The effects of New York's bypass surgery provider profiling on access to care and patient outcomes in the elderly

Going the Extra Mile? How Provider Network Design Increases Consumer Travel Distance, Particularly for Rural Consumers

CONTEXT

The practical accessibility to medical care facilitated by health insurance plans depends not just on the number of providers within their networks but also on distances consumers must travel to reach the providers. Long travel distances inconvenience almost all consumers and may substantially reduce choice and access to providers for some.

METHODS

The authors assess mean and median travel distances to cardiac surgeons and pediatricians for participants in (1) plans offered through Covered California, (2) comparable commercial plans, and (3) unrestricted open-network plans. The authors repeat the analysis for higher-quality providers.

FINDINGS

The authors find that in all areas, but especially in rural areas, Covered California plan subscribers must travel longer than subscribers in the comparable commercial plan; subscribers to either plan must travel substantially longer than consumers in open networks. Analysis of access to higher-quality providers show somewhat larger travel distances. Differences between ACA and commercial plans are generally substantively small.

CONCLUSIONS

While network design adds travel distance for all consumers, this may be particularly challenging for transportation-disadvantaged populations. As distance is relevant to both health outcomes and the cost of obtaining care, this analysis provides the basis for more appropriate measures of network adequacy than those currently in use.

A Knotty Problem: Consumer Access and the Regulation of Provider Networks

In order to increase access to medical services, expanding coverage has long been the preferred solution of policy makers and advocates alike. The calculus appeared straightforward: provide individuals with insurance, and they will be able to see a provider when needed. However, this line of thinking overlooks a crucial intermediary step: provider networks. As provider networks offered by health insurers link available medical services to insurance coverage, their breadth mediates access to health care. Yet the regulation of provider networks is technically, logistically, and normatively complex. What does network regulation currently look like and what should it look like in the future? We take inventory of the ways private and public entities regulate provider networks. Variation across insurance programs and products is truly remarkable, not grounded in empirical justification, and at times inherently absurd. We argue that regulators should be pragmatic and focus on plausible policy levers. These include assuring network accuracy, transparency for consumers, and consumer protections from grievous inadequacies. Ultimately, government regulation provides an important foundation for ensuring minimum levels of access and providing consumers with meaningful information. Yet, information is only truly empowering if consumers can exercise at least some choice in balancing costs, access, and quality.

Association Between Current and Future Annual Hospital Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Mortality Rates

Importance

Multiple states publicly report a hospital's risk-adjusted mortality rate for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as a quality measure. However, whether reported annual PCI mortality is associated with a hospital's future performance is unclear.

Objective

To evaluate the association between reported risk-adjusted hospital PCI-related mortality and a hospital's future PCI-related mortality.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study used data from the New York Percutaneous Intervention Reporting System from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2016, to assess hospitals that perform PCI.

Exposures

Public-reported, risk-adjusted, 30-day mortality after PCI.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary analysis evaluated the association between a hospital's reported risk-adjusted PCI-related mortality and future PCI-related mortality. The correlation between a hospital's observed to expected (O/E) PCI-related mortality rates each year and future O/E mortality ratios was assessed. Multivariable linear regression was used to examine the association between index year O/E mortality and O/E mortality in subsequent years while adjusting for PCI volume and patient severity.

Results

This study included 67 New York hospitals and 960 hospital-years. Hospitals with low PCI-related mortality (O/E mortality ratio, ≤1) and high mortality (O/E mortality ratio, >1) had inverse associations between their O/E mortality ratio in the index year and the subsequent change in the ratio (hospitals with low mortality, r = -0.45; hospitals with high mortality, r = -0.60). Little of the variation in risk-adjusted mortality was explained by prior performance. An increase in the O/E mortality ratio from 1.0 to 2.0 in the index year was associated with a higher O/E mortality ratio of only 0.15 (95% CI, 0.02-0.27) in the following year.

Conclusions and Relevance

At hospitals with high or low PCI-related mortality rates, the rates largely regressed to the mean the following year. A hospital's risk-adjusted mortality rate was poorly associated with its future mortality. The annual hospital PCI-related mortality may not be a reliable factor associated with hospital quality to consider in a practice change or when helping patients select high-quality hospitals.

The Impact of Public Performance Reporting on Market Share, Mortality, and Patient Mix Outcomes Associated With Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts and Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (2000-2016): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Objective:

Public performance reporting (PPR) of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes aim to improve the quality of care in hospitals, surgeons and to inform consumer choice. Past CABG and PCI studies have showed mixed effects of PPR on quality and selection. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of PPR on market share, mortality, and patient mix outcomes associated with CABG and PCI.

