=0.58 and 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in use of postacute care after THR and CABG have not been associated with changes in readmission rates.

Performance in the Medicare Shared Savings Program by Accountable Care Organizations Disproportionately Serving Dual and Disabled Populations.

BACKGROUND: The growth of accountable care organizations (ACOs) and other alternative payment models has prompted concern about whether these models will disadvantage providers who serve vulnerable populations, particularly those living in poverty or with a disability. OBJECTIVE: To examine performance by ACOs in the top quintile of their proportion of beneficiaries dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid (high-dual) and the top quintile of disabled beneficiaries (high-disabled). RESEARCH DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: The 333 ACOs in the Medicare Shared Savings Program in 2014, followed through 2016. MEASURES: Quality scores, savings per beneficiary, whether or not the ACO shared savings, and amount of shared savings. RESULTS: High-dual and high-disabled ACOs had slightly lower quality and similar or higher baseline spending than other ACOs, but achieved greater savings per beneficiary than other ACOs ($212 vs. $51 for high-dual ACOs, P=0.04; $241 vs. $44 for high-disabled ACOs, P=0.012). Further, these ACOs were equally or more likely to earn shared savings; just over 30% of high-dual ACOs earned shared savings compared with 25% of non-high-dual ACOs (P=0.35) and 38% of high-disabled ACOs earned shared savings compared with 23% of non-high-disabled ACOs (P=0.013). In longitudinal analyses, we found a decrease in the differences in quality between high-social risk and other ACOs over time. Savings remained higher for high-dual and high-disabled ACOs relative to other ACOs over 2014-2016 though the gap narrowed over time. CONCLUSIONS: High-dual and high-disabled ACOs had similar or higher spending than other ACOs at baseline, but achieved greater savings and were equally or more likely to earn shared savings, suggesting that alternative payment models can have positive financial outcomes for providers who serve vulnerable populations.

Association of Practice-Level Social and Medical Risk With Performance in the Medicare Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier Program.

Importance: Medicare recently launched the Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier (PVBM) Program, a mandatory pay-for-performance program for physician practices. Little is known about performance by practices that serve socially or medically high-risk patients. Objective: To compare performance in the PVBM Program by practice characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional observational study using PVBM Program data for payments made in 2015 based on performance of large US physician practices caring for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in 2013. Exposures: High social risk (defined as practices in the top quartile of proportion of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid) and high medical risk (defined as practices in the top quartile of mean Hierarchical Condition Category risk score among fee-for-service beneficiaries). Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality and cost z scores based on a composite of individual measures. Higher z scores reflect better performance on quality; lower scores, better performance on costs. Results: Among 899 physician practices with 5 189 880 beneficiaries, 547 practices were categorized as low risk (neither high social nor high medical risk) (mean, 7909 beneficiaries; mean, 320 clinicians), 128 were high medical risk only (mean, 3675 beneficiaries; mean, 370 clinicians), 102 were high social risk only (mean, 1635 beneficiaries; mean, 284 clinicians), and 122 were high medical and social risk (mean, 1858 beneficiaries; mean, 269 clinicians). Practices categorized as low risk performed the best on the composite quality score (z score, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.28]) compared with each of the practices categorized as high risk (high medical risk only: z score, -0.55 [95% CI, -0.77 to -0.32]; high social risk only: z score, -0.86 [95% CI, -1.17 to -0.54]; and high medical and social risk: -0.78 [95% CI, -1.04 to -0.51]) (P < .001 across groups). Practices categorized as high social risk only performed the best on the composite cost score (z score, -0.52 [95% CI, -0.71 to -0.33]), low risk had the next best cost score (z score, -0.18 [95% CI, -0.25 to -0.10]), then high medical and social risk (z score, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.57]), and then high medical risk only (z score, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.99]) (P < .001 across groups). Total per capita costs were $9506 for practices categorized as low risk, $13 683 for high medical risk only, $8214 for high social risk only, and $11 692 for high medical and social risk. These patterns were associated with fewer bonuses and more penalties for high-risk practices. Conclusions and Relevance: During the first year of the Medicare Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier Program, physician practices that served more socially high-risk patients had lower quality and lower costs, and practices that served more medically high-risk patients had lower quality and higher costs.

