Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program

Posted on November 1, 2011 | No Comments

PDF Version
Details
Implementation Briefs
Library
Key Developments

By Jane Hyatt Thorpe and Teresa Cascio, JD 

Background  

Hospitals in the United States readmit an average of 20% of Medicare patients within thirty days of their initial discharge.[1] These readmissions cost the Medicare program an estimated 12 billion dollars each year and may be an indicator of poor quality of care where the readmission was potentially preventable.[2] Two primary factors are often cited as likely contributors to high rates of readmission among Medicare beneficiaries.[3] First, Medicare pays hospitals based on diagnosis related groups, or DRGs, that allow a single payment for services related to a specific diagnosis and not the actual level of services required for a particular patient. Inherent in this DRG based payment system is an incentive for hospitals to deliver necessary care at or below the DRG rate. In 2007, the Medicare program transitioned to the use of Medical Severity DRGs to better reflect the acute health care needs of Medicare beneficiaries. While this change enhanced reimbursement rates, the incentive to treat patients at or below the MS-DRG rate remains as no reimbursement is provided for the cost of care delivered beyond the DRG rate, outside of an outlier payment. If a hospital discharges a patient before it is medically appropriate to do so, the patient is more likely to return to the hospital for additional care that in some circumstances may be more costly due to exacerbation of the underlying condition(s). Second, there is often a lack of communication between physicians and other health professionals delivering care in the hospital and a Medicare beneficiary’s primary care or other physician.[4] This lack of communication can lead to conflicting or additional care necessitating readmission. 

In its June 2007 Report to Congress, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) classified many hospital readmissions as potentially preventable.[5] For example, MedPAC suggested that hospitals could reduce readmission rates by better coordinating prescriptions and educating family members on appropriate methods of home care. MedPAC also proposed incentivizing hospitals to lower their readmission rates by publicly announcing hospital readmission rates and changing the Medicare payment system in order to eliminate the early discharge incentive. Based on these recommendations, Congress included the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP or Program) in the Affordable Care Act.[6] CMS issued the final rule implementing the HRRP on August 18, 2011, although CMS will continue to clarify additional details of the program through future rulemaking.[7] 

Changes Made by the Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111- 148, § 3025 as amended by § 10309) 

