Improving Medicare's Hospital Compare Mortality Model.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To improve the predictions provided by Medicare's Hospital Compare (HC) to facilitate better informed decisions regarding hospital choice by the public.Data sources/setting
Medicare claims on all patients admitted for Acute Myocardial Infarction between 2009 through 2011.Study design
Cohort analysis using a Bayesian approach, comparing the present assumptions of HC (using a constant mean and constant variance for all hospital random effects), versus an expanded model that allows for the inclusion of hospital characteristics to permit the data to determine whether they vary with attributes of hospitals, such as volume, capabilities, and staffing. Hospital predictions are then created using directly standardized estimates to facilitate comparisons between hospitals.Data collection/extraction methods
Medicare fee-for-service claims.Principal findings
Our model that included hospital characteristics produces very different predictions from the current HC model, with higher predicted mortality rates at hospitals with lower volume and worse characteristics. Using Chicago as an example, the expanded model would advise patients against seeking treatment at the smallest hospitals with worse technology and staffing.Conclusion
To aid patients when selecting between hospitals, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should improve the HC model by permitting its predictions to vary systematically with hospital attributes such as volume, capabilities, and staffing.
SUBMITTER: Silber JH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4874942 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:We ask whether Medicare's Hospital Compare random effects model correctly assesses acute myocardial infarction (AMI) hospital mortality rates when there is a volume-outcome relationship.Medicare claims on 208,157 AMI patients admitted in 3,629 acute care hospitals throughout the United States.We compared average-adjusted mortality using logistic regression with average adjusted mortality based on the Hospital Compare random effects model. We then fit random effects models with the same patient variables as in Medicare's Hospital Compare mortality model but also included terms for hospital Medicare AMI volume and another model that additionally included other hospital characteristics.Hospital Compare's average adjusted mortality significantly underestimates average observed death rates in small volume hospitals. Placing hospital volume in the Hospital Compare model significantly improved predictions.The Hospital Compare random effects model underestimates the typically poorer performance of low-volume hospitals. Placing hospital volume in the Hospital Compare model, and possibly other important hospital characteristics, appears indicated when using a random effects model to predict outcomes. Care must be taken to insure the proper method of reporting such models, especially if hospital characteristics are included in the random effects model.
| S-EPMC2965498 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:In October 2012, The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) began publicly reporting American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) surgical outcomes on its public reporting website, Hospital Compare. Participation in this CMS-NSQIP initiative is voluntary. Our objective was to compare CMS-NSQIP participating hospitals with ACS NSQIP hospitals that elected not to participate. STUDY DESIGN:Hospital Compare and American Hospital Association Annual Survey data were merged to compare CMS-NSQIP participants with nonparticipants. Regression models were developed to assess predictors of participation and to assess if hospitals differed on 32 process, 10 patient experience (Hospital Consumer Assessment of HealthCare Providers and Systems [HCAHPS]), and 16 outcomes (Hospital Compare and Agency for Healthcare Research Quality) measures. Additionally, performance on 2 waves of publicly reported ACS NSQIP surgical outcomes measures was compared. RESULTS:Of the 452 ACS NSQIP hospitals, 80 (18%) participated in CMS-NSQIP public reporting. Participating hospitals had more beds, admissions, operations, and were more often accredited (Commission on Cancer and the Council of Teaching Hospitals [COTH] [p < 0.05]). Only COTH membership remained significant in adjusted analyses (odds ratio 2.45, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.35). Hospital performance on process, HCAHPS, and outcomes measures were not associated with CMS-NSQIP participation for 54 of 58 measures examined. Hospitals with "better-than-average" performance were more likely to publicly report the Elderly Surgery measure (p < 0.05). In wave 2, an increased proportion of new participants reported "worse-than-average" outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:There were few measurable differences between CMS-NSQIP participating and nonparticipating hospitals. The decision to voluntarily publicly report may be related to the hospital's culture of quality improvement and transparency.
| S-EPMC4324751 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn October 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented the Sepsis CMS Core Measure (SEP-1) program, requiring hospitals to report data on the quality of care for their patients with sepsis.ObjectiveWe sought to understand hospital perceptions of and responses to the SEP-1 program.DesignA thematic content analysis of semistructured interviews with hospital quality officials.SettingA stratified random sample of short-stay, nonfederal, general acute care hospitals in the United States.PatientsHospital quality officers, including nurses and physicians.MeasurementsWe completed 29 interviews before reaching content saturation.ResultsHospitals reported a variety of actions in response to SEP-1, including new efforts to collect data, improve sepsis diagnosis and treatment, and manage clinicians' attitudes toward SEP-1. These efforts frequently required dedicated resources to meet the program's requirements for treatment and documentation, which were thought to be complex and not consistently linked to patient-centered outcomes. Most respondents felt that SEP-1 was likely to improve sepsis outcomes. At the same time, they described specific changes that could improve its effectiveness, including allowing hospitals to focus on the treatment processes most directly associated with improved patient outcomes and better aligning the measure's sepsis definitions with current clinical definitions.ConclusionsHospitals are responding to the SEP-1 program across a number of domains and in ways that consistently require dedicated resources. Hospitals are interested in further revisions to the program to alleviate the burden of the reporting requirements and help them optimize the effectiveness of their investments in quality-improvement efforts.
