Public Policy

Among Medicare beneficiaries admitted to the hospital between 2008 and 2016, there was an increase in postdischarge 30-day mortality for patients with heart failure, but not for those with acute myocardial infarction or pneumonia.

The finding comes from an effort to evaluate the use of services soon after discharge for conditions targeted in the U.S. Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), and patients’ outcomes.

“The announcement and implementation of the HRRP were associated with a reduction in readmissions within 30 days of discharge for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia, as shown by a decrease in the overall national rate of readmissions,” first author Rohan Khera, MD, and colleagues wrote in a study published online Jan. 15, 2020, in the British Medical Journal (doi:10.1136/bmj.l6831).

“Concerns existed that pressures to reduce readmissions had led to the evolution of care patterns that may have adverse consequences through reducing access to care in appropriate settings. Therefore, determining whether patients who are seen in acute care settings, but not admitted to hospital, experience an increased risk of mortality is essential.”

Dr. Khera, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and colleagues limited the analysis to Medicare claims data from patients who were admitted to the hospital with heart failure, acute myocardial infarction (MI), or pneumonia between 2008 and 2016. Key outcomes of interest were: (1) postdischarge 30-day mortality; and (2) acute care utilization in inpatient units, observation units, and the ED during the postdischarge period.

During the study period there were 3,772,924 hospital admissions for heart failure, 1,570,113 for acute MI, and 3,131,162 for pneumonia. The greatest number of readmissions within 30 days of discharge was for heart failure patients (22.5%), followed by acute MI (17.5%), and pneumonia (17.2%).

The overall rates of observation stays were 1.7% for heart failure, 2.6% for acute MI, and 1.4% for pneumonia, while the overall rates of emergency department visits were 6.4% for heart failure, 6.8% for acute MI, and 6.3% for pneumonia. Cumulatively, about one-third of all admissions – 30.7% for heart failure, 26.9% for acute MI, and 24.8% for pneumonia – received postdischarge care in any acute care setting.

Dr. Khera and colleagues found that overall postdischarge 30-day mortality was 8.7% for heart failure, 7.3% for acute MI, and 8.4% for pneumonia. At the same time, postdischarge 30-day mortality was higher in patients with readmissions (13.2% for heart failure, 12.7% for acute MI, and 15.3% for pneumonia), compared with those who had observation stays (4.5% for heart failure, 2.7% for acute MI, and 4.6% for pneumonia), emergency department visits (9.7% for heart failure, 8.8% for acute MI, and 7.8% for pneumonia), or no postdischarge acute care (7.2% for heart failure, 6.0% for acute MI, and 6.9% for pneumonia). Risk adjusted mortality increased annually by 0.05% only for heart failure, while it decreased by 0.06% for acute MI, and did not significantly change for pneumonia.

“The study strongly suggests that the HRRP did not lead to harm through inappropriate triage of patients at high risk to observation units and the emergency department, and therefore provides evidence against calls to curtail the program owing to this theoretical concern (see JAMA 2018;320:2539-41),” the researchers concluded.

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that they were “unable to identify patterns of acute care during the index hospital admission that would be associated with a higher rate of postdischarge acute care in observation units and emergency departments and whether these visits represented avenues for planned postdischarge follow-up care. Moreover, the proportion of these care encounters that were preventable remains poorly understood.”

Dr. Khera disclosed that he is supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. His coauthors reported having numerous disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Khera et al. BMJ 2020;368:l6831.

Among Medicare beneficiaries admitted to the hospital between 2008 and 2016, there was an increase in postdischarge 30-day mortality for patients with heart failure, but not for those with acute myocardial infarction or pneumonia.

The finding comes from an effort to evaluate the use of services soon after discharge for conditions targeted in the U.S. Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), and patients’ outcomes.

“The announcement and implementation of the HRRP were associated with a reduction in readmissions within 30 days of discharge for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia, as shown by a decrease in the overall national rate of readmissions,” first author Rohan Khera, MD, and colleagues wrote in a study published online Jan. 15, 2020, in the British Medical Journal (doi:10.1136/bmj.l6831).

“Concerns existed that pressures to reduce readmissions had led to the evolution of care patterns that may have adverse consequences through reducing access to care in appropriate settings. Therefore, determining whether patients who are seen in acute care settings, but not admitted to hospital, experience an increased risk of mortality is essential.”

Dr. Khera, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and colleagues limited the analysis to Medicare claims data from patients who were admitted to the hospital with heart failure, acute myocardial infarction (MI), or pneumonia between 2008 and 2016. Key outcomes of interest were: (1) postdischarge 30-day mortality; and (2) acute care utilization in inpatient units, observation units, and the ED during the postdischarge period.

During the study period there were 3,772,924 hospital admissions for heart failure, 1,570,113 for acute MI, and 3,131,162 for pneumonia. The greatest number of readmissions within 30 days of discharge was for heart failure patients (22.5%), followed by acute MI (17.5%), and pneumonia (17.2%).

The overall rates of observation stays were 1.7% for heart failure, 2.6% for acute MI, and 1.4% for pneumonia, while the overall rates of emergency department visits were 6.4% for heart failure, 6.8% for acute MI, and 6.3% for pneumonia. Cumulatively, about one-third of all admissions – 30.7% for heart failure, 26.9% for acute MI, and 24.8% for pneumonia – received postdischarge care in any acute care setting.

Dr. Khera and colleagues found that overall postdischarge 30-day mortality was 8.7% for heart failure, 7.3% for acute MI, and 8.4% for pneumonia. At the same time, postdischarge 30-day mortality was higher in patients with readmissions (13.2% for heart failure, 12.7% for acute MI, and 15.3% for pneumonia), compared with those who had observation stays (4.5% for heart failure, 2.7% for acute MI, and 4.6% for pneumonia), emergency department visits (9.7% for heart failure, 8.8% for acute MI, and 7.8% for pneumonia), or no postdischarge acute care (7.2% for heart failure, 6.0% for acute MI, and 6.9% for pneumonia). Risk adjusted mortality increased annually by 0.05% only for heart failure, while it decreased by 0.06% for acute MI, and did not significantly change for pneumonia.

“The study strongly suggests that the HRRP did not lead to harm through inappropriate triage of patients at high risk to observation units and the emergency department, and therefore provides evidence against calls to curtail the program owing to this theoretical concern (see JAMA 2018;320:2539-41),” the researchers concluded.

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that they were “unable to identify patterns of acute care during the index hospital admission that would be associated with a higher rate of postdischarge acute care in observation units and emergency departments and whether these visits represented avenues for planned postdischarge follow-up care. Moreover, the proportion of these care encounters that were preventable remains poorly understood.”

Dr. Khera disclosed that he is supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. His coauthors reported having numerous disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Khera et al. BMJ 2020;368:l6831.

Among Medicare beneficiaries admitted to the hospital between 2008 and 2016, there was an increase in postdischarge 30-day mortality for patients with heart failure, but not for those with acute myocardial infarction or pneumonia.

The finding comes from an effort to evaluate the use of services soon after discharge for conditions targeted in the U.S. Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), and patients’ outcomes.

“The announcement and implementation of the HRRP were associated with a reduction in readmissions within 30 days of discharge for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia, as shown by a decrease in the overall national rate of readmissions,” first author Rohan Khera, MD, and colleagues wrote in a study published online Jan. 15, 2020, in the British Medical Journal (doi:10.1136/bmj.l6831).

“Concerns existed that pressures to reduce readmissions had led to the evolution of care patterns that may have adverse consequences through reducing access to care in appropriate settings. Therefore, determining whether patients who are seen in acute care settings, but not admitted to hospital, experience an increased risk of mortality is essential.”

Dr. Khera, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and colleagues limited the analysis to Medicare claims data from patients who were admitted to the hospital with heart failure, acute myocardial infarction (MI), or pneumonia between 2008 and 2016. Key outcomes of interest were: (1) postdischarge 30-day mortality; and (2) acute care utilization in inpatient units, observation units, and the ED during the postdischarge period.

During the study period there were 3,772,924 hospital admissions for heart failure, 1,570,113 for acute MI, and 3,131,162 for pneumonia. The greatest number of readmissions within 30 days of discharge was for heart failure patients (22.5%), followed by acute MI (17.5%), and pneumonia (17.2%).

The overall rates of observation stays were 1.7% for heart failure, 2.6% for acute MI, and 1.4% for pneumonia, while the overall rates of emergency department visits were 6.4% for heart failure, 6.8% for acute MI, and 6.3% for pneumonia. Cumulatively, about one-third of all admissions – 30.7% for heart failure, 26.9% for acute MI, and 24.8% for pneumonia – received postdischarge care in any acute care setting.

Dr. Khera and colleagues found that overall postdischarge 30-day mortality was 8.7% for heart failure, 7.3% for acute MI, and 8.4% for pneumonia. At the same time, postdischarge 30-day mortality was higher in patients with readmissions (13.2% for heart failure, 12.7% for acute MI, and 15.3% for pneumonia), compared with those who had observation stays (4.5% for heart failure, 2.7% for acute MI, and 4.6% for pneumonia), emergency department visits (9.7% for heart failure, 8.8% for acute MI, and 7.8% for pneumonia), or no postdischarge acute care (7.2% for heart failure, 6.0% for acute MI, and 6.9% for pneumonia). Risk adjusted mortality increased annually by 0.05% only for heart failure, while it decreased by 0.06% for acute MI, and did not significantly change for pneumonia.

“The study strongly suggests that the HRRP did not lead to harm through inappropriate triage of patients at high risk to observation units and the emergency department, and therefore provides evidence against calls to curtail the program owing to this theoretical concern (see JAMA 2018;320:2539-41),” the researchers concluded.

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that they were “unable to identify patterns of acute care during the index hospital admission that would be associated with a higher rate of postdischarge acute care in observation units and emergency departments and whether these visits represented avenues for planned postdischarge follow-up care. Moreover, the proportion of these care encounters that were preventable remains poorly understood.”

Dr. Khera disclosed that he is supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. His coauthors reported having numerous disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Khera et al. BMJ 2020;368:l6831.

As the debate over how best to address surprise billing continues, new research shows that billing from out-of-network physicians at in-network facilities is adding $40 billion in costs.

utah778/Thinkstock

Researchers focused on four different types of physicians that account for out-of-network billing: anesthesiologists, pathologists, radiologists, and cases involving an assistant surgeon, which had out-of-network bills in about 10% of claims that were examined as part of the research.

“To give a rough estimate of the savings that could be achieved by eliminating the ability of these four types of specialists to readily bill out of network, we simulated what would happen if all of these specialists received the same average payments as orthopedic surgeons did (164% of Medicare rates),” Zack Cooper, PhD, associate professor of health policy at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in a research report published in Health Affairs.

“We estimated that if these physicians were paid the same average rate as orthopedists for all of the services that they delivered in our sample, spending would be lowered on anesthesiologists by 53.5%, on pathologists by 47.4%, on radiologists by 16.3%, and on assistant surgeons by 46.2%,” the authors wrote.

Researchers said that physician spending for these four specialties would be lowered by 13.4% and would lower total spending for people with employer-sponsored insurance by about 3.4%, or $40 billion. If spending on these four specialties were lowered to 150% of Medicare rates, it would lower spending on physicians by 15.3%.

To help combat the issues of surprise billing in a way that lowers total commercial health care spending and helps to preserve a competitive price for physician services, Dr. Cooper and colleagues recommended an approach that would regulate the contracts of physicians who work in hospitals and are not chosen by patients. It would establish a bundled package for services that include the emergency department physicians and the four specialists examined as part of the research and would use the fee associated with the package of services to recruit specialists to work at the hospital.

The authors said this kind of policy would eliminate the possibility of patients seeing out-of-network providers at in-network hospitals and, unlike arbitration (a favored solution among physician groups if it is set up in an agreeable manner), patients are protected without being required to take any action. The policy also sets a competitive rate for these services.

“Under this bundled care approach, physicians would compete to offer their services on the basis of price and quality,” Dr. Cooper and colleagues stated. “Hospitals would compete with one another on the price and quality of their care, including the services provided by the physicians they recruited. Hospitals would also need to compete to retain physicians.”

This approach is not included in any current surprise billing legislation. There was hope that surprise billing would be addressed in a government spending bill that would be signed before year’s end. But a second bipartisan plan was introduced in the House Ways and Means Committee after a bipartisan compromise was reached by the House Energy and Commerce and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committees. This has postponed a decision on surprise billing legislation into the coming year.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cooper Z et al. Health Aff. 2019 Dec 16. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00507.

As the debate over how best to address surprise billing continues, new research shows that billing from out-of-network physicians at in-network facilities is adding $40 billion in costs.

utah778/Thinkstock

Researchers focused on four different types of physicians that account for out-of-network billing: anesthesiologists, pathologists, radiologists, and cases involving an assistant surgeon, which had out-of-network bills in about 10% of claims that were examined as part of the research.

“To give a rough estimate of the savings that could be achieved by eliminating the ability of these four types of specialists to readily bill out of network, we simulated what would happen if all of these specialists received the same average payments as orthopedic surgeons did (164% of Medicare rates),” Zack Cooper, PhD, associate professor of health policy at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in a research report published in Health Affairs.

