Nearly One In Five Skilled Nursing Facilities Awarded Positive Incentives Under Value-Based Purchasing.

Medicare's Skilled Nursing Facility Value-Based Purchasing Program, which awards value-based incentive payments based on hospital readmissions, distributed its first two rounds of incentives during fiscal years 2019 and 2020. Incentive payments were based on achievement or improvement scores-whichever was better. Incentive payments were as low as -2.0 percent in both program years and as high as +1.6 percent in FY 2019 and +3.1 percent in FY 2020. In FY 2019, 26 percent of facilities earned positive incentives and 72 percent earned negative incentives, compared with 19 percent positive and 65 percent negative incentives in FY 2020. Larger, rural, and not-for-profit facilities were more likely to earn positive incentives, as were those with the highest registered nurse staffing levels. Although these findings indicate the potential to reward high-quality care at skilled nursing facilities, intended and unintended outcomes of this new value-based purchasing program should be monitored closely for possible program refinements, particularly in light of the disproportionate impacts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on nursing facilities.

Inpatient rehabilitation facilities' hospital readmission rates for medicare beneficiaries treated following a stroke.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is the leading cause for admission to the nearly 1,200 Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRFs) nationally in the US. For many patients, post-acute care is an important component of their rehabilitation. Several quality measures have been publicly reported for post-acute care providers, including hospital readmissions. However, to date none have focused on specific medical conditions, limiting the usability for patients and quality improvement. OBJECTIVE: To assess hospital readmission rates for Medicare patients receiving inpatient rehabilitation following stroke and to identify risk factors in order to evaluate the feasibility of a stroke-specific hospital readmission measure. METHODS: Observational study analyzing national Medicare inpatient claims and administrative data to assess hospital readmissions. Using logistic regression, we calculated unadjusted and risk-standardized readmission rates, which adjusted for patient characteristics, including type of stroke and admission function, to capture stroke severity. RESULTS: Our national study included 116,073 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiary discharged from IRFs in 2013-2014 following stroke from 1,162 IRFs nationally. The observed hospital readmission rate among IRF patients following stroke was 11.6% and varied by patients' admission motor function. Patients with greater functional dependence had higher readmission rates on average. Lower admission function, hemorrhagic and other stroke types (relative to ischemic) were significantly associated with higher odds of hospital readmission. CONCLUSION: Results suggest it is feasible to assess hospital readmission rates among a stroke-cohort treated in IRFs. Stroke-focused quality measures would be useful to patients in selecting a provider and for providers in evaluating their stroke rehabilitation program outcomes. Secondary results suggest that admission function (FIM) capture stroke severity, a limitation with other claims-based stroke measures.

Evaluating Hospital Readmission Rates After Discharge From Inpatient Rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: To examine facility-level rates of all-cause, unplanned hospital readmissions for 30 days after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs). DESIGN: Observational design. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries (N=567,850 patient-stays). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome is all-cause, unplanned hospital readmission rates for IRFs. We adapted previous risk-adjustment and statistical approaches used for acute care hospitals to develop a hierarchical logistic regression model that estimates a risk-standardized readmission rate for each IRF. The IRF risk-adjustment model takes into account patient demographic characteristics, hospital diagnoses and procedure codes, function at IRF admission, comorbidities, and prior hospital utilization. We presented national distributions of observed and risk-standardized readmission rates and estimated confidence intervals to make statistical comparisons relative to the national mean. We also analyzed the number of days from IRF discharge until hospital readmission. RESULTS: The national observed hospital readmission rate by 30 days postdischarge from IRFs was 13.1%. The mean unadjusted readmission rate for IRFs was 12.4%±3.5%, and the mean risk-standardized readmission rate was 13.1%±0.8%. The C-statistic for our risk-adjustment model was .70. Nearly three-quarters of IRFs (73.4%) had readmission rates that were significantly different from the mean. The mean number of days to readmission was 13.0±8.6 days and varied by rehabilitation diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the ability to assess 30-day, all-cause hospital readmission rates postdischarge from IRFs and the ability to discriminate between IRFs with higher- and lower-than-average hospital readmission rates.

