Publications

IMPORTANCE: The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have implemented national value-based programs that incentivize hospitals to deliver better cardiovascular care. However, it is unclear how hospitals recognized for high-quality cardiovascular care by American Heart Association (AHA) and American College of Cardiology (ACC) national quality improvement initiatives (termed award hospitals) have performed under value-based programs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if hospitals that received awards for high-quality cardiovascular care from the AHA/ACC were less likely to be penalized under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program (VBP) compared with other hospitals.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This national cross-sectional study included data from short-term acute care hospitals in the United States that were participating in the HRRP or VBP in fiscal year 2018.

EXPOSURES: Recognition awards for high-quality care from the AHA's Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure and ACC's Chest Pain-MI (myocardial infarction) Registry national quality improvement initiatives.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of hospitals that received a financial penalty or financial reward under the HRRP or VBP, median payment adjustments, and hospital-level 30-day mortality rates.

RESULTS: This study included 3175 hospitals participating in the HRRP and 2781 hospitals participating in the VBP in fiscal year 2018. Under the HRRP, a higher proportion of award hospitals received financial penalties compared with other hospitals (419 [85.5%] vs 2112 [78.7%]; P < .001), although payment reductions were similar (median, 0.39% [interquartile range (IQR), 0.08%-0.84%] vs 0.33% [IQR, 0.03%-0.89%]; P = .17). Under the VBP, a higher proportion of award hospitals received penalties compared with other hospitals (250 [51.7%] vs 950 [41.4%]; P < .001), and fewer award hospitals received financial rewards (234 [48.4%] vs 1347 [58.6%]; P < .001). Median payment reductions were higher for award hospitals than other hospitals (0.01% [IQR, 0.00%-0.38%] vs 0.0% [IQR, 0.00%-0.28%]; P < .001), and median payment increases were lower (0.0% [IQR, 0.00%-0.34%] vs 0.13% [IQR, 0.00%-0.60%]; P < .001). Thirty-day mortality at award hospitals was similar (acute myocardial infarction, 13.2% vs 13.2%; P = .76) or slightly lower (heart failure, 11.3% vs 11.7%; P = .001) compared with other hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hospitals that received awards for high-quality cardiovascular care from the AHA/ACC were more likely to be penalized and less likely to be financially rewarded by federal value-based programs. These findings highlight the potential need to standardize measurement of cardiovascular care quality.

BACKGROUND: Recent policy initiatives aim to improve the value of care for patients hospitalized with pneumonia. It is unclear whether higher 30-day episode spending at the hospital level is associated with any difference in patient mortality among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries.

METHODS: This retrospective cohort study assessed the association between hospital-level spending and patient-level mortality for a 30-day episode of care. The study used data for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized at an acute care hospital with a principal diagnosis of pneumonia from July 2011 to June 2014. Analysis was conducted by using Medicare payment data made publicly available by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on the Hospital Compare website combined with Medicare Part A claims data to identify patient outcomes.

RESULTS: A total of 1,017,353 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries were hospitalized for pneumonia across 3,021 US hospitals during the study period. Mean ± SD 30-day spending for an episode of pneumonia care was $14,324 ± $1,305. The observed 30-day all-cause mortality rate was 11.9%. After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, no association was found between higher 30-day episode spending at the hospital level and 30-day patient mortality (adjusted OR, 1.00 for every $1,000 increase in spending; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01).

CONCLUSIONS: Higher hospital-level spending for a 30-day episode of care for pneumonia was not associated with any difference in patient mortality.

IMPORTANCE: Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of death among homeless adults, with mortality rates that are substantially higher than in the general population. It is unknown whether differences in hospitalization-related care contribute to these disparities in cardiovascular outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in intensity of care and mortality between homeless and nonhomeless individuals hospitalized for cardiovascular conditions (ie, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiac arrest, or heart failure).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cross-sectional study included all hospitalizations for cardiovascular conditions among homeless adults (n = 24 890) and nonhomeless adults (n = 1 827 900) 18 years or older in New York, Massachusetts, and Florida from January 1, 2010, to September 30, 2015. Statistical analysis was performed from February 6 to July 16, 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Risk-standardized diagnostic and therapeutic procedure rates and in-hospital mortality rates.

