BACKGROUND: Most (59% to 86%) hospital-acquired urinary tract infections (UTIs) are catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs). As of 2008, claims data are used to deny payment for certain hospital-acquired conditions, including CAUTIs, and publicly report hospital performance. OBJECTIVE: To examine rates of UTIs in adults that are coded in claims data as hospital-acquired and catheter-associated events and evaluate how often nonpayment for CAUTI lowers hospital payment. DESIGN: Before-and-after study of all-payer cross-sectional claims data. SETTING: 96 nonfederal acute care Michigan hospitals. PATIENTS: Nonobstetric adults discharged in 2007 (n = 767 531) and 2009 (n = 781 343). MEASUREMENTS: Hospital rates of UTIs (categorized as catheter-associated or hospital-acquired) and frequency of reduced payment for hospital-acquired CAUTIs. RESULTS: Hospitals frequently requested payment for non-CAUTIs as secondary diagnoses: 10.0% (95% CI, 9.5% to 10.5%) of discharges in 2007 and 10.3% (CI, 9.8% to 10.9%) in 2009. Hospital rates of CAUTI were very low: 0.09% (CI, 0.06% to 0.12%) in 2007 and 0.14% (CI, 0.11% to 0.17%) in 2009. In 2009, 2.6% (CI, 1.6% to 3.6%) of hospital-acquired UTIs were described as CAUTIs. Nonpayment for hospital-acquired CAUTIs reduced payment for 25 of 781 343 (0.003%) hospitalizations in 2009. LIMITATIONS: Data are from only 1 state and involved only 1 year before and after nonpayment for complications. Hospital prevention practices were not examined. CONCLUSION: Catheter-associated UTI rates determined by claims data seem to be inaccurate and are much lower than expected from epidemiologic surveillance data. The financial impact of current nonpayment policy for hospital-acquired CAUTI is low. Claims data are currently not valid data sets for comparing hospital-acquired CAUTI rates for the purpose of public reporting or imposing financial incentives or penalties. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation.
BACKGROUND: Most (59% to 86%) hospital-acquired urinary tract infections (UTIs) are catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs). As of 2008, claims data are used to deny payment for certain hospital-acquired conditions, including CAUTIs, and publicly report hospital performance. OBJECTIVE: To examine rates of UTIs in adults that are coded in claims data as hospital-acquired and catheter-associated events and evaluate how often nonpayment for CAUTI lowers hospital payment. DESIGN: Before-and-after study of all-payer cross-sectional claims data. SETTING: 96 nonfederal acute care Michigan hospitals. PATIENTS: Nonobstetric adults discharged in 2007 (n = 767 531) and 2009 (n = 781 343). MEASUREMENTS: Hospital rates of UTIs (categorized as catheter-associated or hospital-acquired) and frequency of reduced payment for hospital-acquired CAUTIs. RESULTS: Hospitals frequently requested payment for non-CAUTIs as secondary diagnoses: 10.0% (95% CI, 9.5% to 10.5%) of discharges in 2007 and 10.3% (CI, 9.8% to 10.9%) in 2009. Hospital rates of CAUTI were very low: 0.09% (CI, 0.06% to 0.12%) in 2007 and 0.14% (CI, 0.11% to 0.17%) in 2009. In 2009, 2.6% (CI, 1.6% to 3.6%) of hospital-acquired UTIs were described as CAUTIs. Nonpayment for hospital-acquired CAUTIs reduced payment for 25 of 781 343 (0.003%) hospitalizations in 2009. LIMITATIONS: Data are from only 1 state and involved only 1 year before and after nonpayment for complications. Hospital prevention practices were not examined. CONCLUSION: Catheter-associated UTI rates determined by claims data seem to be inaccurate and are much lower than expected from epidemiologic surveillance data. The financial impact of current nonpayment policy for hospital-acquired CAUTI is low. Claims data are currently not valid data sets for comparing hospital-acquired CAUTI rates for the purpose of public reporting or imposing financial incentives or penalties. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation.
Authors: R W Haley; T M Hooton; D H Culver; R C Stanley; T G Emori; C D Hardison; D Quade; R H Shachtman; D R Schaberg; B V Shah; G D Schatz Journal: Am J Med Date: 1981-04 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Betsy J Lahue; Bruce Pyenson; Kosuke Iwasaki; Helen E Blumen; Susan Forray; Jeffrey M Rothschild Journal: Am Health Drug Benefits Date: 2012-11
Authors: Patrick C Sanger; Marion Granich; Robin Olsen-Scribner; Rupali Jain; William B Lober; Ann Stapleton; Paul S Pottinger Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-04-16
Authors: Sanjay Saint; Sarah L Krein; Karen E Fowler; John Colozzi; David Ratz; Erica Lescinskas; Kristin Chrouser; Barbara W Trautner Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2019-03-20 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Teresa M Waters; A Michelle Chandler; Lorraine C Mion; Michael J Daniels; Lori A Kessler; Stephen T Miller; Ronald I Shorr Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: William R Hersh; Mark G Weiner; Peter J Embi; Judith R Logan; Philip R O Payne; Elmer V Bernstam; Harold P Lehmann; George Hripcsak; Timothy H Hartzog; James J Cimino; Joel H Saltz Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 2.983