Medicare fines over hospitals' readmitted patients to begin on Monday Oct 1,2012

Nurses Activism

Published

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/09/30/medicare-fines-over-hospitals-readmitted-patients/1603827/

Medicare fines over hospitals' readmitted patientsding...

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, AP

42 minutes ago

WASHINGTON-If you or an elderly relative have been hospitalized recently and noticed extra attention when the time came to be discharged, there's more to it than good customer service.

As of Monday, Medicare will start fining hospitals that have too many patients readmitted within 30 days of discharge due to complications. The penalties are part of a broader push under President Barack Obama's health care law to improve quality while also trying to save taxpayers money.

About two-thirds of the hospitals serving Medicare patients, or some 2,200 facilities, will be hit with penalties averaging around $125,000 per facility this coming year, according to government estimates.

Data to assess the penalties have been collected and crunched, and Medicare has shared the results with individual hospitals. Medicare plans to post details online later in October, and people can look up how their community hospitals performed by using the agency's "Hospital Compare" website.

It adds up to a new way of doing business for hospitals, and they have scrambled to prepare for well over a year. They are working on ways to improve communication with rehabilitation centers and doctors who follow patients after they're released, as well as connecting individually with patients.

"There is a lot of activity at the hospital level to straighten out our internal processes," said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and safety at the American Hospital Association. "We are also spreading our wings a little and reaching outside the hospital, to the extent that we can, to make sure patients are getting the ongoing treatment they need."

Still, industry officials say they have misgivings about being held liable for circumstances beyond their control. They also complain that facilities serving low-income people, including many major teaching hospitals, are much more likely to be fined, raising questions of fairness.

"Readmissions are partially within the control of the hospital and partially within the control of others," Foster said.

Consumer advocates say Medicare's nudge to hospitals is long overdue and not nearly stiff enough.

"It's modest, but it's a start," said Dr. John Santa, director of the Consumer Reports Health Ratings Center. "Should we be surprised that industry is objecting? You would expect them to object to anything that changes the status quo."

For the first year, the penalty is capped at 1 percent of a hospital's Medicare payments. The overwhelming majority of penalized facilities will pay less. Also, for now, hospitals are only being measured on three medical conditions: heart attacks, heart failure and pneumonia.

Under the health care law, the penalties gradually will rise until 3 percent of Medicare payments to hospitals are at risk. Medicare is considering holding hospitals accountable on four more measures: joint replacements, stenting, heart bypass and treatment of stroke.

If General Motors and Toyota issue warranties for their vehicles, hospitals should have some similar obligation when a patient gets a new knee or a stent to relieve a blocked artery, Santa contends. "People go to the hospital to get their problem solved, not to have to come back," he said.

Excessive rates of readmission are only part of the problem of high costs and uneven quality in the U.S. health care system. While some estimates put readmission rates as high as 20 percent, a congressional agency says the level of preventable readmissions is much lower. About 12 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who are hospitalized are later readmitted for a potentially preventable problem, said the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, known as MedPAC.

Foster, the hospital association official, said medication mix-ups account for a big share of problems. Many Medicare beneficiaries are coping with multiple chronic conditions, and it's not unusual for their medication lists to be changed in the hospital. But their doctors outside sometimes don't get the word; other times, the patients themselves don't understand there's been a change.

Another issue is making sure patients go to their required follow-up appointments.

Medicare deputy administrator Jonathan Blum said he thinks hospitals have gotten the message.

"Clearly it's captured their attention," said Blum. "It's galvanized the hospital industry on ways to reduce unnecessary readmissions. It's forced more parts of the health care system to work together to ensure that patients have much smoother transitions."

MedPAC, the congressional advisory group, has produced research findings that back up the industry's assertion that hospitals serving the poor, including major teaching facilities, are more likely to face penalties. But for now, Blum said Medicare is not inclined to grade on the curve.

"We have really tried to address and study this issue," said Blum. "If you look at the data, there are hospitals that serve a low-income patient mix and do very well on these measures. It seems to us that hospitals that serve low-income people can control readmissions very well."

Under Obama's health care overhaul, Medicare is pursuing efforts to try to improve quality and lower costs. They include rewarding hospitals for quality results, and encouraging hospitals, nursing homes and medical practice groups to join in "accountable care organizations." Dozens of pilot programs are under way. The jury is still out on the results.

My take on this is: This could have positive implications for nurses in that if alot of these hospitals perform poorly, which I think they will, the hospital may have to look seriously at their staffing levels.

The greatest impact on controlling and reducing these readmissions falls under nursing's control. WE are with these patient's 24/7. We are the doctors's eyes and ears. These eyes and ears can only be in one place at one time. Like mentioned- these patients are complex with multiple co morbidities, this is where these hospitals are going to have to face facts. They can't competely take care of this level of complex patient's on a shoe string anymore. They can either increse and hire more nures or pay the fines to medicare. These hospitals need to have enough nurses staffed to competently monitor a patient's progess and the Licensed nurse is the one responsible for discharge teaching. If the staff levels are to low, which we all know they are, this is where the patient's slip through the cracks and are doomed for readmission.

