Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Sep 1;2(3):177-183.
doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2014.03.002.

Innovative Payment Mechanisms in Maryland Hospitals: An Empirical Analysis of Readmissions under Total Patient Revenue

Affiliations

Innovative Payment Mechanisms in Maryland Hospitals: An Empirical Analysis of Readmissions under Total Patient Revenue

Karoline Mortensen et al. Healthc (Amst). .

Abstract

Background: The state of Maryland implemented innovative budgeting of outpatient and inpatient services in eight rural hospitals under the Total Patient Revenue (TPR) system in July, 2010.

Methods: This paper uses data on Maryland discharges from the 2009-2011 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) State Inpatient Databases (SID). Individual inpatient discharges from eight treatment hospitals and three rural control hospitals (n=374,353) are analyzed. To get robust estimates and control for trends in the state, we also compare treatment hospitals to all hospitals in Maryland that report readmissions (n=1,997,164). Linear probability models using the difference-in-differences approach with hospital fixed effects are estimated to determine the effect of the innovative payment mechanisms on hospital readmissions, controlling for patient demographics and characteristics.

Results: Difference-in-differences estimates show that after implementation of TPR in the treatment hospitals, there were no statistically significant changes in the predicted probability of readmissions.

Conclusions: Early evidence from the TPR program shows that readmissions were not affected in the 18 months after implementation.

Implications: : As the health care system innovates, it is important to evaluate the success of these innovations. One of the goals of TPR was to lower readmission rates, however these rates did not show consistent downward trends after implementation. Our results suggest that payment innovations that provide financial incentives to ensure patients receive care in the most appropriate setting while maintaining quality of care may not have immediate effects on commonly used measures of hospital quality, particularly for rural hospitals that may lack coordinated care delivery infrastructure.

Keywords: Maryland; health care reform; hospital readmissions; innovative payment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Maryland Hospitals Included as Treatment and Controls
Figure 2
Figure 2
Monthly Readmission Rates for Treatment, Rural Controls, and all Control Hospitals: Total Patient Revenue, 2009-2011

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Martin AB, Lassman D, Washington B, Catlin A. Growth in US health spending remained slow in 2010; health share of Gross Domestic Product was unchanged from 2009. Health Aff. 2012;31(1):208–219. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1135. - PubMed
    1. Rosenthal MB. Beyond pay for performance — emerging models of provider-payment reform. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008;359(12):1197–1200. doi:10.1056/NEJMp0804658. - PubMed
    1. Institute of Medicine . The pathway to continuously learning health care in America. Washington, DC: 2012. Best care at lower cost. Available at: http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2012/Best-Care/BestCareR....
    1. Altman SH, Cohen AB. The need for a national global budget. Health Affairs. 1993;12(Supplement 1):194–203. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.12.suppl_1.194. - PubMed
    1. Taylor M. Experiments in payment. Hospitals & Health Networks. 2008 Available at: http://www.hhnmag.com/hhnmag/jsp/articledisplay.jsp?dcrpath=HHNMAG/Artic.... - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources