Impacts of Performance Pay for Hospitals: The Readmissions Reduction Program

2021 ◽  
Vol 111 (4) ◽  
pp. 1241-1283
Author(s):  
Atul Gupta

US policy increasingly ties payments for providers to performance on quality measures, though little empirical evidence guides the design of such incentives. I deploy administrative data to study a large federal program that penalizes hospitals with high readmissions rates. Using policy-driven variation in the penalty incentive across hospitals for identification, I find that hospital responses to the penalty account for two-thirds of the observed decrease in readmissions over this period, as well as a decrease in heart attack mortality. Quality improvement accounts for about one-half of the decrease in readmissions; the remainder is explained by selective admission of returning patients. (JEL G22, H51, I11, I12, I13, I18)

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (21;1) ◽  
pp. E1-E12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) eliminated the flawed Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) act formula – a longstanding crucial issue of concern for health care providers and Medicare beneficiaries. MACRA also included a quality improvement program entitled, “The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, or MIPS.” The proposed rule of MIPS sought to streamline existing federal quality efforts and therefore linked 4 distinct programs into one. Three existing programs, meaningful use (MU), Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), valuebased payment (VBP) system were merged with the addition of Clinical Improvement Activity category. The proposed rule also changed the name of MU to Advancing Care Information, or ACI. ACI contributes to 25% of composite score of the four programs, PQRS contributes 50% of the composite score, while VBP system, which deals with resource use or cost, contributes to 10% of the composite score. The newest category, Improvement Activities or IA, contributes 15% to the composite score. The proposed rule also created what it called a design incentive that drives movement to delivery system reform principles with the inclusion of Advanced Alternative Payment Models (APMs). Following the release of the proposed rule, the medical community, as well as Congress, provided substantial input to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS),expressing their concern. American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) focused on 3 important aspects: delay the implementation, provide a 3-month performance period, and provide ability to submit meaningful quality measures in a timely and economic manner. The final rule accepted many of the comments from various organizations, including several of those specifically emphasized by ASIPP, with acceptance of 3-month reporting period, as well as the ability to submit non-MIPS measures to improve real quality and make the system meaningful. CMS also provided a mechanism for physicians to avoid penalties for non-reporting with reporting of just a single patient. In summary, CMS has provided substantial flexibility with mechanisms to avoid penalties, reporting for 90 continuous days, increasing the low volume threshold, changing the reporting burden and data thresholds and, finally, coordination between performance categories. The final rule has made MIPS more meaningful with bonuses for exceptional performance, the ability to report for 90 days, and to report on 50% of the patients in 2017 and 60% of the patients in 2018. The final rule also reduced the quality measures to 6, including only one outcome or high priority measure with elimination of cross cutting measure requirement. In addition, the final rule reduced the burden of ACI, improved the coordination of performance, reduced improvement activities burden from 60 points to 40 points, and finally improved coordination between performance categories. Multiple concerns remain regarding the reduction in scoring for quality improvement in future years, increase in proportion of MIPS scoring for resource use utilizing flawed, claims based methodology and the continuation of the disproportionate importance of ACI, an expensive program that can be onerous for providers which in many ways has not lived up to its promise. Key words: Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, merit-based incentive payment system, quality performance measures, resource use, improvement activities, advancing care information performance category


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 103 (Supplement_E1) ◽  
pp. 291-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel M. Schwartz ◽  
David E. Gagnon ◽  
Janet H. Muri ◽  
Q. Rose Zhao ◽  
Russell Kellogg

This article discusses the use of administrative data for quality improvement in perinatal and neonatal medicine. We review the nature of administrative data and focus on hospital discharge abstract data as the primary source of hospital- and community-based assessments. Although discharge abstract data lack the richness of primary data, these data are the most accessible comparative data source for examining all patients admitted to a hospital. When aggregated to the state level as occurs in more than 30 states, hospital discharge data reflects hospital utilization and outcomes for an entire geographic population at the state and community level. This article reviews some of the weaknesses of administrative data and then focuses how these data can be used for hospital- and community-based assessment of perinatal care citing as examples the measures of perinatal process and outcome used by the National Perinatal Information Center in its Quality/Efficiency Reports for member hospitals and a study of perinatal high-risk care in the State of Florida. The use of discharge abstract data for performance measurement at either the hospital or the system level requires a thorough understanding of how to select a patient group, its characteristics, the intervention, and the outcomes relevant to that patient group. In the perinatal arena, the National Perinatal Information Center has selected and presents those measures that rely on data items shown to be the most reliable based on validity studies and clinician opinion, delineation of the intervention, and the measurement of what occurred. As hospitals respond to the recent pressures of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations and other quality assurance entities, the accuracy of the discharge data will improve. With accepted caution, these data sets are invaluable to researchers studying comparative populations over time or across large geographic areas.


2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 215-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
JoAnna K Leyenaar ◽  
Christine B Andrews ◽  
Emily R Tyksinski ◽  
Eric Biondi ◽  
Kavita Parikh ◽  
...  

