Dataset Information

Effects of the Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration on Medicare patient mortality and cost.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the effects of the Premier Inc. and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration (PHQID), a public quality reporting and pay-for-performance (P4P) program, on Medicare patient mortality, cost, and outlier classification.

Data sources

The 2000-2006 Medicare inpatient claims, Medicare denominator files, and Medicare Provider of Service files.

Study design

Panel data econometric methods are applied to a retrospective cohort of 11,232,452 admissions from 6,713,928 patients with principal diagnoses of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure, pneumonia, or a coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedure from 3,570 acute care hospitals between 2000 and 2006. Three estimators are used to evaluate the effects of the PHQID on risk-adjusted (RA) mortality, cost, and outlier classification in the presence of unobserved selection, resulting from the PHQID being voluntary: fixed effects (FE), FE estimated in the subset of hospitals eligible for the PHQID, and difference-in-difference-in-differences.

Data extraction methods

Data were obtained from CMS. Principal Findings. This analysis found no evidence that the PHQID had a significant effect on RA 30-day mortality or RA 60-day cost for AMI, heart failure, pneumonia, or CABG and weak evidence that the PHQID increased RA outlier classification for heart failure and pneumonia.

Conclusions

By not reducing mortality or cost growth, this study suggests that the PHQID has made little impact on the value of inpatient care purchased by Medicare.

SUBMITTER: Ryan AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2699910 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Medicare and Premier Inc. Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration (HQID), a hospital-based pay-for-performance program, changed its incentive design from one rewarding only high performance (Phase 1) to another rewarding high performance, moderate performance, and improvement (Phase 2). We tested whether this design change reduced the gap in incentive payments among hospitals treating patients across the gradient of socioeconomic disadvantage.To estimate incentive payments in both phases, we used data from the Premier Inc. website and from Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files. We used data from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Impact File to identify hospital characteristics.Hospitals were divided into quartiles based on their Disproportionate Share Index (DSH), from lowest disadvantage (Quartile 1) to highest disadvantage (Quartile 4). In both phases of the HQID, we tested for differences across the DSH quartiles for three outcomes: (1) receipt of any incentive payments; (2) total incentive payments; and (3) incentive payments per discharge. For each of the study outcomes, we performed a hospital-level difference-in-differences analysis to test whether the gap between Quartile 1 and the other quartiles decreased from Phase 1 to Phase 2.In Phase 1, there were significant gaps across the DSH quartiles for the receipt of any payment and for payment per discharge. In Phase 2, the gap was not significant for the receipt of any payment, but it remained significant for payment per discharge. For the receipt of any incentive payment, difference-in-difference estimates showed significant reductions in the gap between Quartile 1 and the other quartiles (Quartile 2, 17.5 percentage points [p < .05]; Quartile 3, 18.1 percentage points [p < .01]; Quartile 4, 28.3 percentage points [p < .01]). For payments per discharge, the gap was also significantly reduced between Quartile 1 and the other quartiles (Quartile 2, $14.92 per discharge [p < .10]; Quartile 3, $17.34 per discharge [p < .05]; Quartile 4, $21.31 per discharge [p < .01]). There were no significant reductions in the gap for total payments.The design change in the HQID reduced the disparity in the receipt of any incentive payment and for incentive payments per discharge between hospitals caring for the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged patient populations.

Project description:ObjectiveTo test whether receiving a financial bonus for quality in the Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration (HQID) stimulated subsequent quality improvement.DataHospital-level data on process-of-care quality from Hospital Compare for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure, and pneumonia for 260 hospitals participating in the HQID from 2004 to 2006; receipt of quality bonuses in the first 3 years of HQID from the Premier Inc. website; and hospital characteristics from the 2005 American Hospital Association Annual Survey.Study designUnder the HQID, hospitals received a 1 percent bonus on Medicare payments for scoring between the 80th and 90th percentiles on a composite quality measure, and a 2 percent bonus for scoring at the 90th percentile or above. We used a regression discontinuity design to evaluate whether hospitals with quality scores just above these payment thresholds improved more in the subsequent year than hospitals with quality scores just below the thresholds. In alternative specifications, we examined samples of hospitals scoring within 3, 5, and 10 percentage point "bandwidths" of the thresholds. We used a Generalized Linear Model to estimate whether the relationship between quality and lagged quality was discontinuous at the lagged thresholds required for quality bonuses.Principal findingsThere were no statistically significant associations between receipt of a bonus and subsequent quality performance, with the exception of the 2 percent bonus for AMI in 2006 using the 5 percentage point bandwidth (0.8 percentage point increase, p<.01), and the 1 percent bonus for pneumonia in 2005 using all bandwidths (3.7 percentage point increase using the 3 percentage point bandwidth, p<.05).ConclusionsWe found little evidence that hospitals' receipt of quality bonuses was associated with subsequent improvement in performance. This raises questions about whether winning in pay-for-performance programs, such as Hospital Value-Based Purchasing, will lead to subsequent quality improvement.