Methods:

Six online databases and 8 previous reviews were searched for the period 2000–2016. Data extraction, quality assessment, systematic critical synthesis, and meta-analysis (where possible) were carried out on included studies.

Results:

In total, 22 relevant articles covering mortality (n=19), patient mix (n=14), and market share (n=6) outcomes were identified. Meta-analyses showed that PPR led to a near but not significant reduction in short-term mortality for both CABG and PCI. PPR on CABG showed a positive effect on market share for hospitals (3 of 6 studies) and low-performing surgeons (2 of 2 studies). Five of 6 PCI studies found that high-risk patients were less likely to be treated in States with PPR.

Conclusions:

There is some evidence that PPR reduces mortality rates in CABG/PCI-treated patients. The significance of there being no strong evidence, in the period 2000–2016, should be considered. There is need for both further development of PPR practice and further research into the intended and unintended consequences of PPR.

Hospital quality reporting and improvement in quality of care for patients with acute myocardial infarction

Background

Although public reporting of hospital performance is becoming common, it remains uncertain whether public reporting leads to improvement in clinical outcomes. This study was conducted to evaluate whether enrollment in a quality reporting project is associated with improvement in quality of care for patients with acute myocardial infarction.

Methods

We conducted a quasi-experimental study using hospital census survey and national inpatient database in Japan. Hospitals enrolled in a ministry-led quality reporting project were matched with non-reporting control hospitals by one-to-one propensity score matching using hospital characteristics. Using the inpatient data of acute myocardial infarction patients hospitalized in the matched hospitals during 2011–2013, difference-in-differences analyses were conducted to evaluate the changes in unadjusted and risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates over time that are attributable to intervention.

Results

Matching between hospitals created a cohort of 30,220 patients with characteristics similar between the 135 reporting and 135 non-reporting hospitals. Overall in-hospital mortality rates were 13.2% in both the reporting and non-reporting hospitals. There was no significant association between hospital enrollment in the quality reporting project and change over time in unadjusted mortality (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.80–1.22). In 28,168 patients eligible for evaluation of risk-adjusted mortality, enrollment was also not associated with change in risk-adjusted mortality (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.81–1.17).

Conclusions

Enrollment in the quality reporting project was not associated with short-term improvement in quality of care for patients with acute myocardial infarction. Additional efforts may be necessary to improve quality of care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3330-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The effect of consultant outcome publication on surgeon behaviour: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Introduction Surgeon-specific outcome data, or consultant outcome publication, refers to public access to named surgeon procedural outcomes. Consultant outcome publication originates from cardiothoracic surgery, having been introduced to US and UK surgery in 1991 and 2005, respectively. It has been associated with an improvement in patient outcomes. However, there is concern that it may also have led to changes in surgeon behaviour. This review assesses the literature for evidence of risk-averse behaviour, upgrading of patient risk factors and cessation of low-volume or poorly performing surgeons. Materials and methods A systematic literature review of Embase and Medline databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Original studies including data on consultant outcome publication and its potential effect on surgeon behaviour were included. Results Twenty-five studies were identified from the literature search. Studies suggesting the presence of risk-averse behaviour and upgrading of risk factors tended to be survey based, with studies contrary to these findings using recognised regional and national databases. Discussion and conclusion Our review includes instances of consultant outcome publication leading to risk-averse behaviour, upgrading of risk factors and cessation of low-volume or poorly performing surgeons. As UK data on consultant outcome publication matures, further research is essential to ensure that high-risk patients are not inappropriately turned down for surgery.

Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care

Background

The feedback of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data is intended to support the care of individual patients and to act as a quality improvement (QI) strategy.

Objectives

To (1) identify the ideas and assumptions underlying how individual and aggregated PROMs data are intended to improve patient care, and (2) review the evidence to examine the circumstances in which and processes through which PROMs feedback improves patient care.

Design

Two separate but related realist syntheses: (1) feedback of aggregate PROMs and performance data to improve patient care, and (2) feedback of individual PROMs data to improve patient care.

Interventions

Aggregate – feedback and public reporting of PROMs, patient experience data and performance data to hospital providers and primary care organisations. Individual – feedback of PROMs in oncology, palliative care and the care of people with mental health problems in primary and secondary care settings.

