Article Text

This article has a Reply. Please see:

Download PDFPDF
Response to: ‘Misinterpretation of meaning and intended use of potentially preventable readmissions’ by Goldfield et al
  1. Ann Borzecki1,2,3,
  2. Qi Chen1,
  3. Joseph Restuccia1,4,
  4. Hillary Mull1,3,
  5. Michael Shwartz1,4,
  6. Kalplana Gupta3,
  7. Amresh Hanchate1,3,
  8. Judith Strymish5,
  9. Amy Rosen1,3
  1. 1 Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Bedford VA and Boston VA Campuses, Bedford and Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  2. 2 Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  3. 3 Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  4. 4 Boston University School of Management, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  5. 5 Harvard University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ann Borzecki, CHOIR, Bedford VA Hospital, 200 Springs Rd., Bedford, MA 01730, USA; amb{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We acknowledge here and in our paper1 that the Potentially Preventable Readmissions (PPRs) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) readmission measures are intended to be used for hospital-level comparisons of risk-adjusted rates. The premise behind both measures is that hospitals or providers with higher than expected rates have more readmissions associated with quality of care problems during the index admission and postdischarge periods.2 ,3 However, the PPRs purport to improve upon the CMS all-cause readmission measure by including readmissions that are more likely to be preventable. For both measures, in order to improve rates, a hospital or provider would have to drill down to the individual discharge or patient level to examine further if there were any quality-of-care issues.

Since we wanted to know if the PPRs provided any additional benefit for this purpose beyond …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles