The Impact of Hospital and Patient Factors on the Emergency Department Decision to Admit.

BACKGROUND: Substantial variation exists in rates of emergency department (ED) admission. We examine this variation after accounting for local and community characteristics. OBJECTIVES: Elucidate the factors that contribute to admission variation that are amenable to intervention with the goal of reducing variation and health care costs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of 1,412,340 patient encounters across 18 sites from 2012-2013. We calculated the adjusted hospital-level admission rates using multivariate logistic regression. We adjusted for patient, provider, hospital, and community factors to compare admission rate variation and determine the influence of these characteristics on admission rates. RESULTS: The average adjusted admission rate was 22.9%, ranging from 16.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.5-22%) to 32% (95% CI 26.0-38.8). There were higher odds of hospital admission with advancing age, male sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.20, 95% CI 1.91-1.21), and patients seen by a physician vs. mid-level provider (OR 2.26, 95% CI 2.23-2.30). There were increased odds of admission with rising ED volume, at academic institutions (OR 2.23, 95% CI 2.20-2.26) and at for-profit hospitals (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.12-1.18). Admission rates were lower in communities with a higher per capita income, a higher rate of uninsured patients, and in more urban hospitals. In communities with the most primary providers, there were lower odds of admission (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.57-0.68). CONCLUSION: Variation in hospital-level admission rates is associated with a number of local and community characteristics. However, the presence of persistent variation after adjustment suggests there are other unmeasured variables that also affect admission rates that deserve further study, particularly in an era of cost containment.

The relative contribution of provider and ED-level factors to variation among the top 15 reasons for ED admission.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We examine adult emergency department (ED) admission rates for the top 15 most frequently admitted conditions, and assess the relative contribution in admission rate variation attributable to the provider and hospital. METHODS: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study of ED encounters (≥18years) from 19 EDs and 603 providers (January 2012-December 2013), linked to the Area Health Resources File for county-level information on healthcare resources. "Hospital admission" was the outcome, a composite of inpatient, observation, or intra-hospital transfer. We studied the 15 most commonly admitted conditions, and calculated condition-specific risk-standardized hospital admission rates (RSARs) using multi-level hierarchical generalized linear models. We then decomposed the relative contribution of provider-level and hospital-level variation for each condition. RESULTS: The top 15 conditions made up 34% of encounters and 49% of admissions. After adjustment, the eight conditions with the highest hospital-level variation were: 1) injuries, 2) extremity fracture (except hip fracture), 3) skin infection, 4) lower respiratory disease, 5) asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (A&C), 6) abdominal pain, 7) fluid/electrolyte disorders, and 8) chest pain. Hospital-level intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) ranged from 0.042 for A&C to 0.167 for extremity fractures. Provider-level ICCs ranged from 0.026 for abdominal pain to 0.104 for chest pain. Several patient, hospital, and community factors were associated with admission rates, but these varied across conditions. CONCLUSION: For different conditions, there were different contributions to variation at the hospital- and provider-level. These findings deserve consideration when designing interventions to optimize admission decisions and in value-based payment programs.

A National Snapshot of Social Determinants of Health Documentation in Emergency Departments.

INTRODUCTION: Documentation and measurement of social determinants of health (SDoH) are critical to clinical care and to healthcare delivery system reforms targeting health equity. The SDoH are codified in the International Classification of Disease 10th Rev (ICD-10) Z codes. However, Z codes are listed in only 1-2% of inpatient charts. Little is known about the frequency of Z code utilization specifically among emergency department (ED) patient populations nationally. METHODS: This was a repeated cross-sectional analysis of ED visit data in the United States from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample from 2016-2019. We characterized the use of Z codes and described associations between Z code use and patient- and hospital-level factors including the following: age; gender; race; insurance status; ED disposition; ED size; hospital urban-rural status; ownership; and clinical conditions. We calculated unadjusted odds ratios for likelihood of Z code reporting for each ED visit. RESULTS: Of approximately 140 million ED visits per year, 0.65% had an associated Z code in 2016, rising to 1.17% by 2019. Visits were more likely to have an associated Z code for adults age <65, male, Black, Medicaid or self-pay patients, and patients admitted to the hospital. Larger EDs, those in metropolitan areas, academic centers, and government-run hospitals were more likely to report Z codes. The most commonly associated clinical conditions were as follows: schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders; depressive disorder; and alcohol-related disorders. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of Z code documentation in the health records of ED patients, although use is uptrending. Further research is warranted to better understand the drivers of clinicians' use of Z codes and to improve on their utility.

Episodes of care: is emergency medicine ready?

Optimizing resource use, eliminating waste, aligning provider incentives, reducing overall costs, and coordinating the delivery of quality care while improving outcomes have been major themes of health care reform initiatives. Recent legislation contains several provisions designed to move away from the current fee-for-service payment mechanism toward a model that reimburses providers for caring for a population of patients over time while shifting more financial risk to providers. In this article, we review current approaches to episode of care development and reimbursement. We describe the challenges of incorporating emergency medicine into the episode of care approach and the uncertain influence this delivery model will have on emergency medicine care, including quality outcomes. We discuss the limitations of the episode of care payment model for emergency services and advocate retention of the current fee-for-service payment model, as well as identify research gaps that, if addressed, could be used to inform future policy decisions of emergency medicine health policy leaders. We then describe a meaningful role for emergency medicine in an episode of care setting.

