Causal Impact of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program on Hospital Readmissions and Mortality

Estimating causal effects of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), part of the Affordable Care Act, has been very controversial. Associational studies have demonstrated decreases in hospital readmissions, consistent with the intent of the program, although analyses with different data sources and methods have differed in estimating effects on patient mortality. To address these issues, we define the estimands of interest in the context of potential outcomes, we formalize a Bayesian structural time-series model for causal inference, and discuss the necessary assumptions for estimation of effects using observed data. The method is used to estimate the effect of the passage of HRRP on both the 30-day readmissions and 30-day mortality. We show that for acute myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure, HRRP caused reduction in readmissions while it had no statistically significant effect on mortality. However, for pneumonia, HRRP had no statistically significant effect on readmissions but caused an increase in mortality.Comment: 10 pages, 1 figure, 2 table

Medicare Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program

Outlines national health reform provisions to reduce readmissions by publishing readmission data, lowering Medicare payments to hospitals with high readmission rates, and pairing such hospitals with patient safety organizations. Considers implications

Readmission rates in not-for-profit vs. proprietary hospitals before and after the hospital readmission reduction program implementation.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act established the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) to penalize hospitals with excessive 30-day hospital readmissions of Medicare enrollees for specific conditions. This policy was aimed at increasing the quality of care delivered to patients and decreasing the amount of money paid for potentially preventable hospital readmissions. While it has been established that the number of 30-day hospital readmissions decreased after program implementation, it is unknown whether this effect occurred equally between not-for-profit and proprietary hospitals. The aim of this study was to determine whether or not the HRRP decreased readmission rates equally between not-for-profit and proprietary hospitals between 2010 and 2012. METHODS: Data on readmissions came from the Dartmouth Atlas and hospital ownership data came from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Data were joined using the Medicare provider number. Using a difference-in-differences approach, bivariate and regression analyses were conducted to compare readmission rates between not-for-profit and proprietary hospitals between 2010 and 2012 and were adjusted for hospital characteristics. RESULTS: In 2010, prior to program implementation, unadjusted readmission rates for proprietary and not-for-profit hospitals were 16.16% and 15.78%, respectively. In 2012, following program implementation, 30-day readmission rates dropped to 15.76% and 15.29% for proprietary and not-for-profit hospitals. The data suggest that the implementation of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program had similar effects on not-for-profit and proprietary hospitals with respect to readmission rates, even after adjusting for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Although not-for-profit hospitals had lower 30-day readmission rates than proprietary hospitals in both 2010 and 2012, they both decreased after the implementation of the HRRP and the decreases were not statistically significantly different. Thus, this study suggests that the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program was equally effective in reducing readmission rates, despite ownership status

Caregiver Integration During Discharge Planning for Older Adults to Reduce Resource Use: A Metaanalysis

Objectives To determine the effect of integrating informal caregivers into discharge planning on postdischarge cost and resource use in older adults. Design A systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials that examine the effect of discharge planning with caregiver integration begun before discharge on healthcare cost and resource use outcomes. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for all English‐language articles published between 1990 and April 2016. Setting Hospital or skilled nursing facility. Participants Older adults with informal caregivers discharged to a community setting. Measurements Readmission rates, length of and time to post‐discharge rehospitalizations, costs of postdischarge care. Results Of 10,715 abstracts identified, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Eleven studies provided sufficient detail to calculate readmission rates for treatment and control participants. Discharge planning interventions with caregiver integration were associated with a 25% fewer readmissions at 90 days (relative risk (RR) = 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.62–0.91) and 24% fewer readmissions at 180 days (RR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.64–0.90). The majority of studies reported statistically significant shorter time to readmission, shorter rehospitalization, and lower costs of postdischarge care among discharge planning interventions with caregiver integration. Conclusion For older adults discharged to a community setting, the integration of caregivers into the discharge planning process reduces the risk of hospital readmission

The Revolving Door: A Report on U.S. Hospital Readmissions

The U.S. health care system suffers from a chronic malady -- the revolving door syndrome at its hospitals. It is so bad that the federal government says one in five elderly patients is back in the hospital within 30 days of leaving.Some return trips are predictable elements of a treatment plan. Others are unplanned but difficult to prevent: patients go home, new and unexpected problems arise, and they require an immediate trip back to the hospital.But many of these readmissions can and should be prevented. They are the result of a fragmented system of care that too often leaves discharged patients to their own devices, unable to follow instructions they didn't understand, and not taking medications or getting the necessary follow-up care.The federal government has pegged the cost of readmissions for Medicare patients alone at $26 billion annually, and says more than$17 billion of it pays for return trips that need not happen if patients get the right care. This is one reason the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has identified avoidable readmissions as one of the leading problems facing the U.S. health care system and now penalizes hospitals with high rates of readmissions for their heart failure, heart attack, and pneumonia patients. This report is being released in conjunction with the Robert Wood John Foundation's Care About Your Care initiative, which is devoted to improving care transitions when people leave the hospital. It looks at the issue of readmissions in two ways: by the numbers and through the eyes of the people who live them