Main outcome measures

Aggregate – providers’ responses, attitudes and experiences of using PROMs and performance data to improve patient care. Individual – providers’ and patients’ experiences of using PROMs data to raise issues with clinicians, change clinicians’ communication practices, change patient management and improve patient well-being.

Data sources

Searches of electronic databases and forwards and backwards citation tracking.

Review methods

Realist synthesis to identify, test and refine programme theories about when, how and why PROMs feedback leads to improvements in patient care.

Results

Providers were more likely to take steps to improve patient care in response to the feedback and public reporting of aggregate PROMs and performance data if they perceived that these data were credible, were aimed at improving patient care, and were timely and provided a clear indication of the source of the problem. However, implementing substantial and sustainable improvement to patient care required system-wide approaches. In the care of individual patients, PROMs function more as a tool to support patients in raising issues with clinicians than they do in substantially changing clinicians’ communication practices with patients. Patients valued both standardised and individualised PROMs as a tool to raise issues, but thought is required as to which patients may benefit and which may not. In settings such as palliative care and psychotherapy, clinicians viewed individualised PROMs as useful to build rapport and support the therapeutic process. PROMs feedback did not substantially shift clinicians’ communication practices or focus discussion on psychosocial issues; this required a shift in clinicians’ perceptions of their remit.

Strengths and limitations

There was a paucity of research examining the feedback of aggregate PROMs data to providers, and we drew on evidence from interventions with similar programme theories (other forms of performance data) to test our theories.

Conclusions

PROMs data act as ‘tin openers’ rather than ‘dials’. Providers need more support and guidance on how to collect their own internal data, how to rule out alternative explanations for their outlier status and how to explore the possible causes of their outlier status. There is also tension between PROMs as a QI strategy versus their use in the care of individual patients; PROMs that clinicians find useful in assessing patients, such as individualised measures, are not useful as indicators of service quality.

Future work

Future research should (1) explore how differently performing providers have responded to aggregate PROMs feedback, and how organisations have collected PROMs data both for individual patient care and to improve service quality; and (2) explore whether or not and how incorporating PROMs into patients’ electronic records allows multiple different clinicians to receive PROMs feedback, discuss it with patients and act on the data to improve patient care.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005938.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Quality Report Cards, Selection of Cardiac Surgeons, and Racial Disparities: A Study of the Publication of the New York State Cardiac Surgery Reports

Quality report cards have become common in many health care markets. This study evaluates their effectiveness by examining the impact of the New York State (NYS) Cardiac Surgery Reports on selection of cardiac surgeons. The analyses compares selection of surgeons in 1991 (pre-report publication) and 1992 (post-report publication). We find that the information about a surgeon's quality published in the reports influences selection directly and diminishes the importance of surgeon experience and price as signals for quality. Furthermore, selection of surgeons for black patients is as sensitive to the published information as is the selection for white patients.

Do Cardiac Surgery Report Cards Reduce Mortality? Assessing the Evidence

Provider report cards feature prominently in ongoing efforts to improve patient quality. A well-known example is the cardiac surgery report-card program started in New York, which publicly compares hospital and surgeon performance. Public report cards have been associated with decreases in cardiac surgery mortality, but there is substantial disagreement over the source(s) of the improvement. This article develops a conceptual framework to explain how report-card-related responses could result in lower mortality and reviews the evidence. Existing research shows that report cards have not greatly changed referral patterns. How much providers increased their quality of care and altered their selection of patients remains unresolved, and alternative explanations have not been well studied. Future research should expand the number of states and years covered and exploit the variation in institutional features to improve our understanding of the relationship between report cards and outcomes.

Public Reporting of Mortality Rates for Hospitalized Medicare Patients and Trends in Mortality for Reported Conditions

BACKGROUND

Public reporting is seen as a powerful quality improvement tool, but data to support its efficacy are limited. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Hospital Compare program initially reported process metrics only but started reporting mortality rates for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia in 2008.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether public reporting of mortality rates was associated with lower mortality rates for these conditions among Medicare beneficiaries.

DESIGN

For 2005 to 2007, process-only reporting was considered; for 2008 to 2012, process and mortality reporting was considered. Changes in mortality trends before and during reporting periods were estimated by using patient-level hierarchical modeling. Nonreported medical conditions were used as a secular control.

SETTING

U.S. acute care hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

20 707 266 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized from January 2005 through November 2012.

MEASUREMENTS

30-day risk-adjusted mortality rates.

