By Susan Stout, Susan H. Connors and Alexandra Bennewith
July 8, 2014, 5 a.m.
“It won’t happen to me.” That’s what we all think when something tragic happens to someone else. Christopher Reeve incurs a spinal cord injury while riding a horse. Congresswoman Giffords sustains a brain injury while campaigning. The Boston Marathon bombing survivors lose limbs, just as our nation’s servicemen and women who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan have.
“It won’t happen to me.”
In the blink of an eye, a car wreck, stroke or devastating illness can rob us of the most basic but essential abilities — walking, bathing, dressing, eating, speaking or even thinking. And while medical advances save lives, it’s the specialized medical rehabilitation provided in a rehabilitation hospital or unit that enables patients to resume their lives, restore their health and regain the skills they need to return home, to work, school or community activities.
Over the years, there has been serious consideration of cutting access to rehabilitation hospitals for Medicare patients. Just last month in its June report to Congress, MedPAC proposed to pay the same amount for rehabilitation regardless of whether the patient is treated in an inpatient rehabilitation hospital or a nursing home. This is referred to as “site-neutral” payment. Their rationale is that the daily cost of care in the nursing home is lower than the hospital, and the care is similar.
In considering the MedPAC report, policy makers must ask what will be the impact and true long-term costs if Medicare patients are diverted away from rehabilitation hospitals and into nursing homes that offer some rehabilitation services for less money. Inpatient rehabilitation hospitals and nursing homes each play an important role for Medicare beneficiaries, but they are simply not the same. They do not offer the same level of rehabilitation care, and patient outcomes are significantly different in both settings. Medicare beneficiaries deserve the level of complex rehabilitation necessary to meet their individual needs and should not be barred from obtaining appropriate rehabilitative care.
Rehabilitation hospitals provide a unique level of care that is specialized, carefully coordinated, intensive, and individualized to help each patient increase their functions, mobility and independence. This makes all the difference in the ability to resume life activities, return to work, live independently, and participate in community activities.
Now, there is new research being released at a briefing hosted by Sens. Tim Johnson and Mark S. Kirk that shows what this difference really means in terms of outcomes.
A national study of 200,000 Medicare beneficiaries found that rehabilitation hospitals achieve better outcomes in a shorter time than nursing homes that are treating clinically similar patients. Rehabilitation hospital patients also stay out of general hospitals, and avoid emergency room visits more than those treated in nursing homes.
This study — which carefully matched patients with comparable demographics, clinical conditions and co-morbidities to ensure an accurate, scientifically-rigorous comparison — found that over a two-year episode of care, rehabilitation hospital patients returned home on average two weeks sooner than nursing home patients, remained at home nearly two months longer, and lived nearly two months longer.
Former Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., candidate for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire, holds his hand over his heart during the singing of the national anthem as he waits to take the stage for his town hall campaign rally with Sen. John McCain at the Pinkerton Academy in Derry, N.H., on Monday, Aug. 18, 2014.