The future of value-based emergency care: Development of an emergency medicine MIPS value pathway framework.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) to accelerate the transition of physician payment toward value-based care models and away from traditional fee-for-service payment programs. In recent years, CMS has sought to modify the program by developing a MIPS Value Pathway (MVP) framework intended to use existing and future physician quality and cost measures to reward value-based care delivery. This article describes the multi-step process of the MVP Task Force, convened by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) to develop an emergency medicine-specific MVP proposal informed by diverse stakeholder perceptions regarding: (1) which existing quality measures reflect high quality emergency care, and (2) the degree to which emergency clinicians can impact clinical outcomes and cost for the care domains captured by existing quality measures. The MVP Task Force synthesized stakeholder feedback and underwent a consensus-building approach to develop the "Adopting Best Practices and Promoting Patient Safety within Emergency Medicine" MVP, recently reviewed and approved by CMS for national implementation starting in 2023. Our process and findings have broad implications for clinicians, administrators, and policymakers navigating the continued transition to value-based care in conjunction with CMS's implementation of the MVP framework.

Emergency clinician participation and performance in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System.

BACKGROUND: The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the largest national pay-for-performance program and the first to afford emergency clinicians unique financial incentives for quality measurement and improvement. With little known regarding its impact on emergency clinicians, we sought to describe participation in the MIPS and examine differences in performance scores and payment adjustments based on reporting affiliation and reporting strategy. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2018 Quality Payment Program (QPP) Experience Report data set. We categorized emergency clinicians by their reporting affiliation (individual, group, MIPS alternative payment model [APM]), MIPS performance scores, and Medicare Part B payment adjustments. We calculated performance scores for common quality measures contributing to the quality category score if reported through qualified clinical data registries (QCDRs) or claims-based reporting strategies. RESULTS: In 2018, a total of 59,828 emergency clinicians participated in the MIPS-1,246 (2.1%) reported as individuals, 43,404 (72.5%) reported as groups, and 15,178 (25.4%) reported within MIPS APMs. Clinicians reporting as individuals earned lower overall MIPS scores (median [interquartile range {IQR}] = 30.8 [15.0-48.2] points) than those reporting within groups (median [IQR] = 88.4 [49.3-100.0]) and MIPS APMs (median [IQR] = 100.0 [100.0-100.0]; p < 0.001) and more frequently incurred penalties with a negative payment adjustment. Emergency clinicians had higher measure scores if reporting QCDR or QPP non-emergency medicine specialty set measures. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency clinician participation in national value-based programs is common, with one in four participating through MIPS APMs. Those employing specific strategies such as QCDR and group reporting received the highest MIPS scores and payment adjustments, emphasizing the role that reporting strategy and affiliation play in the quality of care.

Managing and Measuring Emergency Department Care: Results of the Fourth Emergency Department Benchmarking Definitions Summit.

BACKGROUND: A shared language and vocabulary are essential for managing emergency department (ED) operations. This Fourth Emergency Department Benchmarking Alliance (EDBA) Summit brought together experts in the field to review, update, and add to key definitions and metrics of ED operations. OBJECTIVE: Summit objectives were to review and revise existing definitions, define and characterize new practices related to ED operations, and introduce financial and regulatory definitions affecting ED reimbursement. METHODS: Forty-six ED operations, data management, and benchmarking experts were invited to participate in the EDBA summit. Before arrival, experts were provided with documents from the three prior summits and assigned to update the terminology. Materials and publications related to standards of ED operations were considered and discussed. Each group submitted a revised set of definitions prior to the summit. Significantly revised, topical, or controversial recommendations were discussed among all summit participants. The goal of the in-person discussion was to reach consensus on definitions. Work group leaders made changes to reflect the discussion, which was revised with public and stakeholder feedback. RESULTS: The entire EDBA dictionary was updated and expanded. This article focuses on an update and discussion of definitions related to specific topics that changed since the last summit, specifically ED intake, boarding, diversion, and observation care. In addition, an extensive new glossary of financial and regulatory terminology germane to the practice of emergency medicine is included. CONCLUSIONS: A complete and precise set of operational definitions, time intervals, and utilization measures is necessary for timely and effective ED care. A common language of financial and regulatory definitions that affect ED operations is included for the first time. This article and its companion dictionary should serve as a resource to ED leadership, researchers, informatics and health policy leaders, and regulatory bodies.

Financial Viability of Emergency Department Observation Unit Billing Models.

