LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement/Hospital Readmission CMS Penalties Climb for 2017
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

Hospital Readmission CMS Penalties Climb for 2017

August 15, 2016 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Hospital Readmission CMS Penalties Climb for 2017
Courtesy of Medicare.gov
Secondary

Medicare is going to penalize 2, 597 hospitals by withholding more than half a billion dollars in payments next year.

In October 2012, CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) began reducing Medicare payments for Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) hospitals with excess readmissions. Excess readmissions are measured by a ratio, by dividing a hospital’s number of “predicted” 30-day readmissions for heart attack, heart failure, pneumonia, hip/knee replacement, and COPD by the number that would be “expected, ” based on an average hospital with similar patients. A ratio greater than 1.0000 indicates excess readmissions.

The penalties, according to a Kaiser Health News KHN analysis, are for about the same number of hospitals penalized last year, but the average penalty will increase by 20%. Overall, the total amount being withheld amounts to $108 million because of changes in how readmissions are measured.

The Kaiser analysis found that 1, 621 hospitals have been penalized in each of the five years of the program.

Since the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) began, national readmission rates have dropped.

The program has not been without controversy. Hospitals that treat low-income patients say they face special challenges because their patients may have more trouble recuperating due to an inability to afford medications or lacking social support to follow physician instructions. CMS says those hospitals should not be held to a different standard.

According to KHN, the fines are based on Medicare patients who left the hospital from July 2012 through June 2015. For each hospital, the government calculated how many readmissions it expected, given national rates and the health of each hospital’s patients. Hospitals with more unplanned readmissions than expected will receive a reduction in each Medicare case reimbursement for the upcoming fiscal year that runs from October 1, 2016 through September 2017.

The payment cuts apply to all Medicare patients, not just those with one of the six conditions Medicare measured. The maximum reduction for any hospital is 3%, and it does not affect special Medicare payments for hospitals that treat large numbers of low-income patients or train residents. Forty-nine hospitals received the maximum fine. The average penalty was 0.73% of each Medicare payment, up from 0.61% last year and higher than in any other year, according to the KHN analysis.

Advertisement

According to a study just published in AJMC.com, the HRRP has had a major impact on hospital leaders’ efforts to reduce readmission rates, which has implications for the design of future quality improvement programs. “However, leaders are concerned about the size of the penalties, lack of adjustment for socioeconomic and clinical factors, and hospitals’ inability to impact patient adherence and post-acute care. These concerns may have implications as policy makers consider changes to the HRRP, as well as to other Medicare value-based payment programs that contain similar readmission metrics.”

To see the data on specific hospitals, click here: https://www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare/readmission-reduction-program.html

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy