Department of Health Services Administration, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Health Professions, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Health Serv Res. 2023 Feb;58(1):51-59. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13969. Epub 2022 Mar 19.
To examine the limitations of peer grouping and associated challenges measuring social risk in Medicare's Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP). Under peer grouping, hospitals are divided into quintiles based on the proportion of a hospital's Medicare inpatients with Medicaid ("dual share"). This approach was implemented to address concerns that the HRRP unfairly penalized hospitals that disproportionately serve disadvantaged patients.
Public data on hospitals in the HRRP.
We examined the relationship between hospital dual share and readmission rates within peer groups; changes in hospitals' peer group assignments, readmission rates, and penalties; and the relationship between state Medicaid eligibility rules and peer groups.
Public data on hospital characteristics and readmission rates for 3119 hospitals from 2019 to 2020.
The proportion of dual inpatients among hospitals of the same peer group varied by as much as 69 percentage points (ppt). Within peer groups, a one ppt increase in dual share was associated with a 0.01 ppt increase in the difference from the median readmission rate (p < 0.001). From 2019 to 2020, 8.8% of hospitals switched peer groups. Compared to hospitals that did not switch, those moving to a lower peer group had a higher mean penalty in 2020 (0.096 ppt; p = 0.006); those moving to a higher group had a lower mean penalty (-0.06 ppt; p = 0.079). However, changes in penalties did not correspond to changes in readmission rates. Hospitals in states with higher Medicaid income eligibility limits were more likely to be in higher peer groups.
Peer grouping is limited in the extent to which it accounts for differences in hospitals' patient populations, and it may not fully insulate hospitals from penalties linked to changes in patient mix. These problems arise from the construction of peer groups and the measure of social risk used to define them.
研究同伴分组的局限性以及医疗保险医院再入院率降低计划(HRRP)中衡量社会风险所面临的挑战。根据同伴分组,医院根据医院 Medicare 住院患者中 Medicaid(“双重份额”)的比例被分为五组。这种方法的实施是为了解决 HRRP 不公平地惩罚服务劣势患者比例过高的医院的担忧。
HRRP 中有关医院的公共数据。
我们研究了医院双重份额与同组内再入院率之间的关系;医院同伴组分配、再入院率和处罚的变化;以及州 Medicaid 资格规则与同伴组之间的关系。
2019 年至 2020 年 3119 家医院的医院特征和再入院率的公共数据。
同一同伴组内医院的双重住院患者比例相差高达 69 个百分点(ppt)。在同伴组内,双重份额增加 1 ppt 与中位数再入院率的差异增加 0.01 ppt 相关(p<0.001)。从 2019 年到 2020 年,有 8.8%的医院改变了同伴组。与未发生变化的医院相比,转移到较低同伴组的医院在 2020 年的平均罚款更高(0.096 ppt;p=0.006);转移到较高组的医院的平均罚款更低(-0.06 ppt;p=0.079)。然而,处罚的变化与再入院率的变化并不对应。 Medicaid 收入资格限制较高的州的医院更有可能被分到更高的同伴组。
同伴分组在多大程度上可以解释医院患者群体的差异是有限的,并且它可能无法使医院完全免受与患者构成变化相关的处罚。这些问题源于同伴组的构建和用于定义社会风险的措施。