The Promise for Reducing Healthcare Cost with Predictive Model: An Analysis with Quantized Evaluation Metric on Readmission.

Quality of care data has gained transparency captured through various measurements and reporting. Readmission measure is especially related to unfavorable patient outcomes that directly bends the curve of healthcare cost. Under the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program, payments to hospitals were reduced for those with excessive 30-day rehospitalization rates. These penalties have intensified efforts from hospital stakeholders to implement strategies to reduce readmission rates. One of the key strategies is the deployment of predictive analytics stratified by patient population. The recent research in readmission model is focused on making its prediction more accurate. As cost-saving improvements through artificial intelligent-based health solutions are expected, the broad economic impact of such digital tool remains unknown. Meanwhile, reducing readmission rate is associated with increased operating expenses due to targeted interventions. The increase in operating margin can surpass native readmission cost. In this paper, we propose a quantized evaluation metric to provide a methodological mean in assessing whether a predictive model represents cost-effective way of delivering healthcare. Herein, we evaluate the impact machine learning has had on transitional care and readmission with proposed metric. The final model was estimated to produce net healthcare savings at over $1 million given a 50% rate of successfully preventing a readmission.

1. Introduction

The decision-making process in healthcare is much more complex in reality, requiring significant number of considerations and research before arriving at best interventions that provide high-quality care. Current shared decision-making model often involves stakeholders from multiple levels, such as care providers, policy makers, and patients. Different opinions in arriving appropriate course of action have been the subject of controversy in decision-making. The challenge is further complicated by medical complexity [1, 2] and exponentially expanding clinical knowledge [3]. The use of predictive models is likely to improve clinical decision process and achieve better outcome without increasing costs.

Predictive modeling is used to identify patients at high risk of developing certain conditions. Intervention can then be implemented to mitigate the risk, thus preventing them from becoming high cost. Various predictive models have been devised to aid clinical decision-making [4-7]. Modeling tool that is tailored to certain conditions or health institutions may be more useful, as there exists no single model that generally addresses all use cases [8]. Readmission is a clinical outcome that requires modeling to identify likelihood of a patient gets readmitted after previous discharge. Readmission is problematic especially in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) where it is associated with high risk of in-hospital mortality and incurs more cost [9]. Authorities like the Centre for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) consider readmission rate as a proxy to measure quality of care since it could be due to improper treatment or premature discharge [10]. Prediction of readmission risk can support decision on whether a patient is ready for discharge or needs further interventions.

Different time frames have been employed for readmission analysis in medical literature. However, most researchers typically refer to hospital admissions within 30 days following the initial discharge [11]. The implementation of Hospital Readmission Reduction Program by CMS since 2012 imposed financial penalties to hospitals with excessive readmission rate. Penalties are levied on hospitals depending on their performance with respect to readmission rate. Such penalties cost healthcare providers an amount of over $500 million annually, or $200k per hospital [12, 13]. Thus, it is advantageous for hospitals to conduct advance care planning during patient stays and discharge in contributing to the efforts of reducing readmission rate.

Recent exponential growth in machine learning (ML) driven by improved computing power and more advanced algorithms allows more accurate prediction not only in clinical domain, but also in other domains [14-16]. With the aforementioned predictive modeling, ML has been used as a mean of identification of patients at higher risk for hospital readmission. Predictive models can be broadly classified into three main categories in ML: (1) statistical learning, (2) classical ML, and (3) neural networks. The two key statistical prediction methods are logistic regression (LR) and survival analysis. Traditional regression analysis is usually constructed to study the effects of each clinical predictor/variable on the event of interest such as readmission. Survival model is the method of choice when the objective is to analyze time to readmission by relating features to the time that passes before readmission occurs. Unlike traditional statistical learning, classical ML has the ability of handling high dimensional datasets, especially when the number of features is more than the sample size. Examples are Naive Bayes (NB), Support Vector Machines (SVM), and tree-based approach. As classical ML setting requires extensive feature derivation and engineering, the use of neural networks for readmission modeling has just emerged in recent year. Neural network is a promising ML tool that tries to mimic the human brain, which has the capability to process and learn complex data and solve complicated tasks based on the input. Multilayer perceptron, recurrent neural network (RNN), and convolutional neural network (CNN) are three major deep learning related models being applied in structured data modeling. Despite the emergence of more advanced predictive model, simple scoring model based on clinical knowledge remains as a preferable tool for most of the healthcare providers. LACE and HOSPITAL models have been proven to work pretty well in readmission prediction [17, 18]. For any score-based model, higher score is directly proportional to higher risk of readmission. A specific threshold value can be set where patients with risk scores over this threshold are flagged as “high risk.” The major concern associated with its clinical utility is model's applicability to another study population needs to be validated at different cutoff score that leads to best discrimination.