“We estimated that if these physicians were paid the same average rate as orthopedists for all of the services that they delivered in our sample, spending would be lowered on anesthesiologists by 53.5%, on pathologists by 47.4%, on radiologists by 16.3%, and on assistant surgeons by 46.2%,” the authors wrote.

Researchers said that physician spending for these four specialties would be lowered by 13.4% and would lower total spending for people with employer-sponsored insurance by about 3.4%, or $40 billion. If spending on these four specialties were lowered to 150% of Medicare rates, it would lower spending on physicians by 15.3%.

To help combat the issues of surprise billing in a way that lowers total commercial health care spending and helps to preserve a competitive price for physician services, Dr. Cooper and colleagues recommended an approach that would regulate the contracts of physicians who work in hospitals and are not chosen by patients. It would establish a bundled package for services that include the emergency department physicians and the four specialists examined as part of the research and would use the fee associated with the package of services to recruit specialists to work at the hospital.

The authors said this kind of policy would eliminate the possibility of patients seeing out-of-network providers at in-network hospitals and, unlike arbitration (a favored solution among physician groups if it is set up in an agreeable manner), patients are protected without being required to take any action. The policy also sets a competitive rate for these services.

“Under this bundled care approach, physicians would compete to offer their services on the basis of price and quality,” Dr. Cooper and colleagues stated. “Hospitals would compete with one another on the price and quality of their care, including the services provided by the physicians they recruited. Hospitals would also need to compete to retain physicians.”

This approach is not included in any current surprise billing legislation. There was hope that surprise billing would be addressed in a government spending bill that would be signed before year’s end. But a second bipartisan plan was introduced in the House Ways and Means Committee after a bipartisan compromise was reached by the House Energy and Commerce and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committees. This has postponed a decision on surprise billing legislation into the coming year.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cooper Z et al. Health Aff. 2019 Dec 16. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00507.

As the debate over how best to address surprise billing continues, new research shows that billing from out-of-network physicians at in-network facilities is adding $40 billion in costs.

utah778/Thinkstock

Researchers focused on four different types of physicians that account for out-of-network billing: anesthesiologists, pathologists, radiologists, and cases involving an assistant surgeon, which had out-of-network bills in about 10% of claims that were examined as part of the research.

“To give a rough estimate of the savings that could be achieved by eliminating the ability of these four types of specialists to readily bill out of network, we simulated what would happen if all of these specialists received the same average payments as orthopedic surgeons did (164% of Medicare rates),” Zack Cooper, PhD, associate professor of health policy at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in a research report published in Health Affairs.

“We estimated that if these physicians were paid the same average rate as orthopedists for all of the services that they delivered in our sample, spending would be lowered on anesthesiologists by 53.5%, on pathologists by 47.4%, on radiologists by 16.3%, and on assistant surgeons by 46.2%,” the authors wrote.

Researchers said that physician spending for these four specialties would be lowered by 13.4% and would lower total spending for people with employer-sponsored insurance by about 3.4%, or $40 billion. If spending on these four specialties were lowered to 150% of Medicare rates, it would lower spending on physicians by 15.3%.

To help combat the issues of surprise billing in a way that lowers total commercial health care spending and helps to preserve a competitive price for physician services, Dr. Cooper and colleagues recommended an approach that would regulate the contracts of physicians who work in hospitals and are not chosen by patients. It would establish a bundled package for services that include the emergency department physicians and the four specialists examined as part of the research and would use the fee associated with the package of services to recruit specialists to work at the hospital.

The authors said this kind of policy would eliminate the possibility of patients seeing out-of-network providers at in-network hospitals and, unlike arbitration (a favored solution among physician groups if it is set up in an agreeable manner), patients are protected without being required to take any action. The policy also sets a competitive rate for these services.

“Under this bundled care approach, physicians would compete to offer their services on the basis of price and quality,” Dr. Cooper and colleagues stated. “Hospitals would compete with one another on the price and quality of their care, including the services provided by the physicians they recruited. Hospitals would also need to compete to retain physicians.”

This approach is not included in any current surprise billing legislation. There was hope that surprise billing would be addressed in a government spending bill that would be signed before year’s end. But a second bipartisan plan was introduced in the House Ways and Means Committee after a bipartisan compromise was reached by the House Energy and Commerce and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committees. This has postponed a decision on surprise billing legislation into the coming year.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cooper Z et al. Health Aff. 2019 Dec 16. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00507.

To solve our most pressing national health issues, we must start locally, according to a Health Affairs blog post.

“For example, in [Mecklenburg County] North Carolina, African Americans face rates of cardiovascular disease 22% higher than their white counterparts do. To fight this, an organization called Village HeartBEAT joined forces with more than 60 faith-based groups to reach more than 20,000 people – connecting them with health resources to reduce their cardiovascular risk. As a direct result, rates of smoking decreased from 17.4% to 13.9%, and obesity rates fell from 70% to 64.7%.”

Mecklenburg County is a winner of the Healthiest Cities & Counties Challenge, a collaboration between the Aetna Foundation, the American Public Health Association, and the National Association of Counties, which has awarded more than $1.5 million in grants and prizes over the last 2 years.

Reference

1. Graham G, Benjamin G. “Winning Local Solutions to Our Most Pressing Public Health Needs.” Health Affairs. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190423.202497/full/. Published April 25, 2019.

To solve our most pressing national health issues, we must start locally, according to a Health Affairs blog post.

“For example, in [Mecklenburg County] North Carolina, African Americans face rates of cardiovascular disease 22% higher than their white counterparts do. To fight this, an organization called Village HeartBEAT joined forces with more than 60 faith-based groups to reach more than 20,000 people – connecting them with health resources to reduce their cardiovascular risk. As a direct result, rates of smoking decreased from 17.4% to 13.9%, and obesity rates fell from 70% to 64.7%.”

Mecklenburg County is a winner of the Healthiest Cities & Counties Challenge, a collaboration between the Aetna Foundation, the American Public Health Association, and the National Association of Counties, which has awarded more than $1.5 million in grants and prizes over the last 2 years.

Reference

1. Graham G, Benjamin G. “Winning Local Solutions to Our Most Pressing Public Health Needs.” Health Affairs. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190423.202497/full/. Published April 25, 2019.

To solve our most pressing national health issues, we must start locally, according to a Health Affairs blog post.

“For example, in [Mecklenburg County] North Carolina, African Americans face rates of cardiovascular disease 22% higher than their white counterparts do. To fight this, an organization called Village HeartBEAT joined forces with more than 60 faith-based groups to reach more than 20,000 people – connecting them with health resources to reduce their cardiovascular risk. As a direct result, rates of smoking decreased from 17.4% to 13.9%, and obesity rates fell from 70% to 64.7%.”

Mecklenburg County is a winner of the Healthiest Cities & Counties Challenge, a collaboration between the Aetna Foundation, the American Public Health Association, and the National Association of Counties, which has awarded more than $1.5 million in grants and prizes over the last 2 years.

Reference

1. Graham G, Benjamin G. “Winning Local Solutions to Our Most Pressing Public Health Needs.” Health Affairs. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190423.202497/full/. Published April 25, 2019.

There is at least one aspect of “Obamacare” that my mother-in-law and I can firmly agree on: Hospitals should not get paid for frequent readmissions.

The Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), enacted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2012 with the goal of penalizing hospitals for excessive readmissions, has great face validity – and noble intentions. Does it also have a potentially disastrous downside?

On one side of the coin, the HRRP has been a remarkable success. It moved the national needle significantly on readmission rates. Yes, there are some caveats about increases in observation status patients and other shifts that could account for some of the difference, but it is fairly uncontroversial that overall, there are fewer 30-day readmissions across the country following initiation of HRRP. That is perhaps encouraging evidence of the potential positive impact that policy can make to drive changes for specific targets.

However, there is also a murkier – and more controversial – side. There have been a number of studies that have suggested reductions in readmission rates may have been associated with an increase in mortality in some patient groups. You discharge a patient and hope they won’t return to the hospital, but perhaps you should be more careful what you actually wish for.

Overall, the evidence of an association between readmissions and mortality has been complicated and conflicting. Headlines have alternately raised alarm about increased deaths and then reassured that there has been no change or perhaps even some concordant improvements in mortality. Not necessarily surprising, considering that these studies are all unavoidably of observational design and use different criteria, datasets and analytic models, which then drive their seemingly conflicting results.

An article published recently in the Journal of Hospital Medicine enters into this fray. The researchers examined the potential association between changes in rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) readmissions and 30-day mortality following HRRP introduction. While the initial HRRP program and subsequent analyses included patients with heart failure, acute MI, and pneumonia, the program was extended in 2014 to include patients with COPD. So, what happened in this patient group?

Through a number of statistical gymnastics, which as a nonstatistician I am having difficulty truly wrapping my head around, the researchers seem to have found a number of important insights:

• The all-cause 30-day risk-standardized readmission rate declined from 2010 to 2017.
• The all-cause 30-day risk-standardized mortality rate increased from 2010 to 2017, and the rate of increase in mortality appears to be accelerating.
• Hospitals with higher readmission rates prior to COPD readmission penalties had a lower rate of increase in mortalities.
• Hospitals that had a larger decrease in readmission rates had a larger rate of increase in mortality.

These researchers could not evaluate data at the patient level and could not adjust for changes in disease severity. However, taken together, these findings suggest that something bad may be truly happening here.

The authors of this study also point out that the associations with increased mortality have largely been seen in patients with heart failure – and now in patients with COPD – which are both chronic diseases characterized by exacerbations, as opposed to acute MI and pneumonia, which are episodic and treatable. Perhaps in those types of disease, efforts to avoid readmissions may be more universally helpful. Maybe.

Even if it is challenging for me to adjudicate the complicated methods and results of this study, I find it concerning that there is “biological plausibility” for this association. Hospitalists know exactly how this might have happened. Have you heard of the pop-up alerts that fire in the emergency department to let the physicians know that this patient was discharged within the past 30 days? You know that alert is not meant to tell you what to do, but you just might want to consider trying to discharge them or at least place them in observation – use your clinical judgment, if you know what I mean.

Within the past decade, observation units quickly cropped up all over the country, often not staffed by hospitalists nor cardiologists, where patients with decompensated heart failure, chest pain, and/or COPD, can be given Lasix and/or nebulizer treatments – at least just enough to let them walk on back out that door without a hospital admission.

At the end of the day, whether mortality rates have truly increased in the real world, this well-intentioned program seems to have serious issues. As Ashish Jha, MD, wrote in 2018, “Right now, a high-readmission, low-mortality hospital will be penalized at 6-10 times the rate of a low-readmission, high-mortality hospital. The signal from policy makers is clear – readmissions matter a lot more than mortality – and this signal needs to stop.”

Dr. Moriates is a hospitalist, the assistant dean for health care value, and an associate professor of internal medicine at Dell Medical School at University of Texas, Austin. He is also director of implementation initiatives at Costs of Care. This article first appeared on the Hospital Leader, SHM’s official blog, at hospitalleader.org.

There is at least one aspect of “Obamacare” that my mother-in-law and I can firmly agree on: Hospitals should not get paid for frequent readmissions.

The Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), enacted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2012 with the goal of penalizing hospitals for excessive readmissions, has great face validity – and noble intentions. Does it also have a potentially disastrous downside?

On one side of the coin, the HRRP has been a remarkable success. It moved the national needle significantly on readmission rates. Yes, there are some caveats about increases in observation status patients and other shifts that could account for some of the difference, but it is fairly uncontroversial that overall, there are fewer 30-day readmissions across the country following initiation of HRRP. That is perhaps encouraging evidence of the potential positive impact that policy can make to drive changes for specific targets.

However, there is also a murkier – and more controversial – side. There have been a number of studies that have suggested reductions in readmission rates may have been associated with an increase in mortality in some patient groups. You discharge a patient and hope they won’t return to the hospital, but perhaps you should be more careful what you actually wish for.

Overall, the evidence of an association between readmissions and mortality has been complicated and conflicting. Headlines have alternately raised alarm about increased deaths and then reassured that there has been no change or perhaps even some concordant improvements in mortality. Not necessarily surprising, considering that these studies are all unavoidably of observational design and use different criteria, datasets and analytic models, which then drive their seemingly conflicting results.

An article published recently in the Journal of Hospital Medicine enters into this fray. The researchers examined the potential association between changes in rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) readmissions and 30-day mortality following HRRP introduction. While the initial HRRP program and subsequent analyses included patients with heart failure, acute MI, and pneumonia, the program was extended in 2014 to include patients with COPD. So, what happened in this patient group?

Through a number of statistical gymnastics, which as a nonstatistician I am having difficulty truly wrapping my head around, the researchers seem to have found a number of important insights:

• The all-cause 30-day risk-standardized readmission rate declined from 2010 to 2017.
• The all-cause 30-day risk-standardized mortality rate increased from 2010 to 2017, and the rate of increase in mortality appears to be accelerating.
• Hospitals with higher readmission rates prior to COPD readmission penalties had a lower rate of increase in mortalities.
• Hospitals that had a larger decrease in readmission rates had a larger rate of increase in mortality.

These researchers could not evaluate data at the patient level and could not adjust for changes in disease severity. However, taken together, these findings suggest that something bad may be truly happening here.

