Marion R Sills1, Matt Hall2, Jeffrey D Colvin3, Michelle L Macy4, Gretchen J Cutler5, Jessica L Bettenhausen3, Rustin B Morse6, Katherine A Auger7, Jean L Raphael8, Laura M Gottlieb9, Evan S Fieldston10, Samir S Shah7. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora. 2. Children's Hospital Association, Overland Park, Kansas. 3. Department of Pediatrics, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor5Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 5. Department of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 6. Children's Health System of Texas, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas. 7. Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio. 8. Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 9. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California at San Francisco. 10. Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Performance-measure risk adjustment is of great interest to hospital stakeholders who face substantial financial penalties from readmissions pay-for-performance (P4P) measures. Despite evidence of the association between social determinants of health (SDH) and individual patient readmission risk, the effect of risk adjusting for SDH on readmissions P4P penalties to hospitals is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether risk adjustment for commonly available SDH measures affects the readmissions-based P4P penalty status of a national cohort of children's hospitals. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of 43 free-standing children's hospitals within the Pediatric Health Information System database in the calendar year 2013. We evaluated hospital discharges from 2013 that met criteria for 3M Health Information Systems' potentially preventable readmissions measure for calendar year 2013. The analysis was conducted from July 2015 to August 2015. EXPOSURES: Two risk-adjustment models: a baseline model adjusted for severity of illness and an SDH-enhanced model that adjusted for severity of illness and the following 4 SDH variables: race, ethnicity, payer, and median household income for the patient's home zip code. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Change in a hospital's potentially preventable readmissions penalty status (ie, change in whether a hospital exceeded the penalty threshold) using an observed-to-expected potentially preventable readmissions ratio of 1.0 as a penalty threshold. RESULTS: For the 179,400 hospital discharges from the 43 hospitals meeting inclusion criteria, median (interquartile range [IQR]) hospital-level percentages for the SDH variables were 39.2% nonwhite (n = 71,300; IQR, 28.6%-54.6%), 17.9% Hispanic (n = 32,060; IQR, 6.7%-37.0%), and 58.7% publicly insured (n = 106,116; IQR, 50.4%-67.8%). The hospital median household income for the patient's home zip code was $ 40,674 (IQR, $ 35,912-$ 46,190). When compared with the baseline model, adjustment for SDH resulted in a change in penalty status for 3 hospitals within the 15-day window (2 were no longer above the penalty threshold and 1 was newly penalized) and 5 hospitals within the 30-day window (3 were no longer above the penalty threshold and 2 were newly penalized). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Risk adjustment for SDH changed hospitals' penalty status on a readmissions-based P4P measure. Without adjusting P4P measures for SDH, hospitals may receive penalties partially related to patient SDH factors beyond the quality of hospital care.
IMPORTANCE: Performance-measure risk adjustment is of great interest to hospital stakeholders who face substantial financial penalties from readmissions pay-for-performance (P4P) measures. Despite evidence of the association between social determinants of health (SDH) and individual patient readmission risk, the effect of risk adjusting for SDH on readmissions P4P penalties to hospitals is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether risk adjustment for commonly available SDH measures affects the readmissions-based P4P penalty status of a national cohort of children's hospitals. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of 43 free-standing children's hospitals within the Pediatric Health Information System database in the calendar year 2013. We evaluated hospital discharges from 2013 that met criteria for 3M Health Information Systems' potentially preventable readmissions measure for calendar year 2013. The analysis was conducted from July 2015 to August 2015. EXPOSURES: Two risk-adjustment models: a baseline model adjusted for severity of illness and an SDH-enhanced model that adjusted for severity of illness and the following 4 SDH variables: race, ethnicity, payer, and median household income for the patient's home zip code. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Change in a hospital's potentially preventable readmissions penalty status (ie, change in whether a hospital exceeded the penalty threshold) using an observed-to-expected potentially preventable readmissions ratio of 1.0 as a penalty threshold. RESULTS: For the 179,400 hospital discharges from the 43 hospitals meeting inclusion criteria, median (interquartile range [IQR]) hospital-level percentages for the SDH variables were 39.2% nonwhite (n = 71,300; IQR, 28.6%-54.6%), 17.9% Hispanic (n = 32,060; IQR, 6.7%-37.0%), and 58.7% publicly insured (n = 106,116; IQR, 50.4%-67.8%). The hospital median household income for the patient's home zip code was $ 40,674 (IQR, $ 35,912-$ 46,190). When compared with the baseline model, adjustment for SDH resulted in a change in penalty status for 3 hospitals within the 15-day window (2 were no longer above the penalty threshold and 1 was newly penalized) and 5 hospitals within the 30-day window (3 were no longer above the penalty threshold and 2 were newly penalized). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Risk adjustment for SDH changed hospitals' penalty status on a readmissions-based P4P measure. Without adjusting P4P measures for SDH, hospitals may receive penalties partially related to patient SDH factors beyond the quality of hospital care.
Authors: Kimon L H Ioannides; Avi Baehr; David N Karp; Douglas J Wiebe; Brendan G Carr; Daniel N Holena; M Kit Delgado Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Katherine A Auger; Robert S Kahn; Jeffrey M Simmons; Bin Huang; Anita N Shah; Kristen Timmons; Andrew F Beck Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2016-07-09 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Amelia Barwise; Young J Juhn; Chung-Il Wi; Paul Novotny; Carolina Jaramillo; Ognjen Gajic; Michael E Wilson Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Rozalina G McCoy; Stephanie M Peterson; Lynn S Borkenhagen; Paul Y Takahashi; Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir; Anupam Chandra; James M Naessens Journal: Med Care Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Kavita Parikh; Matt Hall; Chén C Kenyon; Ronald J Teufel; Grant M Mussman; Amanda Montalbano; Jessica Gold; James W Antoon; Anupama Subramony; Vineeta Mittal; Rustin B Morse; Karen M Wilson; Samir S Shah Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 4.406