Stephen F. Jencks

BACKGROUND: Reducing rates of rehospitalization has attracted attention from policymakers as a way to improve quality of care and reduce costs. However, we have limited information on the frequency and patterns of rehospitalization in the United States to aid in planning the necessary changes. METHODS: We analyzed Medicare claims data from 2003-2004 to describe the patterns of rehospitalization and the relation of rehospitalization to demographic characteristics of the patients and to characteristics of the hospitals. RESULTS: Almost one fifth (19.6%) of the 11,855,702 Medicare beneficiaries who had been discharged from a hospital were rehospitalized within 30 days, and 34.0% were rehospitalized within 90 days; 67.1% [corrected] of patients who had been discharged with medical conditions and 51.5% of those who had been discharged after surgical procedures were rehospitalized or died within the first year after discharge. In the case of 50.2% [corrected] of the patients who were rehospitalized within 30 days after a medical discharge to the community, there was no bill for a visit to a physician's office between the time of discharge and rehospitalization. Among patients who were rehospitalized within 30 days after a surgical discharge, 70.5% were rehospitalized for a medical condition. We estimate that about 10% of rehospitalizations were likely to have been planned. The average stay of rehospitalized patients was 0.6 day longer than that of patients in the same diagnosis-related group whose most recent hospitalization had been at least 6 months previously. We estimate that the cost to Medicare of unplanned rehospitalizations in 2004 was $17.4 billion. CONCLUSIONS: Rehospitalizations among Medicare beneficiaries are prevalent and costly.

CONTEXT: Despite condition-specific and managed care-specific reports, no systematic program has been developed for monitoring the quality of medical care provided to Medicare beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE: To create a monitoring system for a range of measures of clinical performance that supports quality improvement and provides repeated, reliable estimates at the national and state levels for fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: National study of repeated, cross-sectional observational data collected in 1997-1999 on all Medicare FFS beneficiaries or on a representative sample of beneficiaries with a particular condition. Data were collected using medical record abstraction for inpatient care, analysis of Medicare claims for some ambulatory services, and surveys for immunization rates. Separate samples were drawn for each topic for each state. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Beneficiary patients' receipt of 24 process-of-care measures related to primary prevention, secondary prevention, or treatment of 6 medical conditions (acute myocardial infarction, breast cancer, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, pneumonia, and stroke) for which there is strong scientific evidence and professional consensus that the process of care either directly improves outcomes or is a necessary step in a chain of care that does so. RESULTS: Across all states for all measures, the percentage of patients receiving appropriate care in the median state ranged from a high of 95% (avoidance of sublingual nifedipine for patients with acute stroke) to a low of 11% (patients with pneumonia screened for pneumococcal immunization status before discharge). The median performance on an indicator is 69% (patients discharged with heart failure diagnosis who received angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; diabetic patients having an eye examination in the last 2 years). Some states (particularly less populous states and those in the Northeast) consistently ranked high in relative performance while others (particularly more populous states and those in the Southeast) consistently ranked low. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to assemble information on a diverse set of clinical performance measures that represent performance on the range of services in a health insurance program. These findings indicate substantial opportunities to improve the care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries and urgently invite a partnership among practitioners, hospitals, health plans, and purchasers to achieve that improvement. JAMA. 2000;284:1670-1676.

CONTEXT: Despite widespread concern regarding the quality and safety of health care, and a Medicare Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) program intended to improve that care in the United States, there is only limited information on whether quality is improving. OBJECTIVE: To track national and state-level changes in performance on 22 quality indicators for care of Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN, PATIENTS, AND SETTING: National observational cross-sectional studies of national and state-level fee-for-service data for Medicare beneficiaries during 1998-1999 (baseline) and 2000-2001 (follow-up). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Twenty-two QIO quality indicators abstracted from state-wide random samples of medical records for inpatient fee-for-service care and from Medicare beneficiary surveys or Medicare claims for outpatient care. Absolute improvement is defined as the change in performance from baseline to follow-up (measured in percentage points for all indicators except those measured in minutes); relative improvement is defined as the absolute improvement divided by the difference between the baseline performance and perfect performance (100%). RESULTS: The median state's performance improved from baseline to follow-up on 20 of the 22 indicators. In the median state, the percentage of patients receiving appropriate care on the median indicator increased from 69.5% to 73.4%, a 12.8% relative improvement. The average relative improvement was 19.9% for outpatient indicators combined and 11.9% for inpatient indicators combined (P<.001). For all but one indicator, absolute improvement was greater in states in which performance was low at baseline than those in which it was high at baseline (median r = -0.43; range: 0.12 to -0.93). When states were ranked on each indicator, the state's average rank was highly stable over time (r = 0.93 for 1998-1999 vs 2000-2001). CONCLUSIONS: Care for Medicare fee-for-service plan beneficiaries improved substantially between 1998-1999 and 2000-2001, but a much larger opportunity remains for further improvement. Relative rankings among states changed little. The improved care is consistent with QIO activities over this period, but these cross-sectional data do not provide conclusive information about the degree to which the improvement can be attributed to the QIOs' quality improvement efforts.

CONTEXT: Medicare has a legislative mandate for quality assurance, but the effectiveness of its population-based quality improvement programs has been difficult to establish. OBJECTIVE: To improve the quality of care for Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction. DESIGN: Quality improvement project with baseline measurement, feedback, remeasurement, and comparison samples. SETTING: All acute care hospitals in the United States. PATIENTS: Preintervention and postintervention samples included all Medicare patients in Alabama, Connecticut, Iowa, and Wisconsin discharged with principal diagnoses of acute myocardial infarctions during 2 periods, June 1992 through December 1992 and August 1995 through November 1995. Indicator comparisons were made with a random sample of Medicare patients in the rest of the nation discharged with acute myocardial infarctions from August 1995 through November 1995. Mortality comparisons involved all Medicare patients nationwide with inpatient claims for acute myocardial infarctions during 2 periods, June 1992 through May 1993 and August 1995 through July 1996. INTERVENTION: Data feedback by peer review organizations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality indicators derived from clinical practice guidelines, length of stay, and mortality. RESULTS: Performance on all quality indicators improved significantly in the 4 pilot states. Administration of aspirin during hospitalization in patients without contraindications improved from 84% to 90% (P< .001), and prescription of beta-blockers at discharge improved from 47% to 68% (P < .001). Mortality at 30 days decreased from 18.9% to 17.1% (P = .005) and at 1 year from 32.3% to 29.6% (P < .001). These improvements in quality occurred during a period when median length of stay decreased from 8 days to 6 days. Performance on all quality indicators except reperfusion was better in the pilot states than in the rest of the nation in 1995, and the differences were statistically significant for aspirin use at discharge (P < .001), beta-blocker use (P < .001), and smoking cessation counseling (P = .02). Postinfarction mortality was not significantly different between the pilot states and the rest of the nation during the baseline period, although it was slightly but significantly better in the pilot states during the follow-up period (absolute mortality difference at 1 year, 0.9%; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of care for Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction has improved in the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project pilot states. Performance on the defined quality indicators appeared to be better in the pilot states than in the rest of the nation in 1995 and was associated with reduced mortality.