BACKGROUND: Outpatients receive observation services to determine the need for inpatient admission. These services are usually provided without the use of condition-specific protocols and in an unstructured manner, scattered throughout a hospital in areas typically designated for inpatient care. Emergency department observation units (EDOUs) use protocolized care to offer an efficient alternative with shorter lengths of stay, lower costs, and higher patient satisfaction. EDOU growth is limited by existing policy barriers that prevent a "two-service" model of separate professional billing for both emergency and observation services. The majority of EDOUs use the "one-service" model, where a single composite professional fee is billed for both emergency and observation services. The financial implications of these models are not well understood. METHODS: We created a Monte Carlo simulation by building a model that reflects current clinical practice in the United States and uses inputs gathered from the most recently available peer-reviewed literature, national survey, and payer data. Using this simulation, we modeled annual staffing costs and payments for professional services under two common models of care in an EDOU. We also modeled cash flows over a continuous range of daily EDOU patient encounters to illustrate the dynamic relationship between costs and revenue over various staffing levels. RESULTS: We estimate the mean (±SD) annual net cash flow to be a net loss of $315,382 (±$89,635) in the one-service model and a net profit of $37,569 (±$359,583) in the two-service model. The two-service model is financially sustainable at daily billable encounters above 20, while in the one-service model, costs exceed revenue regardless of encounter count. Physician cost per hour and daily patient encounters had the most significant impact on model estimates. CONCLUSIONS: In the one-service model, EDOU staffing costs exceed payments at all levels of patient encounters, making a hospital subsidy necessary to create a financially sustainable practice. Professional groups seeking to staff and bill for both emergency and observation services are seldom able to do so due to EDOU size limitations and the regulatory hurdles that require setting up a separate professional group for each service. Policymakers and health care leaders should encourage universal adoption of EDOUs by removing restrictions and allowing the two-service model to be the standard billing option. These findings may inform planning and policy regarding observation services.

History, Principles, and Policies of Observation Medicine.

The history of observation medicine has paralleled the rise of emergency medicine over the past 50 years to meet the needs of patients, emergency departments, hospitals, and the US health care system. Just as emergency departments are the safety net of the health system, observation units are the safety net of emergency departments. The growth of observation medicine has been driven by innovations in health care, an ongoing shift of patients from inpatient to outpatient settings, and changes in health policy. These units have been shown to provide better outcomes than traditional care for selected patients.

Identification of Emergency Department Visits in Medicare Administrative Claims: Approaches and Implications.

OBJECTIVES: Administrative claims data sets are often used for emergency care research and policy investigations of healthcare resource utilization, acute care practices, and evaluation of quality improvement interventions. Despite the high profile of emergency department (ED) visits in analyses using administrative claims, little work has evaluated the degree to which existing definitions based on claims data accurately captures conventionally defined hospital-based ED services. We sought to construct an operational definition for ED visitation using a comprehensive Medicare data set and to compare this definition to existing operational definitions used by researchers and policymakers. METHODS: We examined four operational definitions of an ED visit commonly used by researchers and policymakers using a 20% sample of the 2012 Medicare Chronic Condition Warehouse (CCW) data set. The CCW data set included all Part A (hospital) and Part B (hospital outpatient, physician) claims for a nationally representative sample of continuously enrolled Medicare fee-for-services beneficiaries. Three definitions were based on published research or existing quality metrics including: 1) provider claims-based definition, 2) facility claims-based definition, and 3) CMS Research Data Assistance Center (ResDAC) definition. In addition, we developed a fourth operational definition (Yale definition) that sought to incorporate additional coding rules for identifying ED visits. We report levels of agreement and disagreement among the four definitions. RESULTS: Of 10,717,786 beneficiaries included in the sample data set, 22% had evidence of ED use during the study year under any of the ED visit definitions. The definition using provider claims identified a total of 4,199,148 ED visits, the facility definition 4,795,057 visits, the ResDAC definition 5,278,980 ED visits, and the Yale definition 5,192,235 ED visits. The Yale definition identified a statistically different (p < 0.05) collection of ED visits than all other definitions including 17% more ED visits than the provider definition and 2% fewer visits than the ResDAC definition. Differences in ED visitation counts between each definition occurred for several reasons including the inclusion of critical care or observation services in the ED, discrepancies between facility and provider billing regulations, and operational decisions of each definition. CONCLUSION: Current operational definitions of ED visitation using administrative claims produce different estimates of ED visitation based on the underlying assumptions applied to billing data and data set availability. Future analyses using administrative claims data should seek to validate specific definitions and inform the development of a consistent, consensus ED visitation definitions to standardize research reporting and the interpretation of policy interventions.

Physician Quality Reporting System Program Updates and the Impact on Emergency Medicine Practice.

In 2007, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) created a novel payment program to create incentives for physician's to focus on quality of care measures and report quality performance for the first time. Initially termed "The Physician Voluntary Reporting Program," various Congressional actions, including the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (TRHCA) and Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) further strengthened and ensconced this program, eventually leading to the quality program termed today as the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS). As a result of passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, the PQRS program has expanded to include both the "traditional PQRS" reporting program and the newer "Value Modifier" program (VM). For the first time, these programs were designed to include pay-for-performance incentives for all physicians providing care to Medicare beneficiaries and to measure the cost of care. The recent passage of the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Act in March of 2015 includes changes to these payment programs that will have an even more profound impact on emergency care providers. We describe the implications of these important federal policy changes for emergency physicians.