As age 65 years or older is one of the major criteria for Medicare eligibility, a secondary analysis was performed to explore whether there were age-related differences in the study outcomes. We found no significant differences between patients 65 years or older and patients younger than 65 years with respect to discharge readiness, LOS, postoperative complications, or 30-day readmission. Table 2 summarizes the statistical results based on age.
Discussion
Consistent with our pilot study,4 the majority of patients discharged to an ECF were ready for discharge on POD 2. Delaying discharge until POD 3 increased LOS by 1.08 days with no significant risk in 30-day readmission if patients were allowed to be discharged 1 day earlier. Different from our pilot study results, however, 17.5% of patients who stayed past their discharge readiness showed improvement in PT/OT progress, though this was not clinically sufficient to alter the decision regarding discharge destination. This difference can be attributed to the fact that the current study (vs the pilot study) was adequately powered for this outcome.
Our study was specifically designed to evaluate the effect of Medicare’s 3-day rule—the requirement of an inpatient hospital stay of at least 3 consecutive days to qualify for coverage for treatment at an ECF. This policy creates tremendous unnecessary hospitalization and resource utilization and denies patients earlier access to specialized postacute care. To put the economic implications of this policy in perspective, almost half of the 1 million TJAs performed annually are performed for Medicare beneficiaries, and almost half of those patients are discharged to an ECF.1,2,5 This equates to about 161,000 days of unnecessary hospitalization per year (64.4% of 250,000 patients), which translates into $310,730,000 in expenditures based on an average cost of $1930 per inpatient day for state/local government, nonprofit, and for-profit hospitals.6 Furthermore, with a growing trend toward outpatient TJA, the Medicare statute may leave substantial bills for patients who happen to require unplanned discharge to an ECF.
This study had its weaknesses. First, it was a retrospective review of charts at a single tertiary-care hospital. However, observer bias may have been eliminated, as the data were collected before a study was planned. An outcome such as discharge readiness, if prospectively assessed, could easily have been influenced by study personnel. Second, our patient sample was too small to definitively resolve this issue and be able to effect public policy change. However, there was sufficient power for the primary outcome. We also analyzed a consecutive group of patients who underwent a standardized postoperative clinical pathway with clear discharge-readiness criteria.
The effect of this study in the era of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative deserves special attention. The BPCI initiative is divided into 4 models that reconcile payments associated with an episode of care (eg, TKA) against a predetermined payment amount.7 Relevant to our study, BPCI model 2 covers inpatient hospitalization up to 30, 60, or 90 days after discharge and includes a waiver of the 3-day rule for inpatient hospitalization. There are only 60 BPCI model 2–participating health care organizations. On the basis of our study results, we think the waiver is a step in the right direction, as no demonstrable benefits were realized from having patients stay hospitalized longer. However, the waiver should not be limited to select entities, and we hope that, with further research, the statutory requirement of 3-day inpatient hospitalization will be repealed.
Conclusion
Our study results call into question the validity of Medicare’s 3-day rule, and we hope they stimulate further research to definitively resolve this question. The majority of our study patients destined for discharge to an ECF could have been safely discharged on POD 2. The implications of reducing LOS cannot be overstated. From a hospital perspective, reducing LOS eliminates unnecessary hospitalization and resource utilization. From a patient perspective, it allows earlier access to specialized care and eliminates billing confusion. From a payer perspective, it may reduce costs significantly.