| S-EPMC5830093 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ethiopia has one of the world's poorest neonatal mortality rates (1). As a British paediatrician working for one year, the main aim was to improve neonatal care in a referral hospital's neonatal unit. An initial project looking at all admissions to the unit over the month of October 2012, revealed the death rate within the unit was 21% of all admissions. Of the 55 admissions only 43 (75%) had a temperature recorded at admission. 29 (67%) of these were hypothermic, and of these 29 initially hypothermic babies, 19 (65%) remained hypothermic or did not have another temperature documented during their stay. Only 33 (56%) had a heart rate and respiratory rate recorded on admission and only 11 (19%) had any further vital signs recorded during their stay. 19 of the admitted infants had a diagnosis of low birth weight and 10 (53%) of these either died or left against medical advice. With this information regular basic neonatal care teaching sessions for doctors and nursing staff were initiated. Vital signs charts were introduced and unit specific protocols were written. Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) was trialled and found to be effective, and CPAP training was given to all nurses and doctors on the unit. A room was set aside to be used solely as Kangaroo Mother Care (KMC). The nurses were taken to a very effective neonatal unit as an 'experience sharing' trip to help with motivation and a grant was also obtained for basic equipment. After 6 months the project was repeated for all the admissions during February 2013. The death rate had progressively fallen and was 10% in February. 54 patients (98%) had a temperature taken on admission and of these, 27 (49%) were hypothermic. 25 (93%) of these hypothermic infants had subsequent temperatures documented which were normal. 54 (98%) had heart rate and respiratory rate recorded on admission and 50 (90%) had them recorded at least daily during their stay. Of the 22 babies with low birth weight (40%), only 4 (18%) died/left against medical advice. 4 received CPAP and 6 were treated with KMC.
| S-EPMC4663849 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the relationship between Medicare's site-based outpatient billing policy and hospital-physician integration.Data sourcesNational Medicare claims data from 2010 to 2016.Study designFor each physician-year, we calculated the disparity between Medicare reimbursement under hospital ownership and under physician ownership. Using logistic regression analysis, we estimated the relationship between these payment differences and hospital-physician integration, adjusting for region, market concentration, and time fixed effects. We measured integration status using claims data and legal tax names.Data collectionThe study included integrated and non-integrated physicians who billed Medicare between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016 (n = 2 137 245 physician-year observations).Principal findingsMedicare reimbursement for physician services would have been $114 000 higher per physician per year if a physician were integrated compared to being non-integrated. Primary care physicians faced a 78% increase, medical specialists 74%, and surgeons 224%. These payment differences exhibited a modest positive relationship to hospital-physician vertical integration. An increase in this outpatient payment differential equivalent to moving from the 25th to 75th percentile was associated with a 0.20 percentage point increase in the probability of integrating with a hospital (95% CI: 0.0.10-0.30). This effect was slightly larger among primary care physicians (0.27, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.35) and medical specialists (0.26, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.48), while not significantly different from zero among surgeons (-0.02; 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.22).ConclusionsThe payment differences between outpatient settings were large and grew over time. Even routine annual outpatient payment updates from Medicare may prompt some hospital-physician vertical integration, particularly among primary care physicians and medical specialists.
