Dataset Information

Practice-Level Variation in Outpatient Cardiac Care and Association With Outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Utilization of cardiac services varies across regions and hospitals, yet little is known regarding variation in the intensity of outpatient cardiac care across cardiology physician practices or the association with clinical endpoints, an area of potential importance to promote efficient care.

Methods and results

We included 7 160 732 Medicare beneficiaries who received services from 5635 cardiology practices in 2012. Beneficiaries were assigned to practices providing the plurality of office visits, and practices were ranked and assigned to quartiles using the ratio of observed to predicted annual payments per beneficiary for common cardiac services (outpatient intensity index). The median (interquartile range) outpatient intensity index was 1.00 (0.81-1.24). Mean payments for beneficiaries attributed to practices in the highest (Q4) and lowest (Q1) quartile of outpatient intensity were: all cardiac payments (Q4 $1272 vs Q1 $581; ratio, 2.2); cardiac catheterization (Q4 $215 vs Q1 $64; ratio, 3.4); myocardial perfusion imaging (Q4 $253 vs Q1 $83; ratio, 3.0); and electrophysiology device procedures (Q4 $353 vs Q1 $142; ratio, 2.5). The adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) for 1 incremental quartile of outpatient intensity for each outcome was: cardiac surgical/procedural hospitalization (1.09 [1.09, 1.10]); cardiac medical hospitalization (1.00 [0.99, 1.00]); noncardiac hospitalization (0.99 [0.99, 0.99]); and death at 1 year (1.00 [0.99, 1.00]).

Conclusion

Substantial variation in the intensity of outpatient care exists at the cardiology practice level, and higher intensity is not associated with reduced mortality or hospitalizations. Outpatient cardiac care is a potentially important target for efforts to improve efficiency in the Medicare population.

SUBMITTER: Clough JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4802452 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMedicare patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) have been a significant focus of value-based payment programs for outpatient practices. Physicians and policymakers, however, have voiced concern that value-based payment programs may penalize practices that serve vulnerable populations. This study evaluated whether outpatient practices that serve socioeconomically disadvantaged populations have worse CAD outcomes, and if this reflects the delivery of lower-quality care or rather, patient and community factors beyond the care provided by physician practices.Methods and resultsRetrospective cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service patients ≥65 years with CAD at outpatient practices participating in the the Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence registry from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2015. Outpatient practices were stratified into quintiles by the proportion of most disadvantaged patients-defined by an area deprivation score in the highest 20% nationally-served at each practice site. Prescription of guideline recommended therapies for CAD as well as clinical outcomes (emergency department presentation for chest pain, hospital admission for unstable angina or acute myocardial infarction [AMI], 30-day readmission after AMI, and 30-day mortality after AMI) were evaluated by practice-level socioeconomic disadvantage with hierarchical logistic regression models, using practices serving the fewest socioeconomically disadvantaged patients as a reference. The study included 453 783 Medicare fee-for-service patients ≥65 years of age with CAD (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [7.7] years; 39.7% female) cared for at 271 outpatient practices. At practices serving the highest proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients (group 5), compared with practices serving the lowest proportion (group 1), there was no significant difference in the likelihood of prescription of antiplatelet therapy (odds ratio [OR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.69-1.27]), β-blocker therapy if prior myocardial infarction or left ventricular ejection fraction <40% (OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.69-1.35]), ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker if left ventricular ejection fraction <40% and/or diabetes mellitus (OR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.74-1.19]), statin therapy (OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.68-1.14]), or cardiac rehabilitation (OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.20-1.00]). Patients cared for at the most disadvantaged-serving practices (group 5) were more likely to be admitted for unstable angina (adjusted OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.04-2.05]). There was no significant difference in the likelihood of emergency department presentation for chest pain or hospital admission for AMI between practices. Thirty day mortality rates after AMI were higher among patients at the most disadvantaged-serving practices (aOR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.02-1.68]), but 30-day readmission rates did not differ. All associations were attenuated after additional adjustment for patient-level area deprivation index.ConclusionsPhysician outpatient practices that serve the most socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with CAD perform worse on some clinical outcomes, despite providing similar guideline-recommended care as other practices, and consequently could fare poorly under value-based payment programs. Social factors beyond care provided by outpatient practices may partly explain worse outcomes. Policymakers should consider accounting for socioeconomic disadvantage in value-based payment programs initiatives that target outpatient practices.