The authors of this study also point out that the associations with increased mortality have largely been seen in patients with heart failure – and now in patients with COPD – which are both chronic diseases characterized by exacerbations, as opposed to acute MI and pneumonia, which are episodic and treatable. Perhaps in those types of disease, efforts to avoid readmissions may be more universally helpful. Maybe.

Even if it is challenging for me to adjudicate the complicated methods and results of this study, I find it concerning that there is “biological plausibility” for this association. Hospitalists know exactly how this might have happened. Have you heard of the pop-up alerts that fire in the emergency department to let the physicians know that this patient was discharged within the past 30 days? You know that alert is not meant to tell you what to do, but you just might want to consider trying to discharge them or at least place them in observation – use your clinical judgment, if you know what I mean.

Within the past decade, observation units quickly cropped up all over the country, often not staffed by hospitalists nor cardiologists, where patients with decompensated heart failure, chest pain, and/or COPD, can be given Lasix and/or nebulizer treatments – at least just enough to let them walk on back out that door without a hospital admission.

At the end of the day, whether mortality rates have truly increased in the real world, this well-intentioned program seems to have serious issues. As Ashish Jha, MD, wrote in 2018, “Right now, a high-readmission, low-mortality hospital will be penalized at 6-10 times the rate of a low-readmission, high-mortality hospital. The signal from policy makers is clear – readmissions matter a lot more than mortality – and this signal needs to stop.”

Dr. Moriates is a hospitalist, the assistant dean for health care value, and an associate professor of internal medicine at Dell Medical School at University of Texas, Austin. He is also director of implementation initiatives at Costs of Care. This article first appeared on the Hospital Leader, SHM’s official blog, at hospitalleader.org.

There is at least one aspect of “Obamacare” that my mother-in-law and I can firmly agree on: Hospitals should not get paid for frequent readmissions.

The Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), enacted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2012 with the goal of penalizing hospitals for excessive readmissions, has great face validity – and noble intentions. Does it also have a potentially disastrous downside?

On one side of the coin, the HRRP has been a remarkable success. It moved the national needle significantly on readmission rates. Yes, there are some caveats about increases in observation status patients and other shifts that could account for some of the difference, but it is fairly uncontroversial that overall, there are fewer 30-day readmissions across the country following initiation of HRRP. That is perhaps encouraging evidence of the potential positive impact that policy can make to drive changes for specific targets.

However, there is also a murkier – and more controversial – side. There have been a number of studies that have suggested reductions in readmission rates may have been associated with an increase in mortality in some patient groups. You discharge a patient and hope they won’t return to the hospital, but perhaps you should be more careful what you actually wish for.

Overall, the evidence of an association between readmissions and mortality has been complicated and conflicting. Headlines have alternately raised alarm about increased deaths and then reassured that there has been no change or perhaps even some concordant improvements in mortality. Not necessarily surprising, considering that these studies are all unavoidably of observational design and use different criteria, datasets and analytic models, which then drive their seemingly conflicting results.

An article published recently in the Journal of Hospital Medicine enters into this fray. The researchers examined the potential association between changes in rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) readmissions and 30-day mortality following HRRP introduction. While the initial HRRP program and subsequent analyses included patients with heart failure, acute MI, and pneumonia, the program was extended in 2014 to include patients with COPD. So, what happened in this patient group?

Through a number of statistical gymnastics, which as a nonstatistician I am having difficulty truly wrapping my head around, the researchers seem to have found a number of important insights:

• The all-cause 30-day risk-standardized readmission rate declined from 2010 to 2017.
• The all-cause 30-day risk-standardized mortality rate increased from 2010 to 2017, and the rate of increase in mortality appears to be accelerating.
• Hospitals with higher readmission rates prior to COPD readmission penalties had a lower rate of increase in mortalities.
• Hospitals that had a larger decrease in readmission rates had a larger rate of increase in mortality.

These researchers could not evaluate data at the patient level and could not adjust for changes in disease severity. However, taken together, these findings suggest that something bad may be truly happening here.

The authors of this study also point out that the associations with increased mortality have largely been seen in patients with heart failure – and now in patients with COPD – which are both chronic diseases characterized by exacerbations, as opposed to acute MI and pneumonia, which are episodic and treatable. Perhaps in those types of disease, efforts to avoid readmissions may be more universally helpful. Maybe.

Even if it is challenging for me to adjudicate the complicated methods and results of this study, I find it concerning that there is “biological plausibility” for this association. Hospitalists know exactly how this might have happened. Have you heard of the pop-up alerts that fire in the emergency department to let the physicians know that this patient was discharged within the past 30 days? You know that alert is not meant to tell you what to do, but you just might want to consider trying to discharge them or at least place them in observation – use your clinical judgment, if you know what I mean.

Within the past decade, observation units quickly cropped up all over the country, often not staffed by hospitalists nor cardiologists, where patients with decompensated heart failure, chest pain, and/or COPD, can be given Lasix and/or nebulizer treatments – at least just enough to let them walk on back out that door without a hospital admission.

At the end of the day, whether mortality rates have truly increased in the real world, this well-intentioned program seems to have serious issues. As Ashish Jha, MD, wrote in 2018, “Right now, a high-readmission, low-mortality hospital will be penalized at 6-10 times the rate of a low-readmission, high-mortality hospital. The signal from policy makers is clear – readmissions matter a lot more than mortality – and this signal needs to stop.”

Dr. Moriates is a hospitalist, the assistant dean for health care value, and an associate professor of internal medicine at Dell Medical School at University of Texas, Austin. He is also director of implementation initiatives at Costs of Care. This article first appeared on the Hospital Leader, SHM’s official blog, at hospitalleader.org.

Since 2005 the government website Hospital Compare has publicly reported quality data on hospitals, with periodic updates of their performance, including specific measures of quality. But how accurately do the ratings reflect a hospital’s actual quality of care, and what do the ratings mean for hospitalists?

Hospital Compare provides searchable, comparable information to consumers on reported quality of care data submitted by more than 4,000 Medicare-certified hospitals, along with Veterans Administration and military health system hospitals. It is designed to allow consumers to select hospitals and directly compare their mortality, complication, infection, and other performance measures on conditions such as heart attacks, heart failure, pneumonia, and surgical outcomes.

The Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings, which began in 2016, combine data from more than 50 quality measures publicly reported on Hospital Compare into an overall rating of one to five stars for each hospital. These ratings are designed to enhance and supplement existing quality measures with a more “customer-centric” measure that makes it easier for consumers to act on the information. Obviously, this would be helpful to consumers who feel overwhelmed by the volume of data on the Hospital Compare website, and by the complexity of some of the measures.

A posted call in spring 2019 by CMS for public comment on possible methodological changes to the Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings received more than 800 comments from 150 different organizations. And this past summer, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services decided to delay posting the refreshed Star Ratings in its Hospital Compare data preview reports for July 2019. The agency says it intends to release the updated information in early 2020. Meanwhile, the reported data – particularly the overall star ratings – continue to generate controversy for the hospital field.
 

Hospitalists’ critical role

Hospitalists are not rated individually on Hospital Compare, but they play important roles in the quality of care their hospital provides – and thus ultimately the hospital’s publicly reported rankings. Hospitalists typically are not specifically incentivized or penalized for their hospital’s performance, but this does happen in some cases.

“Hospital administrators absolutely take note of their hospital’s star ratings. These are the people hospitalists work for, and this is definitely top of their minds,” said Kate Goodrich, MD, MHS, director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality at CMS. “I recently spoke at an SHM annual conference and every question I was asked was about hospital ratings and the star system,” noted Dr. Goodrich, herself a practicing hospitalist at George Washington University Medical Center in Washington.

The government’s aim for Hospital Compare is to give consumers easy-to-understand indicators of the quality of care provided by hospitals, especially where they might have a choice of hospitals, such as for an elective surgery. Making that information public is also viewed as a motivator to help drive improvements in hospital performance, Dr. Goodrich said.

“In terms of what we measure, we try to make sure it’s important to patients and to clinicians. We have frontline practicing physicians, patients, and families advising us, along with methodologists and PhD researchers. These stakeholders tell us what is important to measure and why,” she said. “Hospitals and all health providers need more actionable and timely data to improve their quality of care, especially if they want to participate in accountable care organizations. And we need to make the information easy to understand.”

Dr. Goodrich sees two main themes in the public response to its request for comment. “People say the methodology we use to calculate star ratings is frustrating for hospitals, which have found it difficult to model their performance, predict their star ratings, or explain the discrepancies.” Hospitals taking care of sicker patients with lower socioeconomic status also say the ratings unfairly penalize them. “I work in a large urban hospital, and I understand this. They say we don’t take that sufficiently into account in the ratings,” she said.

“While our modeling shows that current ratings highly correlate with performance on individual measures, we have asked for comment on if and how we could adjust for socioeconomic factors. We are actively considering how to make changes to address these concerns,” Dr. Goodrich said.

In August 2019, CMS acknowledged that it plans to change the methodology used to calculate hospital star ratings in early 2021, but has not yet revealed specific details about the nature of the changes. The agency intends to propose the changes through the public rule-making process sometime in 2020.
 

Continuing controversy

The American Hospital Association – which has had strong concerns about the methodology and the usefulness of hospital star ratings – is pushing back on some of the changes to the system being considered by CMS. In its submitted comments, AHA supported only three of the 14 potential star ratings methodology changes being considered. AHA and the American Association of Medical Colleges, among others, have urged taking down the star ratings until major changes can be made.

“When the star ratings were first implemented, a lot of challenges became apparent right away,” said Akin Demehin, MPH, AHA’s director of quality policy. “We began to see that those hospitals that treat more complicated patients and poorer patients tended to perform more poorly on the ratings. So there was something wrong with the methodology. Then, starting in 2018, hospitals began seeing real shifts in their performance ratings when the underlying data hadn’t really changed.”

CMS uses a statistical approach called latent variable modeling. Its underlying assumption is that you can say something about a hospital’s underlying quality based on the data you already have, Mr. Demehin said, but noted “that can be a questionable assumption.” He also emphasized the need for ratings that compare hospitals that are similar in size and model to each other.

Suparna Dutta, MD, division chief, hospital medicine, Rush University, Chicago, said analyses done at Rush showed that the statistical model CMS used in calculating the star ratings was dynamically changing the weighting of certain measures in every release. “That meant one specific performance measure could play an outsized role in determining a final rating,” she said. In particular the methodology inadvertently penalized large hospitals, academic medical centers, and institutions that provide heroic care.

“We fundamentally believe that consumers should have meaningful information about hospital quality,” said Nancy Foster, AHA’s vice president for quality and patient safety policy at AHA. “We understand the complexities of Hospital Compare and the challenges of getting simple information for consumers. To its credit, CMS is thinking about how to do that, and we support them in that effort.”
 

Getting a handle on quality

Hospitalists are responsible for ensuring that their hospitals excel in the care of patients, said Julius Yang, MD, hospitalist and director of quality at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. That also requires keeping up on the primary public ways these issues are addressed through reporting of quality data and through reimbursement policy. “That should be part of our core competencies as hospitalists.”

Some of the measures on Hospital Compare don’t overlap much with the work of hospitalists, he noted. But for others, such as for pneumonia, COPD, and care of patients with stroke, or for mortality and 30-day readmissions rates, “we are involved, even if not directly, and certainly responsible for contributing to the outcomes and the opportunity to add value,” he said.

“When it comes to 30-day readmission rates, do we really understand the risk factors for readmissions and the barriers to patients remaining in the community after their hospital stay? Are our patients stable enough to be discharged, and have we worked with the care coordination team to make sure they have the resources they need? And have we communicated adequately with the outpatient doctor? All of these things are within the wheelhouse of the hospitalist,” Dr. Yang said. “Let’s accept that the readmissions rate, for example, is not a perfect measure of quality. But as an imperfect measure, it can point us in the right direction.”

Jose Figueroa, MD, MPH, hospitalist and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, has been studying for his health system the impact of hospital penalties such as the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program on health equity. In general, hospitalists play an important role in dictating processes of care and serving on quality-oriented committees across multiple realms of the hospital, he said.

“What’s hard from the hospitalist’s perspective is that there don’t seem to be simple solutions to move the dial on many of these measures,” Dr. Figueroa said. “If the hospital is at three stars, can we say, okay, if we do X, Y, and Z, then our hospital will move from three to five stars? Some of these measures are so broad and not in our purview. Which ones apply to me as a hospitalist and my care processes?”

Dr. Dutta sits on the SHM Policy Committee, which has been working to bring these issues to the attention of frontline hospitalists. “Hospitalists are always going to be aligned with their hospital’s priorities. We’re in it to provide high-quality care, but there’s no magic way to do that,” she said.

Hospital Compare measures sometimes end up in hospitalist incentives plans – for example, the readmission penalty rates – even though that is a fairly arbitrary measure and hard to pin to one doctor, Dr. Dutta explained. “If you look at the evidence regarding these metrics, there are not a lot of data to show that the metrics lead to what we really want, which is better care for patients.”

A recent study in the British Medical Journal, for example, examined the association between the penalties on hospitals in the Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program and clinical outcome.¹ The researchers concluded that the penalties were not associated with significant change or found to drive meaningful clinical improvement.
 

How can hospitalists engage with Compare?

Dr. Goodrich refers hospitalists seeking quality resources to their local quality improvement organizations (QIO) and to Hospital Improvement Innovation Networks at the regional, state, national, or hospital system level.

One helpful thing that any group of hospitalists could do, added Dr. Figueroa, is to examine the measures closely and determine which ones they think they can influence. “Then look for the hospitals that resemble ours and care for similar patients, based on the demographics. We can then say: ‘Okay, that’s a fair comparison. This can be a benchmark with our peers,’” he said. Then it’s important to ask how your hospital is doing over time on these measures, and use that to prioritize.

“You also have to appreciate that these are broad quality measures, and to impact them you have to do broad quality improvement efforts. Another piece of this is getting good at collecting and analyzing data internally in a timely fashion. You don’t want to wait 2-3 years to find out in Hospital Compare that you’re not performing well. You care about the care you provided today, not 2 or 3 years ago. Without this internal check, it’s impossible to know what to invest in – and to see if things you do are having an impact,” Dr. Figueroa said.

“As physician leaders, this is a real opportunity for us to trigger a conversation with our hospital’s administration around what we went into medicine for in the first place – to improve our patients’ care,” said Dr. Goodrich. She said Hospital Compare is one tool for sparking systemic quality improvement across the hospital – which is an important part of the hospitalist’s job. “If you want to be a bigger star within your hospital, show that level of commitment. It likely would be welcomed by your hospital.”
 

Reference

1. Sankaran R et al. Changes in hospital safety following penalties in the US Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2019 Jul 3 doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4109.

Since 2005 the government website Hospital Compare has publicly reported quality data on hospitals, with periodic updates of their performance, including specific measures of quality. But how accurately do the ratings reflect a hospital’s actual quality of care, and what do the ratings mean for hospitalists?

Hospital Compare provides searchable, comparable information to consumers on reported quality of care data submitted by more than 4,000 Medicare-certified hospitals, along with Veterans Administration and military health system hospitals. It is designed to allow consumers to select hospitals and directly compare their mortality, complication, infection, and other performance measures on conditions such as heart attacks, heart failure, pneumonia, and surgical outcomes.

The Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings, which began in 2016, combine data from more than 50 quality measures publicly reported on Hospital Compare into an overall rating of one to five stars for each hospital. These ratings are designed to enhance and supplement existing quality measures with a more “customer-centric” measure that makes it easier for consumers to act on the information. Obviously, this would be helpful to consumers who feel overwhelmed by the volume of data on the Hospital Compare website, and by the complexity of some of the measures.

A posted call in spring 2019 by CMS for public comment on possible methodological changes to the Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings received more than 800 comments from 150 different organizations. And this past summer, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services decided to delay posting the refreshed Star Ratings in its Hospital Compare data preview reports for July 2019. The agency says it intends to release the updated information in early 2020. Meanwhile, the reported data – particularly the overall star ratings – continue to generate controversy for the hospital field.
 

Hospitalists’ critical role

Hospitalists are not rated individually on Hospital Compare, but they play important roles in the quality of care their hospital provides – and thus ultimately the hospital’s publicly reported rankings. Hospitalists typically are not specifically incentivized or penalized for their hospital’s performance, but this does happen in some cases.

“Hospital administrators absolutely take note of their hospital’s star ratings. These are the people hospitalists work for, and this is definitely top of their minds,” said Kate Goodrich, MD, MHS, director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality at CMS. “I recently spoke at an SHM annual conference and every question I was asked was about hospital ratings and the star system,” noted Dr. Goodrich, herself a practicing hospitalist at George Washington University Medical Center in Washington.

The government’s aim for Hospital Compare is to give consumers easy-to-understand indicators of the quality of care provided by hospitals, especially where they might have a choice of hospitals, such as for an elective surgery. Making that information public is also viewed as a motivator to help drive improvements in hospital performance, Dr. Goodrich said.

“In terms of what we measure, we try to make sure it’s important to patients and to clinicians. We have frontline practicing physicians, patients, and families advising us, along with methodologists and PhD researchers. These stakeholders tell us what is important to measure and why,” she said. “Hospitals and all health providers need more actionable and timely data to improve their quality of care, especially if they want to participate in accountable care organizations. And we need to make the information easy to understand.”

Dr. Goodrich sees two main themes in the public response to its request for comment. “People say the methodology we use to calculate star ratings is frustrating for hospitals, which have found it difficult to model their performance, predict their star ratings, or explain the discrepancies.” Hospitals taking care of sicker patients with lower socioeconomic status also say the ratings unfairly penalize them. “I work in a large urban hospital, and I understand this. They say we don’t take that sufficiently into account in the ratings,” she said.

“While our modeling shows that current ratings highly correlate with performance on individual measures, we have asked for comment on if and how we could adjust for socioeconomic factors. We are actively considering how to make changes to address these concerns,” Dr. Goodrich said.

In August 2019, CMS acknowledged that it plans to change the methodology used to calculate hospital star ratings in early 2021, but has not yet revealed specific details about the nature of the changes. The agency intends to propose the changes through the public rule-making process sometime in 2020.
 

Continuing controversy

The American Hospital Association – which has had strong concerns about the methodology and the usefulness of hospital star ratings – is pushing back on some of the changes to the system being considered by CMS. In its submitted comments, AHA supported only three of the 14 potential star ratings methodology changes being considered. AHA and the American Association of Medical Colleges, among others, have urged taking down the star ratings until major changes can be made.

“When the star ratings were first implemented, a lot of challenges became apparent right away,” said Akin Demehin, MPH, AHA’s director of quality policy. “We began to see that those hospitals that treat more complicated patients and poorer patients tended to perform more poorly on the ratings. So there was something wrong with the methodology. Then, starting in 2018, hospitals began seeing real shifts in their performance ratings when the underlying data hadn’t really changed.”

CMS uses a statistical approach called latent variable modeling. Its underlying assumption is that you can say something about a hospital’s underlying quality based on the data you already have, Mr. Demehin said, but noted “that can be a questionable assumption.” He also emphasized the need for ratings that compare hospitals that are similar in size and model to each other.

Suparna Dutta, MD, division chief, hospital medicine, Rush University, Chicago, said analyses done at Rush showed that the statistical model CMS used in calculating the star ratings was dynamically changing the weighting of certain measures in every release. “That meant one specific performance measure could play an outsized role in determining a final rating,” she said. In particular the methodology inadvertently penalized large hospitals, academic medical centers, and institutions that provide heroic care.

“We fundamentally believe that consumers should have meaningful information about hospital quality,” said Nancy Foster, AHA’s vice president for quality and patient safety policy at AHA. “We understand the complexities of Hospital Compare and the challenges of getting simple information for consumers. To its credit, CMS is thinking about how to do that, and we support them in that effort.”
 

Getting a handle on quality

Hospitalists are responsible for ensuring that their hospitals excel in the care of patients, said Julius Yang, MD, hospitalist and director of quality at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. That also requires keeping up on the primary public ways these issues are addressed through reporting of quality data and through reimbursement policy. “That should be part of our core competencies as hospitalists.”

Some of the measures on Hospital Compare don’t overlap much with the work of hospitalists, he noted. But for others, such as for pneumonia, COPD, and care of patients with stroke, or for mortality and 30-day readmissions rates, “we are involved, even if not directly, and certainly responsible for contributing to the outcomes and the opportunity to add value,” he said.

“When it comes to 30-day readmission rates, do we really understand the risk factors for readmissions and the barriers to patients remaining in the community after their hospital stay? Are our patients stable enough to be discharged, and have we worked with the care coordination team to make sure they have the resources they need? And have we communicated adequately with the outpatient doctor? All of these things are within the wheelhouse of the hospitalist,” Dr. Yang said. “Let’s accept that the readmissions rate, for example, is not a perfect measure of quality. But as an imperfect measure, it can point us in the right direction.”

Jose Figueroa, MD, MPH, hospitalist and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, has been studying for his health system the impact of hospital penalties such as the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program on health equity. In general, hospitalists play an important role in dictating processes of care and serving on quality-oriented committees across multiple realms of the hospital, he said.

“What’s hard from the hospitalist’s perspective is that there don’t seem to be simple solutions to move the dial on many of these measures,” Dr. Figueroa said. “If the hospital is at three stars, can we say, okay, if we do X, Y, and Z, then our hospital will move from three to five stars? Some of these measures are so broad and not in our purview. Which ones apply to me as a hospitalist and my care processes?”

Dr. Dutta sits on the SHM Policy Committee, which has been working to bring these issues to the attention of frontline hospitalists. “Hospitalists are always going to be aligned with their hospital’s priorities. We’re in it to provide high-quality care, but there’s no magic way to do that,” she said.

Hospital Compare measures sometimes end up in hospitalist incentives plans – for example, the readmission penalty rates – even though that is a fairly arbitrary measure and hard to pin to one doctor, Dr. Dutta explained. “If you look at the evidence regarding these metrics, there are not a lot of data to show that the metrics lead to what we really want, which is better care for patients.”

A recent study in the British Medical Journal, for example, examined the association between the penalties on hospitals in the Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program and clinical outcome.¹ The researchers concluded that the penalties were not associated with significant change or found to drive meaningful clinical improvement.
 

How can hospitalists engage with Compare?

Dr. Goodrich refers hospitalists seeking quality resources to their local quality improvement organizations (QIO) and to Hospital Improvement Innovation Networks at the regional, state, national, or hospital system level.

One helpful thing that any group of hospitalists could do, added Dr. Figueroa, is to examine the measures closely and determine which ones they think they can influence. “Then look for the hospitals that resemble ours and care for similar patients, based on the demographics. We can then say: ‘Okay, that’s a fair comparison. This can be a benchmark with our peers,’” he said. Then it’s important to ask how your hospital is doing over time on these measures, and use that to prioritize.

“You also have to appreciate that these are broad quality measures, and to impact them you have to do broad quality improvement efforts. Another piece of this is getting good at collecting and analyzing data internally in a timely fashion. You don’t want to wait 2-3 years to find out in Hospital Compare that you’re not performing well. You care about the care you provided today, not 2 or 3 years ago. Without this internal check, it’s impossible to know what to invest in – and to see if things you do are having an impact,” Dr. Figueroa said.

“As physician leaders, this is a real opportunity for us to trigger a conversation with our hospital’s administration around what we went into medicine for in the first place – to improve our patients’ care,” said Dr. Goodrich. She said Hospital Compare is one tool for sparking systemic quality improvement across the hospital – which is an important part of the hospitalist’s job. “If you want to be a bigger star within your hospital, show that level of commitment. It likely would be welcomed by your hospital.”
 

Reference

1. Sankaran R et al. Changes in hospital safety following penalties in the US Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2019 Jul 3 doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4109.

Since 2005 the government website Hospital Compare has publicly reported quality data on hospitals, with periodic updates of their performance, including specific measures of quality. But how accurately do the ratings reflect a hospital’s actual quality of care, and what do the ratings mean for hospitalists?

Hospital Compare provides searchable, comparable information to consumers on reported quality of care data submitted by more than 4,000 Medicare-certified hospitals, along with Veterans Administration and military health system hospitals. It is designed to allow consumers to select hospitals and directly compare their mortality, complication, infection, and other performance measures on conditions such as heart attacks, heart failure, pneumonia, and surgical outcomes.

The Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings, which began in 2016, combine data from more than 50 quality measures publicly reported on Hospital Compare into an overall rating of one to five stars for each hospital. These ratings are designed to enhance and supplement existing quality measures with a more “customer-centric” measure that makes it easier for consumers to act on the information. Obviously, this would be helpful to consumers who feel overwhelmed by the volume of data on the Hospital Compare website, and by the complexity of some of the measures.

A posted call in spring 2019 by CMS for public comment on possible methodological changes to the Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings received more than 800 comments from 150 different organizations. And this past summer, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services decided to delay posting the refreshed Star Ratings in its Hospital Compare data preview reports for July 2019. The agency says it intends to release the updated information in early 2020. Meanwhile, the reported data – particularly the overall star ratings – continue to generate controversy for the hospital field.
 

Hospitalists’ critical role

Hospitalists are not rated individually on Hospital Compare, but they play important roles in the quality of care their hospital provides – and thus ultimately the hospital’s publicly reported rankings. Hospitalists typically are not specifically incentivized or penalized for their hospital’s performance, but this does happen in some cases.

“Hospital administrators absolutely take note of their hospital’s star ratings. These are the people hospitalists work for, and this is definitely top of their minds,” said Kate Goodrich, MD, MHS, director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality at CMS. “I recently spoke at an SHM annual conference and every question I was asked was about hospital ratings and the star system,” noted Dr. Goodrich, herself a practicing hospitalist at George Washington University Medical Center in Washington.

The government’s aim for Hospital Compare is to give consumers easy-to-understand indicators of the quality of care provided by hospitals, especially where they might have a choice of hospitals, such as for an elective surgery. Making that information public is also viewed as a motivator to help drive improvements in hospital performance, Dr. Goodrich said.

“In terms of what we measure, we try to make sure it’s important to patients and to clinicians. We have frontline practicing physicians, patients, and families advising us, along with methodologists and PhD researchers. These stakeholders tell us what is important to measure and why,” she said. “Hospitals and all health providers need more actionable and timely data to improve their quality of care, especially if they want to participate in accountable care organizations. And we need to make the information easy to understand.”

