Dataset Information

Case-mix adjustment and the comparison of community health center performance on patient experience measures.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the effect of case-mix adjustment on community health center (CHC) performance on patient experience measures.

Data sources

A Medicaid-managed care plan in Washington State collected patient survey data from 33 CHCs over three fiscal quarters during 2007-2008. The survey included three composite patient experience measures (6-month reports) and two overall ratings of care. The analytic sample includes 2,247 adult patients and 2,859 adults reporting for child patients.

Study design

We compared the relative importance of patient case-mix adjusters by calculating each adjuster's predictive power and variability across CHCs. We then evaluated the impact of case-mix adjustment on the relative ranking of CHCs.

Principal findings

Important case-mix adjusters included adult self-reported health status or parent-reported child health status, adult age, and educational attainment. The effects of case-mix adjustment on patient reports and ratings were different in the adult and child samples. Adjusting for race/ethnicity and language had a greater impact on parent reports than adult reports, but it impacted ratings similarly across the samples. The impact of adjustment on composites and ratings was modest, but it affected the relative ranking of CHCs.

Conclusions

To ensure equitable comparison of CHC performance on patient experience measures, reports and ratings should be adjusted for adult self-reported health status or parent-reported child health status, adult age, education, race/ethnicity, and survey language. Because of the differential impact of case-mix adjusters for child and adult surveys, initiatives should consider measuring and reporting adult and child scores separately.

SUBMITTER: Johnson ML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2875754 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Case-mix adjustment and the comparison of community health center performance on patient experience measures.

Johnson M Laura ML Rodriguez Hector P HP Solorio M Rosa MR

Health services research 20100310 3

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the effect of case-mix adjustment on community health center (CHC) performance on patient experience measures.<h4>Data sources</h4>A Medicaid-managed care plan in Washington State collected patient survey data from 33 CHCs over three fiscal quarters during 2007-2008. The survey included three composite patient experience measures (6-month reports) and two overall ratings of care. The analytic sample includes 2,247 adult patients and 2,859 adults reporting for child pa ...[more]

PMID: 20337738

Similar Datasets

Project description:To compare hospitals' hip fracture patient mortality in a quality of care registry, correction for patient characteristics is needed. This study evaluates in 39,374 patients which characteristics are associated with 30 and 90-day mortality, and showed how using these characteristics in a case mix-model changes hospital comparisons within the Netherlands.PurposeMortality rates after hip fracture surgery are considerable and may be influenced by patient characteristics. This study aims to evaluate hospital variation regarding patient demographics and disease burden, to develop a case-mix adjustment model to analyse differences in hip fracture patients' mortality to calculate case-mix adjusted hospital-specific mortality rates.MethodsData were derived from 64 hospitals participating in the Dutch Hip Fracture Audit (DHFA). Adult hip fracture patients registered in 2017-2019 were included. Variation of case-mix factors between hospitals was analysed, and the association between case-mix factors and mortality at 30 and 90 days was determined through regression models.ResultsThere were 39,374 patients included. Significant variation in case-mix factors amongst hospitals was found for age ≥ 80 (range 25.8-72.1% p < 0.001), male gender (12.0-52.9% p < 0.001), nursing home residents (42.0-57.9% p < 0.001), pre-fracture mobility aid use (9.9-86.7% p < 0,001), daily living dependency (27.5-96.5% p < 0,001), ASA-class ≥ 3 (25.8-83.3% p < 0.001), dementia (3.6-28.6% p < 0.001), osteoporosis (0.0-57.1% p < 0.001), risk of malnutrition (0.0-29.2% p < 0.001) and fracture types (all p < 0.001). All factors were associated with 30- and 90-day mortality. Eight hospitals showed higher and six showed lower 30-day mortality than expected based on their case-mix. Six hospitals showed higher and seven lower 90-day mortality than expected. The specific outlier hospitals changed when correcting for case-mix factors.ConclusionsDutch hospitals show significant case-mix variation regarding hip fracture patients. Case-mix adjustment is a prerequisite when comparing hospitals' 30-day and 90-day hip fracture patients' mortality. Adjusted mortality may serve as a starting point for improving hip fracture care.