Project description:Multiple payment reform efforts are under way to improve the value of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries, yet few directly address the interface between primary and specialty care.To describe regional variation in outpatient visits for individual specialties and the association between specialty physician-specific payments and patient-reported satisfaction with care and health status.Retrospective cross-sectional study.A 20 % random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in 2012.Regions were grouped into quartiles of specialist index, defined as the observed/expected regional likelihood of having an outpatient visit to a specialist, for ten common specialties, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Outcomes were per capita specialty-specific physician payments and Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey responses.The proportion of beneficiaries seeing a specialist varied the most for endocrinology and gastroenterology (3.7- and 3.9-fold difference between the highest and lowest quartiles, respectively) and least for orthopedics and urology (1.5- and 1.7-fold difference, respectively). Multiple analyses suggested that this variation was not explained by prevalence of disease. Average specialty-specific payments were strongly associated with the likelihood of visiting a specialist. Differences in per capita payments from lowest (Q1) to highest quartiles (Q4) were greatest for cardiology ($89, $135, $172, $251) and dermatology ($46, $64, $82, $124). Satisfaction with overall care (median [interquartile range] across specialties: Q1, 93.3 % [92.6-93.7 %]; Q4, 93.1 % [92.9-93.2 %]) and self-reported health status (Q1, 37.1 % [36.9-37.7 %]; Q4, 38.2 % [37.2-38.4 %]) was similar across quartiles. Satisfaction with access to specialty care was consistently lower in the lowest quartile of specialty index (Q1, 89.7 % [89.2-91.1 %]; Q4, 94.5 % [94.4-94.8 %]).Substantial regional variability in outpatient specialist visits is associated with greater payments with limited benefits in terms of patient-reported satisfaction with care or reported health status. Reducing outpatient physician visits may represent an important opportunity to improve the efficiency of care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Little is known about real-world facility-level preferences for cardiac resynchronization therapy devices with (CRT-D) and without (CRT-P) defibrillator backup. We quantify this variation at the facility level and exploit this variation to compare outcomes of patients receiving these 2 devices. METHODS AND RESULTS:Claims data from fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries were used to identify new CRT-P and CRT-D implants, 2006 to 2012. We modeled factors associated with receipt of each device, and compared mortality, hospitalizations, and reoperations for patients receiving each using both logistic regression and instrumental variable analysis to account for confounding. Among 71 459 device recipients (CRT-P, 11 925; CRT-D, 59 534; 31% women), CRT-P recipients were older, more likely to be women, and had more comorbidities. Variation in device selection among facilities was substantial: After adjustment for patient characteristics, the odds of receiving a CRT-P (versus CRT-D) device were 7.6× higher for a patient treated at a facility in the highest CRT-P use quartile versus a facility in the lowest CRT-P use quartile. Logistic modeling suggested a survival advantage for CRT-D devices but with falsification end points indicating residual confounding. By contrast, in the instrumental variable analysis using facility variability as the proposed instrument, clinical characteristics and falsification end points were well balanced, and 1-year mortality in patients who received CRT-P versus CRT-D implants did not differ, while CRT-P patients had a lower probability of hospitalizations and reoperations in the year following implant. CONCLUSIONS:CRT-P versus CRT-D selection varies substantially among facilities, adjusted for clinical factors. After instrumental variable adjustment for clinical covariates and facility preference, survival was no different between the devices. Therefore, CRT-P may be preferred for Medicare beneficiaries considering new CRT implantation.

Project description:ImportanceSurvival rates after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) vary significantly among US centers; whether this variation is owing to differences in IHCA care quality is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate hospital-level variation to determine whether hospital process composite performance measures of IHCA care quality are associated with patient outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsUsing data from the American Heart Association's Get With the Guidelines-Resuscitation (GWTG-R) program, we analyzed 35 283 patients 18 years or older with IHCA treated at 261 US hospitals from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012. We calculated the hospital process composite performance score for IHCA using 5 guideline-recommended process measures. Opportunity-based scores were calculated for all patients, aggregated at the hospital level, divided into quartiles, and then associated with risk-standardized survival and neurologic status by a test for trend. The scores were then evaluated through hierarchical logistic regression and reported as odds ratios per 10% increment in hospital process composite performance.InterventionsAcute care treatments for IHCA.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was survival to discharge measured as risk standard survival rates, and the secondary outcome was favorable neurologic status at hospital discharge.ResultsOf the 35 283 adults included in this study, the median age was 67 years (interquartile range [IQR] 56-78 years), and 57.9% were male. The median IHCA hospital process composite performance was 89.7% (interquartile range, 85.4%-93.1%) and varied among hospital quartiles from 82.6% (lowest) to 94.8% (highest). The IHCA hospital process composite performance was linearly associated with risk-standardized hospital survival to discharge rates: 21.1%, 21.4%, 22.8%, and 23.4% from lowest to highest performance quartiles, respectively (P < .001). After adjustment, each 10% increase in a hospital's process composite performance was associated with a 22% higher odds of survival (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.37; P = .01). Hospital process composite quality performance was also associated with favorable neurologic status at discharge (P = .004).Conclusions and relevanceThe quality of guideline-based care for IHCA varies significantly among US hospitals and is associated with patient survival and neurologic outcomes.