Alignment of Do-Not-Resuscitate Status With Patients' Likelihood of Favorable Neurological Survival After In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

IMPORTANCE: After patients survive an in-hospital cardiac arrest, discussions should occur about prognosis and preferences for future resuscitative efforts. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patients' decisions for do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders after a successful resuscitation from in-hospital cardiac arrest are aligned with their expected prognosis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Within Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation, we identified 26,327 patients with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after in-hospital cardiac arrest between April 2006 and September 2012 at 406 US hospitals. Using a previously validated prognostic tool, each patient's likelihood of favorable neurological survival (ie, without severe neurological disability) was calculated. The proportion of patients with DNR orders within each prognosis score decile and the association between DNR status and actual favorable neurological survival were examined. EXPOSURES: Do-not-resuscitate orders within 12 hours of ROSC. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Likelihood of favorable neurological survival. RESULTS: Overall, 5944 (22.6% [95% CI, 22.1%-23.1%]) patients had DNR orders within 12 hours of ROSC. This group was older and had higher rates of comorbidities (all P < .05) than patients without DNR orders. Among patients with the best prognosis (decile 1), 7.1% (95% CI, 6.1%-8.1%) had DNR orders even though their predicted rate of favorable neurological survival was 64.7% (95% CI, 62.8%-66.6%). Among patients with the worst expected prognosis (decile 10), 36.0% (95% CI, 34.2%-37.8%) had DNR orders even though their predicted rate for favorable neurological survival was 4.0% (95% CI, 3.3%-4.7%) (P for both trends <.001). This pattern was similar when DNR orders were redefined as within 24 hours, 72 hours, and 5 days of ROSC. The actual rate of favorable neurological survival was higher for patients without DNR orders (30.5% [95% CI, 29.9%-31.1%]) than it was for those with DNR orders (1.8% [95% CI, 1.6%-2.0%]). This pattern of lower survival among patients with DNR orders was seen in every decile of expected prognosis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although DNR orders after in-hospital cardiac arrest were generally aligned with patients' likelihood of favorable neurological survival, only one-third of patients with the worst prognosis had DNR orders. Patients with DNR orders had lower survival than those without DNR orders, including those with the best prognosis.

Composite quality measures for common inpatient medical conditions.

BACKGROUND: Public reporting on quality aims to help patients select better hospitals. However, individual quality measures are suboptimal in identifying superior and inferior hospitals based on outcome performance. OBJECTIVE: To combine structure, process, and outcome measures into an empirically derived composite quality measure for heart failure (HF), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and pneumonia (PNA). To assess how well the composite measure predicts future high and low performers, and explains variance in future hospital mortality. RESEARCH DESIGN: Using national Medicare data, we created a cohort of older patients treated at an acute care hospital for HF (n=1,203,595), AMI (n=625,595), or PNA (n=1,234,299). We ranked hospitals on the basis of their July 2005 to June 2008 performance on the composite. We then estimated the odds of future (July to December 2009) 30-day, risk-adjusted mortality at the worst versus best quintile of hospitals. We repeated this analysis using 2005-2008 performance on existing quality indicators, including mortality. RESULTS: The composite (vs. Hospital Compare) explained 68% (vs. 39%) of variation in future AMI mortality rates. In 2009, if an AMI patient had chosen a hospital in the worst versus best quintile of performance using 2005-2008 composite (vs. Hospital Compare) rankings, he or she would have had 1.61 (vs. 1.39) times the odds of dying in 30 days (P-value for difference <0.001). Results were similar for HF and PNA. CONCLUSIONS: Composite measures of quality for HF, AMI, and PNA performed better than existing measures at explaining variation in future mortality and predicting future high and low performers.