Hospital Readmissions Reductions Program, § 3025 

  • Overview. HRRP will reduce the Medicare payment to hospitals with a high number of readmissions for “applicable conditions” over a specified time period.[8]
  • “Applicable Conditions.” The Program only applies to medical conditions selected by the Secretary of HHS. The statute directs the Secretary to select conditions that are costly or prevalent and for which there are readmission measures that are “endorsed by the entity with a contract under section 1890(a)” (i.e., National Quality Forum (NQF)).[9] These measures must contain exclusions for certain readmissions such as transfers. Three conditions currently have the necessary endorsement, but the Secretary must include further conditions in 2015 if possible.
    • CMS finalized the initial application of HRRP to Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI), Heart Failure (HF), and Pneumonia (PN).[10]
    • CMS adopted the readmission measures for AMI, HF, and PN as endorsed by the NQF. These measures exclude readmissions for “Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA)” and “Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG)” following a discharge for AMI under the rationale that discharge and readmission is normal protocol for these procedures. The measure also excludes transfers from one hospital to another. Readmissions following transfer will be charged to the discharging hospital.
    • CMS finalized the methodology for calculating readmission measures for the applicable conditions.[11] The methodology will identify readmissions occurring within thirty days of discharge from a hospitalization for AMI, HF, or PN and apply a risk-adjustment to account for differences in the health status of hospital patients across the country. CMS will utilize Medicare data from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2011 to calculate the Excess Readmissions Ratio.
  • “Applicable Hospitals.” The Program applies to all hospitals except those providing primarily rehabilitative, psychiatric or long-term care, children’s hospitals, critical access hospitals and certain cancer and research centers.[12] Hospitals participating in a Medicare reimbursement demonstration project are subject to the Program, but may be exempted from participation so long as their state submits an annual report describing the state’s own programs to reduce costs and improve outcomes and the Secretary approves.[13]
  • “Readmissions.” Section 3025 defines a readmission as occurring when a patient is admitted to a hospital within a certain time period—as established by the Secretary—of his/her discharge date from the same or different hospital.[14]
    • CMS finalized the definition of readmission “as occurring when a patient is discharged from the applicable hospital and then is admitted to the same or another acute care hospital within a specified time period from the time of discharge from the index hospitalization.”[15] Thirty days will serve as the applicable time period.
  • Calculation of Payment: The payment reduction is calculated by applying an adjustment factor to the “base operating DRG payment amount.”[16] This amount is defined as the payment a hospital would normally receive for an inpatient discharge under Section 1886(d) minus: (i) payments for discharges exceeding base DRG costs; (ii) payments for costs associated with teaching hospitals; (iii) payments to hospitals serving low income populations; (iv) payments to urban hospitals with indigent patients accounting for over 30% of the “net inpatient care revenue;” and (v) payments to low volume hospitals.[17] Certain payment adjustment provisions contained in Section 1886 for small rural hospitals and sole community hospitals will not be applied when calculating the base operating DRG payments for these hospitals.
  • Adjustment Factor: Section 3025 of the ACA mandates the application of the greater of two different adjustment factors:
    • Floor Value. Sets the floor value at .99 for the fiscal year of 2013. This value will drop to .98 in fiscal year 2014 and .97 in fiscal year 2015.
    • Ratio. Establishes a ratio of “aggregate payments for excess for readmissions” and “aggregate payments for all discharges.”[18] The value for “aggregate payments for excess readmissions” will be determined by multiplying the number of admissions for each applicable condition at a hospital during a specified time period by the base operating DRG payment for the condition and the “excess readmissions ratio” which is the ratio of “risk adjusted actual readmissions” to “risk adjusted expected readmissions.”[19] Readmissions will only be included in this ratio if the number exceeds a minimum established by the Secretary.[20] “Aggregate payments for all discharges” is defined as the total of all DRG discharge payments at a hospital during the specified period.
      • The excess readmissions ratio methodology finalized by CMS will “evaluate relative hospital performance based on outcomes such as readmission.”[21]
  • Data Collection and Reporting. Information regarding the readmission rates for Medicare patients must be released to the public, but hospitals must have an opportunity to examine and correct the information prior to the release. Additionally, “specified hospitals,” or a state or entity on their behalf, must submit patient information to the Secretary in order to calculate readmission rates of all patients. “Specified hospitals” includes the rehabilitative, long-term, psychiatric and children’s hospitals and cancer and research centers that are not subject to payment reductions for readmissions, as well as hospitals the Secretary deems fit for inclusion.[22] Finally, the Hospital Compare website will house the readmission rates for all patients and Medicare patients.[23]
    • CMS finalized 25 discharges for each applicable condition as the minimum number necessary for a hospital’s inclusion on the Hospital Compare website.[24]
    • CMS finalized a rule allowing hospitals thirty days to review and correct information before CMS posts it on the Hospital Compare website.[25] CMS reviews all corrections made by the hospital.
  • Administrative and Judicial Review: ACA Section 3025 prohibits the judicial or administrative review of the “base operating DRG payments,” the adjustment factor formulas, and the chosen readmission measures.

Quality Improvement Program for Hospitals with a High Severity Adjusted Readmission Rate, § 3025 

  • Overview. The Quality Improvement Program (QIP) will utilize “patient safety organizations” to help “eligible hospitals” reduce their readmission rates.[26]
  • “Eligible Hospitals.” Hospitals may participate in the QIP if they have not adequately taken steps to reduce their persistently high risk-adjusted readmission rates for the applicable conditions. The Secretary has discretion to determine whether a risk-adjusted readmission rate is sufficiently “high.”
  • Reporting. Participating hospitals and patient safety organizations must keep the Secretary apprised of the measures taken to reduce readmissions and the effectiveness of the measures.

Implementation 

Agency: The Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS) will implement the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program and the Quality Improvement Program. 

Key Dates

  • CMS plans to implement the Program in FYs 2012 and 2013. The agency released the final rule for FY 2012 on August 18, 2011. The proposed rule for FY 2013 will be included in the inpatient hospital prospective payment rule that will be released in late spring 2012.[27]
  • CMS will investigate expanding the set of “applicable conditions” beginning in FY 2015.
  • CMS must establish the QIP by 2012.

Process 

The Secretary has delegated its authority to implement the HRRP to CMS. CMS will continue to design and implement the HRRP through the federal rulemaking process. 