RESULTS: Of the 1 852 790 total hospitalizations for cardiovascular conditions across 525 hospitals, 24 890 occurred among patients who were homeless (11 452 women and 13 438 men; mean [SD] age, 65.1 [14.8] years) and 1 827 900 occurred among patients who were not homeless (850 660 women and 977 240 men; mean [SD] age, 72.1 [14.6] years). Most hospitalizations among homeless individuals were primarily concentrated among 11 hospitals. Homeless adults were more likely than nonhomeless adults to be black (38.6% vs 15.6%) and insured by Medicaid (49.3% vs 8.5%). After accounting for differences in demographics (age, sex, and race/ethnicity), insurance payer, and clinical comorbidities, homeless adults hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction were less likely to undergo coronary angiography compared with nonhomeless adults (39.5% vs 70.9%; P < .001), percutaneous coronary intervention (24.8% vs 47.4%; P < .001), and coronary artery bypass graft (2.5% vs 7.0%; P < .001). Among adults hospitalized with stroke, those who were homeless were less likely than nonhomeless individuals to undergo cerebral angiography (2.9% vs 9.5%; P < .001) but were as likely to receive thrombolytic therapy (4.8% vs 5.2%; P = .28). In the cardiac arrest cohort, homeless adults were less likely than nonhomeless adults to undergo coronary angiography (10.1% vs 17.6%; P < .001) and percutaneous coronary intervention (0.0% vs 4.7%; P < .001). Risk-standardized mortality was higher for homeless persons with ST-elevation myocardial infarction compared with nonhomeless persons (8.3% vs 6.2%; P = .04). Mortality rates were also higher for homeless persons than for nonhomeless persons hospitalized with stroke (8.9% vs 6.3%; P < .001) or cardiac arrest (76.1% vs 57.4%; P < .001) but did not differ for heart failure (1.6% vs 1.6%; P = .83).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There are significant disparities in in-hospital care and mortality between homeless and nonhomeless adults with cardiovascular conditions. There is a need for public health and policy efforts to support hospitals that care for homeless persons to reduce disparities in hospital-based care and improve health outcomes for this population.

IMPORTANCE: Hospitals that serve poorer populations have higher readmission rates. It is unknown whether these hospitals effectively lowered readmission rates in response to the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP).

OBJECTIVE: To compare pre-post differences in readmission rates among hospitals with different proportion of dual-eligible patients both generally and among the most highly penalized (ie, low performing) hospitals.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using piecewise linear model with estimated hospital-level risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) as the dependent variable and a change point at HRRP passage (2010). Economic burden was assessed by proportion of dual-eligibles served.

SETTING: Acute care hospitals within the United States.

PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older discharged alive from January 1, 2003 to November 30, 2014 with a principal discharge diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure (CHF), and pneumonia.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: Decrease in hospital-level RSRRs in the post-law period, after controlling for the pre-law trend.

RESULTS: For AMI, the pre-post difference between hospitals that service high and low proportion of dual-eligibles was not significant (-65 vs. -64 risk-standardized readmissions per 10000 discharges per year, P=0.0678). For CHF, RSRRs declined more at high than low dual-eligible hospitals (-79 vs. -75 risk-standardized readmissions per 10000 discharges per year, P=0.0006). For pneumonia, RSRRs declined less at high than low dual-eligible hospitals (-44 vs. -47 risk-standardized readmissions per 10000 discharges per year, P=0.0003). Among the 742 highest penalized hospitals and all conditions, the pre-post decline in rate of change of RSRRs was less for high dual-eligible hospitals than low dual-eligible hospitals (-68 vs. -74 risk-standardized readmissions per 10000 discharges per year for AMI, -88 vs. -97 for CHF, and -47 vs. -56 for pneumonia, P<0.0001 for all).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For all hospitals, differences in pre-post trends in RSRRs varied with disease conditions. However, for the highest-penalized hospitals, the pre-post decline in RSRRs was greater for low than high dual-eligible hospitals for all penalized conditions. These results suggest that high penalty, high dual-eligible hospitals may be less able to improve performance on readmission metrics.

IMPORTANCE: The addition of a claims-based frailty metric to traditional comorbidity-based risk-adjustment models for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia improves the prediction of 30-day mortality and readmission. This may have important implications for hospitals that tend to care for frail populations and participate in Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services value-based payment programs, which use these risk-adjusted metrics to determine reimbursement.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the addition of frailty measures to traditional comorbidity-based risk-adjustment models improved prediction of outcomes for patients with AMI, HF, and pneumonia.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A nationwide cohort study included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries 65 years and older in the United States between January 1 and December 1, 2016. Analysis began August 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rates of mortality within 30 days of admission and 30 days of discharge, as well as 30-day readmission rates by frailty group. We evaluated the incremental effect of adding the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) to current comorbidity-based risk-adjustment models for 30-day outcomes across all conditions.