RESULTS

Mortality rates for the 3 publicly reported conditions were changing at an absolute rate of -0.23% per quarter during process-only reporting, but this change slowed to a rate of -0.09% per quarter during process and mortality reporting (change, 0.13% per quarter; 95% CI, 0.12% to 0.14%). Mortality for nonreported conditions was changing at -0.17% per quarter during process-only reporting and slowed slightly to -0.11% per quarter during process and mortality reporting (change, 0.06% per quarter; CI, 0.05% to 0.07%).

LIMITATION

Administrative data may have limited ability to account for changes in patient complexity over time.

CONCLUSION

Changes in mortality trends suggest that reporting in Hospital Compare was associated with a slowing, rather than an improvement, in the ongoing decline in mortality among Medicare patients.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

The impact of Public Reporting on clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

To assess both qualitatively and quantitatively the impact of Public Reporting (PR) on clinical outcomes, we carried out a systematic review of published studies on this topic.

Methods

Pubmed, Web of Science and SCOPUS databases were searched to identify studies published from 1991 to 2014 that investigated the relationship between PR and clinical outcomes. Studies were considered eligible if they investigated the relationship between PR and clinical outcomes and comprehensively described the PR mechanism and the study design adopted. Among the clinical outcomes identified, meta-analysis was performed for overall mortality rate which quantitative data were exhaustively reported in a sufficient number of studies. Two reviewers conducted all data extraction independently and disagreements were resolved through discussion. The same reviewers evaluated also the quality of the studies using a GRADE approach.

Results

Twenty-seven studies were included. Mainly, the effect of PR on clinical outcomes was positive. Meta-analysis regarding overall mortality included, in a context of high heterogeneity, 10 studies with a total of 1,840,401 experimental events and 3,670,446 control events and resulted in a RR of 0.85 (95 % CI, 0.79-0.92).

Conclusions

The introduction of PR programs at different levels of the healthcare sector is a challenging but rewarding public health strategy. Existing research covering different clinical outcomes supports the idea that PR could, in fact, stimulate providers to improve healthcare quality.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1543-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Has Public Reporting of Hospital Readmission Rates Affected Patient Outcomes?: Analysis of Medicare Claims Data

BACKGROUND

In 2009, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) began publicly reporting 30-day hospital readmission rates for patients discharged with acute myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), or pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed trends of 30-day readmission rates and post-discharge care since the implementation of CMS public reporting.

METHODS

We analyzed Medicare claims data from 2006 to 2012 for patients discharged after a hospitalization for MI, HF, or pneumonia. For each diagnosis, we estimated trends in 30-day all-cause readmissions and post-discharge care (emergency department visits and observation stays) by using hospitalization-level regression models. We modeled adjusted trends before and after the implementation of public reporting. To assess for a change in trend, we tested the difference between the slope before implementation and the slope after implementation.

RESULTS

We analyzed 37,829 hospitalizations for MI, 100,189 for HF, and 79,076 for pneumonia from >4,100 hospitals. When considering only recent trends (i.e., since 2009), we found improvements in adjusted readmission rates for MI (-2.3%), HF (-1.8%), and pneumonia (-2.0%), but when comparing the trend before public reporting with the trend after reporting, there was no difference for MI (p = 0.72), HF (p = 0.19), or pneumonia (p = 0.21). There were no changes in trends for 30-day post-discharge care for MI or pneumonia; however, the trend decreased for HF emergency department visits from 2.3% to -0.8% (p = 0.007) and for observation stays from 15.1% to 4.1% (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The release of the CMS public reporting of hospital readmission rates was not associated with any measurable change in 30-day readmission trends for MI, HF, or pneumonia, but it was associated with less hospital-based acute care for HF.

Analytic Reviews: Considerations in the Development of Intensive Care Unit Report Cards

Concerns over health care quality have prompted calls for the public release of performance data, or “report cards,” as one strategy for improving quality. Any initiative to create a report card should start with the selection of valid quality indicators. This is complicated by the need to account for variations in case mix among intensive care units (ICUs), the difficulty in defining which patients are receiving critical care, and the fact that pre-ICU and post-ICU care can influence the outcomes of care for ICU patients. The difficulties in measuring quality accurately make some providers reluctant to release performance data to the public, but advocates of public disclosure point to examples of improved quality after publication of report cards. Consumer and purchaser demand for report cards continues to increase, so public reporting of performance data likely will become more common. In light of this trend, it is important for physicians to become involved in the development of report cards to ensure that quality measurement is valid and that the data are used for quality improvement.

