Nursing home price and quality responses to publicly reported quality information

Transition from hospital to nursing home: Discharge planners as a potential lever for quality improvements?

BACKGROUND

Public reporting is supposed to be helpful in differentiating between well and poorly performing nursing homes; however, hospital patients often have difficulties to deal with quality information. Discharge planners (DP) can support them in comparing quality and, by influencing patients' decision, lead to better provision of care in nursing homes.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the choice behavior of DP, their use of quality information and the potential to impact the decision-making of patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 70 DP from German hospitals with a geriatric department participated in an online survey. They were asked about information preferences and tools used for nursing home searches. In addition, they assessed quality information items from the new German quality reporting on a Likert scale. To test their comprehension participants were given a case scenario of a typical patient, were shown nursing homes displayed based on a medical comparison portal navigator (AOK-Pflegenavigator) and were asked to select nursing homes in a 3-round experiment.

RESULTS

When looking for a nursing home, DP primarily rely on internal nursing home directories (n = 62; 92.5%). The 3 preferred criteria for decision are: distance to the family (n = 55; 28.80%), bed availability (n = 51; 26.7%) and wishes of patients/relatives (n = 41; 21.47%). The consent score for public reporting was 46.28% and the comprehension ratio was 82.24%.

DISCUSSION

The DP do not advise hospital patients on the performance of nursing homes and rely on the decision-making of patients. This results in a lack of impact on patients' decisions and consequently in a loss of potential for public reporting to lead to better care in nursing homes.

Web-Based Public Reporting as a Decision-Making Tool for Consumers of Long-Term Care in the United States and the United Kingdom: Systematic Analysis of Report Cards

BACKGROUND

Report cards can help consumers make an informed decision when searching for a long-term care facility.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to examine the current state of web-based public reporting on long-term care facilities in the United States and the United Kingdom.

METHODS

We conducted an internet search for report cards, which allowed for a nationwide search for long-term care facilities and provided freely accessible quality information. On the included report cards, we drew a sample of 1320 facility profiles by searching for long-term care facilities in 4 US and 2 UK cities. Based on those profiles, we analyzed the information provided by the included report cards descriptively.

RESULTS

We found 40 report cards (26 in the United States and 14 in the United Kingdom). In total, 11 of them did not state the source of information. Additionally, 7 report cards had an advanced search field, 24 provided simplification tools, and only 3 had a comparison function. Structural quality information was always provided, followed by consumer feedback on 27 websites, process quality on 15 websites, prices on 12 websites, and outcome quality on 8 websites. Inspection results were always displayed as composite measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Apparently, the identified report cards have deficits. To make them more helpful for users and to bring public reporting a bit closer to its goal of improving the quality of health care services, both countries are advised to concentrate on optimizing the existing report cards. Those should become more transparent and improve the reporting of prices and consumer feedback. Advanced search, simplification tools, and comparison functions should be integrated more widely.

Sociosanitary Legal and Economic Aspects in Nursing Homes for the Elderly in Spain

AIM

The study aimed to identify and compare aspects of the different Spanish regulations on the minimum conditions that nursing homes must meet and to compare whether these requirements significantly affect the price of a nursing home place in each region.

METHODS

We analyzed and compared the 17 regional regulations that must be met by nursing homes in terms of equipment and social and healthcare staff and combined this information with regional information concerning the price and coverage of public and subsidized places in nursing homes.

RESULTS

The study revealed significant regional inequality in physical facilities and human resources. However, the number of regulatory measures referring to the mandatory availability of physical space or specific material resources was not positively correlated with an increase in the price of a place in a public or subsidized nursing home.

CONCLUSIONS

No unified regulations throughout Spain regulate the aspects that residential centers must comply with. There is a need to move towards a person-centered approach, providing an environment as close to home as possible. The regulation of minimum standards to be met by all nursing homes at the national level should not significantly impact prices.