2. Related Works

The ability of predictive models to identify high-risk individuals among patient populations has been determined through performance analysis. In order to evaluate the performance of learning approach, models or algorithms are often assessed using the area under the curve receiver operating characteristic (AUC). This test quantifies a model's ability to distinguish between two classes, that is, “readmission” versus “no readmission.” If the confidence of distinguishing a positive event from population is 50%, the AUC is 0.5, which indicates a very poor model. A good model is indicated by AUC value close to 1.

Many models have been developed based on clinical data to predict risk of readmission. The LACE index predicts the risk of nonelective readmission or death within 30 days after discharge from a hospital based on length of stay, acuity of admission, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and the number of emergency visits made by a patient during the previous 6 months [19]. Using AUC as evaluation metric, the benchmark score for the original article was 0.68. Predictive power of LACE score is however varied greatly as different hospitals have different socioeconomical and patient characteristics. Few researchers have achieved an AUC of above 0.7 [20]; some papers report results as low as <0.6 [21, 22]. HOSPITAL score is another similar readmission scoring system with internally validated AUC of 0.71 [23]. Both LACE and HOSPITAL score require validation when applied to different clinical settings, as there is no single model that performs well in all the scenarios, and inconsistent performance was reported across multiple studies.

A second expanding readmission research area uses ML models tailored to each health institution. LR is the most used linear classifier that models the probability of readmission. Being a tool that is easy to use and implement, LR and other advanced ML models could have comparable performance. Some researchers found no significant differences in terms of AUC of models developed using regression and ML [24, 25]. SVM is another classifier, which attempts to find decision boundaries that maximize classification margins. Recent SVM models have mostly reported moderate prediction performance (AUC ≤ 0.7) [17, 26, 27]. Tree-based models are the most frequently used (∼77%) classification techniques among those using ML for prediction [11]. Decision trees have also been successfully shown to perform similarly or slightly better than other prediction techniques [28, 29]. NB is simple probabilistic classifier that is known to be able to classify an instance extremely fast. Using unstructured data as training source, researchers have observed good results for predicting readmission with NB [30]. Wolff and Graña [26] recommended the use of NB as the most robust prediction model for their pediatric readmission prediction.

The potential of deep neural network (DNN) to model readmission has been extensively explored in recent years [31, 32]. Wang and Cui [33] proposed the use of CNN to automatically learn features, and the AUC of the proposed model was 0.70. Rajkomar and Oren [18] used patients' entire raw electronic medical records (EMR) for prediction and their models achieved good accuracy (AUC 0.75–0.76). Min and Yu [17] demonstrated that the state-of-the-art deep learning models fail to improve prediction accuracy, with 0.65 being the best AUC. Huang and Altosaar [27] developed a deep learning model that processes clinical notes and predicts the associated risk score of readmissions (AUC = 0.694 for RNN). Without relevant data, more complicated learning algorithms may not outperform traditional simple model.

Existing studies have reported clinical prediction performance with AUC. However, one important question remains unanswered by these prior works. AUC metric may be less meaningful and end users might find it to be unclear on how to translate these performance benefits into cost and resource allocation. While prior research proved prediction improvement over chance, a more relevant concern is clinical impact of predictive models to healthcare providers: what is the cost-effectiveness of predictive model being applied to clinical setting, and does the model help to reduce healthcare cost?

To address such research questions, we leveraged both clinical notes and predictive models for modeling all-cause 30-day readmission. We proposed a quantized evaluation metric that could assist healthcare providers in comparing cost before and after model implementation, as well as guiding decision-making particularly on optimizing hospital resources in efforts to reduce readmission rate.

3. Methods

3.1. Data

The quantity and quality of data source determine the robustness of predictive model. MIMIC-III is a publicly available real-world EMR repository of critical care cohort [34]. Unstructured clinical notes were used as a primary data, due to the ease of extraction from EMR system. Figure 1 illustrates the patient selection process. Of 58,976 distinct patient admissions, 7,863 were admissions pertaining to the patient's birth, 5,792 admissions were inpatient hospital deaths, and 1,441 were admissions without clinical notes. The final cohort consists of 43,880 (∼75%) inpatient stays with patients discharged alive from hospital. Of selected inpatient stays, 2,971 (∼7%) were readmitted within 30 days.

Figure 1

Study population selection flowchart.

