ShareThis Page

How the Tribune-Review's readmissions probe worked

| Sunday, March 6, 2011, 11:20 a.m.

The Tribune-Review analyzed data on readmissions for complication or infection within 30 days that hospitals reported to the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council. The data cover the federal fiscal year 2009 (Oct. 1, 2008, to Sept. 30, 2009).

Readmissions: The council provided the number of actual readmissions because of complication or infection for 29 conditions. To reach the total number of readmissions for each hospital, the Trib totaled the number of readmissions for each condition.

Expected readmissions: The council calculates the number of readmissions that might be expected for each of the conditions. When a hospital had fewer than five cases for any condition, the council did not calculate an expected number of readmissions. To reach the total number of expected readmissions, the Trib totaled the expected number of readmissions for each condition. When the council did not calculate an expected number, the Trib counted that as zero expected readmissions.

Charge: Hospitals report charges, but the council notes the figures might not reflect the actual amount of money a hospital receives. Typically, hospitals receive less than the charge amount. Government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid pay set amounts for services, but private insurers can negotiate reimbursement rates that are lower than charges. Hospitals and insurers are not required to disclose actual costs or reimbursements.

For more information: The technical notes included in the council's Hospital Performance Report 2009 explain how the council derives estimates, why it excludes some cases, and how it trims and adjusts charge information. The report is available here .

To read the Trib's "Code Green: Bleeding Dollars" series on waste in national health care costs, click here .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.