Dr. Goodrich sees two main themes in the public response to its request for comment. “People say the methodology we use to calculate star ratings is frustrating for hospitals, which have found it difficult to model their performance, predict their star ratings, or explain the discrepancies.” Hospitals taking care of sicker patients with lower socioeconomic status also say the ratings unfairly penalize them. “I work in a large urban hospital, and I understand this. They say we don’t take that sufficiently into account in the ratings,” she said.

“While our modeling shows that current ratings highly correlate with performance on individual measures, we have asked for comment on if and how we could adjust for socioeconomic factors. We are actively considering how to make changes to address these concerns,” Dr. Goodrich said.

In August 2019, CMS acknowledged that it plans to change the methodology used to calculate hospital star ratings in early 2021, but has not yet revealed specific details about the nature of the changes. The agency intends to propose the changes through the public rule-making process sometime in 2020.
 

Continuing controversy

The American Hospital Association – which has had strong concerns about the methodology and the usefulness of hospital star ratings – is pushing back on some of the changes to the system being considered by CMS. In its submitted comments, AHA supported only three of the 14 potential star ratings methodology changes being considered. AHA and the American Association of Medical Colleges, among others, have urged taking down the star ratings until major changes can be made.

“When the star ratings were first implemented, a lot of challenges became apparent right away,” said Akin Demehin, MPH, AHA’s director of quality policy. “We began to see that those hospitals that treat more complicated patients and poorer patients tended to perform more poorly on the ratings. So there was something wrong with the methodology. Then, starting in 2018, hospitals began seeing real shifts in their performance ratings when the underlying data hadn’t really changed.”

CMS uses a statistical approach called latent variable modeling. Its underlying assumption is that you can say something about a hospital’s underlying quality based on the data you already have, Mr. Demehin said, but noted “that can be a questionable assumption.” He also emphasized the need for ratings that compare hospitals that are similar in size and model to each other.

Suparna Dutta, MD, division chief, hospital medicine, Rush University, Chicago, said analyses done at Rush showed that the statistical model CMS used in calculating the star ratings was dynamically changing the weighting of certain measures in every release. “That meant one specific performance measure could play an outsized role in determining a final rating,” she said. In particular the methodology inadvertently penalized large hospitals, academic medical centers, and institutions that provide heroic care.

“We fundamentally believe that consumers should have meaningful information about hospital quality,” said Nancy Foster, AHA’s vice president for quality and patient safety policy at AHA. “We understand the complexities of Hospital Compare and the challenges of getting simple information for consumers. To its credit, CMS is thinking about how to do that, and we support them in that effort.”
 

Getting a handle on quality

Hospitalists are responsible for ensuring that their hospitals excel in the care of patients, said Julius Yang, MD, hospitalist and director of quality at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. That also requires keeping up on the primary public ways these issues are addressed through reporting of quality data and through reimbursement policy. “That should be part of our core competencies as hospitalists.”

Some of the measures on Hospital Compare don’t overlap much with the work of hospitalists, he noted. But for others, such as for pneumonia, COPD, and care of patients with stroke, or for mortality and 30-day readmissions rates, “we are involved, even if not directly, and certainly responsible for contributing to the outcomes and the opportunity to add value,” he said.

“When it comes to 30-day readmission rates, do we really understand the risk factors for readmissions and the barriers to patients remaining in the community after their hospital stay? Are our patients stable enough to be discharged, and have we worked with the care coordination team to make sure they have the resources they need? And have we communicated adequately with the outpatient doctor? All of these things are within the wheelhouse of the hospitalist,” Dr. Yang said. “Let’s accept that the readmissions rate, for example, is not a perfect measure of quality. But as an imperfect measure, it can point us in the right direction.”

Jose Figueroa, MD, MPH, hospitalist and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, has been studying for his health system the impact of hospital penalties such as the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program on health equity. In general, hospitalists play an important role in dictating processes of care and serving on quality-oriented committees across multiple realms of the hospital, he said.

“What’s hard from the hospitalist’s perspective is that there don’t seem to be simple solutions to move the dial on many of these measures,” Dr. Figueroa said. “If the hospital is at three stars, can we say, okay, if we do X, Y, and Z, then our hospital will move from three to five stars? Some of these measures are so broad and not in our purview. Which ones apply to me as a hospitalist and my care processes?”

Dr. Dutta sits on the SHM Policy Committee, which has been working to bring these issues to the attention of frontline hospitalists. “Hospitalists are always going to be aligned with their hospital’s priorities. We’re in it to provide high-quality care, but there’s no magic way to do that,” she said.

Hospital Compare measures sometimes end up in hospitalist incentives plans – for example, the readmission penalty rates – even though that is a fairly arbitrary measure and hard to pin to one doctor, Dr. Dutta explained. “If you look at the evidence regarding these metrics, there are not a lot of data to show that the metrics lead to what we really want, which is better care for patients.”

A recent study in the British Medical Journal, for example, examined the association between the penalties on hospitals in the Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program and clinical outcome.¹ The researchers concluded that the penalties were not associated with significant change or found to drive meaningful clinical improvement.
 

How can hospitalists engage with Compare?

Dr. Goodrich refers hospitalists seeking quality resources to their local quality improvement organizations (QIO) and to Hospital Improvement Innovation Networks at the regional, state, national, or hospital system level.

One helpful thing that any group of hospitalists could do, added Dr. Figueroa, is to examine the measures closely and determine which ones they think they can influence. “Then look for the hospitals that resemble ours and care for similar patients, based on the demographics. We can then say: ‘Okay, that’s a fair comparison. This can be a benchmark with our peers,’” he said. Then it’s important to ask how your hospital is doing over time on these measures, and use that to prioritize.

“You also have to appreciate that these are broad quality measures, and to impact them you have to do broad quality improvement efforts. Another piece of this is getting good at collecting and analyzing data internally in a timely fashion. You don’t want to wait 2-3 years to find out in Hospital Compare that you’re not performing well. You care about the care you provided today, not 2 or 3 years ago. Without this internal check, it’s impossible to know what to invest in – and to see if things you do are having an impact,” Dr. Figueroa said.

“As physician leaders, this is a real opportunity for us to trigger a conversation with our hospital’s administration around what we went into medicine for in the first place – to improve our patients’ care,” said Dr. Goodrich. She said Hospital Compare is one tool for sparking systemic quality improvement across the hospital – which is an important part of the hospitalist’s job. “If you want to be a bigger star within your hospital, show that level of commitment. It likely would be welcomed by your hospital.”
 

Reference

1. Sankaran R et al. Changes in hospital safety following penalties in the US Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2019 Jul 3 doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4109.

Federal funding for research into death by firearms in children and adolescents does not match the level of the mortality burden these deaths represent, new research has found.

Joshuashearn/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

For the period 2008-2017, an average of $88 million per year was granted to study motor vehicle crashes, the leading cause of death in this age group. Cancer, the third leading cause of mortality, received on average $335 million per year. However, research into mortality from firearms, the second leading cause of death in this age group, received $12 million total during the entire research period across a total of 32 research grants.

This translates to $26,136 in research funding per death for the 33,577 deaths of children and adolescents in motor vehicle crashes from 2008-2017, $195,508 per death from cancer (17,111 deaths recorded), and just $597 per death from firearm injury (20,719 deaths recorded).

Pediatric firearm injury prevention “is substantially underfunded in relation to the magnitude of the public health problem,” Rebecca Cunningham, MD, from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues wrote in the October 2019 issue of Health Affairs.

“According to our analysis, federal funding for this leading cause of pediatric mortality is 3.3 percent of what would be needed for it to be commensurate with the funding for other common causes of pediatric death,” the authors continued.

Dr. Cunningham and colleagues said that the “lack of an evidence base for firearm safety prevention has likely contributed to the lack of progress on, and recent increase in, firearm deaths among children and adolescents since 2013.”

They did note that there was an increase in federal research funding following the shooting in Newtown, Conn., with an increase from $136,224 in 2012 to $4.5 million in 2017, but it clearly is not enough.

“Our analysis, using other major diseases and the country’s history of federal funding as a guide, demonstrates that approximately $37 million per year over the next decade is needed to realize a reduction in pediatric firearm mortality that is comparable to that observed for other pediatric causes of death,” the authors state.

The group also suggests the development of a group similar to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that is focused specifically on firearm safety that could “begin to address the large gaps in foundational epidemiological and multidisciplinary behavioral research that the nation needs. It could have a transformational impact on the reduction of firearm injuries among children and adolescents parallel to what has been seen for other major causes of pediatric death in the U.S.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cunningham R et al. Health Affairs. 2019. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00476.

Federal funding for research into death by firearms in children and adolescents does not match the level of the mortality burden these deaths represent, new research has found.

Joshuashearn/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

For the period 2008-2017, an average of $88 million per year was granted to study motor vehicle crashes, the leading cause of death in this age group. Cancer, the third leading cause of mortality, received on average $335 million per year. However, research into mortality from firearms, the second leading cause of death in this age group, received $12 million total during the entire research period across a total of 32 research grants.

This translates to $26,136 in research funding per death for the 33,577 deaths of children and adolescents in motor vehicle crashes from 2008-2017, $195,508 per death from cancer (17,111 deaths recorded), and just $597 per death from firearm injury (20,719 deaths recorded).

Pediatric firearm injury prevention “is substantially underfunded in relation to the magnitude of the public health problem,” Rebecca Cunningham, MD, from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues wrote in the October 2019 issue of Health Affairs.

“According to our analysis, federal funding for this leading cause of pediatric mortality is 3.3 percent of what would be needed for it to be commensurate with the funding for other common causes of pediatric death,” the authors continued.

Dr. Cunningham and colleagues said that the “lack of an evidence base for firearm safety prevention has likely contributed to the lack of progress on, and recent increase in, firearm deaths among children and adolescents since 2013.”

They did note that there was an increase in federal research funding following the shooting in Newtown, Conn., with an increase from $136,224 in 2012 to $4.5 million in 2017, but it clearly is not enough.

“Our analysis, using other major diseases and the country’s history of federal funding as a guide, demonstrates that approximately $37 million per year over the next decade is needed to realize a reduction in pediatric firearm mortality that is comparable to that observed for other pediatric causes of death,” the authors state.

The group also suggests the development of a group similar to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that is focused specifically on firearm safety that could “begin to address the large gaps in foundational epidemiological and multidisciplinary behavioral research that the nation needs. It could have a transformational impact on the reduction of firearm injuries among children and adolescents parallel to what has been seen for other major causes of pediatric death in the U.S.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cunningham R et al. Health Affairs. 2019. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00476.

Federal funding for research into death by firearms in children and adolescents does not match the level of the mortality burden these deaths represent, new research has found.

Joshuashearn/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

For the period 2008-2017, an average of $88 million per year was granted to study motor vehicle crashes, the leading cause of death in this age group. Cancer, the third leading cause of mortality, received on average $335 million per year. However, research into mortality from firearms, the second leading cause of death in this age group, received $12 million total during the entire research period across a total of 32 research grants.

This translates to $26,136 in research funding per death for the 33,577 deaths of children and adolescents in motor vehicle crashes from 2008-2017, $195,508 per death from cancer (17,111 deaths recorded), and just $597 per death from firearm injury (20,719 deaths recorded).

Pediatric firearm injury prevention “is substantially underfunded in relation to the magnitude of the public health problem,” Rebecca Cunningham, MD, from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues wrote in the October 2019 issue of Health Affairs.

“According to our analysis, federal funding for this leading cause of pediatric mortality is 3.3 percent of what would be needed for it to be commensurate with the funding for other common causes of pediatric death,” the authors continued.

Dr. Cunningham and colleagues said that the “lack of an evidence base for firearm safety prevention has likely contributed to the lack of progress on, and recent increase in, firearm deaths among children and adolescents since 2013.”

They did note that there was an increase in federal research funding following the shooting in Newtown, Conn., with an increase from $136,224 in 2012 to $4.5 million in 2017, but it clearly is not enough.

“Our analysis, using other major diseases and the country’s history of federal funding as a guide, demonstrates that approximately $37 million per year over the next decade is needed to realize a reduction in pediatric firearm mortality that is comparable to that observed for other pediatric causes of death,” the authors state.

The group also suggests the development of a group similar to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that is focused specifically on firearm safety that could “begin to address the large gaps in foundational epidemiological and multidisciplinary behavioral research that the nation needs. It could have a transformational impact on the reduction of firearm injuries among children and adolescents parallel to what has been seen for other major causes of pediatric death in the U.S.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cunningham R et al. Health Affairs. 2019. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00476.

In 2017, the United States spent $3.5 trillion on health care, and that number is projected to be close 20% of our GDP over the next 10 years. For consumers, prescription drugs feel like the biggest contributor.

“Although pharmaceutical spending accounts for less than 10% of health care spending, consumers bear much more of the out-of-pocket cost of the prescription drugs through copays or coinsurance at the pharmacy counter than they pay for hospital or physician costs,” said Tanisha Carino, PhD, author of a Health Affairs blog post about directions for innovation in health care. “This experience has led to rising concerns among Americans about the cost of prescription drugs.”

In fact, a December 2018 Politico-Harvard poll showed Americans from both political parties overwhelmingly agreed that taking action to lower drug prices should have been the top priority of the new Congress that took office in January of this year.