Functional outcomes of general medical patients with severe sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Severe sepsis is a common cause for admission to the general medical ward. Previous work has demonstrated substantial new long-term disability in patients with severe sepsis, but the short-term functional outcomes of patients admitted to the general medical floor -- where the majority of severe sepsis is treated -- are largely unknown. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed of patients initially admitted to non-ICU medical wards at a tertiary care academic medical center. Severe sepsis was confirmed by three physician reviewers, using the International Consensus Conference definition of sepsis. Baseline functional status, disposition location, and receipt of post-acute skilled care were recorded using a structured abstraction instrument. RESULTS: 3,146 discharges had severe sepsis by coding algorithm; from a random sample of 111 patients, 64 had the diagnosis of severe sepsis confirmed by reviewers. The mean age of the 64 patients was 63.5 years +/- 18.0. Prior to admission, 80% of patients lived at home and 50.8% of patients were functionally independent. Inpatient mortality was 12.5% and 37.5% of patients were discharged to a nursing facility. Of all patients in the cohort, 50.0% were discharged home, and 66.7% of patients who were functionally independent at baseline were discharged to home. CONCLUSIONS: New physical debility is a common feature of severe sepsis in patients initially cared for on the general medical floor. Debility occurs even in those with good baseline physical function. Interventions to improve the poor functional outcomes of this population are urgently needed.

Medicare's Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program Values Quality over QALYs.

Medicare's Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program (HVBP) is the first national pay-for-performance program to combine measures of quality of care with a measure of episode spending. We estimated the implicit tradeoffs between mortality reduction and spending reduction. To earn points in HVBP, a hospital can either lower mortality or reduce spending, creating a tradeoff between the 2 measures. We analyzed the quality performance and earned points of 2814 hospitals using publicly available data. We then quantified the tradeoffs between spending and mortality in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). If incentives in the program were balanced, then the tradeoff between spending and QALYs should be comparable with those of high-value health interventions, roughly $50,000 to $200,000 per QALY. Instead, the tradeoff in HVBP was about $1.2 million per QALY. HVBP overvalues improvements in quality of care relative to spending reductions. We propose 2 possible policy adjustments that could improve incentives for hospitals to deliver high-value care.

Costs of quality improvement: a survey of four acute care hospitals.

BACKGROUND: In the past few decades, improving quality and safety has become an imperative for hospitals in the United States and elsewhere. Yet, little is known about the total costs of these efforts or what proportion of gross revenues is spent on quality- and safety-related activities. A study was conducted to quantify the total costs of building and maintaining the systemwide infrastructure that supports inpatient quality and safety. METHODS: In 2007, a survey was administered in person to the chief medical officers and associated staff of four urban, nonprofit, acute care teaching hospitals within a health care system in the Northeast. FINDING: Core inpatient quality improvement (QI) activities were composed of eight categories: information systems, patient safety, collecting and reporting quality metrics for local and national organizations, improving patient flow, staff incentives and education, patient satisfaction, leadership efforts focused on QI, and miscellaneous. Total reported costs for inpatient QI ranged from $2 million to $21 million. Relative costs varied from $200 to $400 per discharge (1%-2% of total operating revenue). Hospitals demonstrated great variability in how they allocated funds between specific activities such as patient safety projects ($10 to $80 per discharge), computerized provider order entry ($20 to $140 per discharge), and collecting and reporting quality metrics for national organizations ($30 to $80 per discharge). DISCUSSION: Total QI costs are challenging to define and are still small compared with total hospital operating revenue. The demand for resources for inpatient QI is likely to increase as the proposed number of metrics tracked by multiple regulatory and accreditation agencies continues to grow, coordination between agencies remains limited, and public demands for transparency increase.

Spending On Postacute Care After Hospitalization In Commercial Insurance And Medicare Around Age Sixty-Five.

