Comparing 2 methods of assessing 30-day readmissions: what is the impact on hospital profiling in the veterans health administration?

Mull HJ, Chen Q, O'Brien WJ, Shwartz M, Borzecki AM, Hanchate A, Rosen AK. Comparing 2 methods of assessing 30-day readmissions: what is the impact on hospital profiling in the veterans health administration? Medical care. 2013 Jul 1; 51(7):589-96.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• IIR 09-369 – Validating and Classifying VA Readmissions For Quality Assessment and Improvement

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) all-cause readmission measure and the 3M Health Information System Division Potentially Preventable Readmissions (PPR) measure are both used for public reporting. These 2 methods have not been directly compared in terms of how they identify high-performing and low-performing hospitals. OBJECTIVES: To examine how consistently the CMS and PPR methods identify performance outliers, and explore how the PPR preventability component impacts hospital readmission rates, public reporting on CMS' Hospital Compare website, and pay-for-performance under CMS' Hospital Readmission Reduction Program for 3 conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia). METHODS: We applied the CMS all-cause model and the PPR software to VA administrative data to calculate 30-day observed FY08-10 VA hospital readmission rates and hospital profiles. We then tested the effect of preventability on hospital readmission rates and outlier identification for reporting and pay-for-performance by replacing the dependent variable in the CMS all-cause model (Yes/No readmission) with the dichotomous PPR outcome (Yes/No preventable readmission). RESULTS: The CMS and PPR methods had moderate correlations in readmission rates for each condition. After controlling for all methodological differences but preventability, correlations increased to > 90%. The assessment of preventability yielded different outlier results for public reporting in 7% of hospitals; for 30% of hospitals there would be an impact on Hospital Readmission Reduction Program reimbursement rates. CONCLUSIONS: Despite uncertainty over which readmission measure is superior in evaluating hospital performance, we confirmed that there are differences in CMS-generated and PPR-generated hospital profiles for reporting and pay-for-performance, because of methodological differences and the PPR's preventability component.