Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Pneumonia | Research article

Impact of the Medicare hospital readmissions reduction program on vulnerable populations

Authors: Yunwei Gai, Dessislava Pachamanova

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in an effort to reduce excess hospital readmissions, lower health care costs, and improve patient safety and outcomes. Although studies have examined the policy’s overall impacts and differences by hospital types, research is limited on its effects for different types of vulnerable populations. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of the HRRP on readmissions for three targeted conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia) among four types of vulnerable populations, including low-income patients, patients served by hospitals that serve a high percentage of low-income or Medicaid patients, and high-risk patients at the highest quartile of the Elixhauser comorbidity index score.

Methods

Data on patient and hospital information came from the Nationwide Readmission Database (NRD), which contained all discharges from community hospitals in 27 states during 2010–2014. Using difference-in-difference (DD) models, linear probability regressions were conducted for the entire sample and sub-samples of patients and hospitals in order to isolate the effect of the HRRP on vulnerable populations. Multiple combinations of treatment and control groups and triple difference (DDD) methods were used for testing the robustness of the results. All models controlled for the patient and hospital characteristics.

Results

There have been statistically significant reductions in readmission rates overall as well as for vulnerable populations, especially for acute myocardial infarction patients in hospitals serving the largest percentage of low-income patients and high-risk patients. There is also evidence of spillover effects for non-targeted conditions among Medicare patients compared to privately insured patients.