“Addressing the affordability of prescription drugs will require investing in medical research and policies that speed new products to the market that will promote competition and, hopefully, will hold down prices and offer greater choice to patients,” said Dr. Carino, who is executive director of FasterCures, a center of the Milken Institute devoted to improving the biomedical innovation ecosystem. “Policymakers have an opportunity to address the immediate concerns patients have in affording their medication.”

According to Dr. Carino, policymakers can also continue to encourage health-improving medical innovation through the following:

• Boosting investment in research and development.
• Increasing safety and coordination of health data for biomedical research.
• Incentivizing innovation in underinvested areas.
• Building the capacity of patient organizations.

Hospitalists, she added, will play a critical role in participating in the clinical research that will lead to the next generation of treatments.
 

Reference

1. Carino T. “To get more bang for your health-care buck, invest in innovation.” Health Affairs Blog. 2019 Jan 24. doi: 10.1377/hblog20190123.483080. Accessed Feb. 6, 2019.

In 2017, the United States spent $3.5 trillion on health care, and that number is projected to be close 20% of our GDP over the next 10 years. For consumers, prescription drugs feel like the biggest contributor.

“Although pharmaceutical spending accounts for less than 10% of health care spending, consumers bear much more of the out-of-pocket cost of the prescription drugs through copays or coinsurance at the pharmacy counter than they pay for hospital or physician costs,” said Tanisha Carino, PhD, author of a Health Affairs blog post about directions for innovation in health care. “This experience has led to rising concerns among Americans about the cost of prescription drugs.”

In fact, a December 2018 Politico-Harvard poll showed Americans from both political parties overwhelmingly agreed that taking action to lower drug prices should have been the top priority of the new Congress that took office in January of this year.

“Addressing the affordability of prescription drugs will require investing in medical research and policies that speed new products to the market that will promote competition and, hopefully, will hold down prices and offer greater choice to patients,” said Dr. Carino, who is executive director of FasterCures, a center of the Milken Institute devoted to improving the biomedical innovation ecosystem. “Policymakers have an opportunity to address the immediate concerns patients have in affording their medication.”

According to Dr. Carino, policymakers can also continue to encourage health-improving medical innovation through the following:

• Boosting investment in research and development.
• Increasing safety and coordination of health data for biomedical research.
• Incentivizing innovation in underinvested areas.
• Building the capacity of patient organizations.

Hospitalists, she added, will play a critical role in participating in the clinical research that will lead to the next generation of treatments.
 

Reference

1. Carino T. “To get more bang for your health-care buck, invest in innovation.” Health Affairs Blog. 2019 Jan 24. doi: 10.1377/hblog20190123.483080. Accessed Feb. 6, 2019.

In 2017, the United States spent $3.5 trillion on health care, and that number is projected to be close 20% of our GDP over the next 10 years. For consumers, prescription drugs feel like the biggest contributor.

“Although pharmaceutical spending accounts for less than 10% of health care spending, consumers bear much more of the out-of-pocket cost of the prescription drugs through copays or coinsurance at the pharmacy counter than they pay for hospital or physician costs,” said Tanisha Carino, PhD, author of a Health Affairs blog post about directions for innovation in health care. “This experience has led to rising concerns among Americans about the cost of prescription drugs.”

In fact, a December 2018 Politico-Harvard poll showed Americans from both political parties overwhelmingly agreed that taking action to lower drug prices should have been the top priority of the new Congress that took office in January of this year.

“Addressing the affordability of prescription drugs will require investing in medical research and policies that speed new products to the market that will promote competition and, hopefully, will hold down prices and offer greater choice to patients,” said Dr. Carino, who is executive director of FasterCures, a center of the Milken Institute devoted to improving the biomedical innovation ecosystem. “Policymakers have an opportunity to address the immediate concerns patients have in affording their medication.”

According to Dr. Carino, policymakers can also continue to encourage health-improving medical innovation through the following:

• Boosting investment in research and development.
• Increasing safety and coordination of health data for biomedical research.
• Incentivizing innovation in underinvested areas.
• Building the capacity of patient organizations.

Hospitalists, she added, will play a critical role in participating in the clinical research that will lead to the next generation of treatments.
 

Reference

1. Carino T. “To get more bang for your health-care buck, invest in innovation.” Health Affairs Blog. 2019 Jan 24. doi: 10.1377/hblog20190123.483080. Accessed Feb. 6, 2019.

The introduction of the Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) through amendment of the Social Security Act in 1983 transformed hospital reimbursement in the United States. Under the IPPS, a new form of Medicare prospective payment that paid hospitals a fixed amount per discharge for inpatient services was created: the diagnosis-related group (DRG). This eliminated the preceding retrospective cost reimbursement system in an attempt to stop health care price inflation.

Each DRG represents a grouping of similar conditions and procedures for services provided during an inpatient hospitalization reimbursed under Medicare Part A. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services uses the Medicare Severity DRG (MS-DRG) system to account for severity of illness and resource consumption. There are three levels of severity based upon secondary diagnosis: major complication/comorbidity (MCC), complication/comorbidity (CC), and noncomplication/comorbidity (non-CC).

Payment rates are defined by base rates for operating costs and capital-related costs which are adjusted for relative weight (the average cost within a DRG, compared with the average Medicare case cost) and market condition adjustments. As the largest single health care payer in the United States, CMS’ annual changes to the IPPS have a major impact on hospital reimbursement.

In May 2019, CMS released its annual proposed rule for the Hospital IPPS suggesting extensive changes to MS-DRG reimbursements. Notably, CMS proposed changing the severity level of nearly 1,500 diagnosis codes by adjusting their categorization between MCC, CC, or non-CC. The majority of these changes included downgrading MCCs to CCs or non-CCs. In fact, 87% of the changes involved a downgrade from one of the higher severity levels to a non-CC level, while only 13% involved an upgrade from a lower severity level to MCC level.

The CMS derived these changes from an algorithmic review and input from their clinical advisors to determine each diagnoses impact on resource utilization. Multiple major groups of codes were included in the downgraded groups, including secondary cancer diagnoses, organ transplant status, and hip fracture.

Evaluating codes based on coded resource use alone could have had a major negative impact on the clinical practice of hospitalists as it undervalues cognitive and clinical work associated with these secondary diagnoses. As an example, malignant neoplasm of head of pancreas (ICD-10, C25.0) was proposed to move to a non-CC. Under CMS’ proposed rule, if a patient was admitted with complications of pancreatic cancer such as cholangitis caused by biliary obstruction, the pancreatic cancer diagnosis would not serve as a CC since the primary condition for which the patient was hospitalized would be cholangitis. The anticipated increase in such a patient’s length of stay, severity of illness, and expected resource utilization would be grossly misrepresented in this case by CMS’ proposed rule changes. CMS also proposed to move major organ-transplant status (including heart, lung, kidney, and pancreas) from CC to non-CC status. Again, the cognitive work and resource utilization required to manage these patients would be underrepresented with this change, given the increased complexity of managing immunosuppressant medications or conducting an infectious diagnostic work-up in immunosuppressed patients.

The Society of Hospital Medicine Public Policy Committee provides comments annually to CMS on the IPPS, advocating for hospitalists and patients. After advocacy efforts from SHM and other groups, expressing concern about making such significant changes to the DRG system without further study, the IPPS final rule was released on August 2, 2019. SHM’s efforts paid off. The final rule excluded the proposed broad changes to the MS-DRG system that were in the proposed rule.

In deciding not to finalize the proposed severity level changes, CMS wrote that the adoption of these broad changes will be postponed in order “to fully consider the technical feedback provided” regarding the proposal. The final rule also describes making a “test GROUPER [software program] publicly available to allow for impact testing,” and allows for the possibility of phasing in changes and eliciting feedback. SHM is fully supportive of the decision to postpone major changes to the MS-DRG system in the IPPS until further review is obtained, and will continue to monitor this issue and provide appropriate input to CMS for our hospitalist members.

As hospitalists, it is important to understand the foundational role that public policy and CMS rule creation have on our work. Influencing change to the MS-DRG system is yet another example of how SHM’s work has impacted the policy domain, limiting negative effects on our members and advancing the practice of hospital medicine.

Dr. Biebelhausen is head of the section of hospital medicine at Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle. Dr. Cowart is a hospitalist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. Dr. Hamilton is a hospitalist and associate chief quality officer at the Cleveland Clinic.

The introduction of the Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) through amendment of the Social Security Act in 1983 transformed hospital reimbursement in the United States. Under the IPPS, a new form of Medicare prospective payment that paid hospitals a fixed amount per discharge for inpatient services was created: the diagnosis-related group (DRG). This eliminated the preceding retrospective cost reimbursement system in an attempt to stop health care price inflation.

Each DRG represents a grouping of similar conditions and procedures for services provided during an inpatient hospitalization reimbursed under Medicare Part A. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services uses the Medicare Severity DRG (MS-DRG) system to account for severity of illness and resource consumption. There are three levels of severity based upon secondary diagnosis: major complication/comorbidity (MCC), complication/comorbidity (CC), and noncomplication/comorbidity (non-CC).

Payment rates are defined by base rates for operating costs and capital-related costs which are adjusted for relative weight (the average cost within a DRG, compared with the average Medicare case cost) and market condition adjustments. As the largest single health care payer in the United States, CMS’ annual changes to the IPPS have a major impact on hospital reimbursement.

In May 2019, CMS released its annual proposed rule for the Hospital IPPS suggesting extensive changes to MS-DRG reimbursements. Notably, CMS proposed changing the severity level of nearly 1,500 diagnosis codes by adjusting their categorization between MCC, CC, or non-CC. The majority of these changes included downgrading MCCs to CCs or non-CCs. In fact, 87% of the changes involved a downgrade from one of the higher severity levels to a non-CC level, while only 13% involved an upgrade from a lower severity level to MCC level.

The CMS derived these changes from an algorithmic review and input from their clinical advisors to determine each diagnoses impact on resource utilization. Multiple major groups of codes were included in the downgraded groups, including secondary cancer diagnoses, organ transplant status, and hip fracture.

Evaluating codes based on coded resource use alone could have had a major negative impact on the clinical practice of hospitalists as it undervalues cognitive and clinical work associated with these secondary diagnoses. As an example, malignant neoplasm of head of pancreas (ICD-10, C25.0) was proposed to move to a non-CC. Under CMS’ proposed rule, if a patient was admitted with complications of pancreatic cancer such as cholangitis caused by biliary obstruction, the pancreatic cancer diagnosis would not serve as a CC since the primary condition for which the patient was hospitalized would be cholangitis. The anticipated increase in such a patient’s length of stay, severity of illness, and expected resource utilization would be grossly misrepresented in this case by CMS’ proposed rule changes. CMS also proposed to move major organ-transplant status (including heart, lung, kidney, and pancreas) from CC to non-CC status. Again, the cognitive work and resource utilization required to manage these patients would be underrepresented with this change, given the increased complexity of managing immunosuppressant medications or conducting an infectious diagnostic work-up in immunosuppressed patients.

The Society of Hospital Medicine Public Policy Committee provides comments annually to CMS on the IPPS, advocating for hospitalists and patients. After advocacy efforts from SHM and other groups, expressing concern about making such significant changes to the DRG system without further study, the IPPS final rule was released on August 2, 2019. SHM’s efforts paid off. The final rule excluded the proposed broad changes to the MS-DRG system that were in the proposed rule.

In deciding not to finalize the proposed severity level changes, CMS wrote that the adoption of these broad changes will be postponed in order “to fully consider the technical feedback provided” regarding the proposal. The final rule also describes making a “test GROUPER [software program] publicly available to allow for impact testing,” and allows for the possibility of phasing in changes and eliciting feedback. SHM is fully supportive of the decision to postpone major changes to the MS-DRG system in the IPPS until further review is obtained, and will continue to monitor this issue and provide appropriate input to CMS for our hospitalist members.

As hospitalists, it is important to understand the foundational role that public policy and CMS rule creation have on our work. Influencing change to the MS-DRG system is yet another example of how SHM’s work has impacted the policy domain, limiting negative effects on our members and advancing the practice of hospital medicine.

Dr. Biebelhausen is head of the section of hospital medicine at Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle. Dr. Cowart is a hospitalist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. Dr. Hamilton is a hospitalist and associate chief quality officer at the Cleveland Clinic.

The introduction of the Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) through amendment of the Social Security Act in 1983 transformed hospital reimbursement in the United States. Under the IPPS, a new form of Medicare prospective payment that paid hospitals a fixed amount per discharge for inpatient services was created: the diagnosis-related group (DRG). This eliminated the preceding retrospective cost reimbursement system in an attempt to stop health care price inflation.

Each DRG represents a grouping of similar conditions and procedures for services provided during an inpatient hospitalization reimbursed under Medicare Part A. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services uses the Medicare Severity DRG (MS-DRG) system to account for severity of illness and resource consumption. There are three levels of severity based upon secondary diagnosis: major complication/comorbidity (MCC), complication/comorbidity (CC), and noncomplication/comorbidity (non-CC).

Payment rates are defined by base rates for operating costs and capital-related costs which are adjusted for relative weight (the average cost within a DRG, compared with the average Medicare case cost) and market condition adjustments. As the largest single health care payer in the United States, CMS’ annual changes to the IPPS have a major impact on hospital reimbursement.

