Comparing Hospital Length of Stay Risk-Adjustment Models in US Value-Based Physician Payments. Issue 1 (4th January 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ghosh, Arnab K.; Ibrahim, Said; Lee, Jennifer; Shapiro, Martin F.; Ancker, Jessica
• Is Part Of: Quality management in health care. Volume 32:Issue 1(2023)
• Page Start: 22
• Page End: 29
• Publication Date: 2023-01-04
• Subjects: disparities -- hospital -- quality -- socioeconomic -- value-based; Medical care -- Quality control -- Periodicals; Total quality management -- Periodicals; Health services administration -- Periodicals; 362.1068
• DOI: 10.1097/QMH.0000000000000363
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1063-8628

Abstract

Abstract : Backgroung and Objectives: Under the Affordable Care Act, the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services created the Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier Program and its successor, the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, to tie physician payments to quality and cost. The addition of hospital length of stay (LOS) to these value-based physician payment models reflects its increasing importance as a metric of health care cost and efficiency and its association with adverse health outcomes. This study compared the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services–endorsed LOS risk-adjustment methodology with a novel methodology that accounts for pre-hospitalization clinical, socioeconomic status (SES), and admission-related factors as influential factors of hospital LOS. Methods: Using the 2014 New York, Florida, and New Jersey State Inpatient Database, we compared the observed-to-expected LOS of 2373102 adult admissions for 742 medical and surgical diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) by 3 models: ( a ) current risk-adjustment model (CRM), which adjusted for age, sex, number of chronic conditions, Elixhauser comorbidity score, and DRG severity weight, ( b ) CRM but modeling LOS using a generalized linear model (C-GLM), and (c) novel risk-adjustment model (NRM), which added to the C-GLM covariates for race/ethnicity, SES, discharge destination, weekend admission, and individual intercepts for DRGs instead of severity weights. Results: The NRM disadvantaged physicians for fewer medical and surgical DRGs, compared with both the C-GLM and CRM models (medical DRGs: 0.49% vs 13.17% and 10.89%, respectively; surgical DRGs: 0.30% vs 13.17% and 10.98%, respectively). In subgroup analysis, the NRM reduced the proportion of physician-penalizing DRGs across all racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups, with the highest reduction among Whites, followed by low SES patients, and the lowest reduction among Hispanic patients. Conclusions: After accounting for pre-hospitalization socioeconomic and clinical factors, the adjusted LOS using the NRM was lower than estimates from the current Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services–endorsed model. The current model may disadvantage physicians serving communities with higher socioeconomic risks.