Geographic Region and Profit Status Drive Variation in Hospital Readmission Outcomes Among Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether there are differences in inpatient rehabilitation facilities' (IRFs') all-cause 30-day postdischarge hospital readmission rates vary by organizational characteristics and geographic regions. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: IRFs. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged from all IRFs nationally in 2013 and 2014 (N = 1166 IRFs). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We applied specifications for an existing quality measure adopted by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for public reporting that assesses all-cause unplanned hospital readmission measure for 30 days postdischarge from inpatient rehabilitation. We estimated facility-level observed and risk-standardized readmission rates and then examined variation by several organizational characteristics (facility type, profit status, teaching status, proportion of low-income patients, size) and geographic factors (rural/urban, census division, state). RESULTS: IRFs' mean risk-standardized hospital readmission rate was 13.00%±0.77%. After controlling for organizational characteristics and practice patterns, we found substantial variation in IRFs' readmission rates: for-profit IRFs had significantly higher readmission rates than did not-for-profit IRFs (P<.001). We also found geographic variation: IRFs in the South Atlantic and South Central census regions had the highest hospital readmission rates than did IRFs in New England that had the lowest rates. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings point to variation in quality of care as measured by risk-standardized hospital readmission rates after IRF discharge. Thus, monitoring of readmission outcomes is important to encourage quality improvement in discharge care planning, care transitions, and follow-up.

What Are Nursing Facilities Doing to Reduce Potentially Avoidable Hospitalizations?

OBJECTIVES: Hospitalizations among nursing facility residents are frequent and often potentially avoidable. A number of initiatives and interventions have been developed to reduce excessive hospitalizations; however, little is known about the specific approaches nursing facilities use to address this issue. The objective of this study is to better understand which types of interventions nursing facilities have introduced to reduce potentially avoidable hospitalizations of long-stay nursing facility residents. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: 236 nursing facilities from 7 states. PARTICIPANTS: Nursing facility administrators. MEASUREMENTS: Web-based survey to measure whether facilities introduced any policies or procedures designed specifically to reduce potentially avoidable hospitalizations of long-stay nursing facility residents between 2011 and 2015. We surveyed facilities about seven types of interventions and quality improvement activities related to reducing avoidable hospitalizations, including use of Interventions to Reduce Acute Care Transfers (INTERACT) and American Medical Directors Association tools. RESULTS: Ninety-five percent of responding nursing facilities reported having introduced at least one new policy or procedure to reduce nursing facility resident hospitalizations since January 2011. The most common practice reported was hospitalization rate tracking or review, followed by standardized communication tools, such as Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation (SBAR). We found some variation in the extent and types of these reported interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all facilities surveyed reported having introduced a variety of initiatives to reduce potentially avoidable hospitalizations, likely driven by federal, state, and corporate initiatives to decrease hospital admissions and readmissions.

Medicare Expenditures Associated With Hospital and Emergency Department Use Among Beneficiaries With Dementia.

Understanding expenditure patterns for hospital and emergency department (ED) use among individuals with dementia is crucial to controlling Medicare spending. We analyzed Health and Retirement Study data and Medicare claims, stratified by beneficiaries' residence and proximity to death, to estimate Medicare expenditures for all-cause and potentially avoidable hospitalizations and ED visits. Analysis was limited to the Medicare fee-for-service population age 65 and older. Compared with people without dementia, community residents with dementia had higher average expenditures for hospital and ED services; nursing home residents with dementia had lower average expenditures for all-cause hospitalizations. Decedents with dementia had lower expenditures than those without dementia in the last year of life. Medicare expenditures for individuals with and without dementia vary by residential setting and proximity to death. Results highlight the importance of addressing the needs specific to the population with dementia. There are many initiatives to reduce hospital admissions, but few focus on people with dementia.