ADVERTISEMENT

Returns to Emergency Department, Observation, or Inpatient Care Within 30 Days After Hospitalization in 4 States, 2009 and 2010 Versus 2013 and 2014

Journal of Hospital Medicine 13(5). 2018 May;296-303. Published online first November 22, 2017 | 10.12788/jhm.2883

BACKGROUND: Nationally, readmissions have declined for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF) and risen slightly for pneumonia, but less is known about returns to the hospital for observation stays and emergency department (ED) visits. Objective: To describe trends in rates of 30-day, all-cause, unplanned returns to the hospital, including returns for observation stays and ED visits. Design: By using Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project data, we compared 210,007 index hospitalizations in 2009 and 2010 with 212,833 matched hospitalizations in 2013 and 2014. Setting: Two hundred and one hospitals in Georgia, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Patients: Adults with private insurance, Medicaid, or no insurance and seniors with Medicare who were hospitalized for AMI, HF, and pneumonia. Measurements: Thirty-day hospital return rates for inpatient, observation, and ED visits. RESULTS: Return rates remained stable among adults with private insurance (15.1% vs 15.3%; P = 0.45) and declined modestly among seniors with Medicare (25.3% vs 25.0%; P = 0.04). Increases in observation and ED visits coincided with declines in readmissions (8.9% vs 8.2% for private insurance and 18.3% vs 16.9% for Medicare, both P ≤ 0.001). Return rates rose among patients with Medicaid (31.0% vs 32.1%; P = 0.04) and the uninsured (18.8% vs 20.1%; P = 0.004). Readmissions remained stable (18.7% for Medicaid and 9.5% for uninsured patients, both P > 0.75) while observation and ED visits increased. CONCLUSIONS: Total returns to the hospital are stable or rising, likely because of growth in observation and ED visits. Hospitalists’ efforts to improve the quality and value of hospital care should consider observation and ED care.

© 2017 Society of Hospital Medicine

Given the frequency, potential preventability, and costs associated with hospital readmissions, reducing readmissions is a priority in efforts to improve the quality and value of healthcare.1,2 State and national bodies have created diverse initiatives to facilitate improvements in hospital discharge practices and reduce 30-day readmission rates across payers.3-5 For example, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement have published tools for improving discharge practices.6,7 Medicare instituted financial penalties for hospitals with higher-than-expected readmission rates for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia in 2012, while private payers and Medicaid programs have established their own policies.8-13 Furthermore, private payers and Medicaid programs shifted toward capitated and value-based reimbursement models in which readmissions lead to financial losses for hospitals.14,15 Accordingly, hospitals have implemented diverse interventions to reduce readmissions.16,17 From 2009 to 2013, 30-day readmissions declined among privately insured adults (from 12.4% to 11.7%), Medicare patients (from 22.0% to 20.0%), and uninsured individuals (11.5% to 11.0%) but climbed among patients with Medicaid (from 19.8% to 20.5%) after index admissions for AMI, HF, pneumonia, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.18

To date, research, policies, and quality improvement interventions have largely focused on improvements to one aspect of the system of care—that provided in the inpatient setting—among older adults with Medicare. Yet, inpatient readmissions may underestimate how often patients return to the hospital because patients can be placed under observation or stabilized and discharged from the emergency department (ED) instead of being readmitted. Observation and ED visits are less costly to payers than inpatient admissions.19 Thus, information about utilization of inpatient, observation, and ED visits within 30 days of hospital discharge may be more informative than inpatient readmissions alone. However, little is known about trends in returns to the hospital for observation and ED visits and whether such trends vary by payer.

Our objective was to assess whether changes have occurred in rates of total 30-day, all-cause, unplanned returns to the hospital among adults with index admissions for AMI, HF, and pneumonia in which returns to the hospital included inpatient readmissions, observation visits, and ED visits. We also assessed whether changes in the rate of hospital inpatient readmissions coincided with changes in rates of returns for ED or observation visits. To examine the effects of readmission policies implemented by diverse payers and broad changes to the health system following the Affordable Care Act, we compared data from 201 hospitals in 4 states in 2009 and 2010 with data from the same hospitals for 2013 and 2014.

METHODS

Data Sources, Populations, and Study Variables

We used Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) State Inpatient Databases, State Emergency Department Databases, and State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases from Georgia, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Tennessee. These states comprise 7% of the US population and were the only states with data that included all observation and ED visits as well as encrypted patient identification numbers that permitted linkage across facilities and hospitals.20

Index admissions for patients aged 18 years and older were eligible if they occurred at nonfederal general medical/surgical hospitals (excluding critical access hospitals) that had at least 1 index admission per target condition per year and at least 5 inpatient, observation, and ED visits for any condition per year.

We classified patients into the following 4 populations by age and insurance coverage: 18 to 64 years with private insurance, 65 years and older with Medicare (excluding younger adults with Medicare), 18 to 64 years with Medicaid, and 18 to 64 years without insurance. We identified patients aged 65 years and older with Medicare by using the primary or secondary expected payer for the index admission. This group included patients who were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. If Medicare was not the primary or secondary payer, we used the primary payer to identify Medicaid, privately insured, and uninsured patients aged 18 to 64 years. None of the states expanded Medicaid coverage during the years studied.

The primary outcome of interest was the rate of having 1 or more all-cause, unplanned return(s) to an acute care hospital within 30 days of discharge after an index admission for AMI, HF, and pneumonia as defined by a modified version of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ readmission metrics.21,22 We examined total return rates as well as rates for inpatient, observation, and ED care. We also examined the leading diagnoses associated with returns to the hospital. For each index admission, we included only 1 return visit, giving priority to inpatient readmissions, then observation visits, and then ED visits.

The HCUP databases are consistent with the definition of limited data sets under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule and contain no direct patient identifiers. The AHRQ Institutional Review Board considers research using HCUP data to have exempt status.

Online-Only Materials

Attachment
Size