Hospital Characteristics Associated With Penalties in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program

Abstract

year (FY) 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) instituted the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program, which reduces payments to the lowest-performing hospitals. However, it is uncertain whether this program accurately measures quality and fairly penalizes hospitals.OBJECTIVE To examine the characteristics of hospitals penalized by the HAC Reduction Program and to evaluate the association of a summary score of hospital characteristics related to quality with penalization in the HAC program. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Data for hospitals participating in the FY2015 HAC Reduction Program were obtained from CMS' Hospital Compare and merged with the 2014 American Hospital Association Annual Survey and FY2015 Medicare Impact File. Logistic regression models were developed to examine the association between hospital characteristics and HAC program penalization. An 8-point hospital quality summary score was created using hospital characteristics related to volume, accreditations, and offering of advanced care services. The relationship between the hospital quality summary score and HAC program penalization was examined. Publicly reported process-of-care and outcome measures were examined from 4 clinical areas (surgery, acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia), and their association with the hospital quality summary score was evaluated.EXPOSURES Penalization in the HAC Reduction Program. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Hospital characteristics associated with penalization.RESULTS Of the 3284 hospitals participating in the HAC program, 721 (22.0%) were penalized. Hospitals were more likely to be penalized if they were accredited by the Joint Commission (24.0% accredited, 14.4% not accredited; odds ratio [OR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.70); they were major teaching hospitals (42.3%; OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.09-2.29) or very major teaching hospitals (62.2%; OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.55-4.39; vs nonteaching hospitals, 17.0%); they cared for more complex patient populations based on case mix index (quartile 4 vs quartile 1: 32.8% vs 12.1%; OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.44-2.71); or they were safety-net hospitals vs non-safety-net hospitals (28.3% vs 19.9%; OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.11-1.68). Hospitals with higher hospital quality summary scores had significantly better performance on 9 of 10 publicly reported process and outcomes measures compared with hospitals that had lower quality scores (all P Յ .01 for trend). However, hospitals with the highest quality score of 8 were penalized significantly more frequently than hospitals with the lowest quality score of 0 (67.3% [37/55] vs 12.6% [53/422]; P < .001 for trend).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among hospitals participating in the HAC Reduction Program, hospitals that were penalized more frequently had more quality accreditations, offered advanced services, were major teaching institutions, and had better performance on other process and outcome measures. These paradoxical findings suggest that the approach for assessing hospital penalties in the HAC Reduction Pro...

Disparities in Reportable Quality Metrics by Insurance Status in the Primary Spine Neoplasm Population

“…[16] Rajaram et al utilized data from the CMS, Center for Disease Control, and Medicare to demonstrate that 721 hospitals were financially penalized by CMS for substandard quality of care in 2015. [34] Those 721 hospitals accounted for 22% of all participating hospitals in the first year of the CMS Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program. [34] As healthcare reimbursement continues to transition to a valuebased system that uses standardized care quality metrics to determine reimbursement, it is vital not only to identify disparities in patient care quality but also to enact reforms designed to eliminate these disparities among patients hospitalized with complex and costly diagnoses including primary spinal cord neoplasms.…”

“…[34] Those 721 hospitals accounted for 22% of all participating hospitals in the first year of the CMS Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program. [34] As healthcare reimbursement continues to transition to a valuebased system that uses standardized care quality metrics to determine reimbursement, it is vital not only to identify disparities in patient care quality but also to enact reforms designed to eliminate these disparities among patients hospitalized with complex and costly diagnoses including primary spinal cord neoplasms. Using a broader and less specific definition of spinal cord neoplasm than the present study, Sharma et al found that the financial burden of spinal cord neoplasms increased significantly during the last decade.…”

Elements of Program Design in Medicare’s Value-based and Alternative Payment Models: a Narrative Review

“…This may be of particular salience to providers that serve medically or socially complex populations, who have been shown previously to perform more poorly on many existing VBP programs, in part because of characteristics of the patients they serve. [21][22][23][24] Transparency for consumers is also a key consideration in the achievement versus improvement debate. If providers are only judged on improvement, a patient viewing a hospital's rating might not know whether a good score was based on high absolute performance or on poor performance with high improvement over time.…”

Legal and Policy Interventions to Improve Patient Safety

“…This approach is intended to reward low performers for incremental improvement, but concerns remain that the Medicare programs disadvantage underresourced hospitals and those that serve patients with low socioeconomic status. 55,56 For hospital-acquired conditions, CMS ranks hospitals on the basis of rates of specified complications and will penalize the lowest quartile of hospitals 1% of their Medicare payments in fiscal year 2015. Through the Readmission Reduction Program, CMS will assess penalties of up to 3% of all Medicare payments for hospitals that have higher-thanpredicted risk-adjusted readmission rates for patients hospitalized for pneumonia, heart failure, myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and total knee or hip arthroplasty.…”