Conclusions

The HRRP appears to have created the right incentives for reducing readmissions not only overall but also for vulnerable populations, accruing societal benefits in addition to previously found reductions in costs. As the reduction in the rate of readmissions is not consistent across patient and hospital groups, there could be benefits to adjusting the policy according to the socioeconomic status of a hospital’s patients and neighborhood.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Berenson J, Shih A. Higher readmissions at safety-net hospitals and potential policy solutions. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2012;34:1–6.
3.
Gu Q, Koenig L, Faerberg J, Steinberg CR, Vaz C, Wheatley MP. The Medicare hospital readmissions reduction program: potential unintended consequences for hospitals serving vulnerable populations. Health Serv Res. 2014;49(3):818–37.CrossRef
4.
Barnett ML, Hsu J, McWilliams JM. Patient characteristics and differences in hospital readmission rates. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(11):1803–12.CrossRef
5.
Herrin J, St. Andre J, Kenward K, Joshi MS, Audet AM, Hines SC. Community factors and hospital readmission rates. Health Serv Res. 2015;50(1):20–39.CrossRef
6.
Bernheim SM, Parzynski CS, Horwitz L, et al. Accounting for patients’ socioeconomic status does not change hospital readmission rates. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(8):1461–70.CrossRef
7.
Mellor J, Daly M, Smith M. Does it pay to penalize hospitals for excess readmissions? Intended and unintended consequences of Medicare’s hospital readmissions reductions program. Health Eco. 2017;26(8):1037–51.CrossRef
8.
Bazzoli GJ, Thompson MP, Waters TM. Medicare payment penalties and safety net hospital profitability: minimal impact on these vulnerable hospitals. Health Serv Res. 2018;53(5):3495–506.CrossRef
9.
McIlvennan CK, Eapen ZJ, Allen LA. Hospital readmissions reduction program. Circulation. 2015;131(20):1796–803.CrossRef
10.
Carey K, Lin MY. Readmissions to New York hospitals fell for three target conditions from 2008 to 2012, consistent with Medicare goals. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(6):978–85.CrossRef
11.
Zuckerman RB, Sheingold SH, Orav EJ, Ruhter J, Epstein AM. Readmissions, observation, and the hospital readmissions reduction program. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(16):1543–51.CrossRef
12.
Desai NR, Ross JS, Kwon JY, et al. Association between hospital penalty status under the hospital readmission reduction program and readmission rates for target and nontarget conditions. JAMA. 2016;316(24):2647–56.CrossRef
13.
Wasfy JH, Zigler CM, Choirat C, Wang Y, Dominici F, Yeh RW. Readmission rates after passage of the hospital readmissions reduction program: a pre–post analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166(5):324–31.CrossRef
14.
15.
16.
17.
Birmingham LE, Oglesby WH. Readmission rates in not-for-profit vs. proprietary hospitals before and after the hospital readmission reduction program implementation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):31.CrossRef
18.
19.
20.
21.
Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36(1):8–27.CrossRef
22.
23.
Moore BJ, White S, Washington R, Coenen N, Elixhauser A. Identifying increased risk of readmission and in-hospital mortality using hospital administrative data. Med Care. 2017;55(7):698–705.CrossRef
24.
Shanker, D. This Obamacare Rule Keeps You Out of the Hospital. Will It Survive? Bloomberg Wire Service; New York [New York] 13 Mar 2017.
25.
Benitez JA, Creel LM, Jennings J. Who and where are Kentucky’s remaining uninsured? Med Care. 2017 Mar 1;55(3):215–9.CrossRef
26.
Benitez JA, Tipirneni R, Perez V, Davis MM. Does primary care provider supply influence Medicaid acceptability? Med Care. 2019 May 1;57(5):348–52.CrossRef
27.
Benitez JA, Adams EK, Seiber EE. Did health care reform help Kentucky address disparities in coverage and access to care among the poor? Health Serv Res. 2018 Jun;53(3):1387–406.CrossRef
28.
Ibrahim AM, Nathan H, Thumma JR, Dimick JB. Impact of the hospital readmission reduction program on surgical readmissions among Medicare beneficiaries. Ann Surg. 2017 Oct;266(4):617–24.CrossRef
29.
McGarry BE, Blankley AA, Li Y. The impact of the Medicare hospital readmission reduction program in New York state. Med Care. 2016 Feb 1;54(2):162–71.CrossRef
30.
31.
32.
Bazzoli GJ, Chan B, Shortell SM, D'Aunno T. The financial performance of hospitals belonging to health networks and systems. Inquiry. 2000 Oct;1:234–52.
33.
Chukmaitov AS, Bazzoli GJ, Harless DW, Hurley RE, Devers KJ, Zhao M. Variations in inpatient mortality among hospitals in different system types, 1995 to 2000. Med Care. 2009 Apr 1;47(4):466–73.CrossRef
34.
35.
36.
37.
Fredericks S, Lapum J, Hui G. Examining the effect of patient-centered care on patient outcomes: a systematic review. Br J Nurs. 2015;24(7):394–400.CrossRef
38.
Fredericks S, Lapum J, Hui G. Applying patient centered care to the design and implementation of cardiovascular surgical interventions: implications for practice. Br J Card Nurs. 2015;10(4):170–4.CrossRef
39.
Fredericks S, Yau T. Educational intervention reduces complications and re-hospitalizations after heart surgery. West J Nurs Res. 2013;35(10):1251–65.CrossRef
40.
Fredericks S, DaSilva M. An examination of the postdischarge recovery experience of patients who have had heart surgery. J Nurs Healthc Chronic Illn. 2010;2(4):281–91.CrossRef
41.
Metadata
Title
Impact of the Medicare hospital readmissions reduction program on vulnerable populations
Authors
Yunwei Gai
Dessislava Pachamanova
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Pneumonia
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4645-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Health Services Research 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

Factors influencing fall prevention for patients with spinal cord injury from the perspectives of administrators in Canadian rehabilitation hospitals

Research article

Healthcare utilization after stroke in Canada- a population based study

Research article

Nutritional counselling interactions between health workers and caregivers of children under two years: observations at selected child welfare clinics in Ghana

Research article

Exploring the role of external experts in supporting staff to implement psychosocial interventions in care home settings: results from the process evaluation of a randomized controlled trial

Research article

Intention to initiate antiretroviral therapy (ART) among people living with HIV in China under the scaling-up of ART: the role of healthcare workers’ recommendations

Research article

Who knows best? A Q methodology study to explore perspectives of professional stakeholders and community participants on health in low-income communities