Postacute care costs are the primary determinant of episode spending around hospitalization. Yet there is little evidence that greater spending on postacute care improves readmission rates or functional recovery. Recent Medicare payment reform evaluations have suggested that postacute care spending is responsive to episode-based incentives. However, it remains unknown whether Medicare payment policies are responsible for excess postacute care spending, compared with that of commercial payers. In a population-based, statewide collaborative of Michigan hospitals, we used regression discontinuity design among propensity-weighted, age-adjusted cohorts to compare postacute care spending between patients with commercial insurance and those with Medicare around age sixty-five. Spending was 68-230 percent greater among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries than among similar commercially insured people across varied medical and surgical conditions. Despite greater spending, there were no differences in readmission rates. These findings suggest that postacute care utilization is highly sensitive to payer influence, and there may be an opportunity for additional savings in Medicare without sacrificing quality.

The Five-Star Skilled Nursing Facility Rating System and Care of Disadvantaged Populations.

OBJECTIVES: To examine characteristics and locations of high- and low-quality skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and whether certain vulnerable individuals were differentially discharged to facilities with lower quality ratings. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Medicare-certified SNFs providing postacute care. PARTICIPANTS: SNF stays (N=1,195,166) of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older admitted to 14,033 SNFs within 2 days of hospital discharge. MEASUREMENTS: We used Medicare claims from October 2013 to September 2014 and SNF 5-star ratings published on Nursing Home Compare. We describe the characteristics and populations of facilities according to quality, and the location of low (1 star) and high (5 stars) quality facilities. We used logistic regression models to estimate odds of admission to a low-quality facility after hospital discharge according to race, ethnicity, dual Medicare-Medicaid enrollment, functional status, discharge from a safety-net or low-quality hospital, and residence in a county with more low-quality SNFs. RESULTS: More than one-fifth (22.2%) of the facilities had a 5-star (high quality) rating, and 15.9% had a one-star (low quality) rating. Low-quality facilities were more likely to be in the south (44%), for profit (85%), and larger (>70 beds (86%)). Dual enrollment was the strongest predictor of admission to a 1-star facility (odds ratio (OR) = 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.51-1.55), although racial or ethnic minority status (black: OR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.22-1.28; Hispanic: OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.06-1.14) and geographic prevalence of facilities (for a 10% increase in 1-star beds located in the county of individual's residence: OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.26-1.27) were also significant predictors. CONCLUSION: Vulnerable groups are more likely to be discharged to lower-quality facilities for postacute care. Policy-makers should monitor disparities in SNF quality. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:108-114, 2019.

Moneyball in Medicare.

US policymakers place high priority on tying Medicare payments to the value of care delivered. A critical part of this effort is the Hospital Value-based Purchasing Program (HVBP), which rewards or penalizes hospitals based on their quality and episode-based costs of care and incentivizes integration between hospitals and post-acute care providers. Within HVBP, each patient affects hospital performance on a variety of quality and spending measures, and performance translates directly to changes in program points and ultimately dollars. In short, hospital revenue from a patient consists not only of the DRG payment, but also of that patient's marginal future reimbursement. We estimate the magnitude of the marginal future reimbursement for individual patients across each type of quality and performance measure. We describe how those incentives differ across hospitals, including integrated and safety-net hospitals. We find evidence that hospitals improved their performance over time in the areas where they have the highest marginal incentives to improve care, and that integrated hospitals responded more than non-integrated hospitals.

Dually Enrolled Beneficiaries Have Higher Episode Costs On The Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary Measure.

Cost measures are a growing part of Medicare's value-based payment programs. Medicare Spending per Beneficiary (MSPB) is the cost measure included in Medicare's Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program. Beneficiaries who are dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid are known to have higher spending on care, but it is unknown whether spending on the MSPB measure varies based on dual enrollment and whether this has implications for the performance of safety-net hospitals. We found that after adjustment for comorbidities, dually enrolled beneficiaries had 4.3 percent higher spending, which was primarily driven by higher costs in the postacute setting associated with use of institutional postacute care. Hospitals in the highest quintile of the disproportionate share hospital index had poorer performance on the MSPB measure, and were more likely to be penalized under VBP. After adjustment for dual status, differences in MSPB performance between safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals were no longer significant. This suggests that differences in performance between the two types of hospitals were driven at least in part by differences in their patient populations. However, overall VBP payment impacts were largely unchanged after the MSPB measure was adjusted for dual-enrollment status.

Association Between Race, Neighborhood, and Medicaid Enrollment and Outcomes in Medicare Home Health Care.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: More than 3 million Medicare beneficiaries use home health care annually, yet little is known about how vulnerable beneficiaries fare in the home health setting. This is particularly important given the recent launch of Medicare's Home Health Value-Based Purchasing model. The objective of this study was to determine odds of adverse clinical outcomes associated with dual enrollment in Medicaid and Medicare as a marker of individual poverty, residence in a low-income ZIP code tabulation area (ZCTA), and black race. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study using individuals-level logistic regression. SETTING: Home health care. PARTICIPANTS: Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries from 2012 to 2014. MEASUREMENTS: Thirty- and 60-day clinical outcomes, including readmissions, admissions, and emergency department (ED) use. RESULTS: Home health agencies serving a high proportion of dually enrolled, low-income ZCTA, or black beneficiaries were less often high-quality. Dually-enrolled, low-income ZCTA, and Black beneficiaries receiving home health care after hospitalization had higher risk-adjusted odds of 30-day readmission (odds ratio [OR] = 1.08, P < 0.001; OR = 1.03, P < 0.001; and OR = 1.02, P = 0.002 respectively) and 30-day ED use (OR = 1.20, 1.07, and 1.15, P < 0.001 for each). Those receiving home health care without preceding hospitalization had higher 60-day admission (OR = 1.06, P < 0.001; OR = 1.01, P = 0.002; and OR = 1.05, P < 0.001), and 60-day ED use (OR = 1.16, 1.03, and 1.19, P < 0.001 for each). Differences were primarily within agencies rather than between the agencies where these beneficiaries sought care. CONCLUSION: Medicare beneficiaries receiving home health services who are dually enrolled, live in a low-income neighborhood, or are black have higher rates of adverse clinical outcomes. These populations may be an important target for quality improvement under Home Health Value-Based Purchasing.

Medicare's Acute Care Episode Demonstration: Effects of Bundled Payments on Costs and Quality of Surgical Care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether participation in Medicare's Acute Care Episode (ACE) Demonstration Program-an early, small, voluntary episode-based payment program-was associated with a change in expenditures or quality of care. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Medicare claims for patients who underwent cardiac or orthopedic surgery from 2007 to 2012 at ACE or control hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: We used a difference-in-differences approach, matching on baseline and pre-enrollment volume, risk-adjusted Medicare payments, and clinical outcomes to identify controls. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Participation in the ACE Demonstration was not significantly associated with 30-day Medicare payments (for orthopedic surgery: -$358 with 95 percent CI: -$894, +$178; for cardiac surgery: +$514 with 95 percent CI: -$1,517, +$2,545), or 30-day mortality (for orthopedic surgery: -0.10 with 95 percent CI: -0.50, 0.31; for cardiac surgery: -0.27 with 95 percent CI: -1.25, 0.72). Program participation was associated with a decrease in total 30-day post-acute care payments (for cardiac surgery: -$718; 95 percent CI: -$1,431, -$6; and for orthopedic surgery: -$591; 95 percent CI: $-$1,161, -$22). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in Medicare's ACE Demonstration Program was not associated with a change in 30-day episode-based Medicare payments or 30-day mortality for cardiac or orthopedic surgery, but it was associated with lower total 30-day post-acute care payments.