The
Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), enacted as part of the
Affordable Care Act, imposes penalties against hospitals that have
higher-than-expected rates of readmissions of patients with certain conditions.
However, HRRP defined readmissions solely as inpatient
hospital readmissions. A new study finds that early studies overstated
the reduction in hospital readmissions that resulted from HRRP and that, in
fact, observation stays accounted for 40% of the reductions. Approximately 18%
of Medicare beneficiaries “now complete their hospital treatment in
observation” and patients in observation are “clinically indistinguishable from
short inpatient admissions.”
An
invited commentary on the study calls for “retirement”
of HRRP. It observes that HRRP does not include “emergency department (ED)
treat-and-release encounters or observation stays,” both of which increased
following implementation of HRRP. The commentary also observes that HRRP “has
been incredibly regressive, disproportionately penalizing safety-net hospitals
that care for low-income, minoritized, and marginalized populations.” The
COVID-19 pandemic only worsened these regressive effects. Finally, the
commentary reports front-line clinicians’ concerns that “incentives to avoid
readmissions may lead to potential inappropriate management of higher-risk
patients with chronic conditions, such as heart failure, in the outpatient
rather than inpatient setting.” The commentary concludes that HRRP, at best,
had “no meaningful effect” on patients’ return to the hospital and, at worst,
the program “has unfairly penalized hospitals caring for the most vulnerable
populations in our country and potentially resulted in patient harm.”
No comments:
Post a Comment