Collaborative quality improvement vs public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention: A comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention in New York vs Michigan

INTRODUCTION

Public reporting (PR) is a policy mechanism that may improve clinical outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, prior studies have shown that PR may have an adverse impact on patient selection. It is unclear whether alternatives to PR, such as collaborative quality improvement (CQI), may drive improvements in quality of care and outcomes for patients receiving PCI without the unintended consequences seen with PR.

METHODS

Using National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry data from January 2011 through September 2012, we evaluated patients who underwent PCI in New York (NY), a state with PR (N = 51,983), to Michigan, a state with CQI (N = 53,528). We compared patient characteristics, the quality of care delivered, and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing PCI in NY had a lower-risk profile, with a lower proportion of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, or cardiogenic shock, compared with Michigan. Quality of care was broadly similar in the 2 states; however, outcomes were better in NY. In a propensity-matched analysis, patients in NY were less likely to be referred for emergent, urgent, or salvage coronary artery bypass surgery (odds ratio [OR] 0.67, 95% CI 0.51-0.88, P < .0001) and to receive blood transfusion (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.61-0.82, P < .0001), and had lower in-hospital mortality (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.83, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Public reporting of PCI data is associated with fewer high-risk patients undergoing PCI compared with CQI. However, in comparable samples of patients, PR is also associated with a lower risk of mortality and adverse events. The optimal quality improvement method may involve combining these 2 strategies to protect access to care while still driving improvements in patient outcomes.

Effect of public reporting on intensive care unit discharge destination and outcomes

RATIONALE

Public reporting of hospital performance is designed to improve healthcare outcomes by promoting quality improvement and informing consumer choice, but these programs may carry unintended consequences.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether publicly reporting in-hospital mortality rates for intensive care unit (ICU) patients influenced discharge patterns or mortality.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study taking advantage of a natural experiment in which California, but not other states, publicly reported hospital-specific severity-adjusted ICU mortality rates between 2007 and 2012. We used multivariable logistic regression adjusted for patient, hospital, and regional characteristics to compare mortality rates and discharge patterns between California and states without public reporting for Medicare fee-for-service ICU admissions from 2005 through 2009 using a difference-in-differences approach.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We assessed discharge patterns using post-acute care use and acute care hospital transfer rates and mortality using in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates. The study cohort included 936,063 patients admitted to 646 hospitals. Compared with control subjects, admission to a California ICU after the introduction of public reporting was associated with a reduced odds of post-acute care use in post-reform year 2 (ratio of odds ratios [ORs], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-0.96) and increased odds of transfer to another acute care hospital in both post-reform years (year 1: ratio of ORs, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.16; year 2: ratio of ORs, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.33-1.53). There were no significant differences in in-hospital or 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Public reporting of ICU in-hospital mortality rates was associated with changes in discharge patterns but no change in risk-adjusted mortality.

The impact of high-risk cases on hospitals' risk-adjusted coronary artery bypass grafting mortality rankings

BACKGROUND

Risk-adjusted mortality (RAM) models are increasingly used to evaluate hospital performance, but the validity of the RAM method has been questioned. Providers are concerned that these methods might not adequately account for the highest levels of risk and that treating high-risk cases will have a negative impact on RAM rankings.

METHODS

Using cases of isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) performed at 1002 sites in the United States participating in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database from 2008 to 2010 (N = 494,955), the STS CABG RAM model performance in high-risk patients was assessed. The ratios of observed to expected (O/E) perioperative mortality were compared among groups of hospitals with varying expected risks. Finally, RAM rates during the overall study period for each site were compared with its performance in a simulated "nightmare year" in which the site's highest risk cases over a 3-year period were concentrated into a 1-year period of exceptional risk.

RESULTS

The average predicted mortality for center risk groups ranged from 1.46% for the lowest risk quintile to 2.87% for the highest. The O/E ratios for center risk quintiles 1 to 5 during the overall period were 1.01 (95% confidence interval, 0.96% to 1.06%), 1.00 (0.95% to 1.04%), 0.98 (0.94% to 1.03%), 0.97 (0.93% to 1.01%), and 0.80 (0.77% to 0.84%), respectively. The sites' risk-adjusted mortality rates were not increased when the centers' highest risk cases were concentrated into a single "nightmare year."