| S-EPMC7839648 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:The strongest evidence for the effectiveness of Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) involves greater reductions in readmissions for hospitals receiving penalties compared with those not receiving penalties. However, the HRRP penalty is an imperfect measure of hospitals' marginal incentive to avoid a readmission for HRRP-targeted diagnoses. Objectives:To assess the association between hospitals' condition-specific incentives and readmission performance and to examine the responsiveness of hospitals to condition-specific incentives compared with aggregate penalty amounts. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective cohort analysis used Medicare readmissions data from 2823 US short-term acute care hospitals participating in HRRP to compare 3-year (fiscal years 2016-2019) follow-up readmission performance according to tertiles of hospitals' baseline (2016) marginal incentives for each of 5 HRRP-targeted conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and hip and/or knee surgery). Main Outcomes and Measures:Linear regression models were used to estimate mean change in follow-up readmission performance, measured using the excess readmissions ratio, with baseline condition-specific incentives and aggregate penalty amounts. Results:Of 2823 hospitals that participated in the HRRP from baseline to follow-up, 2280 (81%) had more than 1 excess readmission for 1 or more applicable condition and 543 (19%) did not have any excess readmissions. The mean (SD) financial incentive to reduce readmissions for incentivized hospitals ranged from $8762 ($3699) to $58?158 ($26?198) per 1 avoided readmission. Hospitals with greater incentives for readmission avoidance had greater decreases in readmissions compared with hospitals with smaller incentives (45% greater for pneumonia, 172% greater for acute myocardial infarction, 40% greater for hip and/or knee surgery, 32% greater for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 13% greater for heart failure), whereas hospitals with no incentives had increases in excess readmissions of 4% to 7% (median, 4% [percentage change for nonincentivized hospitals was 3.7% for pneumonia, 4.2% for acute myocardial infarction, 7.1% for hip and/or knee surgery, 3.7% for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 3.7% for heart failure]; P?<?.001). During the study period, each additional $5000 in the incentive amount was associated with a 0.6- to 1.3-percentage point decrease, or up to a 26% decrease, in excess readmissions (P?<?.001). Regression to the mean explained approximately one-third of the results depending on the condition examined. Conclusions and Relevance:The findings suggest that improvements in readmission avoidance are more strongly associated with incentives from the HRRP than with aggregate penalty amounts, suggesting that the program has elicited sizeable changes. Worsened performance among hospitals with small or no incentives may indicate the need for reconsideration of the program's lack of financial rewards for high-performing hospitals.
| S-EPMC7125432 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Policy Points Evidence suggests that bundled payment contracting can slow the growth of payer costs relative to fee-for-service contracting, although bundled payment models may not reduce absolute costs. Bundled payments may be more effective than fee-for-service payments in containing costs for certain medical conditions. For the most part, Medicare's bundled payment initiatives have not been associated with a worsening of quality in terms of readmissions, emergency department use, and mortality. Some evidence suggests a worsening of other quality measures for certain medical conditions. Bundled payment contracting involves trade-offs: Expanding a bundle's scope and duration may better contain costs, but a more comprehensive bundle may be less attractive to providers, reducing their willingness to accept it as an alternative to fee-for-service payment.ContextBundled payments have been promoted as an alternative to fee-for-service payments that can mitigate the incentives for service volume under the fee-for-service model. As Medicare has gained experience with bundled payments, it has widened their scope and increased their duration. However, there have been few reviews of the empirical literature on the impact of Medicare's bundled payment programs on cost, resource use, utilization, and quality.MethodsWe examined the history and features of 16 of Medicare's bundled payment programs involving hospital-initiated episodes of care and conducted a literature review of articles about those programs. Database and additional searches yielded 1,479 articles. We evaluate the studies' methodological quality and summarize the quantitative findings about Medicare expenditures and quality of care from 37 studies that used higher-quality research designs.FindingsMedicare's bundled payment initiatives have varied in their design features, such as episode scope and duration. Many initiatives were associated with little to no reduction in Medicare expenditures, unless large pricing discounts for providers were negotiated in advance. Initiatives that included post-acute care services were associated with lower expenditures for certain conditions. Hospitals may have been able to reduce internal production costs with help from physicians via gainsharing. Most initiatives were not associated with significant changes in quality of care, as measured by readmission and mortality rates. Of the significant changes in readmission rates, the results were mixed, showing increases and decreases associated with bundled payments. Some evidence suggested that worse patient outcomes were associated bundled payments, although most results were not statistically significant. Results on case-mix selection were mixed: Several initiatives were associated with reductions in episode severity, whereas others were associated with little change.ConclusionsBundled payments for hospital-initiated episodes may be a good alternative to fee-for-service payments. Bundled payments can help slow the growth of payer spending, although they do not necessarily reduce absolute spending. They are associated with lower provider production costs, and there is no overwhelming evidence of compromised quality. However, designing a bundled payment contract that is attractive to both providers and payers proves to be a challenge.
