Readmission rates declined after the announcement of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), which penalizes hospitals for excess readmissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure (CHF), or pneumonia, according to a study from the Yale School of Medicine. The findings were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The HRRP was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and imposed financial penalties beginning in October 2012 for hospitals with higher-than-expected readmissions for AMI, CHF, or pneumonia among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries.

Since the program began, thousands of hospitals have been subjected to nearly $1 billion in penalties for not reducing readmissions. To determine whether these penalties resulted in fewer readmissions for the three target conditions, the investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries 64 years of age or older who were discharged between January 1, 2008, and June 30, 2015, from 2,214 penalty hospitals and 1,283 nonpenalty hospitals.

“We found that hospitals that were subject to penalties under HRRP had more significant reductions in readmissions than hospitals that were not penalized,” said lead author Nihar R. Desai, MD. “In addition, hospitals that were subject to penalty also seemed to focus their efforts on reducing readmissions for conditions that were the basis of the penalty. In contrast, hospitals that weren't penalized seemed to reduce readmissions across all conditions.”

The study included 48.1 million hospitalizations of 20.4 million Medicare beneficiaries. In January 2008, the mean readmission rates for AMI, CHF, pneumonia, and nontarget conditions were 22%, 28%, 20%, and 18%, respectively, at hospitals that were later subject to financial penalties. The corresponding values were 19%, 24%, 17%, and 16% at hospitals that were not subject to penalties.

Between January 2008 and March 2010, prior to the announcement of the HRRP, readmission rates were stable across hospitals (except AMI at nonpenalty hospitals). After the announcement of the HRRP, readmission rates for both target and nontarget conditions declined significantly faster for patients at hospitals that were later subject to financial penalties compared with those at nonpenalized hospitals. For AMI, there was an additional decrease of −1.24 percentage points per year compared with nonpenalty discharges; for CHF and pneumonia, the decreases were −1.25 and −1.37 percentage points, respectively; and for nontarget conditions, the decrease was −0.27 percentage points (P < 0.001 for all).

For penalty hospitals, the readmission rates for the target conditions declined significantly faster compared with nontarget conditions. For AMI, the additional decline was −0.49 percentage points per year compared with nontarget conditions (P = 0.004); for CHF and pneumonia, the decreases were −0.90 and −0.57 percentage points, respectively (both P < 0.001).

In contrast, among nonpenalty hospitals, readmissions for target conditions declined similarly or more slowly compared with nontarget conditions. For AMI and pneumonia, there was an additional increase of 0.48 percentage points per year (P = 0.05); for CHF and pneumonia, the increases were 0.08 (P = 0.67) and 0.53 (P = 0.01) percentage points, respectively.

“We know that not all readmissions are preventable, but we are also looking for ways to improve readmission numbers even further,” Desai said. “We’re exploring whether additional reductions in readmissions are attainable and feasible and what kind of policy environment would be needed to foster those additional reductions.”

Sources: EurekAlert; December 27, 2016; and JAMA; December 27, 2016.

More Headlines

Laparoscopic bypass reduces stomach to the size of an egg
University of Rochester researchers investigate cancer-related cognitive impairment
Approval decision set for June 2017
Results may be “game changer” in how brain malignancies are treated, study reports
Agency concerned about potential hepatotoxicity
MYL-1401O improves overall response rate compared with branded product
Results from ZIKV Detect assay require confirmatory testing
Company accused of hiding bone-growth product’s adverse affects
Threat is “real, ever-present, and continually changing,” official says

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.