» Articles » PMID: 30608883

Drivers of Variation in 90-Day Episode Payments After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Overview
Date 2019 Jan 5
PMID 30608883
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a common and expensive procedure that has become a target for bundled payment initiatives. We described the magnitude and determinants of variation in 90-day PCI episode payments across a diverse array of patients and hospitals.

Methods And Results: We linked clinical registry data from PCIs performed at 33 Michigan hospitals to 90-day episodes of care constructed using Medicare fee-for-service and commercial insurance claims from January 2012 to October 2016. Payments were price standardized and risk adjusted using clinical and administrative variables in an observed-over-expected framework. Hospitals were stratified into quartiles based on average episode payments. Payment components between the highest and the lowest quartiles were compared with identified drivers of variation (ie, index hospitalization/procedure, readmissions, postacute care, and professional fees). Among 40 925 90-day PCI episodes, the average risk-adjusted 90-day episode payment by hospital ranged between $22 154 and $27 205 with a median of $24 696 (interquartile range, $24 190-$25 643). Hospitals in the lowest and the highest quartiles had average episode payments of $23 744 and $26 504, respectively (difference, $2760). Readmission payments were the primary driver of this variation (46.2%), followed by postacute care (22.6%). Readmissions remained the primary driver of variation in key subgroups, including inpatient and outpatient PCI, as well as PCI for acute myocardial infarction and nonacute myocardial infarction indications.

Conclusions: Substantial hospital-level variation exists in 90-day PCI episode payments. Over half the variation between high- and low-payment hospitals was related to care after the index procedure, primarily because of readmissions and postacute care. Hospitals and policymakers should consider targeting these components when developing initiatives to reduce PCI-related spending.

Citing Articles

Sex differences in in-hospital outcomes and readmission rates after percutaneous coronary intervention.

Gomez J, Park D, Eder M, An S, Lowenstern A, Kelsey M Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2025; 38(2):159-169.

PMID: 39990004 PMC: 11845020. DOI: 10.1080/08998280.2025.2452113.


Challenges and Burdens in the Coronary Artery Disease Care Pathway for Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Contemporary Narrative Review.

Kodeboina M, Piayda K, Jenniskens I, Vyas P, Chen S, Pesigan R Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20(9).

PMID: 37174152 PMC: 10177939. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20095633.


Assessment of Patterns of Atherectomy Use.

Brown C, Eton R, Yaser J, Syrjamaki J, Corriere M, Henke P J Am Heart Assoc. 2022; 11(22):e023356.

PMID: 36300666 PMC: 9750064. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.121.023356.


Impact of Medicare's Bundled Payments Initiative on Patient Selection, Payments, and Outcomes for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

McNeely C, Orav E, Zheng J, Joynt Maddox K Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020; 13(9):e006171.

PMID: 32867514 PMC: 7660588. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.006171.


Trends and outcomes of non-primary PCI at sites without cardiac surgery on-site: The early Michigan experience.

Afana M, Koenig G, Seth M, Sukul D, Frazier K, Fielding S PLoS One. 2020; 15(8):e0238048.

PMID: 32845908 PMC: 7449474. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238048.


References
1.
Miller D, Gust C, Dimick J, Birkmeyer N, Skinner J, Birkmeyer J . Large variations in Medicare payments for surgery highlight savings potential from bundled payment programs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011; 30(11):2107-15. PMC: 4003905. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0783. View

2.
Tsai T, Greaves F, Zheng J, Orav E, Zinner M, Jha A . Better Patient Care At High-Quality Hospitals May Save Medicare Money And Bolster Episode-Based Payment Models. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016; 35(9):1681-9. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0361. View

3.
Ellimoottil C, Syrjamaki J, Voit B, Guduguntla V, Miller D, Dupree J . Validation of a claims-based algorithm to characterize episodes of care. Am J Manag Care. 2017; 23(11):e382-e386. View

4.
Anderson L, Oldridge N, Thompson D, Zwisler A, Rees K, Martin N . Exercise-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation for Coronary Heart Disease: Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 67(1):1-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.044. View

5.
Levine G, Bates E, Blankenship J, Bailey S, Bittl J, Cercek B . 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and.... J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58(24):e44-122. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.007. View