I don't see this as a bad thing. I think it is finially going to make hosptial adminstration face up and be responsible for the poor decisions they have been making .

"Of course, depending on the outcome in November, this discussion may or may not be rendered moot."

Not so, all these things will take effect no matter who is in the White House. Don't you see? Everything that is going on now will benefit big insurance and will continue to - to the point of absolute fabulousness for them. It is already in rollout - it has been in rollout for the last 10 years under somewhat of a disguise.

The only variable as far as the election goes, is who is more likely to step on your face and walk by pretending not to see you as you lie in the gutter, and who might stop, turn around and pick you up.

PS- those of you blaming Obama- think again. or think at all. This change brought to you by GREED. Corporate greed.

Or the desire for people to live their lives how they wish regardless of the health implications.

The 450lb 2-pack smoker will most likely stop suddenly after his MI/PNA/whatever. But blame greed.

Specializes in Oncology.

Those people are greedy. They want us to make them better with no sacrifice or effort on their part.

In my opinion morte is absolutely right.

Specializes in Critical Care.

The readmission incentives started at my Hospital 3 years ago. We were one of the Hospitals that took part in the pilot program. We cut our 30-day CHF readmissions from 18 to 8%. This certainly didn't hurt Nursing, we lowered our ratios on our cardiac unit and hired additional Nurses to help track patients after discharge. We made back the money we spent and had some extra left over, and CMS ended up paying less, so it worked out pretty well for everyone involved.

There certainly is some incentive for Hospitals to avoid readmissions, even on patients who should be readmitted, and we should keep an eye out and make sure that doesn't end up happening, but that's actually extremely unlikely. Hospital administrators don't decide to admit patients, MD's do. The incentive for MD's is to admit, whether it's appropriate or not. So while administrators might put pressure on MD's to think twice about readmitting, I've never met an MD who gives a s% what the administration wants, in fact they're probably more likely to do the opposite just to make a point.

I like the general idea, although I don't agree with how CMS is implementing this particular plan. In general, complaining that too many patients are non-compliant and there's nothing we can do about that isn't a valid argument. Hospitals aren't being compared to a theoretical world where these patients don't exist, we're being judged against each other and we all have these types of patients. The problem is that while CMS does use an algorithm to even the playing field between Hospitals that have a disproportionately high number of these people and those who are lucky to have fewer of these "difficult" patients than average, I don't think it adequately captures these differences. There are areas where the views on healthcare are just much different and take a much higher proportion of Medicare dollars than other areas, partly due to ridiculously high readmission rates (Louisiana I'm looking at you). Unfortunately, a hospital in Louisiana that does an excellent job of preventing readmissions (compared to doing nothing) will still have a higher readmission rate than a Hospital in Iowa that does nothing to prevent readmissions.

While I don't like this plan, I don't like the idea of a complete economic collapse in the US due to healthcare costs even more, so I'll take what I can get if it means Hospitals will still exist when I'm retired.

Specializes in Critical Care.

Home Health RN here. Starting 2013 there will be medicare cuts to home health, possibly a copay per 9 week certification

period. This leads to decreased visits, increased documentation, limited CNA use(medicare doesn't pay for CNAs) and increased

accountability for rehospitalization. Hospitals are already choosing HHa that have the least rehospital rates, that may lead to them

being picky and choosing cases that are not chronic repeaters. No job security here!!

I think cutting the funding to home health, and therefore the usage of home health is cutting the nose off to spite the face. How are we to get continium of care if Home care benes are cut? Has any of the Home care Nurses written a letter to the CMS or DHS about this? (as stupid as it sounds).

Specializes in FNP, ONP.

Here the nurse navigators are not connected to cancer treatment. Cancer patients may have them as well, but the Navis I was referring to are specifically charged with preventing readmission.

Specializes in Critical Care.

Home health has been the main beneficiary in the 4 years we've been working with this new rule. Increased use of home health accounts for the majority of the cuts we made to our readmission rates.

Home health will be seeing a reduction in their reimbursements, which I'm fine with. Home health is not only one of the most profitable sections of healthcare, it's one of the most profitable industries in general. For comparison, look at companies that do pretty well for themselves; Nike for instance runs a profit margin of about 9%, HP and Dell run closer to 6%. Home health runs a profit margin on medicare patients of 19%, or about $3.6 Billion per year. The reimbursement cut is only 2.3 percent, which will mean they'll have to get by with $3.51 Billion in profits rather than $3.6.

Specializes in ICU, CM, Geriatrics, Management.
... I don't think that will have much impact on staffing...

Agree.

Specializes in ICU, CM, Geriatrics, Management.

Sadly, this is probably true.

... the average fine is going to be $125,000, that is pretty close to the cost of hiring just one additional nurse. So in our example, the cost to avoid the fine is ten times greater than simply paying the fine. The rational economic decision is clear...

Agree.

+ Add a Comment