BackgroundEmergency medicine and paediatric hospital medicine physicians each provide a portion of the initial clinical care for the majority of hospitalised children in the USA. While these disciplines share goals to increase quality of care, there are scant data describing their collaboration. Our national, multihospital learning collaborative, which aimed to increase narrow-spectrum antibiotic prescribing for paediatric community-acquired pneumonia, provided an opportunity to examine factors influencing the success of quality improvement efforts across these two clinical departments.ObjectiveTo identify barriers to and facilitators of interdepartmental quality improvement implementation, with a particular focus on increasing narrow-spectrum antibiotic use in the emergency department and inpatient settings for children hospitalised with pneumonia.MethodsWe used a mixed-methods design, analysing interviews, written reports and quality measures. To describe hospital characteristics and quality measures, we calculated medians/IQRs for continuous variables, frequencies for categorical variables and Pearson correlation coefficients. We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews by phone with collaborative site leaders; interviews were transcribed verbatim and, with progress reports, analysed using a general inductive approach.Results47 US-based hospitals were included in this analysis. Qualitative analysis of 35 interview transcripts and 142 written reports yielded eight inter-related domains that facilitated successful interdepartmental quality improvement: (1) hospital leadership and support, (2) quality improvement champions, (3) evidence supporting the intervention, (4) national health system influences, (5) collaborative culture, (6) departments’ structure and resources, (7) quality improvement implementation strategies and (8) interdepartmental relationships.ConclusionsThe conceptual framework presented here may be used to identify hospitals’ strengths and potential barriers to successful implementation of quality improvement efforts across clinical departments.


2014 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 558-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Germaine Odenheimer ◽  
Soo Borson ◽  
Amy E. Sanders ◽  
Rebecca J. Swain-Eng ◽  
Helen H. Kyomen ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 299-299
Author(s):  
Katherine Enright ◽  
Lingsong Yun ◽  
Alejandro Gonzalez ◽  
Melanie Powis ◽  
Nathan Taback ◽  
...  

299 Background: Routine evaluation of evidence informed quality measures (QM) can drive improvement in cancer systems by highlighting potential gaps in care. Targeting quality improvement at QMs that demonstrate substantial variation has the potential to make the largest impact on quality at a population level. We aimed to use variation in performance to set priorities for improving the quality of ST for women with EBC. Methods: EBC cases diagnosed 2006 – 2010 in Ontario, Canada were identified in the Ontario Cancer Registry and linked deterministically to multiple health care databases. A panel of QMs, previously developed to be operationalized for administrative data, was applied to reflect the quality of ST. Each QM was evaluated in all patients who met the inclusion criteria for the individual measure. QMs were ranked based on institutional variation in performance using the mean absolute difference (MAD). Results: We identified 28,303 patients, treated at 84 institutions. The performance of each QM is listed in Table 1. Timely receipt of ST, febrile neutropenia (FN) secondary prophylaxis, emergency room visits or hospitalizations, receipt of hormonal therapy (HT) and the use of surveillance imaging represented the 5 QM that demonstrated the greatest variation. Conclusions: Considerable institutional-level variation highlights potentially actionable areas of improvement [Table: see text]


2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 253-253
Author(s):  
Deborah L. Struth ◽  
Gail Mallory ◽  
Michele Galioto

253 Background: Clinically meaningful quality measures have been identified as a catalyst for healthcare improvement and better patient outcomes. Amidst rapidly changing quality reporting and re-imbursement schema, eligible providers struggle to choose a portfolio of measures across multiple registries that will demonstrate the value of their practice to consumers and payers. It is critical that a roadmap to quality improvement be evident to registry users. Utilizing the Model for Improvement developed by the Associates in Process Improvement and adapted to health care by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, a framework to guide performance improvement was developed and incorporated into an oncology specific QCDR for PQRS reporting. Methods: Fourteen patient-centered quality measures with a focus on cancer related symptom assessment and intervention were piloted and tested in 40 practices and incorporated into the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS)/CE City QCDR. Six measures focus on the active treatment phase of cancer care and eight on breast cancer survivorship. The registry platform was designed with capabilities for tracking of data over time, goal setting, benchmarking, and providing suggested performance improvement (PI) activities. A technical expert panel (TEP) was convened to develop a model to guide PI activities to address QCDR identified practice gaps. Results: A quality improvement framework was developed to help QCDR subscribers answer the question “How Do I Improve” and was incorporated into the ONS/CE City QCDR platform. This framework provides the subscriber with the education and training necessary to improve care through use of quality improvement tools and implementation strategies aimed at practice change. Conclusions: It is essential that measures be incorporated into an infrastructure that provides opportunities for the assessment and improvement of care quality provided by practices. The QCDR can act as a means to drive performance improvement along with supporting quality measurement for PQRS and Meaningful Use reporting. The “How Do I Improve” Framework developed as part of the ONS/CE City QCDR platform provides a model to accomplish this goal.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document