| S-EPMC7482383 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of hospital value-based purchasing (HVBP) on clinical quality and patient experience during its initial implementation period (July 2011-March 2012).Data sourcesHospital-level clinical quality and patient experience data from Hospital Compare from up to 5 years before and three quarters after HVBP was initiated.Study designAcute care hospitals were exposed to HVBP by mandate while critical access hospitals and hospitals located in Maryland were not exposed. We performed a difference-in-differences analysis, comparing performance on 12 incentivized clinical process and 8 incentivized patient experience measures between hospitals exposed to the program and a matched comparison group of nonexposed hospitals. We also evaluated whether hospitals that were ultimately exposed to HVBP may have anticipated the program by improving quality in advance of its introduction.Principal findingsDifference-in-differences estimates indicated that hospitals that were exposed to HVBP did not show greater improvement for either the clinical process or patient experience measures during the program's first implementation period. Estimates from our preferred specification showed that HVBP was associated with a 0.51 percentage point reduction in composite quality for the clinical process measures (p > .10, 95 percent CI: -1.37, 0.34) and a 0.30 percentage point reduction in composite quality for the patient experience measures (p > .10, 95 percent CI: -0.79, 0.19). We found some evidence that hospitals improved performance on clinical process measures prior to the start of HVBP, but no evidence of this phenomenon for the patient experience measures.ConclusionsThe timing of the financial incentives in HVBP was not associated with improved quality of care. It is unclear whether improvement for the clinical process measures prior to the start of HVBP was driven by the expectation of the program or was the result of other factors.
| S-EPMC4319872 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The incidence of sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) is high, leading to increased mortality rates and prolonged hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) stays. Early identification of SIC patients at risk of in-hospital mortality can improve patient prognosis. The objective of this study is to develop and validate machine learning (ML) models to dynamically predict in-hospital mortality risk in SIC patients. A ML model is established based on the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) database to predict in-hospital mortality in SIC patients. Utilizing univariate feature selection for feature screening. The optimal model was determined by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The optimal model was interpreted using Shapley Additive Explanation (SHAP) values. Among the 3112 SIC patients included in MIMIC-IV, a total of 757 (25%) patients experienced mortality during their ICU stay. Univariate feature selection helps us to pick out the 20 most critical variables from the original feature. Among the 10 developed machine learning models, the stacking ensemble model exhibited the highest AUC (0.795, 95% CI: 0.763-0.827). Anion gap and age emerged as the most significant features for predicting the mortality risk in SIC. In this study, an ML model was constructed that exhibited excellent performance in predicting in-hospital mortality risk in SIC patients. Specifically, the stacking ensemble model demonstrated superior predictive ability.
| S-EPMC10994494 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe Medicare Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) is associated with reduced readmission rates, but it is unknown how this decrease occurred.ObjectiveTo examine whether the HRRP was associated with changes in the probability of readmission at emergency department (ED) visits after hospital discharge (ED revisits) overall and depending on whether admission is typically indicated for the patient's condition at the ED revisit.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used hospital and ED discharge data from California, Florida, and New York from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2014. A difference-in-differences analysis examined change in readmission probability at ED revisits for recently discharged patients; ED revisits with clinical presentations for which admission is typically indicated vs those for which admission is more variable (ie, discretionary) were examined separately. Inclusion criteria were Medicare patients 65 years and older who revisited an ED within 30 days of inpatient discharge. Data were analyzed from December 18, 2018, to September 11, 2019.ExposuresBefore and after HRRP implementation among patients initially hospitalized for targeted vs nontargeted conditions.Main outcomes and measuresThirty-day unplanned hospital readmissions at the ED revisit.ResultsA total of 9 914 068 index hospitalizations were identified in California, Florida, and New York from 2010 to 2014. Of 2 052 096 discharges in 2010, 1 168 126 (56.9%) discharges were women and 566 957 discharges (27.6%) were among patients older than 85 years. Among 1 421 407 patients with an unplanned readmission within 30 days of discharge, 1 266 107 patients (89.1%) were admitted through the ED. A total of 1 906 498 ED revisits were identified. After adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics from the index hospitalization, HRRP implementation was associated with fewer readmissions from the ED, with a difference-in-difference estimate of -0.9 (95% CI, -1.4 to -0.4) percentage points (P < .001), or a 1.4% relative decrease from the 65.8% pre-HRRP readmission rates. Implementation of the HRRP was associated with fewer readmissions at the ED revisit involving clinical presentations for which admission is typically indicated (difference-in-differences estimate, -1.1 [95% CI, -1.6 to -0.6] percentage points; P < .001), or a 1.2% relative decrease from the 93.6% pre-HRRP rate. These results appear to be associated with patients presenting at the ED revisit with congestive heart failure (difference-in-difference estimate, -1.2 [95% CI, -2.0 to -0.4] percentage points; P = .003).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that implementation of the HRRP was associated with a lower likelihood of readmission for recently discharged patients presenting to the ED, specifically for congestive heart failure. This highlights the critical role of the ED in readmission reduction under the HRRP and suggests that patient outcomes after HRRP implementation should be further studied.
| S-EPMC7195622 | biostudies-literature