RESULTS: For 785 127 participants, there were 166 200 hospitalizations [21.2%] for AMI, 348 619 [44.4%] for HF, and 270 308 [34.4%] for pneumonia. The mean (SD) age at the time of hospitalization was 79.2 (8.9) years; 656 315 (83.6%) were white and 402 639 (51.3%) were women. The mean (SD) HFRS was 7.3 (7.4) for patients with AMI, 10.8 (8.3) for patients with HF, and 8.2 (5.7) for patients with pneumonia. Among patients hospitalized for AMI, an HFRS more than 15 (compared with an HFRS <5) was associated with a higher risk of 30-day postadmission mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.6; 95% CI, 3.4-3.8), 30-day postdischarge mortality (aOR, 4.0; 95% CI, 3.7-4.3), and 30-day readmission (aOR, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.9-3.1) after multivariable adjustment for age, sex, race, and comorbidities. Similar patterns were observed for patients hospitalized with HF (30-day postadmission mortality: aOR, 3.5; 95% CI, 3.4-3.7; 30-day postdischarge mortality: aOR, 3.5; 95% CI, 3.3-3.6; and 30-day readmission: aOR, 2.9; 95% CI, 2.8-3.0) and among patients with pneumonia (30-day postadmission mortality: aOR, 2.5; 95% CI, 2.3-2.6; 30-day postdischarge mortality: aOR, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.9-3.2; and 30-day readmission: aOR, 2.8; 95% CI, 2.7-2.9). The addition of HFRS to traditional comorbidity-based risk-prediction models improved discrimination to predict outcomes for all 3 conditions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, frailty as measured by the HFRS was associated with mortality and readmissions among patients hospitalized for AMI, HF, or pneumonia. The addition of HFRS to traditional comorbidity-based risk-prediction models improved the prediction of outcomes for all 3 conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To determine any changes in total hospital revisits within 30 days of discharge after a hospital stay for medical conditions targeted by the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP).

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING: Hospital stays among Medicare patients for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or pneumonia between 1 January 2012 and 1 October 2015.

PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service patients aged 65 or over.

MAIN OUTCOMES: Total hospital revisits within 30 days of discharge after hospital stays for medical conditions targeted by the HRRP, and by type of revisit: treat-and-discharge visit to an emergency department, observation stay (not leading to inpatient readmission), and inpatient readmission. Patient subgroups (age, sex, race) were also evaluated for each type of revisit.

RESULTS: Our study cohort included 3 038 740 total index hospital stays from January 2012 to September 2015: 1 357 620 for heart failure, 634 795 for acute myocardial infarction, and 1 046 325 for pneumonia. Counting all revisits after discharge, the total number of hospital revisits per 100 patient discharges for target conditions increased across the study period (monthly increase 0.023 visits per 100 patient discharges (95% confidence interval 0.010 to 0.035)). This change was due to monthly increases in treat-and-discharge visits to an emergency department (0.023 (0.015 to 0.032) and observation stays (0.022 (0.020 to 0.025)), which were only partly offset by declines in readmissions (-0.023 (-0.035 to -0.012)). Increases in observation stay use were more pronounced among non-white patients than white patients. No significant change was seen in mortality within 30 days of discharge for target conditions (-0.0034 (-0.012 to 0.0054)).

CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, total hospital revisits within 30 days of discharge for conditions targeted by the HRRP increased across the study period. This increase was due to a rise in post-discharge emergency department visits and observation stays, which exceeded the decline in readmissions. Although reductions in readmissions have been attributed to improvements in discharge planning and care transitions, our findings suggest that these declines could instead be because hospitals and clinicians have intensified efforts to treat patients who return to a hospital within 30 days of discharge in emergency departments and as observation stays.

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in 2010 with a goal of reducing preventable hospitalizations by imposing financial penalties on hospitals with higher-than-expected 30-day readmission rates. After the program was created, readmission rates appeared to decrease nationwide for patients hospitalized with heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia, the three conditions it originally targeted.