The 2021 proposal to increase market forces in the Australian residential aged-care sector

In Australia, the US and Europe, policy makers use markets to incentivise aged care providers to produce greater quality care. The Australian Government announced in 2021 that it would further increase market forces in residential aged care to improve quality. The proposals respond to poor quality found within residential aged care, with overuse of psychotropic medications and physical constraints, social isolation and neglect. This paper outlines the market-orientated reforms the Government seeks to implement, including the policy development pathway over the last two decades. It refers to a theoretical model of provider behaviour under administered prices, and empirical research on the impact of similar market-orientated reforms delivered elsewhere, to highlight the reforms' strengths, weaknesses, and potential market outcomes. This paper concludes by identifying additional reforms that could better incentivise care quality and offers lessons to countries that have sought to marketise their nursing home care sectors.

Two Decades of Nursing Home Compare: What Have We Learned?

Approximately two decades ago, federally mandated public reporting began for U.S. nursing homes through a system now known as Nursing Home Compare. The goals were to provide information to enable consumers to choose higher quality nursing homes and to incent providers to improve the quality of care delivered. We conduct a systematic review of the literature on responses to Nursing Home Compare and its effectiveness in meeting these goals. We find evidence of modest but meaningful response by both consumers and providers. However, we also find evidence that some improvement in scores does not reflect true quality improvement, that disparities by race and income have increased, that risk-adjustment of the measures is likely inadequate, and that several key domains of quality are not represented. Our results support moderate success of Nursing Home Compare in achieving intended goals but also reveal the need for continued refinement.

Secret Shopper Data on Private Prices in the Nursing Home Industry From 2008 to 2010

Nationwide nursing home private-pay prices at the facility-level have not been available for researchers interested in studying this unique health care market. This study presents a new data source, Caregiverlist, for private-pay prices for private and semiprivate rooms for 12,000 nursing homes nationwide collected between 2008 and 2010. We link these data to publicly available national nursing home-level data sets to examine the relationship between price and nursing home characteristics. We also compare private-pay prices with average private-pay revenues per day for California nursing homes obtained from facilities' financial filings. On average, private-pay prices were $224 per day for private rooms compared with $197 per day for semiprivate rooms. We find that nursing homes that are nonprofit, urban, hospital-based, have a special care unit, chain-owned, and have higher quality ratings have higher prices. We find average revenues per day in California to be moderately correlated with prices reported by Caregiverlist.

The Determinants and Variation of Nursing Home Private-Pay Prices: Organizational and Market Structure

Nursing home (NH) care is arguably the most significant financial risk faced by the elderly without long-term care insurance or Medicaid coverage. Annual out-of-pocket expenditures for NH care can easily exceed $70,000. However, our understanding of private-pay prices is limited by data availability. Utilizing a unique data set on NH prices from 2005 through 2010 across eight states, we find that NH price growth has consistently outpaced growth in consumer and medical care prices. After adjusting for geographical and facility differences, for-profit chains charge the lowest prices, independently operated for-profit and nonprofit NHs have similar prices, and nonprofit chains charge the highest prices. Adjusted prices are also likely to be higher when NHs have higher occupancy rates and markets are more concentrated. The significant differences in price across organizational and market structures suggest private-pay prices can be an important factor when evaluating and comparing the value of NH care.

Quality rating and private-prices: Evidence from the nursing home industry

We use the rollout of the five-star rating of nursing homes to study how private-pay prices respond to quality rating. We find that star rating increases the price differential between top- and bottom-ranked facilities. On average, prices of top-ranked facilities increased by 4.8 to 6.0 percent more than the prices of bottom-ranked facilities. We find stronger price effects in markets that are less concentrated where consumers may have more choices of alternative nursing homes. Our results suggest that with simplified design and when markets are less concentrated, consumers are more responsive to quality reporting.

Market Conditions and Performance in the Nursing Home Compare Five-Star Rating

Previous studies have documented that market conditions affect nursing home performance; however, the evidence is inconsistent and conflicting. This study introduces three groups of county market conditions and a peer effect variable, and tests their impacts on the Nursing Home Compare (NHC) Five-Star overall rating. Indiana nursing home data and county characteristics are taken mainly from the NHC and Census Bureau websites. The result of the ordered logistic regression analysis indicates that nursing homes in excess demand markets, namely those that are highly concentrated and have fewer nursing homes, tend to perform better than their counterparts in both excess supply and balanced markets. In addition, a peer effect variable, measured as the average overall rating of the competitors, promotes performance improvement. These findings imply that small markets enable consumers to be well informed about a provider's reputation for quality, consequently enhancing performance. Furthermore, not only consumers but also providers seem to seek performance information on the report card to understand their relative position in the market, which thus affects their market strategies and subsequently performance.