Key Issues 

  • Payment: CMS will not address rules regarding payment until the FY 2013 rulemaking cycle. Therefore, the precise calculation of the base operating DRG payment, the adjustment factor, and the aggregate payments for excess readmissions are unsettled. In setting the payment methodology, CMS will have to be careful not to apply the adjustment factor too broadly. Such application could undermine the incentive to improve readmission rates by placing too large of a financial burden on hospitals or create a disincentive to treat Medicare eligible patients.[28]
  • Applicable Hospital: CMS will define “applicable hospital” in the fiscal year 2013 rulemaking cycle. The statutory language stating “a subsection (d) hospital or a hospital that is paid under 1814(b)(3), as the case may be” appears to give the Secretary flexibility in promulgating the definition.[29] Consequently, CMS should consider stakeholder input in deciding whether to exempt certain types of hospitals, such as trauma centers, cancer centers, and small rural hospitals, that may be unduly burdened by participation in HRRP.
  • Gaming: CMS has limited the initial focus of the HRRP to three conditions leading to a concern that hospitals will change their coding practices to reduce the number of readmissions attributable to them.[30] Additionally, the fact that readmissions are attributed to the discharging hospital even if the discharged patient arrived via transfer could incentivize needless transfers. CMS will need to carefully evaluate the impact of the Program to ensure it is achieving the desired goal of reducing preventable readmissions.
  • Definition of Readmission: The readmissions measures CMS selected include readmissions to the hospital for any cause within a thirty day period following discharge for an applicable condition. This includes causes that are completely unrelated to the initial hospitalization and over which the hospital had no control. CMS defends the definition as a means to prevent gaming and incentivizing the avoidance of sick patients.[31] While the broad definition may very well guard against these practices, CMS should consider whether a narrower definition over which hospitals have control would be more appropriate given the attached financial penalties.
  • Risk-Adjustment: Race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) correlate with prevalence of the applicable conditions, but the Risk-Adjustment methodology does not include race, ethnicity or SES as a factor.[32] Thus, the Program could have a disparate impact on hospitals that provide care to large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities and those with low SES.[33] Although CMS indicates their belief that the methodology will not disparately affect hospitals that largely serve minorities, the agency should carefully monitor this issue.
  • Limited Administrative and Judicial Review: CMS must carefully develop the adjustment factors, readmission measures, and “base operating DRG” methods because the Affordable Care Act precludes judicial and administrative review of these elements.[34] If the measures prove harmful or ineffective, interested stakeholders will have limited avenues for relief. In particular, interested stakeholders would have to lodge a broad based legal challenge against the Secretary or push for changes through the administrative process.

Authorized Funding Levels 

There is no specific reference in the ACA to funding for this program. 


 