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that the current risk-adjusted models accurately estimate CABG mortality and that hospitals accepting more high-risk CABG patients have equal or better outcomes than do those with predominately lower-risk patients.

Access to coronary artery bypass graft surgery under pay for performance: evidence from the premier hospital quality incentive demonstration

BACKGROUND

Although pay for performance (P4P) has become common, many worry that P4P will lead providers to avoid offering surgical procedures to the sickest patients out of concern that poor outcomes will lead to financial penalties.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We used Medicare data to compare change in rates of coronary artery bypass graft surgery between 2002 to 2003 and 2008 to 2009 among patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) admitted to 126 hospitals participating in Medicare's Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration P4P program with patients in 848 control hospitals participating in public reporting through the Health Quality Alliance. We examined rates for all patients with AMI and those in the top decile of predicted mortality based on demographics, medical comorbidities, and AMI characteristics. We identified 91 393 patients admitted for AMI in Premier hospitals and 502 536 Medicare patients admitted for AMI in control hospitals. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery rates for patients with AMI in Premier decreased from 13.6% in 2002 to 2003 to 10.4% in 2008 to 2009; there was a comparable decrease in non-Premier hospitals (13.6%-10.6%; P value for comparison of changes between Premier and non-Premier, 0.67). Coronary artery bypass graft surgery rates for high-risk patients in Premier decreased from 8.4% in FY 2002 to 203 to 8.2% in 2008 to 2009. Patterns were similar in non-Premier hospitals (8.4%-8.3%; P value for comparison of changes between Premier and non-Premier, 0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show no evidence of a deleterious effect of P4P on access to coronary artery bypass graft surgery for high-risk patients with AMI. These results should be reassuring to those concerned about the potential negative effect of P4P on high-risk patients.

Risk factors for in-hospital mortality and prolonged length of stay in older patients with solid tumor malignancies

OBJECTIVE

Hospitalized adult patients with cancer and with major comorbidities have higher mortality rates and longer duration of hospitalization. There is limited understanding of risk factors that contribute to prolonged hospitalization and mortality in older patients with solid tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Risk factors associated with in-hospital mortality and prolonged length of stay (LOS) in older patients with cancer were investigated in a retrospective cohort study. Data from the University HealthSystem Consortium database included 386,377 patients age ≥ 65 years with solid tumors hospitalized between 1995 and 2003 at 133 U.S. academic medical centers.

RESULTS

The overall mortality rate was 7.3%. Mortality in older patients with cancer was strongly associated with longer LOS. Almost twice as many deaths were observed among those with LOS ≥ 10 days (p<0.0001). Nearly 38% of older cancer patients who died in hospital had potentially curable disease. Primary central nervous system malignancies were most strongly associated with in-hospital mortality (OR=1.81; 1.59-2.07), followed by esophageal (OR=1.74; 1.54-1.97) and lung cancer (OR=1.57; 1.43-1.72). Male gender, African-American race, and Hispanic and Asian race/ethnicity were associated with increased risk of mortality (p<0.0001). Additional risk factors included metastatic disease, infection, neutropenia, renal, lung, hepatic, cerebrovascular disease, arterial/venous thromboembolism, heart failure, and red blood cell transfusion. Risk factors for prolonged LOS included gastric cancer, infection, venous thromboembolism and red blood cell transfusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged LOS was strongly associated with mortality. Risk factors such as infection, neutropenia and red blood cell transfusion, when modified, could potentially reduce rates of prolonged LOS and mortality in older patients with cancer.

Generating new knowledge in cardiac interventions

Cardiac interventions are among the most quantitatively studied therapies. It is important for all involved with cardiac interventions to understand how information generated from observations made during patient care is transformed into data suitable for analysis, to appreciate at a high level what constitutes appropriate analyses of those data, to effectively evaluate inferences drawn from those analyses, and to apply new knowledge to better care for individual patients.

Association of public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention with utilization and outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries with acute myocardial infarction

CONTEXT

Public reporting of patient outcomes is an important tool to improve quality of care, but some observers worry that such efforts will lead clinicians to avoid high-risk patients.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with lower rates of PCI for patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) or with higher mortality rates in this population.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

Retrospective observational study conducted using data from fee-for-service Medicare patients (49,660 from reporting states and 48,142 from nonreporting states) admitted with acute MI to US acute care hospitals between 2002 and 2010. Logistic regression was used to compare PCI and mortality rates between reporting states (New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania) and regional nonreporting states (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland, and Delaware). Changes in PCI rates over time in Massachusetts compared with nonreporting states were also examined.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Risk-adjusted PCI and mortality rates.

