Identifying high-value care for Medicare beneficiaries: a cross-sectional study of acute care hospitals in the USA

Pre-COVID-19 hospital quality and hospital response to COVID-19: examining associations between risk-adjusted mortality for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 hospital quality

OBJECTIVES

The extent to which care quality influenced outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. Our objective was to determine if prepandemic hospital quality is associated with mortality among Medicare patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective observational study. We calculated hospital-level risk-standardised in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates (risk-standardised mortality rates, RSMRs) for patients hospitalised with COVID-19, and correlation coefficients between RSMRs and pre-COVID-19 hospital quality, overall and stratified by hospital characteristics.

SETTING

Short-term acute care hospitals and critical access hospitals in the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Hospitalised Medicare beneficiaries (Fee-For-Service and Medicare Advantage) age 65 and older hospitalised with COVID-19, discharged between 1 April 2020 and 30 September 2021.

INTERVENTION/EXPOSURE

Pre-COVID-19 hospital quality.

OUTCOMES

Risk-standardised COVID-19 in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates (RSMRs).

RESULTS

In-hospital (n=4256) RSMRs for Medicare patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (April 2020-September 2021) ranged from 4.5% to 59.9% (median 18.2%; IQR 14.7%-23.7%); 30-day RSMRs ranged from 12.9% to 56.2% (IQR 24.6%-30.6%). COVID-19 RSMRs were negatively correlated with star rating summary scores (in-hospital correlation coefficient -0.41, p<0.0001; 30 days -0.38, p<0.0001). Correlations with in-hospital RSMRs were strongest for patient experience (-0.39, p<0.0001) and timely and effective care (-0.30, p<0.0001) group scores; 30-day RSMRs were strongest for patient experience (-0.34, p<0.0001) and mortality (-0.33, p<0.0001) groups. Patients admitted to 1-star hospitals had higher odds of mortality (in-hospital OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.83 to 1.91; 30-day OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.48) compared with 5-star hospitals. If all hospitals performed like an average 5-star hospital, we estimate 38 000 fewer COVID-19-related deaths would have occurred between April 2020 and September 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals with better prepandemic quality may have care structures and processes that allowed for better care delivery and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the relationship between pre-COVID-19 hospital quality and COVID-19 outcomes will allow policy-makers and hospitals better prepare for future public health emergencies.

Measuring Equity in Readmission as a Distinct Assessment of Hospital Performance

Importance

Equity is an essential domain of health care quality. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) developed 2 Disparity Methods that together assess equity in clinical outcomes.

Objectives

To define a measure of equitable readmissions; identify hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance (dual eligible vs non-dual eligible) or patient race (Black vs White); and compare hospitals with and without equitable readmissions by hospital characteristics and performance on accountability measures (quality, cost, and value).

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cross-sectional study of US hospitals eligible for the CMS Hospital-Wide Readmission measure using Medicare data from July 2018 through June 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

We created a definition of equitable readmissions using CMS Disparity Methods, which evaluate hospitals on 2 methods: outcomes for populations at risk for disparities (across-hospital method); and disparities in care within hospitals' patient populations (within-a-single-hospital method).

Exposures

Hospital patient demographics; hospital characteristics; and 3 measures of hospital performance-quality, cost, and value (quality relative to cost).

Results

Of 4638 hospitals, 74% served a sufficient number of dual-eligible patients, and 42% served a sufficient number of Black patients to apply CMS Disparity Methods by insurance and race. Of eligible hospitals, 17% had equitable readmission rates by insurance and 30% by race. Hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance or race cared for a lower percentage of Black patients (insurance, 1.9% [IQR, 0.2%-8.8%] vs 3.3% [IQR, 0.7%-10.8%], P < .01; race, 7.6% [IQR, 3.2%-16.6%] vs 9.3% [IQR, 4.0%-19.0%], P = .01), and differed from nonequitable hospitals in multiple domains (teaching status, geography, size; P < .01). In examining equity by insurance, hospitals with low costs were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.38-1.77), and there was no relationship between quality and value, and equity. In examining equity by race, hospitals with high overall quality were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.26]), and there was no relationship between cost and value, and equity.

Conclusion and Relevance

A minority of hospitals achieved equitable readmissions. Notably, hospitals with equitable readmissions were characteristically different from those without. For example, hospitals with equitable readmissions served fewer Black patients, reinforcing the role of structural racism in hospital-level inequities. Implementation of an equitable readmission measure must consider unequal distribution of at-risk patients among hospitals.

A Simple and Interpretable Mortality-Based Value Metric for Condition- or Procedure-Specific Hospital Performance Reporting

Objective

To develop a simple, interpretable value metric (VM) to assess the value of care of hospitals for specific procedures or conditions by operationalizing the value equation: Value = Quality/Cost.

Patients and Methods

The present study was conducted on a retrospective cohort from 2015 to 2018 drawn from the 100% US sample of Medicare inpatient claims. The final cohort comprised 637,341 consecutive inpatient encounters with a cancer-related Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Grouping and 13,307 consecutive inpatient encounters with the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision or International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision procedure code for partial or total gastrectomy. Claims-based demographic and clinical variables were used for risk adjustment, including age, sex, year, dual eligibility, reason for Medicare entitlement, and binary indicators for each of the Elixhauser comorbidities used in the Elixhauser mortality index. Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and risk-adjusted encounter-specific costs were combined to form the VM, which was calculated as follows: number needed to treat = 1/(Mortality_national - Mortality_hospital), and VM = number needed to treat × risk-adjusted cost per encounter.

Results

Among hospitals with better-than-average 30-day cancer mortality rates, the cost to prevent 1 excess 30-day mortality for an inpatient cancer encounter ranged from $71,000 (best value) to $1.4 billion (worst value), with a median value of $543,000. Among hospitals with better-than-average 30-day gastrectomy mortality rates, the cost to prevent 1 excess 30-day mortality for an inpatient gastrectomy encounter ranged from $710,000 (best value) to $95 million (worst value), with a median value of $1.8 million.

Conclusion

This simple VM may have utility for interpretable reporting of hospitals' value of care for specific conditions or procedures. We found substantial inter- and intrahospital variation in value when defined as the costs of preventing 1 excess cancer or gastrectomy mortality compared with the national average, implying that hospitals with similar quality of care may differ widely in the value of that care.