[1] Stephen F. Jencks, et. al., Rehospitalizations among Patients in the Medicare Fee-for-Service Program, 360 NEW. ENG. J. MED., 1418, 1420 (2009).
[2] MEDICARE PAYMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION. REPORT TO THE CONGRESS: PROMOTING GREATER EFFICIENCY IN MEDICARE 105, 108 [Hereinafter “MEDPAC REPORT”].
[3] Medicare Program; Changes to the Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems and Fiscal Year 2008 Rates 72 Fed. Reg. 47130 (Aug. 22, 2007).
[4] JENNY MINOTT, ACADEMY HEALTH, REDUCING HOSPITAL READMISSIONS 5 (2008), available at http://www.academyhealth.org/files/publications/Reducing%5FHospital%5FReadmissions.pdf.
[5] MEDPAC REPORT 108.
[6] Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pub. L. No, 111-148 § 3025(a), 124 Stat. 119, 408 (2010).
[7] Hospital Readmissions Reduction Programs, 76 Fed. Reg. 51660 (Aug. 18, 2011).
[8] Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pub. L. No, 111-148 § 3025(a), 124 Stat. 119, 408 (2010).
[9] Id.; Hospital Readmissions Reduction Programs, 76 Fed. Reg. 51660, 51665 (Aug. 18, 2011).
[10] 76 Fed. Reg. at 51665.
[11] Id. at 51668-73.
[12] § 3025(a), 119 Stat. at 408-09.
[13] Id.
[14] Id. at 411.
[15] 76 Fed. Reg. at 51666.
[16] § 3025(a), 119 Stat. at 408.
[17] Id.
[18] Id.
[19] Id. at 409-10.
[20] Id. at 410.
[21] 76 Fed. Reg. at 51673.
[22] Id. at 412.
[23] Id. at 411-12.
[24] 76 Fed. Reg. at 51672.
[25] Id. at 51672-73.
[26] Id.
[27] See id. at 51663.
[28] See id. at 51664; AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, TRENDWATCH: EXAMINING THE DRIVERS OF READMISSIONS AND REDUCING UNNECESSARY READMISSIONS FOR BETTER PATIENT CARE 10 (2011) available at http://www.aha.org/research/reports/tw/11sep-tw-readmissions.pdf.  [hereinafter “AMA REPORT”]
[29] § 3025(a), 119 Stat. at 411 (emphasis added).
[30] 76 Fed. Reg. at 51665.
[31] 76 Fed. Reg. at 51670.
[32] R. Neal Axon & Mark V. Williams, Hospital Readmissions as Accountability Measure, 305(5) J. AM. MED. ASS’N 504, 505 (2011)
[33] Id.; See generally Karen E. Joynt, et. al., Thirty-Day Readmission Rates for Medicare Beneficiaries by Race and Site of Care, 305(7) J. AM. MED. ASS’N 675 (2011) (finding that Black patients experience higher rates of readmissions than whites both generally and at hospitals primarily serving minorities).
[34] § 3025(a), 119 Stat. at 411.
Stephen F. Jencks, et. al., Rehospitalizations among Patients in the Medicare Fee-for-Service Program, 360 NEW. ENG. J. MED., 1418, 1420 (2009).
MEDICARE PAYMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION. REPORT TO THE CONGRESS: PROMOTING GREATER EFFICIENCY IN MEDICARE 105, 108 [Hereinafter “MEDPAC REPORT”].
Medicare Program; Changes to the Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems and Fiscal Year 2008 Rates 72 Fed. Reg. 47130 (Aug. 22, 2007).
JENNY MINOTT, ACADEMY HEALTH, REDUCING HOSPITAL READMISSIONS 5 (2008), available at http://www.academyhealth.org/files/publications/Reducing%5FHospital%5FReadmissions.pdf.
MEDPAC REPORT 108.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pub. L. No, 111-148 § 3025(a), 124 Stat. 119, 408 (2010).
Hospital Readmissions Reduction Programs, 76 Fed. Reg. 51660 (Aug. 18, 2011).
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pub. L. No, 111-148 § 3025(a), 124 Stat. 119, 408 (2010).
Id.; Hospital Readmissions Reduction Programs, 76 Fed. Reg. 51660, 51665 (Aug. 18, 2011).
76 Fed. Reg. at 51665.
Id. at 51668-73.
§ 3025(a), 119 Stat. at 408-09.
Id.
Id. at 411.
76 Fed. Reg. at 51666.
§ 3025(a), 119 Stat. at 408.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 409-10.
Id. at 410.
76 Fed. Reg. at 51673.
Id. at 412.
Id. at 411-12.
76 Fed. Reg. at 51672.
Id. at 51672-73.
Id.
See id. at 51663.
See id. at 51664; AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, TRENDWATCH: EXAMINING THE DRIVERS OF READMISSIONS AND REDUCING UNNECESSARY READMISSIONS FOR BETTER PATIENT CARE 10 (2011) available at http://www.aha.org/research/reports/tw/11sep-tw-readmissions.pdf. [hereinafter “AMA REPORT”]
§ 3025(a), 119 Stat. at 411 (emphasis added).
76 Fed. Reg. at 51665.
76 Fed. Reg. at 51670.
R. Neal Axon & Mark V. Williams, Hospital Readmissions as Accountability Measure, 305(5) J. AM. MED. ASS’N 504, 505 (2011)
Id.; See generally Karen E. Joynt, et. al., Thirty-Day Readmission Rates for Medicare Beneficiaries by Race and Site of Care, 305(7) J. AM. MED. ASS’N 675 (2011) (finding that Black patients experience higher rates of readmissions than whites both generally and at hospitals primarily serving minorities).
§ 3025(a), 119 Stat. at 411.

No Comments

Public comments are closed.