Public reporting and the quality of care of German nursing homes

OBJECTIVES

Since 2009, German nursing homes have been evaluated regularly by an external institution with quality report cards published online. We follow recent debates and argue that most of the information in the report cards does not reliably measure quality of care. However, a subset of up to seven measures does. Do these measures that reflect "risk factors" improve over time?

METHOD

Using a sample of more than 3000 German nursing homes with information on two waves, we assume that the introduction of public reporting is an exogenous institutional change and apply before-after-estimations to obtain estimates for the relation between public reporting and quality.

RESULTS

We find a significant improvement of the identified risk factors. Also, the two employed outcome quality indicators improve significantly. The improvements are driven by nursing homes with low quality in the first evaluation.

CONCLUSION

To the extent that this can be interpreted as evidence that public reporting positively affects the (reported) quality in nursing homes, policy makers should carefully choose indicators reflecting care-sensitive quality.

Is Anyone Paying Attention to Physician Report Cards? The Impact of Increased Availability on Consumers' Awareness and Use of Physician Quality Information

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the release of health care report cards focused on physician practice quality measures leads to changes in consumers' awareness and use of this information.

PRIMARY DATA SOURCES

Data from two rounds of a survey of the chronically ill adult population conducted in 14 regions across the United States, combined with longitudinal information from a public reporting tracking database. Both data were collected as part of the evaluation for Aligning Forces for Quality, a nationwide quality improvement initiative funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

STUDY DESIGN

Using a longitudinal design and an individual-level fixed effects modeling approach, we estimated the impact of community public reporting efforts, measured by the availability and applicability of physician quality reports, on consumers' awareness and use of physician quality information (PQI).

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The baseline level of awareness was 12.6 percent in our study sample, drawn from the general population of chronically ill adults. Among those who were not aware of PQI at the baseline, when PQI became available in their communities for the first time, along with quality measures that are applicable to their specific chronic conditions, the likelihood of PQI awareness increased by 3.8 percentage points. For the same group, we also find similar increases in the uses of PQI linked to newly available physician report cards, although the magnitudes are smaller, between 2 and 3 percentage points.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific contents of physician report cards can be an important factor in consumers' awareness and use of PQI. Policies to improve awareness and use of PQI may consider how to customize quality report cards and target specific groups of consumers in dissemination.

Competition and the impact of online hospital report cards

Information on the quality of healthcare gives providers an incentive to improve care, and this incentive should be stronger in more competitive markets. We examine this hypothesis by studying Pennsylvanian hospitals during the years 1995-2004 to see whether those hospitals located in more competitive markets increased the quality of the care provided to Medicare patients after report cards rating the quality of their Coronary Artery Bypass Graft programs went online in 1998. We find that after the report cards went online, hospitals in more competitive markets used more resources per patient, and achieved lower mortality among more severely ill patients.

Can public reporting impact patient outcomes and disparities? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Recent US healthcare reforms aim to improve quality and access. We synthesized evidence assessing the impact that public reporting (PR), which will be extended to the outpatient setting, has on patient outcomes and disparities.

METHODS

A systematic review using PRISMA guidelines identified studies addressing the impact of PR on patient outcomes and disparities.

RESULTS

Of the 1970 publications identified, 25 were relevant, spanning hospitals (16), nursing homes (5), emergency rooms (1), health plans (2), and home health agencies (1). Evidence of effect on patient outcomes was mixed, with 6 studies reporting a favorable effect, 9 a mixed effect, 9 a null effect, and 1 a negative effect. One study found a mixed effect of PR on disparities.

CONCLUSION

The evidence of the impact of PR on patient outcomes is lacking, with limited evidence that PR has a favorable effect on outcomes in nursing homes. There is little evidence supporting claims that PR will have an impact on disparities or in the outpatient setting.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Health systems should collect information on patient-relevant outcomes. The lack of evidence does not necessarily imply a lack of effect, and a research gap exists regarding patient-relevant outcomes and PR.