In May 2019, CMS released its annual proposed rule for the Hospital IPPS suggesting extensive changes to MS-DRG reimbursements. Notably, CMS proposed changing the severity level of nearly 1,500 diagnosis codes by adjusting their categorization between MCC, CC, or non-CC. The majority of these changes included downgrading MCCs to CCs or non-CCs. In fact, 87% of the changes involved a downgrade from one of the higher severity levels to a non-CC level, while only 13% involved an upgrade from a lower severity level to MCC level.

The CMS derived these changes from an algorithmic review and input from their clinical advisors to determine each diagnoses impact on resource utilization. Multiple major groups of codes were included in the downgraded groups, including secondary cancer diagnoses, organ transplant status, and hip fracture.

Evaluating codes based on coded resource use alone could have had a major negative impact on the clinical practice of hospitalists as it undervalues cognitive and clinical work associated with these secondary diagnoses. As an example, malignant neoplasm of head of pancreas (ICD-10, C25.0) was proposed to move to a non-CC. Under CMS’ proposed rule, if a patient was admitted with complications of pancreatic cancer such as cholangitis caused by biliary obstruction, the pancreatic cancer diagnosis would not serve as a CC since the primary condition for which the patient was hospitalized would be cholangitis. The anticipated increase in such a patient’s length of stay, severity of illness, and expected resource utilization would be grossly misrepresented in this case by CMS’ proposed rule changes. CMS also proposed to move major organ-transplant status (including heart, lung, kidney, and pancreas) from CC to non-CC status. Again, the cognitive work and resource utilization required to manage these patients would be underrepresented with this change, given the increased complexity of managing immunosuppressant medications or conducting an infectious diagnostic work-up in immunosuppressed patients.

The Society of Hospital Medicine Public Policy Committee provides comments annually to CMS on the IPPS, advocating for hospitalists and patients. After advocacy efforts from SHM and other groups, expressing concern about making such significant changes to the DRG system without further study, the IPPS final rule was released on August 2, 2019. SHM’s efforts paid off. The final rule excluded the proposed broad changes to the MS-DRG system that were in the proposed rule.

In deciding not to finalize the proposed severity level changes, CMS wrote that the adoption of these broad changes will be postponed in order “to fully consider the technical feedback provided” regarding the proposal. The final rule also describes making a “test GROUPER [software program] publicly available to allow for impact testing,” and allows for the possibility of phasing in changes and eliciting feedback. SHM is fully supportive of the decision to postpone major changes to the MS-DRG system in the IPPS until further review is obtained, and will continue to monitor this issue and provide appropriate input to CMS for our hospitalist members.

As hospitalists, it is important to understand the foundational role that public policy and CMS rule creation have on our work. Influencing change to the MS-DRG system is yet another example of how SHM’s work has impacted the policy domain, limiting negative effects on our members and advancing the practice of hospital medicine.

Dr. Biebelhausen is head of the section of hospital medicine at Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle. Dr. Cowart is a hospitalist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. Dr. Hamilton is a hospitalist and associate chief quality officer at the Cleveland Clinic.

These are challenging, and sometimes tragic, times in the history of the United States. The image of a father and child face down in the Rio Grande River, drowning as they tried to cross from Mexico into Texas, is heart breaking. Irrespective of your political affiliation, we can agree that the immigration process is far from ideal and that no one should die in pursuit of a better life.

The United States has a complicated history with equity and inclusion, for all persons, and we are now living in times when the scab is being ripped off and these wounds are raw. What role can the Society of Hospital Medicine play to help heal these wounds?

I am a first-generation immigrant to the United States. I remember walking down the streets of my neighborhood in Uganda when my attention was drawn to a plane flying overhead. I thought to myself, “Some lucky duck is going to the U.S.” The United States was the land of opportunity and I was determined to come here. Through hard work and some luck, I arrived in the United States on June 15, 1991, with a single suitcase packed full of hope, dreams, and $3,000.

Fast-forward 28 years. I am now a hospitalist and faculty at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, the associate director of the division of hospital medicine, and the vice chair for clinical operations at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center. I learned about hospital medicine during my third year of medical school at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. While I loved general medicine, I could not see myself practicing anywhere outside of the hospital.

Following residency at Johns Hopkins Bayview, I still felt that a hospital-based practice was tailor-made for me. As I matured professionally, I worked to improve the provision of care within my hospital, and then started developing educational and practice programs in hospital medicine, both locally and internationally. My passion for hospital medicine led me to serve on committees for SHM, and this year, I was honored to join the SHM Board of Directors.

It is hard to answer the question of why, or how, one person immigrates to the United States and finds success while another loses their life. A quote attributed to Edmund Burke says, “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [wo]men to do nothing.” One of SHM’s core values is to promote diversity and inclusion. A major step taken by the society to promote work in this area was to establish the diversity and inclusion Special Interest Group in 2018. I am the board liaison for the diversity and inclusion SIG and will work alongside this group, which aims to:

• Foster diversity, equity, and inclusion in SHM.
• Increase visibility of diversity, equity, and inclusion to the broader hospital medicine community.
• Support hospital medicine groups in matching their work forces to their diverse patient populations.
• Develop tool kits to improve the provision of care for our diverse patient population.
• Engender diversity among hospitalists.
• Develop opportunities for expanding the fund of knowledge on diversity in hospital medicine through research and discovery.
• Participate in SHM’s advocacy efforts related to diversity and inclusion.
• Develop partnerships with other key organizations to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion platforms so as to increase the scalability of SHM’s efforts.

We have been successful at Hopkins with diversity and inclusion, but that did not occur by chance. I believe that diversity and inclusion is a team sport and that everyone can be an important part of that team. In my hospitalist group, we actively engage women, men, doctors, NPs, PAs, administrators, minorities, and nonminorities. We recruit to – and cherish members of – our group irrespective of religious beliefs or sexual orientation. We believe that a heterogeneous group of people leads to an engaged and high-performing culture.

I have traveled a convoluted path since my arrival in 1991. Along the way, I was blessed with a husband and son who anchor me. Every day they remind me that the hard work I do is to build on the past to improve the future. My husband, an immigrant from Uganda like me, reminds me that we are lucky to have made it to the United States and that the ability and freedom to work hard and be rewarded for that hard work is a great privilege. My son reminds me of the many other children who look at me and know that they too can dare to dream. Occasionally, I still look up and see a plane, and I am reminded of that day many years ago. Hospital medicine is my suitcase packed with hopes and dreams for me, for this specialty, and for this country.

Dr. Kisuule is associate director of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview and assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, and a member of the SHM Board of Directors.

These are challenging, and sometimes tragic, times in the history of the United States. The image of a father and child face down in the Rio Grande River, drowning as they tried to cross from Mexico into Texas, is heart breaking. Irrespective of your political affiliation, we can agree that the immigration process is far from ideal and that no one should die in pursuit of a better life.

The United States has a complicated history with equity and inclusion, for all persons, and we are now living in times when the scab is being ripped off and these wounds are raw. What role can the Society of Hospital Medicine play to help heal these wounds?

I am a first-generation immigrant to the United States. I remember walking down the streets of my neighborhood in Uganda when my attention was drawn to a plane flying overhead. I thought to myself, “Some lucky duck is going to the U.S.” The United States was the land of opportunity and I was determined to come here. Through hard work and some luck, I arrived in the United States on June 15, 1991, with a single suitcase packed full of hope, dreams, and $3,000.

Fast-forward 28 years. I am now a hospitalist and faculty at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, the associate director of the division of hospital medicine, and the vice chair for clinical operations at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center. I learned about hospital medicine during my third year of medical school at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. While I loved general medicine, I could not see myself practicing anywhere outside of the hospital.

Following residency at Johns Hopkins Bayview, I still felt that a hospital-based practice was tailor-made for me. As I matured professionally, I worked to improve the provision of care within my hospital, and then started developing educational and practice programs in hospital medicine, both locally and internationally. My passion for hospital medicine led me to serve on committees for SHM, and this year, I was honored to join the SHM Board of Directors.

It is hard to answer the question of why, or how, one person immigrates to the United States and finds success while another loses their life. A quote attributed to Edmund Burke says, “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [wo]men to do nothing.” One of SHM’s core values is to promote diversity and inclusion. A major step taken by the society to promote work in this area was to establish the diversity and inclusion Special Interest Group in 2018. I am the board liaison for the diversity and inclusion SIG and will work alongside this group, which aims to:

• Foster diversity, equity, and inclusion in SHM.
• Increase visibility of diversity, equity, and inclusion to the broader hospital medicine community.
• Support hospital medicine groups in matching their work forces to their diverse patient populations.
• Develop tool kits to improve the provision of care for our diverse patient population.
• Engender diversity among hospitalists.
• Develop opportunities for expanding the fund of knowledge on diversity in hospital medicine through research and discovery.
• Participate in SHM’s advocacy efforts related to diversity and inclusion.
• Develop partnerships with other key organizations to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion platforms so as to increase the scalability of SHM’s efforts.

We have been successful at Hopkins with diversity and inclusion, but that did not occur by chance. I believe that diversity and inclusion is a team sport and that everyone can be an important part of that team. In my hospitalist group, we actively engage women, men, doctors, NPs, PAs, administrators, minorities, and nonminorities. We recruit to – and cherish members of – our group irrespective of religious beliefs or sexual orientation. We believe that a heterogeneous group of people leads to an engaged and high-performing culture.

I have traveled a convoluted path since my arrival in 1991. Along the way, I was blessed with a husband and son who anchor me. Every day they remind me that the hard work I do is to build on the past to improve the future. My husband, an immigrant from Uganda like me, reminds me that we are lucky to have made it to the United States and that the ability and freedom to work hard and be rewarded for that hard work is a great privilege. My son reminds me of the many other children who look at me and know that they too can dare to dream. Occasionally, I still look up and see a plane, and I am reminded of that day many years ago. Hospital medicine is my suitcase packed with hopes and dreams for me, for this specialty, and for this country.

Dr. Kisuule is associate director of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview and assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, and a member of the SHM Board of Directors.

These are challenging, and sometimes tragic, times in the history of the United States. The image of a father and child face down in the Rio Grande River, drowning as they tried to cross from Mexico into Texas, is heart breaking. Irrespective of your political affiliation, we can agree that the immigration process is far from ideal and that no one should die in pursuit of a better life.

The United States has a complicated history with equity and inclusion, for all persons, and we are now living in times when the scab is being ripped off and these wounds are raw. What role can the Society of Hospital Medicine play to help heal these wounds?

I am a first-generation immigrant to the United States. I remember walking down the streets of my neighborhood in Uganda when my attention was drawn to a plane flying overhead. I thought to myself, “Some lucky duck is going to the U.S.” The United States was the land of opportunity and I was determined to come here. Through hard work and some luck, I arrived in the United States on June 15, 1991, with a single suitcase packed full of hope, dreams, and $3,000.

Fast-forward 28 years. I am now a hospitalist and faculty at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, the associate director of the division of hospital medicine, and the vice chair for clinical operations at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center. I learned about hospital medicine during my third year of medical school at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. While I loved general medicine, I could not see myself practicing anywhere outside of the hospital.

Following residency at Johns Hopkins Bayview, I still felt that a hospital-based practice was tailor-made for me. As I matured professionally, I worked to improve the provision of care within my hospital, and then started developing educational and practice programs in hospital medicine, both locally and internationally. My passion for hospital medicine led me to serve on committees for SHM, and this year, I was honored to join the SHM Board of Directors.

It is hard to answer the question of why, or how, one person immigrates to the United States and finds success while another loses their life. A quote attributed to Edmund Burke says, “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [wo]men to do nothing.” One of SHM’s core values is to promote diversity and inclusion. A major step taken by the society to promote work in this area was to establish the diversity and inclusion Special Interest Group in 2018. I am the board liaison for the diversity and inclusion SIG and will work alongside this group, which aims to:

• Foster diversity, equity, and inclusion in SHM.
• Increase visibility of diversity, equity, and inclusion to the broader hospital medicine community.
• Support hospital medicine groups in matching their work forces to their diverse patient populations.
• Develop tool kits to improve the provision of care for our diverse patient population.
• Engender diversity among hospitalists.
• Develop opportunities for expanding the fund of knowledge on diversity in hospital medicine through research and discovery.
• Participate in SHM’s advocacy efforts related to diversity and inclusion.
• Develop partnerships with other key organizations to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion platforms so as to increase the scalability of SHM’s efforts.

We have been successful at Hopkins with diversity and inclusion, but that did not occur by chance. I believe that diversity and inclusion is a team sport and that everyone can be an important part of that team. In my hospitalist group, we actively engage women, men, doctors, NPs, PAs, administrators, minorities, and nonminorities. We recruit to – and cherish members of – our group irrespective of religious beliefs or sexual orientation. We believe that a heterogeneous group of people leads to an engaged and high-performing culture.

I have traveled a convoluted path since my arrival in 1991. Along the way, I was blessed with a husband and son who anchor me. Every day they remind me that the hard work I do is to build on the past to improve the future. My husband, an immigrant from Uganda like me, reminds me that we are lucky to have made it to the United States and that the ability and freedom to work hard and be rewarded for that hard work is a great privilege. My son reminds me of the many other children who look at me and know that they too can dare to dream. Occasionally, I still look up and see a plane, and I am reminded of that day many years ago. Hospital medicine is my suitcase packed with hopes and dreams for me, for this specialty, and for this country.

Dr. Kisuule is associate director of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview and assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, and a member of the SHM Board of Directors.

A federal effort to reduce health care expenditures has left many older Medicare recipients experiencing the sticker shock of “observation status.” Patients who are not sick enough to meet inpatient admission criteria, however, still require hospitalization, and may be placed under Medicare observation care.

Seniors can get frustrated, confused, and anxious as their status can be changed while they are in the hospital, and they may receive large medical bills after they are discharged. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ “3-day rule” mandates that Medicare will not pay for skilled nursing facility care unless the patient is admitted as an “inpatient” for at least 3 days. Observation days do not count towards this 3-day hospital stay.

There has been an increase in outpatient services over the years since 2006. The 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report (SoHM) highlights the percentage of discharges based on hospitalists’ billed Current Procedural Terminology codes. Codes 99217 (observation discharge) and 99238-99239 (inpatient discharge) were used to calculate the percentages. 80.7% of adult medicine hospitalist discharges were coded using inpatient discharge codes, while 19.3% of patients were discharged with observation discharge codes.

In the 2016 SoHM report, the ratio was 76.0% inpatient and 21.1% observation codes and in the 2014 report we saw 80.3% inpatient and 16.1% observation discharges (see table 1). But in both of those surveys, same-day admission/discharge codes were also separately reported, which did not occur in 2018. That makes year-over-year comparison of the data challenging.

Interestingly, the 2017 CMS data on Evaluation and Management Codes by Specialty for the first time included separate data for hospitalists, based on hospitalists who credentialed with Medicare using the new C6 specialty code. Based on that data, when looking only at inpatient (99238-99239) and observation (99217) codes, 83% of the discharges were inpatient and 17% were observation.

Physicians feel the pressure of strained patient-physician relationships as a consequence of patients feeling the brunt of the financing gap related to observation status. Patients often feel they were not warned adequately about the financial ramifications of observation status. Even if Medicare beneficiaries have received the Medicare Outpatient Observation Notice, outlined by the Notice of Observation Treatment and Implication for Care Eligibility Act, they have no rights to appeal.

Currently Medicare beneficiaries admitted as inpatients only incur a Part A deductible; they are not liable for tests, procedures, and nursing care. On the other hand, in observation status all services are billed separately. For Medicare Part B services (which covers observation care) patients must pay 20% of services after the Part B deductible, which could result in a huge financial burden. Costs for skilled nursing facilities, when they are not covered by Medicare Part A, because of the 3-day rule, can easily go up to $20,000 or more. Medicare beneficiaries have no cap on costs for an observation stay. In some cases, hospitals have to apply a condition code 44 and retroactively change the stay to observation status.

I attended the 2019 Society of Hospital Medicine Annual Conference in Washington. Hospitalists from all parts of the country advocated on Capitol Hill against the “observation bill,” and “meet and greets” with congressional representatives increased their opposition to the bill. These efforts may work in favor of protecting patients from surprise medical bills. Hospital medicine physicians are on the front lines for providing health care in the hospital setting; they have demanded a fix to this legislative loophole which brings high out of pocket costs to our nation’s most vulnerable seniors. The observation status “2-midnight rule” utilized by CMS has increased financial barriers and decreased access to postacute care, affecting the provision of high-quality care for patients.

My hospital has a utilization review committee which reviews all cases to determine the appropriateness of an inpatient versus an observation designation. (An interesting question is whether the financial resources used to support this additional staff could be better assigned to provide high-quality care.) Distribution of these patients is determined on very specific criteria as outlined by Medicare. Observation is basically considered a billing method implemented by payers to decrease dollars paid to acute care hospitals for inpatient care. It pertains to admission status, not to the level of care provided in the hospital. Unfortunately, it is felt that no two payers define observation the same way. A few examples of common observation diagnoses are chest pain, abdominal pain, syncope, and migraine headache; in other words, patients with diagnoses where it is suspected that a less than 24-hour stay in the hospital could be sufficient.

Observation care is increasing and can sometimes contribute to work flow impediments and frustrations in hospitalists; thus, hospitalists are demanding reform. It has been proposed that observation could be eliminated altogether by creating a payment blend of inpatient/outpatient rates. Another option could be to assign lower Diagnosis Related Group coding to lower acuity disease processes, instead of separate observation reimbursement.

Patients and doctors lament that “Once you are in the hospital, you are admitted!” I don’t know the right answer that would solve the observation versus inpatient dilemma, but it is intriguing to consider changes in policy that might focus on the complete elimination of observation status.
 

Dr. Puri is a hospitalist at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center in Burlington, Mass.

A federal effort to reduce health care expenditures has left many older Medicare recipients experiencing the sticker shock of “observation status.” Patients who are not sick enough to meet inpatient admission criteria, however, still require hospitalization, and may be placed under Medicare observation care.

Seniors can get frustrated, confused, and anxious as their status can be changed while they are in the hospital, and they may receive large medical bills after they are discharged. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ “3-day rule” mandates that Medicare will not pay for skilled nursing facility care unless the patient is admitted as an “inpatient” for at least 3 days. Observation days do not count towards this 3-day hospital stay.

There has been an increase in outpatient services over the years since 2006. The 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report (SoHM) highlights the percentage of discharges based on hospitalists’ billed Current Procedural Terminology codes. Codes 99217 (observation discharge) and 99238-99239 (inpatient discharge) were used to calculate the percentages. 80.7% of adult medicine hospitalist discharges were coded using inpatient discharge codes, while 19.3% of patients were discharged with observation discharge codes.

In the 2016 SoHM report, the ratio was 76.0% inpatient and 21.1% observation codes and in the 2014 report we saw 80.3% inpatient and 16.1% observation discharges (see table 1). But in both of those surveys, same-day admission/discharge codes were also separately reported, which did not occur in 2018. That makes year-over-year comparison of the data challenging.

Interestingly, the 2017 CMS data on Evaluation and Management Codes by Specialty for the first time included separate data for hospitalists, based on hospitalists who credentialed with Medicare using the new C6 specialty code. Based on that data, when looking only at inpatient (99238-99239) and observation (99217) codes, 83% of the discharges were inpatient and 17% were observation.

Physicians feel the pressure of strained patient-physician relationships as a consequence of patients feeling the brunt of the financing gap related to observation status. Patients often feel they were not warned adequately about the financial ramifications of observation status. Even if Medicare beneficiaries have received the Medicare Outpatient Observation Notice, outlined by the Notice of Observation Treatment and Implication for Care Eligibility Act, they have no rights to appeal.

Currently Medicare beneficiaries admitted as inpatients only incur a Part A deductible; they are not liable for tests, procedures, and nursing care. On the other hand, in observation status all services are billed separately. For Medicare Part B services (which covers observation care) patients must pay 20% of services after the Part B deductible, which could result in a huge financial burden. Costs for skilled nursing facilities, when they are not covered by Medicare Part A, because of the 3-day rule, can easily go up to $20,000 or more. Medicare beneficiaries have no cap on costs for an observation stay. In some cases, hospitals have to apply a condition code 44 and retroactively change the stay to observation status.

I attended the 2019 Society of Hospital Medicine Annual Conference in Washington. Hospitalists from all parts of the country advocated on Capitol Hill against the “observation bill,” and “meet and greets” with congressional representatives increased their opposition to the bill. These efforts may work in favor of protecting patients from surprise medical bills. Hospital medicine physicians are on the front lines for providing health care in the hospital setting; they have demanded a fix to this legislative loophole which brings high out of pocket costs to our nation’s most vulnerable seniors. The observation status “2-midnight rule” utilized by CMS has increased financial barriers and decreased access to postacute care, affecting the provision of high-quality care for patients.

My hospital has a utilization review committee which reviews all cases to determine the appropriateness of an inpatient versus an observation designation. (An interesting question is whether the financial resources used to support this additional staff could be better assigned to provide high-quality care.) Distribution of these patients is determined on very specific criteria as outlined by Medicare. Observation is basically considered a billing method implemented by payers to decrease dollars paid to acute care hospitals for inpatient care. It pertains to admission status, not to the level of care provided in the hospital. Unfortunately, it is felt that no two payers define observation the same way. A few examples of common observation diagnoses are chest pain, abdominal pain, syncope, and migraine headache; in other words, patients with diagnoses where it is suspected that a less than 24-hour stay in the hospital could be sufficient.

Observation care is increasing and can sometimes contribute to work flow impediments and frustrations in hospitalists; thus, hospitalists are demanding reform. It has been proposed that observation could be eliminated altogether by creating a payment blend of inpatient/outpatient rates. Another option could be to assign lower Diagnosis Related Group coding to lower acuity disease processes, instead of separate observation reimbursement.

Patients and doctors lament that “Once you are in the hospital, you are admitted!” I don’t know the right answer that would solve the observation versus inpatient dilemma, but it is intriguing to consider changes in policy that might focus on the complete elimination of observation status.
 

Dr. Puri is a hospitalist at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center in Burlington, Mass.

A federal effort to reduce health care expenditures has left many older Medicare recipients experiencing the sticker shock of “observation status.” Patients who are not sick enough to meet inpatient admission criteria, however, still require hospitalization, and may be placed under Medicare observation care.

Seniors can get frustrated, confused, and anxious as their status can be changed while they are in the hospital, and they may receive large medical bills after they are discharged. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ “3-day rule” mandates that Medicare will not pay for skilled nursing facility care unless the patient is admitted as an “inpatient” for at least 3 days. Observation days do not count towards this 3-day hospital stay.

There has been an increase in outpatient services over the years since 2006. The 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report (SoHM) highlights the percentage of discharges based on hospitalists’ billed Current Procedural Terminology codes. Codes 99217 (observation discharge) and 99238-99239 (inpatient discharge) were used to calculate the percentages. 80.7% of adult medicine hospitalist discharges were coded using inpatient discharge codes, while 19.3% of patients were discharged with observation discharge codes.

In the 2016 SoHM report, the ratio was 76.0% inpatient and 21.1% observation codes and in the 2014 report we saw 80.3% inpatient and 16.1% observation discharges (see table 1). But in both of those surveys, same-day admission/discharge codes were also separately reported, which did not occur in 2018. That makes year-over-year comparison of the data challenging.

Interestingly, the 2017 CMS data on Evaluation and Management Codes by Specialty for the first time included separate data for hospitalists, based on hospitalists who credentialed with Medicare using the new C6 specialty code. Based on that data, when looking only at inpatient (99238-99239) and observation (99217) codes, 83% of the discharges were inpatient and 17% were observation.

Physicians feel the pressure of strained patient-physician relationships as a consequence of patients feeling the brunt of the financing gap related to observation status. Patients often feel they were not warned adequately about the financial ramifications of observation status. Even if Medicare beneficiaries have received the Medicare Outpatient Observation Notice, outlined by the Notice of Observation Treatment and Implication for Care Eligibility Act, they have no rights to appeal.

Currently Medicare beneficiaries admitted as inpatients only incur a Part A deductible; they are not liable for tests, procedures, and nursing care. On the other hand, in observation status all services are billed separately. For Medicare Part B services (which covers observation care) patients must pay 20% of services after the Part B deductible, which could result in a huge financial burden. Costs for skilled nursing facilities, when they are not covered by Medicare Part A, because of the 3-day rule, can easily go up to $20,000 or more. Medicare beneficiaries have no cap on costs for an observation stay. In some cases, hospitals have to apply a condition code 44 and retroactively change the stay to observation status.

I attended the 2019 Society of Hospital Medicine Annual Conference in Washington. Hospitalists from all parts of the country advocated on Capitol Hill against the “observation bill,” and “meet and greets” with congressional representatives increased their opposition to the bill. These efforts may work in favor of protecting patients from surprise medical bills. Hospital medicine physicians are on the front lines for providing health care in the hospital setting; they have demanded a fix to this legislative loophole which brings high out of pocket costs to our nation’s most vulnerable seniors. The observation status “2-midnight rule” utilized by CMS has increased financial barriers and decreased access to postacute care, affecting the provision of high-quality care for patients.

My hospital has a utilization review committee which reviews all cases to determine the appropriateness of an inpatient versus an observation designation. (An interesting question is whether the financial resources used to support this additional staff could be better assigned to provide high-quality care.) Distribution of these patients is determined on very specific criteria as outlined by Medicare. Observation is basically considered a billing method implemented by payers to decrease dollars paid to acute care hospitals for inpatient care. It pertains to admission status, not to the level of care provided in the hospital. Unfortunately, it is felt that no two payers define observation the same way. A few examples of common observation diagnoses are chest pain, abdominal pain, syncope, and migraine headache; in other words, patients with diagnoses where it is suspected that a less than 24-hour stay in the hospital could be sufficient.

Observation care is increasing and can sometimes contribute to work flow impediments and frustrations in hospitalists; thus, hospitalists are demanding reform. It has been proposed that observation could be eliminated altogether by creating a payment blend of inpatient/outpatient rates. Another option could be to assign lower Diagnosis Related Group coding to lower acuity disease processes, instead of separate observation reimbursement.

Patients and doctors lament that “Once you are in the hospital, you are admitted!” I don’t know the right answer that would solve the observation versus inpatient dilemma, but it is intriguing to consider changes in policy that might focus on the complete elimination of observation status.
 

Dr. Puri is a hospitalist at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center in Burlington, Mass.