3.2. Predictive Model

The primary outcome of this study was all-cause unplanned hospital readmission within 30 days of index admission. Ground truth label for all instances was obtained by computing the binary readmit label associated with each hospital admission. Preparing clinical notes to be analyzable and predictable requires a combination of text representation and prediction model. Our previous work [35, 36] showed that Word2vec embeddings with CNN and ensemble model of CNN with LACE index work well for predictive tasks on MIMIC-III clinical notes. After exploring several architectures, we composed CNN with a 1D shallow network structure that achieved the highest AUC. Therefore, the final model consists of an embedding layer initialized with pretrained Word2vec, a CNN layer with 256 hidden units, and a dense output label sigmoid. The filter size of 5 produces the best result for CNN with a max pooling layer right after the convolution structure. CNN was trained for 25 epochs with a batch size of 64 in Keras. Both models were trained on 80% of data and the remaining 20% were withheld for validation and testing, respectively.

3.3. Model Evaluation

The most common evaluation metric of binary classification performance is AUC. Another common measure is sensitivity, which indicates the ability of model to detect readmission (proportion of readmission predicted as True). The use of AUC as a performance evaluation metric has shown inconsistent results reported by researchers [11]. Some researchers highlighted the inappropriate use of AUC to evaluate the performance of classification systems [37]. Cost as a performance metric may offer more meaningful insights. Thus, we evaluated cost effectiveness of predictive models at two time points: (1) during hospitalization and (2) at discharge as depicted in Figure 2. This is crucial as after readmission prediction, implementation of both pre- and postdischarge interventions is needed to reduce readmission rate.

Figure 2

The predictive model is built for two time points: during hospitalization and at discharge.

3.4. Cost as Performance Metric

We proposed a quantized evaluation metric to identify the economic benefits that could be generated by predictive models for selecting patients for interventions based on readmission risk. Given a set of N patients, it is not possible to implement interventions on all patients with predicted positive readmission. Thus, small subset of study population should be chosen for intervention targeting. Before computation of cost can be performed, every patient must have a probability score generated from the model, and the score is ranked from 0 to 1 in that particular population. There are 3 factors associated with the effort to maximize cost savings with optimal intervention threshold: (1) readmission cost, (2) expected intervention cost, and (3) effectiveness of intervention (intervention might not be effective to prevent readmission). The expected savings after model implementation can be calculated as follows:where C is the average readmission cost per patient, N is the number of actual readmission before model implementation, λ is the false negative prediction, N is the number of patients of whom predicted positive, ρ is intervention threshold, and C represents intervention cost.

After the classification threshold for intervention can be decided, we took into consideration the intervention success rate/response rate, that is, the rate of successfully preventing a readmission after applying intervention to a patient predicted as high risk. For example, the response rate of 50% means another 50% of patients who underwent interventions would still be readmitted within 30 days. Thus, the net saving can be calculated using the following equations:where N is the number of true positive, δ  is the intervention success rate, and N+N is the number of predicted positives.

4. Results

Our previous studies proved that the predictive model, that is, CNN, with the combination of LACE leads to very accurate predictions of 30-day readmissions both during hospitalization and at discharge [35, 36]. After identifying high-risk patients accurately, healthcare providers need to plan on the cost-effective interventions based on the discrimination threshold that maximize the projected cost saving.

For the purpose of cost simulation, the estimation of actual values might be difficult; thus, we adopted the values established in past literature for cost calculation in US dollar ($). Readmission cost per patient was $9655, and intervention cost per patient was $1500 [38]. Two better performing models, CNN, CNN + LACE, in our prior research were chosen to identify an optimal intervention threshold with metric in Equation (1). Figure 3 evaluates the economic benefits that could be produced by the two models computed for each classification threshold (with 0.05 separation). When using convention threshold, that is, 0.5 for discriminating high-risk instance, CNN + LACE did not mark superior performance over ML model alone. Only when threshold was at 0.65, positive cost reduction rose slowly as the threshold rose to a higher value. There was no large turbulence in the AUC performance for both prediction models. The CNN + LACE model exceeded CNN in cost reduction at the threshold of 0.8. The second and third better results were obtained at the threshold of 0.85 and 0.90. CNN demonstrated the maximum savings at $16.9 million; however, targeting patients with probability score of 0.95 and above can barely reduce readmission rate. This is undesirable as the aim for most of the hospitals is to curb the increased readmission rate.

Figure 3

The projected saving values as a function of classification threshold for CNN versus CNN + LACE models for at-discharge prediction. AUC difference indicates the performance of CNN + LACE against CNN model alone.

