Hospitals participating in the first year of Medicare’s Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model reduced payments for lower extremity joint replacement episodes by an average 3.3 percent more than hospitals that did not participate in the model, largely by shifting patients to less intensive post-acute care settings, according to an analysis prepared for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services by the Lewin Group. For example, the share of CJR patients discharged to an inpatient rehabilitation facility fell by a relative 2.2 percentage points while the share discharged to a home health agency rose by 3.9 percentage points. The study found no changes in quality of care as measured by readmission rates, emergency department visits and mortality. CMS implemented the five-year payment model, which qualifies as an advanced alternative payment model under the Quality Payment Program for clinicians, in certain geographic areas in April 2016. The first-year report does not include estimates of the change in Medicare program savings, which were not yet available. 
 

Blog
Public
In think‑tank reports, like the one released this week by Paragon Health Institute, hospitals are often reduced to abstractions — payment rates, charts,…
Headline
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in a memo April 21that it is delaying implementation of the Medicare Part D portion of the Better…
Headline
The Washington Post yesterday published a letter to the editor from AHA President and CEO Rick Pollack responding to an April 18 editorial criticizing the 340B…
Headline
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations and member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, in…
Headline
The Health Resources and Services Administration should abandon its consideration of a 340B rebate model pilot program because “a rebate mechanism of any kind…
Headline
The AHA and others April 17 filed an amicus brief requesting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit grant en banc review of a panel decision that…