Readmission Rates and Their Impact on Hospital Financial Performance: A Study of Washington Hospitals

This longitudinal study examines whether readmission rates, made transparent through Hospital Compare, affect hospital financial performance by examining 98 hospitals in the State of Washington from 2012 to 2014. Readmission rates for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), pneumonia (PN), and heart failure (HF) were examined against operating revenues per patient, operating expenses per patient, and operating margin. Using hospital-level fixed effects regression on 276 hospital year observations, the analysis indicated that a reduction in AMI readmission rates is related with increased operating revenues as expenses associated with costly treatments related with unnecessary readmissions are avoided. Additionally, reducing readmission rates is related with an increase in operating expenses. As a net effect, increased PN readmission rates may show marginal increase in operating margin because of the higher operating revenues due to readmissions. However, as readmissions continue to happen, a gradual increase in expenses due to greater use of resources may lead to decreased profitability

Impact of Outpatient vs Inpatient ABSSSI Treatment on Outcomes: A Retrospective Observational Analysis of Medical Charts Across US Emergency Departments

Background The objective of this study was to characterize treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) and describe the association between hospital admission and emergency department (ED) visits or readmissions within 30 days after initial episode of care (IEC). Methods This was a retrospective, observational, cohort study of adults with ABSSSI who presented to an ED between July 1, 2012, and June 30, 2013. Patient, health care facility, and treatment characteristics, including unplanned ED visits or readmissions, were obtained through manual chart review and abstraction. Adjusted logistic regression analysis examined likelihood of all-cause unplanned ED visits or readmissions between admitted and nonadmitted patients. Results Records from 1527 ED visits for ABSSSI from 40 centers were reviewed (admitted, n = 578 [38%]; nonadmitted, n = 949 [62%]). Admitted patients were typically older (mean age, 52.2 years vs 43.0 years), more likely to be morbidly obese (body mass index \u3e 40 kg/m2; 17.3% vs 9.1%), and had more comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 4; 24.4% vs 6.8%) compared with those not admitted. In the primary analysis, adjusted logistic regression, controlling for comorbidities and severity of illness, demonstrated that there was a similar likelihood of all-cause unplanned ED visits or readmissions between admitted and nonadmitted patients (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.74–1.43; P = .87). Conclusions ABSSSI treatment pathways leveraging outpatient treatment vs hospital admission support similar likelihood of unplanned 30-day ED visits or readmissions, an important clinical outcome and quality metric at US hospitals. Further research regarding the decision criteria around hospital admission to avoid potentially unnecessary hospitalizations is warranted

Higher Readmissions at Safety-Net Hospitals and Potential Policy Solutions

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), established by the Affordable Care Act, ties a hospital's payments to its readmission rates -- with penalties for hospitals that exceed a national benchmark -- to encourage hospitals to reduce avoidable readmissions. This new Commonwealth Fund analysis uses publicly reported 30-day hospital readmission rate data to examine whether safety-net hospitals are more likely to have higher readmission rates, compared with other hospitals. Results of this analysis find that safety-net hospitals are 30 percent more likely to have 30-day hospital readmission rates above the national average, compared with non-safety-net hospitals, and will therefore be disproportionately impacted by the HRRP. Policy solutions to help safety-net hospitals reduce their readmission rates include targeting quality improvement initiatives for safety-net hospitals; ensuring that broader delivery system improvements include safety-net hospitals and care delivery systems; and enhancing bundled payment rates to account for socioeconomic risk factors

Influence of Sacubitril/Valsartan (LCZ696) on 30-day readmission after heart failure hospitalization

Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) are at high risk for hospital readmission in the first 30 days following HF hospitalization. Objectives: This study sought to determine if treatment with sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduces rates of hospital readmission at 30-days following HF hospitalization compared with enalapril. Methods: We assessed the risk of 30-day readmission for any cause following investigator-reported hospitalizations for HF in the PARADIGM-HF trial, which randomized 8,399 participants with HF and reduced ejection fraction to treatment with LCZ696 or enalapril. Results: Accounting for multiple hospitalizations per patient, there were 2,383 investigator-reported HF hospitalizations, of which 1,076 (45.2%) occurred in subjects assigned to LCZ696 and 1,307 (54.8%) occurred in subjects assigned to enalapril. Rates of readmission for any cause at 30 days were 17.8% in LCZ696-assigned subjects and 21.0% in enalapril-assigned subjects (odds ratio: 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.56 to 0.97; p = 0.031). Rates of readmission for HF at 30-days were also lower in subjects assigned to LCZ696 (9.7% vs. 13.4%; odds ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.87; p = 0.006). The reduction in both all-cause and HF readmissions with LCZ696 was maintained when the time window from discharge was extended to 60 days and in sensitivity analyses restricted to adjudicated HF hospitalizations. Conclusions: Compared with enalapril, treatment with LCZ696 reduces 30-day readmissions for any cause following discharge from HF hospitalization