At-discharge model offers few opportunities to reduce the chance of readmission because the target patient might have already been discharged. Preventive measure during hospitalization holds valuable potential for mitigating readmission risk. Thus, identifying high-risk readmission early during hospitalization is crucial. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate that ensemble classification selected more correctly identified patients for readmission intervention at the threshold ≤0.8, as proven by better AUC and higher cost reduction. At the 0.5 cutoff, CNN + LACE demonstrated lesser economic benefits compared to CNN. Notably, it is interesting to find out that using 0.85 as threshold, the ensemble model had an AUC that is 0.01 lower, but it generated higher saving than CNN model alone.

Figure 4

The projected saving values as a function of classification threshold for CNN versus CNN + LACE models for during hospitalization prediction. AUC difference indicates the performance of CNN + LACE against CNN model alone.

After estimation of cost reduction, the intervention cost required to achieve targeted saving and model's impact on readmission rate remains unknown. Figure 5 shows the projected intervention cost and readmission rate, calculated by changing the number of patients for interventions with the classification threshold. Assumption was made that intervention could successfully prevent 50% of readmissions by applying special care to patients who would be readmitted within 30 days. The decline trend in intervention cost is in line with the findings shown in Figure 3, as lesser intervention cost corresponds to greater savings. The series of line chart represents the readmission rate after implementation of predictive model. The ensemble model was shown to have contributed to a lower readmission rate for the threshold of <0.9. This could be explained by the ability of CNN + LACE model in identifying higher number of true positive compared to CNN.

Figure 5

The projected intervention cost over various discrimination threshold for CNN vs. CNN + LACE at-discharge models.

Figure 6 illustrates results on the intervention cost required during early admission. Unlike findings presented in Figure 5, readmission rate is higher for the ensemble model, despite the fact that the model has the highest incremental AUC at the threshold of 0.7, 0.75, and 0.80. This suggests that although AUC is commonly used as metrics to measure classification performance, readmission prediction task needs to be supplemented by objective/use case of model that depends on different proportion of readmission/intervention cost, as well as the balance between false positive and false negatives. In addition, it is important to identify a threshold that matches the hospital's resources for targeted interventions. This also affects the decision to choose which model to put into production.

Figure 6

The projected intervention cost over various discrimination threshold for CNN vs. CNN + LACE during hospitalization models.

We also looked at final net savings by setting the number of intervention enrollees at 0.8 classification threshold. The metrics in equations (2) and (3) calculate the estimated cost considering various possibilities of successfully preventing a readmission. Table 1 shows the maximum net savings from readmission reduction considering the intervention success rate from 10% to 100%. When evaluating from CNN perspective, we need to achieve a 60% response rate to ensure a positive saving. The CNN + LACE was shown to be able to maintain positive saving at a lower response rate 50%.

Table 1

Net savings from readmission reduction by selecting patients for predischarge intervention at different success rates.

Intervention success rate (%)	CNN net saving, $	CNN + LACE net saving, $
10	−9,847,474	−7,982,250
20	−7,441,448	−5,596,499
30	−5,035,422	−3,210,749
40	−2,629,396	−824,998
50	−223,370	1,560,753
60	2,182,656	3,946,503
70	4,588,682	6,332,254
80	6,994,708	8,718,004
90	9,400,734	11,103,755
100	11,806,760	13,489,505

Another analysis was carried out with intervention implemented after discharge. We reported the result of cost saving in Table 2. We can find that if healthcare providers were able to prevent as much readmission through interventions, the more savings can be generated, provided a minimum response rate of 50% is achieved for both models. Extra 2.5 mil of saving can be projected with every increase in the success rate by 10%. On the other hand, ensemble of CNN and LACE was expected to contribute to higher net saving than single classifier. This proves that it is still useful to readmission prediction task.

Table 2

Net savings from readmission reduction by selecting patients for postdischarge intervention at different success rates.

Intervention success rate (%)	CNN net saving, $	CNN + LACE net saving, $
10	−9,346,354	−9,401,820
20	−6,929,707	−6,958,139
30	−4,513,061	−4,514,459
40	−2,096,414	−2,070,778
50	320,233	372,903
60	2,736,879	2,816,583
70	5,153,526	5,260,264
80	7,570,172	7,703,944
90	9,986,819	10,147,625
100	12,403,465	12,591,305

5. Discussion

This was a retrospective study which applied machine learning to unstructured clinical prose from EMR to construct a risk prediction model for 30-day readmission. As most studies used AUC evaluation metrics, this metric only provides theoretical mean of how well a model performs. To overcome such challenge, our proposed metric evaluates model's impact on the financial performance and offers an analysis metric that is more meaningful to hospital management.

Readmission prediction has been challenging. Artetxe and Beristain [11] found that a direct comparison on models across different studies with AUC is challenging because the performance of the models varies greatly with the target population. Another more recent review focused on the use of EMR for the development of risk prediction model [25]. In their reported outcome, most models failed to interpret with reasonable diagnostic test other than AUC or clinical usefulness of the proposed models. We were able to identify only two readmission studies which reported cost evaluation results. Jamei and Nisnevich [39] showed the highest projected saving values of $750k at 20% intervention success rate. However, the ratio of readmission to intervention cost was 20, as compared to 6.5 used in this study. Huge ratio could have potentially overestimated the actual cost saving. With similar ratio as in this study, Goals and Shibahara [38] proposed a deep learning technique and the model demonstrated net savings at 3.4 million at 50% intervention success rate.

To the best of our knowledge, there is no study that has specifically addressed the clinical impact of developed models on MIMIC dataset; however, there are quite a number of readmission models [18, 27, 40–43]. While applying risk models can help to identify patients who would benefit most from clinical interventions, a better performing model does not necessarily contribute much to cost saving. Therefore, two models that produced the same AUC may have different cost potentially. This is due to the fact that misclassification costs associated with false positive and false negative are different. This is proven in Figures 3 and 4 where classifier with better AUC is not necessarily resulting in greater cost reduction. The CNN + LACE model obtained a slight lower AUC but generated more savings at specific classification threshold. This suggests that the proportion of false positive and false negative prediction is more important than AUC. As a means of comparing models associated with these two false predictions, the tradeoff between precision and recall could be a better metric. In Figure 7, we display precision-recall curve for during hospitalization and at-discharge models. The impact on overall cost reduction obtained from Tables 1 and 2 is $1.5 million and $350k for the two predictions, respectively (CNN + LACE). Indeed, model associated with early prediction showed larger improvement in terms of the area under the precision recall curve in Figure 7.

Figure 7

Precision-recall curve for CNN and CNN + LACE models at prediction (a) during hospitalization for predischarge intervention and (b) at discharge for postdischarge intervention.

A fair comparison of our results with existing literature is not feasible, because no previous study has considered cost as evaluation metric on MIMIC population. The cost estimation was done based on models developed in our prior research [36]. The primary factor that influences how much healthcare cost can be saved is definitely the effectiveness or success rate of intervention. We need to understand that a number of patients will still need hospital readmission even after intervention. However, increasing the intervention success rate has a positive impact on net cost saving. To maintain positive benefit, we showed that intervention success rate must be kept at least 50%. Predischarge intervention was believed to be able to contribute greater cost benefit compared to at-discharge model. An approximate 1.5 million of healthcare cost could potentially be saved at the current ratio of readmission to intervention cost, provided a 50% success rate is achieved for in-hospital intervention. Higher ratio of readmission to intervention cost would generate more cost saving.

Our proposed metric hints an opportunity to improve model evaluation in clinical settings by presenting potential healthcare cost saving together with intervention cost and model's impact on readmission rate. By including all possible factors that affect the economical benefit, strength of this study is the generalizability of the metric to encounter any other readmission predictive models. We also noted several limitations in considering our results. First, the metric considers only clinical factors into cost analysis. Other nonclinical factors such as hiring of ML expert and procurement of workstation remain to be established. Second, this study was conducted on EMR data from MIMIC; future works should consider national level hospital admissions to build a more comprehensive analysis. Still, this proposed metric can still be applied to carry out predictive modeling evaluation on clinical data from completely new entities.

6. Conclusion

The value of this study is its ability to evaluate clinical usefulness of readmission risk prediction model regardless of type of modeling technique. This enables healthcare providers and hospital management to plan targeted interventions at their budget and improve overall patient outcomes, which is important in curbing increased readmission rate and healthcare cost. Our evaluation metric has also shown that simply improving predictive model is often not sufficient as traditional way of measuring performance does not necessarily bring positive impact on cost reduction. Integrating cost into model evaluation has shown a significant reduction in costs by selecting patients who will benefit most from intervention without causing extra burden on healthcare resources, intervention success rate thus becoming the key to be monitored to ensure positive impact of adopting predictive modeling into clinical settings. It is also important for care teams to evaluate which of the false predictions can be more detrimental: false positive or negative. The cost ratio between these two predictions and between readmission and intervention determines the final benefits of any classification system.