Project description:RATIONALE:Physicians are increasingly being held accountable for patient outcomes, yet their specific contribution to the outcomes remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES:To determine variation in outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients among intensivists, as well as associations between intensivist experience and patient outcomes. METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated Medicare fee-for-service patients in acute care hospitals in Pennsylvania using administrative, clinical, and physician data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the American Medical Association from 2008 and 2009. We identified intensivists by training background, board certification, and claims for services provided to patients admitted to an intensive care unit. We assigned patients to intensivists for outcome attribution based on submitted claims for critical care and in-patient services. We estimated the physician-specific adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for 30-day mortality using a hierarchical model with a random effect for physician, adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics. We tested for independent association of physician experience with patient outcomes using mixed-effects regression for the primary outcome of 30-day mortality. We defined physician experience in two ways: years since training completion ("duration") and annual number of mechanically ventilated patients ("volume"). RESULTS:We assigned 345 physicians to 11,268 patients. The 30-day mortality was 43% and median hospital length of stay was 11 days (interquartile range = 6-18). The physician adjusted OR varied from 0.72 to 1.64 (median = 0.99; interquartile range = 0.92-1.09). A total of 48% of physicians was outliers, with an adjusted OR significantly different from 1. However, among intensivists, physician experience was not associated with 30-day mortality (duration OR = 1.00 per additional year; 95% confidence interval = 1.00-1.01; volume OR = 1.00 per additional patient; 95% confidence interval = 1.00-1.00). CONCLUSIONS:Intensivists independently contribute to outcomes of Medicare patients who undergo mechanical ventilation, as evidenced by the variation in risk-adjusted mortality across intensivists. However, physician experience does not underlie this relationship between intensivists, suggesting the need to identify modifiable physician factors to improve outcomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is the most common etiology of death in hemodialysis patients but not much is known about its risk factors. The goal of our study was to determine the association and risk prediction of SCD by serum N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP) troponin I (cTnI) in hemodialysis patients. METHODS:We measured NTproBNP and cTnI in 503 hemodialysis patients of a national prospective cohort study. We determined their association with SCD using Cox regression, adjusting for demographics, co-morbidities, and clinical factors and risk prediction using C-statistic and Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI). RESULTS:Patients' mean age was 58 years and 54 % were male. During follow-up (median 3.5 years), there were 75 outpatient SCD events. In unadjusted and fully-adjusted models, NTproBNP had a significant association with the risk of SCD. Analyzed as a continuous variable, the risk of SCD increased 27 % with each 2-fold increase in NTproBNP (HR, 1.27 per doubling; 95 % CI, 1.13-1.43; p?<?0.001). In categorical models, the risk of SCD was 3-fold higher in the highest tertile of NTproBNP (>7,350 pg/mL) compared with the lowest tertile (<1,710 pg/mL; HR for the highest tertile, 3.03; 95 % CI, 1.56-5.89; p?=?0.001). Higher cTnI showed a trend towards increased risk of SCD in fully adjusted models, but was not statistically significant (HR, 1.17 per doubling; 95 % CI, 0.98-1.40; p?=?0.08). Sensitivity analyses using competing risk models showed similar results. Improvement in risk prediction by adding cardiac biomarkers to conventional risk factors was greater with NTproBNP (C-statistic for 3-year risk: 0.810; 95 % CI, 0.757 to 0.864; and continuous NRI: 0.270; 95 % CI, 0.046 to 0.495) than with cTnI. CONCLUSIONS:NTproBNP is associated with the risk of SCD in hemodialysis patients. Further research is needed to determine if biomarkers measurement can guide SCD risk prevention strategies in dialysis patients.