Experts and stakeholders agree the current health care system is unsustainable. By 2020, health care spending will comprise almost 20% of the gross domestic product. Furthermore, an ever growing body of evidence clearly indicates that the system is not experiencing improvements in quality that are reflective of the cost growth. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) takes significant strides towards the transformation of the American health care delivery system from a system that rewards volume to a system that rewards quality and value. The programs and initiatives...
Improving the quality of care delivery and reducing explosive growth in healthcare costs is a cornerstone of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). It reflects the shared understanding that the current silo-based approaches to care delivery that focus on settings of care (e.g., physician office, hospital) rather than care delivery across multiple providers and setting (e.g., episodic) are not working. Costs are increasing at an unsustainable pace, and evidence from leading researchers collectively points to serious deficiencies in health care quality and the disconnect between high spending and health care quality. To foster the development of more collaborative and...
Last week, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) released a study entitled, "Effect of Nonpayment for Preventable Infections in U.S. Hospitals." The NEJM study examines the impact of Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions to reduce Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates for hospitals that report certain preventable infections. The findings of the study indicate that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS's) policy of withholding funds from hospitals that report such infections does not help to lower these infection rates. In the discussion of their work, the study authors recommend that policymakers consider replacing the current system with a model that will encourage behavior that will lower rates of infection.
Health Affairs and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation published a new policy brief regarding efforts to improve care transitions. Care transitions are movements that patients make among health care providers and settings as their needs change during the course of illness. Without well-planned coordination, these transitions may result in patient harm and needless expense. According to the brief, researchers estimated that in 2011, poor transitions caused between $25 and $45 billion in wasteful medical spending through avoidable complications and unnecessary hospital readmissions. Topics covered in the brief include the causes of poor care transitions, improving care transitions, and policy options to address transition coordination.
In a new analysis by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), hospital readmissions for Medicare beneficiaries dipped .7% between 2009 and 2011. This is good news for hospitals which will face readmissions penalties beginning October 1. Starting on October 1, Medicare will lower reimbursement rates for thsoe hospitals that fail to reduce hospital readmission rates related to pneumonia, heart failure, and heart attack. The government's overarching goal is to reduce readmissions by 20%, which would save the federal government more than $2.5 million per year.
According to a white paper released by CSC, a significant portion of hospital readmissions can be prevented through comprehensive discharge planning and patient support. The report, entitled "Preventing Hospital Readmissions: The First Test Case for Continuity of Care" notes that preventing readmissions can prove challenging, as many of the precipitating causes for readmission are outside of the direct control of the hospital. However, the brief concludes that appropriate discharge planning paired with adequate post-discharge patient care and support can reduce readmissions for high-risk hospitals. The challenge, according to the paper, will be to coordinate, as opposed to duplicate, care and support.
An analysis recently released by The Commonwealth Fund uses data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and other sources to compare health care spending, supply, utilization, prices, and quality in 13 industrialized countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The U.S. spends far more on health care than any other country. However this high spending cannot be attributed to higher income, an older population, or greater supply or utilization of hospitals and doctors. Instead, the findings suggest the higher spending is more likely due to higher prices and perhaps more readily accessible technology and greater obesity. Health care quality in the U.S. varies and is not notably superior to the far less expensive systems in the other study countries. Of the countries studied, Japan has the lowest health spending, which it achieves primarily through aggressive price regulation.
The Urban Institute, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) recently released, "The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation: Activity on Many Fronts," which explores the first year of operation of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI). The paper argues that although CMMI has a long list of accomplishments, some observers express concern that its fast-paced approach may be overwhelming to smaller delivery systems. The paper provides a comprehensive review of CMMI's activities to date, including a survey of the goals envisioned by Congress. The authors address CMMI's major initiatives, including those that address primary care redesign, bundled payments, ACOs, dual-eligible beneficiaries, and the health care system’s capacity for spreading innovative ideas.
An article recently published in Health Affairs, "Growth In US Health Spending Remained Slow In 2010; Health Share Of Gross Domestic Product Was Unchanged From 2009" reports that US health spending grew more slowly in 2009 and 2010--at rates of 3.8 and 3.9 percent respectively--than in any other year during the fifty-one years that the National Health Expenditure Accounts has recorded these data. Although medical goods and services are generally viewed as necessities, the recent recession has had a dramatic effect on utilization, according to the Health Affairs report. In 2010, the slow growth extraordinarily slow growth in the use and intensity of services led to slower growth in spending for personal health care. The rates of growth in overall US gross domestic product (GDP) and in health spending began to converge in 2010. As a result, the health spending share of GDP stabilized at 17.9 percent.
Today, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released two final rules. The first rule revises the Medicare Conditions of Participation (CoPs) for hospitals and critical access hospitals (CAHs). CMS estimates that annual savings to hospitals and CAHs will be approximately $940 million per year. The second, the Medicare Regulatory Reform rule, will produce savings of $200 million in the first year by promoting efficiency. This rule eliminates duplicative, overlapping, and outdated regulatory requirements for health care providers. Among other changes, the final rules will...