Project description:ObjectivesUncertainties exist about when and how best to adjust performance measures for case mix. Our aims are to quantify the impact of case-mix adjustment on practice-level scores in a national survey of patient experience, to identify why and when it may be useful to adjust for case mix, and to discuss unresolved policy issues regarding the use of case-mix adjustment in performance measurement in health care.Design/settingSecondary analysis of the 2009 English General Practice Patient Survey. Responses from 2 163 456 patients registered with 8267 primary care practices. Linear mixed effects models were used with practice included as a random effect and five case-mix variables (gender, age, race/ethnicity, deprivation, and self-reported health) as fixed effects.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was the impact of case-mix adjustment on practice-level means (adjusted minus unadjusted) and changes in practice percentile ranks for questions measuring patient experience in three domains of primary care: access; interpersonal care; anticipatory care planning, and overall satisfaction with primary care services.ResultsDepending on the survey measure selected, case-mix adjustment changed the rank of between 0.4% and 29.8% of practices by more than 10 percentile points. Adjusting for case-mix resulted in large increases in score for a small number of practices and small decreases in score for a larger number of practices. Practices with younger patients, more ethnic minority patients and patients living in more socio-economically deprived areas were more likely to gain from case-mix adjustment. Age and race/ethnicity were the most influential adjustors.ConclusionsWhile its effect is modest for most practices, case-mix adjustment corrects significant underestimation of scores for a small proportion of practices serving vulnerable patients and may reduce the risk that providers would 'cream-skim' by not enrolling patients from vulnerable socio-demographic groups.

Project description:BackgroundPredictive modeling presents an opportunity to contain the expansion of medical expenditures by focusing on very few people. Evaluation of how risk adjustment models perform in predictive modeling in Taiwan or Asia has been rare. The aims of this study were to evaluate the performance of different risk adjustment models (the ACG risk adjustment system and prior expenditures) in predictive modeling, using Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI) claims data, and to compare characteristics of potentially high-expenditure subjects identified through different models.MethodsA random sample of NHI enrollees continuously enrolled in 2002 and 2003 (n = 164,562) was selected. Health status measures and total expenditures derived from 2002 NHI claims data were used to predict the possibility of becoming 2003 top users. Statistics-based indicators (C-statistics, sensitivity, & Predictive Positive Value) and characteristics of identified top groups by different models (expenditures and prevalence of manageable diseases) were presented.ResultsBoth diagnosis-based and prior expenditures models performed much better than the demographic model. Diagnosis-based models were better in identifying top users with manageable diseases; prior expenditures models were better in statistics-based indicators and identifying people with higher average expenditures. Prior expenditures status could correctly identify more actual top users than diagnosis-based or demographic models. The proportions of actual top users that could be identified by diagnosis-based models alone were much lower than that identified by prior expenditures status.ConclusionsPredicted top users identified by different models have different characteristics and there is little agreement between modes regarding which groups would be potentially top users; therefore, which model to use should depend on the purpose of predictive modeling. Prior expenditures are a more powerful tool than diagnosis-based risk adjusters in terms of correctly identifying more actual high expenditures users. There is still much room left for improvement of diagnosis-based models in predictive modeling.

Project description:BackgroundCase mix adjustment is a pre-requisite for valid measurement of healthcare performance and socioeconomic status (SES) is important to account for. Lack of information on individual-level SES has led to investigations into using a proxy for SES based on patient area of residence. The objective of this study was to use neighbourhood SES for case mix adjustment of performance indicators in total hip replacement (THR) in Sweden, and to compare with use of individual SES.MethodsData from patient administrative systems and the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register were extracted for all patients undergoing THR in four Swedish regions. For each subject, individual data and neighbourhood data on country of birth, educational level, and income were provided by Statistics Sweden. Three variables were selected for analysis of performance; EQ-5D, hip pain and length of stay (LoS). In addition to socioeconomic information, several important clinical characteristics were used as case mix factors. Regression analysis was used to study each variable's impact on the three outcome variables and model fit was evaluated using mean squared error.ResultsA total of 27,121 patients operated between 2010 and 2016 were included in the study. Both educational level and income were higher when based on neighbourhood information than individual information, while proportion born in Sweden was similar. Higher SES was generally found to be associated with better outcomes and lower LoS, albeit with certain differences between the different measures of SES. The predictive ability of the models was increased when adding information on SES to the clinical characteristics. The increase in predictive ability was higher for individual SES compared to neighbourhood SES. When analysing performance for the two providers with most diverging case mix in terms of SES, the inclusion of SES altered the relative performance using individual as well as neighbourhood SES.ConclusionsIncorporating SES improves case mix adjustment marginally compared to using only clinical information. In this patient group, geographically derived SES was found to improve case mix adjustment compared to only clinical information but not to the same extent as actual individual-level SES.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the extent to which medical group and market factors are related to individual primary care physician (PCP) performance on patient experience measures.Data sourcesThis study employs Clinician and Group CAHPS survey data (n=105,663) from 2,099 adult PCPs belonging to 34 diverse medical groups across California. Medical group directors were interviewed to assess the magnitude and nature of financial incentives directed at individual physicians and the adoption of patient experience improvement strategies. Primary care services area (PCSA) data were used to characterize the market environment of physician practices.Study designWe used multilevel models to estimate the relationship between medical group and market factors and physician performance on each Clinician and Group CAHPS measure. Models statistically controlled for respondent characteristics and accounted for the clustering of respondents within physicians, physicians within medical groups, and medical groups within PCSAs using random effects.Principal findingsCompared with physicians belonging to independent practice associations, physicians belonging to integrated medical groups had better performance on the communication ( p=.007) and care coordination ( p=.03) measures. Physicians belonging to medical groups with greater numbers of PCPs had better performance on all measures. The use of patient experience improvement strategies was not associated with performance. Greater emphasis on productivity and efficiency criteria in individual physician financial incentive formulae was associated with worse access to care ( p=.04). Physicians located in PCSAs with higher area-level deprivation had worse performance on the access to care ( p=.04) and care coordination ( p<.001) measures.ConclusionsPhysicians from integrated medical groups and groups with greater numbers of PCPs performed better on several patient experience measures, suggesting that organized care processes adopted by these groups may enhance patients' experiences. Physicians practicing in markets with high concentrations of vulnerable populations may be disadvantaged by constraints that affect performance. Future studies should clarify the extent to which performance deficits associated with area-level deprivation are modifiable.

