TY - JOUR
T1 - The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program
T2 - Nationwide Perspectives and Recommendations
AU - Psotka, Mitchell A.
AU - Fonarow, Gregg C.
AU - Allen, Larry A.
AU - Joynt Maddox, Karen E.
AU - Fiuzat, Mona
AU - Heidenreich, Paul
AU - Hernandez, Adrian F.
AU - Konstam, Marvin A.
AU - Yancy, Clyde W.
AU - O'Connor, Christopher M.
N1 - Funding Information:
Dr. Psotka has received consulting fees from Amgen, Cytokinetics, and Roivant. Dr Fonarow has received consulting fees from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, Medtronic, and Novartis. Dr. Allen has received research support from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Heart Association; and consulting fees from Boston Scientific and Cytokinetics. Dr. Joynt Maddox has received research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K23HL109177-03); and is a former employee of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where she continues work on a limited basis as a contractor. Dr. Hernandez has received research support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Luitpold, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and Verily; and honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, MyoKardia, Novartis, and Sanofi. Dr. O'Connor has received research funding from and has served as a consultant to ResMed, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; has served as a consultant to Stealth Peptides; and is a co-owner of BisCardia. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose. John Teerlink, MD, served as Guest Editor for this paper.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation
PY - 2020/1
Y1 - 2020/1
N2 - The mandatory federal pay-for-performance Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was created to decrease 30-day hospital readmissions by instituting accountability and stimulating quality care and coordination, particularly during care transitions. The HRRP has changed the landscape of hospital readmissions and reimbursement within the United States by imposing substantial Medicare payment penalties on hospitals with higher-than-expected readmission rates. However, the HRRP has been controversial since its inception, particularly in the field of heart failure. Proponents argue that it has reduced national readmission rates, in part by raising awareness and investment in mechanisms to better assist patients during discharge and transitions; opponents contend that it unfairly penalizes hospitals for issues beyond their control, has unintended negative consequences due to incentivizing readmission over survival, that it encourages “gaming” the system, was not tested before implementation, and that it does not specify how hospitals can improve their performance. This paper incorporates the diverse, nuanced, and sometimes divergent interpretations presented during a multifaceted expert clinician discussion regarding the HRRP and heart failure; in cases in which consensus opinions were achieved, they are presented, including regarding potential new iterations of the HRRP for the future. Potential improvements include more comprehensive incorporation of outcomes into the HRRP measure and better risk adjustment to improve equality and fairness.
AB - The mandatory federal pay-for-performance Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was created to decrease 30-day hospital readmissions by instituting accountability and stimulating quality care and coordination, particularly during care transitions. The HRRP has changed the landscape of hospital readmissions and reimbursement within the United States by imposing substantial Medicare payment penalties on hospitals with higher-than-expected readmission rates. However, the HRRP has been controversial since its inception, particularly in the field of heart failure. Proponents argue that it has reduced national readmission rates, in part by raising awareness and investment in mechanisms to better assist patients during discharge and transitions; opponents contend that it unfairly penalizes hospitals for issues beyond their control, has unintended negative consequences due to incentivizing readmission over survival, that it encourages “gaming” the system, was not tested before implementation, and that it does not specify how hospitals can improve their performance. This paper incorporates the diverse, nuanced, and sometimes divergent interpretations presented during a multifaceted expert clinician discussion regarding the HRRP and heart failure; in cases in which consensus opinions were achieved, they are presented, including regarding potential new iterations of the HRRP for the future. Potential improvements include more comprehensive incorporation of outcomes into the HRRP measure and better risk adjustment to improve equality and fairness.
KW - 30-day readmission
KW - HRRP
KW - Medicare
KW - heart failure
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076456302&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.07.012
DO - 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.07.012
M3 - Review article
C2 - 31606360
AN - SCOPUS:85076456302
SN - 2213-1779
VL - 8
SP - 1
EP - 11
JO - JACC: Heart Failure
JF - JACC: Heart Failure
IS - 1
ER -