Cited by 61Healthcare Policy and ManagementHealthcare Quality and ManagementPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Association of Stratification by Dual Enrollment Status With Financial Penalties in the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program

Open access
Joynt Maddox, Karen E., Reidhead, Mat, Qi, Andrew C., Nerenz, David R.·2019·JAMA Internal Medicine

Abstract

Importance: Beginning in fiscal year 2019, Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) stratifies hospitals into 5 peer groups based on the proportion of each hospital's patient population that is dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. The effect of this policy change is largely unknown. Objective: To identify hospital and state characteristics associated with changes in HRRP-related performance and penalties after stratification. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional analysis was performed of all 3049 hospitals participating in the HRRP in fiscal years 2018 and 2019, using publicly available data on hospital penalties, merged with information on hospital characteristics and state Medicaid eligibility cutoffs. Exposures: The HRRP, under the 2018 traditional method and the 2019 stratification method. Main Outcomes and Measures: Performance on readmissions, as measured by the excess readmissions ratio, and penalties under the HRRP both in relative percentage change and in absolute dollars. Results: The study sample included 3049 hospitals. The mean proportion of dually enrolled beneficiaries ranged from 9.5% in the lowest quintile to 44.7% in the highest quintile. At the hospital level, changes in penalties ranged from an increase of $225 000 to a decrease of more than $436 000 after stratification. In total, hospitals in the lowest quintile of dual enrollment saw an increase of $12 330 157 in penalties, while those in the highest quintile of dual enrollment saw a decrease of $22 445 644. Teaching hospitals (odds ratio [OR], 2.13; 95% CI, 1.76-2.57; P < .001) and large hospitals (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.22-1.86; P < .001) had higher odds of receiving a reduced penalty. Not-for-profit hospitals (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.80; P < .001) were less likely to have a penalty reduction than for-profit hospitals, and hospitals in the Midwest (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.34-0.57; P < .001) and South (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30-0.57; P < .001) were less likely to do so than hospitals in the Northeast. Hospitals with patients from the most disadvantaged neighborhoods (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 2.03-3.38; P < .001) and those with the highest proportion of beneficiaries with disabilities (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 2.50-3.90; P < .001) were markedly more likely to see a reduction in penalties, as were hospitals in states with the highest Medicaid eligibility cutoffs (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.50-2.14; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Stratification of the hospitals under the HRRP was associated with a significant shift in penalties for excess readmissions. Policymakers should monitor the association of this change with readmission rates as well as hospital financial performance as the policy is fully implemented.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0117

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Joynt Maddox, K. E., Reidhead, M., Qi, A. C., & Nerenz, D. R.
Affiliations
  • Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri
  • Missouri Hospital Association, Hospital Industry Data Institute, Jefferson City
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Henry Ford Health (US)
Venue
JAMA Internal Medicine
Published
2019-06-01
Volume
179
Issue
6
Pages
769
ISSN
2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2939028443
Cited by
61
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 4
FWCI
13.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (RF1AG057784)
  • National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (R01MD010243)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, dual enrollment, Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibles, hospital penalties, hospital readmission, peer groups, teaching hospitals, hospital size, regional variation, Medicare payment policy
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Economics, Hospital, Female, Medicare, Humans, Male, Medicaid, Patient Readmission, United States, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Quality Indicators, Health Care, Dual Medicare Medicaid Eligibility, Safety-net Providers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review