Project description:BackgroundCase-mix adjustment of patient reported experiences (PREMs) and outcomes (PROMs) of care are meant to enable fair comparison between units (e.g. care providers or countries) and to show where improvement is possible. It is important to distinguish between fair comparison and improvement potential, as case-mix adjustment may mask improvement potential. Case-mix adjustment takes into account the effect of patient characteristics that are related to the PREMs and PROMs studied, but are outside the sphere of influence of the units being compared. We developed an approach to assess which patient characteristics would qualify as case-mix adjusters, using data from an international primary care study.ResultsWe used multilevel analysis, with patients nested in general practices nested in countries. Case-mix adjustment is indicated under the following conditions: there is a main effect of the potential case-mix adjuster on the PREM/PROM; this effect does not vary between units; and the distribution of the potential case-mix adjuster differs between units. Random slope models were used to assess whether the impact of a potential case-mix adjuster varied between units. To assess whether a slope variance is big enough to decide that case-mix adjustment is not indicated, we compared the variances in the categories of a potential case-mix adjuster. Significance of the slope variance is not enough, because small variances may be significantly different from zero when numbers are large. We therefore need an additional criterion to consider a slope variance as important. Borrowing from the idea of a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) we proposed a difference between the variances of 0.25*variance (equivalent to a medium effect size). We applied this approach to data from the QUALICOPC (Quality and costs of primary care in Europe) study.ConclusionsOur approach provides guidance to decide whether or not patient characteristics should be considered as case-mix adjusters. The criterion of a difference between variances of 0.25*variance works well for continuous PREMs and PROMs, but seems to be too strict for binary PREMs and PROMs. Without additional information, it is not possible to decide whether important slope variation is the result of either differences in performance between general practices or countries, or cultural differences.

Project description:Background:Kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease; however, long-term outcomes remain suboptimal. Objective:The objectives of our study were to examine the variation in survival rates and determine whether center volume and case mix are associated with transplant outcomes and explain the variation across kidney transplant centers in Ontario, Canada. Design:This was a population-based cohort study using health care administrative databases. Setting:A total of 5 transplant centers across Ontario, Canada. Patients:We included adults (?18 years) undergoing primary, solitary kidney transplantation between January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2013. Measurements:The co-primary outcomes were death-censored graft loss and total mortality. Methods:Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess potential associations and describe variation, using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each center relative to the average across all centers. Results:The study cohort included 5037 patients followed for a median of 5.3 years, interquartile range (2.7-8.6). In multivariable models, recipient age, body mass index, Charlson Index, time on dialysis, donor type, and age were found to be significantly associated with death-censored graft loss, and recipient age and sex, Charlson Index, time on dialysis, donor age, and time era of transplant were associated with total mortality. There was statistically significant variation across centers observed for death-censored graft loss (P = .04) with HRs ranging from 0.72 to 1.22. However, neither adjusting for case mix nor center volume meaningfully changed the HRs reflecting each center-specific effect. There was a tendency toward reduced risk of graft loss (HR, per additional 25 patients, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.78-1.04]) in centers with higher volumes. For total mortality, there was statistically significant variation across centers with HRs ranging from 0.82 to 1.13 (P = .04); however, neither adjusting for case mix or center volume meaningfully changed the HRs. Center volume was not significantly associated with total mortality (HR, per additional 25 patients, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.90-1.20]). Limitations:This study was limited by the small number of centers included. Conclusions:Outcomes differ across the 5 transplant centers in Ontario. We did not find any strong support for our hypotheses that case mix or center volume is responsible for these differences.

Dataset Information

Case-mix adjustment and the comparison of community health center performance on patient experience measures.

Objective

Data sources

Study design

Principal findings

Conclusions

Publications

Case-mix adjustment and the comparison of community health center performance on patient experience measures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets