Skip to main content

Dumb Policy: 3-Night Hospital Requirement for Medicare SNF

by: Alex Smith @AlexSmithMD

The patient was elderly and was hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation.  Fortunately, her breathing problems were easily treated, and came under rapid control after one night of hospitalization.  She was ready to return to the nursing home the next day. I informed our discharge planner that she was ready to be discharged, and was shocked to hear her respond that, "Her primary care physician said she needs to stay for 3 nights in order to quality for the Medicare skilled nursing facility benefit before the nursing home will take her back." 

This seemed nuts - dumb even - she "needs" to stay in the hospital, exposing her to all the risks of hospitalization, to qualify for the Medicare Skilled Nursing Faciliity (SNF) benefit?  Her skilled needs would be the increased frequency of nebulizer treatments - fair enough.  At that point, she had not experienced any loss of function that would warrant skilled rehabilitation care above the usual custodial care.  However, an additional 2 days in the hospital certainly put her at dramatically increased risk for the hospital disability syndrome.  And when she returns to the nursing home on the Medicare SNF benefit, the nursing home will be paid a considerably higher rate than the traditional rate Medicaid pays for long term care. What was best for the patient was at dramatic odds with what was best for the (financial) bottom line of the nursing home.

Why does the US have this dumb 3-night hospital stay requirement for postacute nursing care?  In a very thoughful and carefully written article (free online in JAMA), Dr. Lew Lipsitz of Hebrew Senior Life explains in clear langauge the history and complex issues surrounding this seemingly innane policy.  He starts with two case scenarios that, like my patient, also make you scratch your head:
  • An 80 year old man who fell at home and needs rehabilitation must be hospitalized for 3 days before receiving rehab
  • A 90 year old nursing home resident with pneumonia that requires IV fluids must be hospitalized for treatment (cost of hospitalization $12,000)
It turns out the 3-night requirement is not as cut-and-dried senseless as it may seem.  Eliminating the 3-night stay in demonstration projects failed to demonstrate dramatic cost savings. 

In the end, however, Lew Lipsitz concludes this policy has to be eliminated, either by:
  • Establishing strict criteria for SNF stay without hospitalization, such as mobility decline or delirium
  • Move to a shared saving model of care like the new accountable care organizations, where the system as a whole bears greater responsibility for the costs.
I'm a big fan of both policy changes, particularly the shared savings and accountability models.  In our current system we have one nursing home, one physician, and one hospital each making money off of one patient, with little connection between. 

Dumb policy.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I think this is a nonsense policy too but I fear that having no policy could invite abuse by greedy nursing home administrators. Why treat an ICF resident in-house when you can send to the hospital, treat as an inpatient, and then the resident can come back for 100 skilled days and you get that Medicare skilled payment. That is my worry.
Anonymous said…
Some Medicare Advantage plans 'waive' the 3 night requirement - so long as the indiviudal meets the eligibility for needing SNF rehab.
Carol Levine said…
Even three midnights (or more) in a hospital if you are in observation status do not count toward Medicare coverage for SNF services. This is an added expense for patients (Part B applies with each service billed separately) as well as the high costs of SNF services if you have to pay privately. I worry that people who need rehab won't get it because of these arbitrary rules. See my commentary at http://www.uhfnyc.org/news/880927
HDuguay said…
The 3 night hospital requirement for Medicare is absolutely ridiculous. Many patients are sent in to the emergency department (ED) with high fevers and after a quick urinalysis are diagnosed with a urinary tract infection (UTI), something that can be treated quickly and effectively in the skilled nursing facility. But because of this 3 day rule, have to spend the following 3 days, not only more susceptible to infection but also more likely to become confused, even when dementia wasn’t a diagnosis previously.
Bureaucrats look at the bottom line, and if this is a cost saving maneuver, I applaud their money saving savvy. But patients are not clients or check boxes to be crossed off they are people that deserve the best that our medical expertise can give them some times that is not hospitalization.
I agree with you – dumb policy.
James Mittelberger MD said…
Why have any hospitalization requirement at all? Skilled services should be provided when needed. This is the standard with the Evercare program, and patients are most often skilled in place without any hospital or ED stay.

Popular posts from this blog

The Dangers of Fleet Enemas

The dangers of oral sodium phosphate preparations are fairly well known in the medical community. In 2006 the FDA issued it’s first warning that patients taking oral sodium phosphate preparations are at risk for potential for acute kidney injury. Two years later, over-the-counter preparations of these drugs were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturers.  Those agents still available by prescription were given black box warnings mainly due to acute phosphate nephropathy that can result in renal failure, especially in older adults. Despite all this talk of oral preparations, little was mentioned about a sodium phosphate preparation that is still available over-the-counter – the Fleet enema.

Why Oral Sodium Phosphate Preparations Are Dangerous 

Before we go into the risks of Fleet enemas, lets spend just a couple sentences on why oral sodium phosphate preparations carry significant risks. First, oral sodium phosphate preparations can cause significant fluid shifts within the colon …

Dying without Dialysis

There is a terrific article in this weeks Journal of Pain and Symptom Management by Fliss Murtagh of King's College in London about the epidemiology of symptoms for patients with advanced renal failure who die without dialysis.  This study is important because while we know that patients with advanced renal failure have a limited life expectancy and the average age of initiation of hemodialysis is increasing, we know little about the alternatives to hemodialysis.  Specifically, we know nothing about symptoms affecting quality of life among patients who elect not to start dialysis (so called "conservative management" - is this the best label?).  This article provides a terrific counterpoint to the article in last years NEJM showing that nursing home residents who initiated hemodialysis tended to die and decline in function (see GeriPal write up here). 

The study authors followed patients with the most advanced form of chronic kidney disease (the new name for renal failu…

Survival from severe sepsis: The infection is cured but all is not well

Severe sepsis is a syndrome marked by a severe infection that results in the failure of at least one major organ system: For example, pneumonia complicated by kidney failure. It is the most common non-cardiac cause of critical illness and is associated with a high mortality rate.

But what happens to those who survive their hospitalization for severe sepsis? An important study published in JAMA from Iwashyna and colleagues provides answers and tells us all is not well. When the patient leaves the hospital, the infection may be cured, but the patient and family will need to contend with a host of major new functional and cognitive deficits.

Iwashyna examined disability and cognitive outcomes among 516 survivors of severe sepsis. These subjects were Medicare enrollees who were participants in the Health and Retirement Study. The average age of patients was 77 years.

When interviewed after discharge, most survivors were left with major new deficits in their ability to live independently. …