Consumer selection and home health agency quality and patient experience stars

Public Reporting and Consumer Demand in the Home Health Sector

Health care report cards improve information and are a crucial part of health care reform of the federal government of the United States. I exploit a natural experiment in the home health sector to assess whether a higher rating under the star ratings program affects patient choice. Higher rated agencies increased their market share by 1.4% or 0.25 (95% confidence interval: [-0.63, 1.12]) percentage points, a practically and statistically insignificant amount. I find no evidence of heterogeneous effects across the rating distribution or over time. I also find precise null effects among consumers expected to be more responsive, including community-entry patients and patients in competitive markets with more options and star types. Agencies may have modestly impeded consumer choice by engaging in some patient selection behaviors, although the evidence is only weakly suggestive. The star ratings are unlikely to improve home health quality despite continued policymaker interest.

Potentially More Out of Reach: Public Reporting Exacerbates Inequities in Home Health Access

Policy Points Public reporting is associated with both mitigating and exacerbating inequities in high-quality home health agency use for marginalized groups. Ensuring equitable access to home health requires taking a closer look at potentially inequitable policies to ensure that these policies are not inadvertently exacerbating disparities as home health public reporting potentially does. Targeted federal, state, and local interventions should focus on raising awareness about the five-star quality ratings among marginalized populations for whom inequities have been exacerbated.

CONTEXT

Literature suggests that public reporting of quality may have the unintended consequence of exacerbating disparities in access to high-quality, long-term care for older adults. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of the home health five-star ratings on changes in high-quality home health agency use by race, ethnicity, income status, and place-based factors.

METHODS

We use data from the Outcome and Assessment Information Set, Medicare Enrollment Files, Care Compare, and American Community Survey to estimate differential access to high-quality home health agencies between July 2014 and June 2017. To estimate the impact of the home health five-star rating introduction on the use of high-quality home health agencies, we use a longitudinal observational pretest-posttest design.

FINDINGS

After the introduction of the home health five-star ratings in 2016, we found that adjusted rates of high-quality home health agency use increased for all home health patients, except for Hispanic/Latine and Asian American/Pacific Islander patients. Additionally, we found that the disparity in high-quality home health agency use between low-income and higher-income home health patients was exacerbated after the introduction of the five-star quality ratings. We also observed that patients within predominantly Hispanic/Latine neighborhoods had a significant decrease in their use of high-quality home health agencies, whereas patients in predominantly White and integrated neighborhoods had a significant increase in high-quality home health agency use. Other neighborhoods experience a nonsignificant change in high-quality home health agency use.

CONCLUSIONS

Policymakers should be aware of the potential unintended consequences for implementing home health public reporting, specifically for Hispanic/Latine, Asian American/Pacific Islander, and low-income home health patients, as well as patients residing in predominantly Hispanic/Latine neighborhoods. Targeted interventions should focus on raising awareness around the five-star ratings.

Home Health Agency Patient Experience Measures and Their Relationship to Joint Commission Accreditation

BACKGROUND

Health care accreditation is a widely accepted mechanism for improving the quality of care and promoting patient safety. An integral dimension of health care quality is the patient experience of care. However, the influence of accreditation on the patient experience is unclear. The Home Health Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HHCAHPS) survey is the standard for collecting patient care experience data in the home health setting. The aim of this study was to examine the association of Joint Commission accreditation on patients' experience of care by comparing HHCAHPS ratings from Joint Commission-accredited and non-Joint Commission-accredited home health agencies (HHAs).

METHODS

This multiyear observational study used 2015-2019 HHCAHPS data obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) website and Joint Commission databases. The data set included 1,454 (23.8%) Joint Commission-accredited and 4,643 (76.2%) non-Joint Commission-accredited HHAs. Dependent variables included three composite measures of care (Care of Patients, Provider-Patient Communications, and Specific Care Issues) and two global rating measures. Data were analyzed using a series of longitudinal random effects logistic regression models.

RESULTS

This study found no association between Joint Commission accreditation and the two global HHCAHPS measures, modest significant increases for Joint Commission-accredited HHAs in measure rates for the Care of Patients and Communication composite measures (p < 0.05), and a more significant increase for the Specific Care Issues composite measure related to medication safety and home safety (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that Joint Commission accreditation may be positively associated with some patient experience of care outcomes. This relationship was most pronounced when there was significant overlap between the focus of the accreditation standards and focus of the HHCAHPS items.

Impact of Public Reporting of Center-Specific Survival Analysis Scores on Patient Volumes at Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Centers

BACKGROUND

The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) reports the outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) at United States transplant centers (TC) annually through its Center-Specific Survival Analysis (CSA). The CSA compares the actual 1-year overall survival (OS) and predicted 1-year OS rate after alloHCT at each TC, which is then reported as 0 (OS as expected), -1 (OS worse than expected), or +1 (OS better than expected).

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the impact of public reporting of TC performance on their alloHCT patient volumes.

STUDY DESIGN

Ninety-one TCs that serve adult or combined adult and pediatric populations and had CSA scores reported for 2012-2018 were included. We analyzed prior-calendar year TC volume, prior-calendar year CSA score, whether the CSA score had changed in the prior year from two years earlier, calendar year, TC type (adult only vs. combined adult and pediatric), and years of alloHCT experience for their impact on patient volumes.

RESULTS

A CSA score of -1, as compared with 0 or +1, was associated with an 8%-9% reduction in the mean TC volume (P < 0.001) in the subsequent year, adjusting for the prior year center volume. Additionally, being a TC neighboring an index TC with a -1 CSA score, was associated with a 3.5% increase in mean TC volume (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Our data show that public reporting of CSA scores is associated with changes in alloHCT volumes at TCs. Additional investigation into the causes of this shift in patient volume and the impact on outcomes is ongoing.