RESULTS

In 2010, patients with acute MI were less likely to receive PCI in public reporting states than in nonreporting states (unadjusted rates, 37.7% vs 42.7%, respectively; risk-adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.71-0.93]; P = .003). Differences were greatest among the 6708 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (61.8% vs 68.0%; OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.59-0.89]; P = .002) and the 2194 patients with cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest (41.5% vs 46.7%; OR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.64-0.98]; P = .03). There were no differences in overall mortality among patients with acute MI in reporting vs nonreporting states. In Massachusetts, odds of PCI for acute MI were comparable with odds in nonreporting states prior to public reporting (40.6% vs 41.8%; OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.71-1.41]). However, after implementation of public reporting, odds of undergoing PCI in Massachusetts decreased compared with nonreporting states (41.1% vs 45.6%; OR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.47-1.38]; P = .03 for difference in differences). Differences were most pronounced for the 6081 patients with cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest (prereporting: 44.2% vs 36.6%; OR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.85-2.32]; postreporting: 43.9% vs 44.8%; OR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.38-2.22]; P = .03 for difference in differences).

CONCLUSIONS

Among Medicare beneficiaries with acute MI, the use of PCI was lower for patients treated in 3 states with public reporting of PCI outcomes compared with patients treated in 7 regional control states without public reporting. However, there was no difference in overall acute MI mortality between states with and without public reporting.

The New York State cardiac registries: history, contributions, limitations, and lessons for future efforts to assess and publicly report healthcare outcomes

In 1988, the New York State Health Commissioner was confronted with hospital-level data demonstrating very large, multiple-year, interhospital variations in short-term mortality and complications for cardiac surgery. The concern with the extent to which these differences were due to variations in patients' pre-surgical severity of illness versus hospitals' quality of care led to the development of clinical registries for cardiac surgery in 1989 and for percutaneous coronary interventions in 1992 in New York. In 1990, the Department of Health released hospitals' risk-adjusted cardiac surgery mortality rates for the first time, and shortly thereafter, similar data were released for hospitals and physicians for percutaneous coronary interventions, cardiac valve surgery, and pediatric cardiac surgery (only hospital data). This practice is still ongoing. The purpose of this communication is to relate the history of this initiative, including changes or purported changes that have occurred since the public release of cardiac data. These changes include decreases in risk-adjusted mortality, cessation of cardiac surgery in New York by low-volume and high-mortality surgeons, out-of-state referral or avoidance of cardiac surgery/angioplasty for high-risk patients, alteration of contracting choices by insurance companies, and modifications in market share of cardiac hospitals. Evidence related to these impacts is reviewed and critiqued. This communication also includes a summary of numerous studies that used New York's cardiac registries to examine a variety of policy issues regarding the choice and use of cardiac procedures, the comparative effectiveness of competing treatment options, and the examination of the relationship among processes, structures, and outcomes of cardiac care.

Medicare's public reporting initiative on hospital quality had modest or no impact on mortality from three key conditions

Hospital Compare, Medicare's public reporting initiative, began reporting measures of hospital quality for almost all US acute care hospitals in 2005. The impact of this public reporting initiative on patient mortality is unknown. We used Medicare claims data from the period 2000-08 to estimate the effect of Hospital Compare on thirty-day mortality for heart attack, heart failure, and pneumonia. Our analysis indicates that the fact that hospitals had to report quality data under Hospital Compare led to no reductions in mortality beyond existing trends for heart attack and pneumonia and led to a modest reduction in mortality for heart failure. We conclude that Medicare's public reporting initiative for hospitals has had a minimal impact on patient mortality.

Public reporting of health care-associated infections (HAIs): approach to choosing HAI measures

OBJECTIVE

To develop a method for selecting health care-associated infection (HAI) measures for public reporting.

CONTEXT

HAIs are common, serious, and costly adverse outcomes of medical care that affect 2 million people in the United States annually. Thirty-seven states have introduced or passed legislation requiring public reporting of HAI measures. State legislation varies widely regarding which HAIs to report, how the data are collected and reported, and public availability of results.

DESIGN

The Maryland Health Care Commission developed an HAI Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that consisted of a group of experts in the field of healthcare epidemiology, infection prevention and control (IPC), and public health. This group reviewed public reporting systems in other states, surveyed Maryland hospitals to determine the current state of IPC programs, performed a literature review on HAI measures, and developed six criteria for ranking the measures: impact, improvability, inclusiveness, frequency, functionality, and feasibility. The committee and experts in the field then ranked each of 18 proposed HAI measures. A composite score was determined for each measure.

