Trends in the Purchase of Surgical Care in the Community by the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: The 2014 implementation of the Veterans Choice Program increased opportunities for Veterans to receive care in the community. Although surgical care is a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) priority, little is known about the types of surgeries provided in the VHA versus those referred to community care (CC), and whether Veterans are increasing their use of surgical care through CC with these additional opportunities. OBJECTIVES: To examine national trends across VHA facilities in the frequencies and types of surgeries provided in the VHA and through CC, and explore the association between facilities' purchase of care with rurality and surgical complexity designation. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective study using Veterans Administration (VA) outpatient and CC data from the VA's Corporate Data Warehouse (October 1, 2013-September 30, 2016). MEASURES: Veterans' demographics, outpatient surgeries, facility rurality, and surgical complexity. RESULTS: Our sample included 525,283 outpatient surgeries; 79% occurred in the VHA over the study timeframe. The proportion of CC surgeries increased from 16% in October 2013 to 29% in December 2014, and then subsequently declined, leveling off at 21% in June 2016 (trend, P<0.05). These trends varied by surgery type. Increases in CC surgeries were evident for 4 surgery types: cardiovascular, digestive, eye and ocular, and male genital surgeries (all trends, P<0.05). Rural and low-complexity facilities were more likely to purchase surgical CC than their urban and high-complexity counterparts (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although the VHA remains the primary provider of surgical care for Veterans, Veterans Choice Program implementation increased Veterans' use of CC relative to the VHA for certain types of surgeries, potentially bringing challenges to the VHA in delivering and coordinating surgical care across settings.

Hospital Readmissions after Surgery: How Important Are Hospital and Specialty Factors?

BACKGROUND: Hospital readmission rates after surgery can represent an overall hospital effect or a combination of specialty and patient effects. We hypothesized that hospital readmission rates for procedures within specialties were more strongly correlated than rates across specialties within the same hospital. STUDY DESIGN: For general, orthopaedic, and vascular specialties at Veterans Affairs hospitals during 2008 to 2014, 30-day risk-adjusted readmission rates were estimated for 6 high-volume procedures and each specialty. Relationships were assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS: At 84 hospitals, 64,724 orthopaedic, 24,963 general, and 10,399 vascular inpatient procedures were performed; mean readmission rates were 6.3%, 13.6%, and 16.4%, respectively. There was no correlation between specialty-specific adjusted hospital readmission rates: general and orthopaedic (r = 0.21; p = 0.06), general and vascular (r = 0.15; p = 0.19), and vascular and orthopaedic surgery (r = 0.07; p = 0.55). Within specialties, we found modest correlations between knee and hip arthroplasty readmission rates (r = 0.39; p < 0.01) and colectomy and ventral hernia repair (r = 0.24; p = 0.03), but not between lower-extremity bypass and endovascular aortic repair (r = 0.13; p = 0.26). Overall, controlling for patient-level factors, 1.9% of the variation in readmissions was attributable to specialty-level factors; only 0.6% was attributable to hospital-level factors. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital readmission rates for orthopaedic, vascular, and general surgery were not correlated between specialties; within each of the 3 specialties, modest correlations were found between 2 procedures within 2 of these specialties. These findings suggest that hospital surgical readmission rates are primarily explained by patient- and procedure-specific factors and less by broader specialty and/or hospital effects.

Does Use of a Hospital-wide Readmission Measure Versus Condition-specific Readmission Measures Make a Difference for Hospital Profiling and Payment Penalties?

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) use public reporting and payment penalties as incentives for hospitals to reduce readmission rates. In contrast to the current condition-specific readmission measures, CMS recently developed an all-condition, 30-day all-cause hospital-wide readmission measure (HWR) to provide a more comprehensive view of hospital performance. OBJECTIVES: We examined whether assessment of hospital performance and payment penalties depends on the readmission measure used. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used inpatient data to examine readmissions for patients discharged from VA acute-care hospitals from Fiscal Years 2007-2010. We calculated risk-standardized 30-day readmission rates for 3 condition-specific measures (heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia) and the HWR measure, and examined agreement between the HWR measure and each of the condition-specific measures on hospital performance. We also assessed the effect of using different readmission measures on hospitals' payment penalties. RESULTS: We found poor agreement between the condition-specific measures and the HWR measure on those hospitals identified as low or high performers (eg, among those hospitals classified as poor performers by the heart failure readmission measure, only 28.6% were similarly classified by the HWR measure). We also found differences in whether a hospital would experience payment penalties. The HWR measure penalized only 60% of those hospitals that would have received penalties based on at least 1 of the condition-specific measures. CONCLUSIONS: The condition-specific measures and the HWR measure provide a different picture of hospital performance. Future research is needed to determine which measure aligns best with CMS's overall goals to reduce hospital readmissions and improve quality.