Andrew E Levy1,2, Andrew Hammes3, Debra L Anoff4, Joshua D Raines5, Natalie M Beck5, Eric W Rudofker5, Kimberly J Marshall1, Jessica D Nensel1, John C Messenger1, Frederick A Masoudi1, Read G Pierce6, Larry A Allen1, Karen S Ream1, P Michael Ho5,7. 1. Division of Cardiology (A.E.L., K.J.M., J.D.N., J.C.M., F.A.M., L.A.A., K.S.R.), University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora. 2. Division of Cardiology, Denver Health and Hospital Authority, CO (A.E.L.). 3. Division of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora (A.H.). 4. Division of Hospital Medicine (D.L.A.), University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora. 5. Department of Medicine (J.D.R., N.M.B., E.W.R., P.M.H.), University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora. 6. Department of Medicine, Dell Medical School, Austin, TX (R.G.P.). 7. Cardiovascular Medicine, VA Eastern Colorado Healthcare System, Denver, CO (P.M.H.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Among Medicare value-based payment programs for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program uses International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes to identify the program denominator, while the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced program uses diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). The extent to which these programs target similar patients, whether they target the intended population (type 1 myocardial infarction), and whether outcomes are comparable between cohorts is not known. METHODS: In a retrospective study of 2176 patients hospitalized in an integrated health system, a cohort of patients assigned a principal ICD-10 diagnosis of AMI and a cohort of patients assigned an AMI DRG were compared according to patient-level agreement and outcomes such as mortality and readmission. RESULTS: One thousand nine hundred thirty-five patients were included in the ICD-10 cohort compared with 662 patients in the DRG cohort. Only 421 patients were included in both AMI cohorts (19.3% agreement). DRG cohort patients were older (70 versus 65 years, P<0.001), more often female (48% versus 30%, P<0.001), and had higher rates of heart failure (52% versus 33%, P<0.001) and kidney disease (42% versus 25%, P<0.001). Comparing outcomes, the DRG cohort had significantly higher unadjusted rates of 30-day mortality (6.6% versus 2.5%, P<0.001), 1-year mortality (21% versus 8%, P<0.001), and 90-day readmission (26% versus 19%, P=0.006) than the ICD-10 cohort. Two observations help explain these differences: 61% of ICD-10 cohort patients were assigned procedural DRGs for revascularization instead of an AMI DRG, and type 1 myocardial infarction patients made up a smaller proportion of the DRG cohort (34%) than the ICD-10 cohort (78%). CONCLUSIONS: The method used to identify denominators for value-based payment programs has important implications for the patient characteristics and outcomes of the populations. As national and local quality initiatives mature, an emphasis on ICD-10 codes to define AMI cohorts would better represent type 1 myocardial infarction patients.
BACKGROUND: Among Medicare value-based payment programs for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program uses International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes to identify the program denominator, while the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced program uses diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). The extent to which these programs target similar patients, whether they target the intended population (type 1 myocardial infarction), and whether outcomes are comparable between cohorts is not known. METHODS: In a retrospective study of 2176 patients hospitalized in an integrated health system, a cohort of patients assigned a principal ICD-10 diagnosis of AMI and a cohort of patients assigned an AMI DRG were compared according to patient-level agreement and outcomes such as mortality and readmission. RESULTS: One thousand nine hundred thirty-five patients were included in the ICD-10 cohort compared with 662 patients in the DRG cohort. Only 421 patients were included in both AMI cohorts (19.3% agreement). DRG cohort patients were older (70 versus 65 years, P<0.001), more often female (48% versus 30%, P<0.001), and had higher rates of heart failure (52% versus 33%, P<0.001) and kidney disease (42% versus 25%, P<0.001). Comparing outcomes, the DRG cohort had significantly higher unadjusted rates of 30-day mortality (6.6% versus 2.5%, P<0.001), 1-year mortality (21% versus 8%, P<0.001), and 90-day readmission (26% versus 19%, P=0.006) than the ICD-10 cohort. Two observations help explain these differences: 61% of ICD-10 cohort patients were assigned procedural DRGs for revascularization instead of an AMI DRG, and type 1 myocardial infarction patients made up a smaller proportion of the DRG cohort (34%) than the ICD-10 cohort (78%). CONCLUSIONS: The method used to identify denominators for value-based payment programs has important implications for the patient characteristics and outcomes of the populations. As national and local quality initiatives mature, an emphasis on ICD-10 codes to define AMI cohorts would better represent type 1 myocardial infarction patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
International Classification of Diseases; Medicare; diagnosis-related groups; heart failure; myocardial infarction
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Paul Muntner; Alvaro Alonso; Marcio S Bittencourt; Clifton W Callaway; April P Carson; Alanna M Chamberlain; Alexander R Chang; Susan Cheng; Sandeep R Das; Francesca N Delling; Luc Djousse; Mitchell S V Elkind; Jane F Ferguson; Myriam Fornage; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Sadiya S Khan; Brett M Kissela; Kristen L Knutson; Tak W Kwan; Daniel T Lackland; Tené T Lewis; Judith H Lichtman; Chris T Longenecker; Matthew Shane Loop; Pamela L Lutsey; Seth S Martin; Kunihiro Matsushita; Andrew E Moran; Michael E Mussolino; Martin O'Flaherty; Ambarish Pandey; Amanda M Perak; Wayne D Rosamond; Gregory A Roth; Uchechukwu K A Sampson; Gary M Satou; Emily B Schroeder; Svati H Shah; Nicole L Spartano; Andrew Stokes; David L Tirschwell; Connie W Tsao; Mintu P Turakhia; Lisa B VanWagner; John T Wilkins; Sally S Wong; Salim S Virani Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kristian Thygesen; Joseph S Alpert; Allan S Jaffe; Bernard R Chaitman; Jeroen J Bax; David A Morrow; Harvey D White Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ankur Gupta; Larry A Allen; Deepak L Bhatt; Margueritte Cox; Adam D DeVore; Paul A Heidenreich; Adrian F Hernandez; Eric D Peterson; Roland A Matsouaka; Clyde W Yancy; Gregg C Fonarow Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Jorge Díaz-Garzón; Yader Sandoval; Stephen W Smith; Sara Love; Karen Schulz; Sarah E Thordsen; Benjamin K Johnson; Brian Driver; Katherine Jacoby; Michelle D Carlson; Kenneth W Dodd; Johanna Moore; Nathaniel L Scott; Charles A Bruen; Ryan Hatch; Fred S Apple Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Kristina Lambrakis; John K French; Ian A Scott; Tom Briffa; David Brieger; Michael E Farkouh; Harvey White; Anthony Ming-Yu Chuang; Kathryn Tiver; Stephen Quinn; Billingsley Kaambwa; Matthew Horsfall; Erin Morton; Derek P Chew Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Cian McCarthy; Sean Murphy; Joshua A Cohen; Saad Rehman; Maeve Jones-O'Connor; David S Olshan; Avinainder Singh; Muthiah Vaduganathan; James L Januzzi; Jason H Wasfy Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Harvey D White; Ph Gabriel Steg; Michael Szarek; Deepak L Bhatt; Vera A Bittner; Rafael Diaz; Jay M Edelberg; Andrejs Erglis; Shaun G Goodman; Corinne Hanotin; Robert A Harrington; J Wouter Jukema; Renato D Lopes; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Angele Moryusef; Robert Pordy; Matthew T Roe; Piyamitr Sritara; Pierluigi Tricoci; Andreas M Zeiher; Gregory G Schwartz Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 29.983