RESULTS

Among outcome measures, the rate of central line-associated bloodstream infections ranked highest, followed by the rate of post-coronary artery bypass grafting surgical-site infections. Among process measures, perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis, compliance with central-line bundles, compliance with hand hygiene, and healthcare-worker influenza vaccination ranked highest.

CONCLUSIONS

Our qualitative criteria facilitated consensus on the HAI TAC and provided a useful framework for public reporting of HAI measures. Validation will be important for such approaches to be supported by the scientific community.

Public Reporting on Risk-Adjusted Mortality After Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in New York State

Background—

Since the advent of public reporting on risk-adjusted mortality for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, public reporting on outcomes has expanded to include a variety of dissimilar conditions and procedures. We have little evidence to support such broad-based efforts.

Methods and Results—

We examined the quality performance of 351 cardiologists at 48 hospitals in New York State, using publicly reported risk-adjusted mortality rates (RAMRs) for nonemergent percutaneous coronary interventions between 1998 and 2007. In the year after report release, we examined the following: (1) average RAMR for hospitals, (2) change in market share for hospitals and cardiologists, and (3) proportion of physicians leaving practice. We found that patients who picked a hospital that performed significantly better than expected in prior years had lower RAMRs (0.47, 0.61, and 0.72 for patients choosing hospitals whose prior reports were better than, as, and worse than expected; P =0.02). However, choosing a hospital in the top quartile (or decile) of performance in prior years did not decrease a patient's chance of dying ( P =0.29, or P =0.27). Performance ranking was not associated with a change in market share for hospitals or for physicians, or with leaving practice (all P >0.05).

Conclusions—

Public reporting on nonemergent percutaneous coronary interventions in New York State identifies very high and low performers but provides insufficient information to differentiate between most hospitals. It appears to have had no effect on market share or physicians' decisions to leave practice. The utility of public reporting on RAMRs may differ for different conditions and procedures.

The need for transformative innovation in hypertension management

Despite multiple available effective therapies for hypertension, many patients with high blood pressure in the United States are not adequately controlled. This inability to effectively manage hypertension can be attributed to patient, provider, and system failures. To create an effective model for hypertension management, current care delivery systems must be reorganized around the following principles: improved patient engagement and patient-provider communication, increased use of nonphysician providers, better performance monitoring and feedback systems, and better aligned reimbursement models. Transformation of care around these principles would lead to marked improvements in cost, quality, and access to care.

Applying market-based reforms to long-term care

Recent trends in U.S. long-term care policy reflect three broad goals Americans have for the quality of long-term care: improving quality of life, reducing fragmentation of delivery and financing, and increasing use of home and community-based care. At the same time, market-based reforms--namely, public reporting and pay-for-performance--have taken on their own momentum, aimed at improving the clinical quality of care among nursing home and home health care providers. The focus of reporting systems should be broadened to include quality of life in addition to clinical quality and to make measures less dependent on the setting in which care is delivered.

Effect of repeated public releases on cesarean section rates

OBJECTIVES

Public release of and feedback (here after public release) on institutional (clinics and hospitals) cesarean section rates has had the effect of reducing cesarean section rates. However, compared to the isolated intervention, there was scant evidence of the effect of repeated public releases (RPR) on cesarean section rates. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effect of RPR for reducing cesarean section rates.

METHODS

From January 2003 to July 2007, the nationwide monthly institutional cesarean section rates data (1,951,303 deliveries at 1194 institutions) were analyzed. We used autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) time-series intervention models to assess the effect of the RPR on cesarean section rates and ordinal logistic regression model to determine the characteristics of the change in cesarean section rates.

RESULTS

Among four RPR, we found that only the first one (August 29, 2005) decreased the cesarean section rate (by 0.81 percent) and continued to have an impact period through the last observation in May 2007. Baseline cesarean section rates (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 3.1 to 7.1) and annual number of deliveries (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.6 to 4.7) of institutions in the upper third of each category at before first intervention had a significant contribution to the decrease of cesarean section rates.

CONCLUSIONS

We could not found the evidence that RPR has had the significant effect of reducing cesarean section rates. Institutions with upper baseline cesarean section rates and annual number of deliveries were more responsive to RPR.