Dataset Information

Performance in Federal Value-Based Programs of Hospitals Recognized by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology for High-Quality Heart Failure and Acute Myocardial Infarction Care.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have implemented national value-based programs that incentivize hospitals to deliver better cardiovascular care. However, it is unclear how hospitals recognized for high-quality cardiovascular care by American Heart Association (AHA) and American College of Cardiology (ACC) national quality improvement initiatives (termed award hospitals) have performed under value-based programs.

Objective

To determine if hospitals that received awards for high-quality cardiovascular care from the AHA/ACC were less likely to be penalized under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program (VBP) compared with other hospitals.

Design, setting, and participants

This national cross-sectional study included data from short-term acute care hospitals in the United States that were participating in the HRRP or VBP in fiscal year 2018.

Exposures

Recognition awards for high-quality care from the AHA's Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure and ACC's Chest Pain-MI (myocardial infarction) Registry national quality improvement initiatives.

Main outcomes and measures

Proportion of hospitals that received a financial penalty or financial reward under the HRRP or VBP, median payment adjustments, and hospital-level 30-day mortality rates.

Results

This study included 3175 hospitals participating in the HRRP and 2781 hospitals participating in the VBP in fiscal year 2018. Under the HRRP, a higher proportion of award hospitals received financial penalties compared with other hospitals (419 [85.5%] vs 2112 [78.7%]; P < .001), although payment reductions were similar (median, 0.39% [interquartile range (IQR), 0.08%-0.84%] vs 0.33% [IQR, 0.03%-0.89%]; P = .17). Under the VBP, a higher proportion of award hospitals received penalties compared with other hospitals (250 [51.7%] vs 950 [41.4%]; P < .001), and fewer award hospitals received financial rewards (234 [48.4%] vs 1347 [58.6%]; P < .001). Median payment reductions were higher for award hospitals than other hospitals (0.01% [IQR, 0.00%-0.38%] vs 0.0% [IQR, 0.00%-0.28%]; P < .001), and median payment increases were lower (0.0% [IQR, 0.00%-0.34%] vs 0.13% [IQR, 0.00%-0.60%]; P < .001). Thirty-day mortality at award hospitals was similar (acute myocardial infarction, 13.2% vs 13.2%; P = .76) or slightly lower (heart failure, 11.3% vs 11.7%; P = .001) compared with other hospitals.

Conclusions and relevance

Hospitals that received awards for high-quality cardiovascular care from the AHA/ACC were more likely to be penalized and less likely to be financially rewarded by federal value-based programs. These findings highlight the potential need to standardize measurement of cardiovascular care quality.

SUBMITTER: Wadhera RK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7042832 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Performance in Federal Value-Based Programs of Hospitals Recognized by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology for High-Quality Heart Failure and Acute Myocardial Infarction Care.

Wadhera Rishi K RK Vaduganathan Muthiah M Jiang Ginger Y GY Song Yang Y Xu Jiaman J Shen Changyu C Bhatt Deepak L DL Yeh Robert W RW Fonarow Gregg C GC

JAMA cardiology 20200501 5

<h4>Importance</h4>The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have implemented national value-based programs that incentivize hospitals to deliver better cardiovascular care. However, it is unclear how hospitals recognized for high-quality cardiovascular care by American Heart Association (AHA) and American College of Cardiology (ACC) national quality improvement initiatives (termed award hospitals) have performed under value-based programs.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine if hospitals that r ...[more]

PMID: 32074242

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Cholesterol Management Guideline recommends moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin therapy in eligible patients.ObjectiveTo examine adoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline in US cardiology practices.Design, setting, and participantsAmong 161 cardiology practices, trends in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) were analyzed before (September 1, 2012, to November 1, 2013) and after (February 1, 2014, to April 1, 2015) publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline among 4 mutually exclusive risk groups within the ACC Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry. Interrupted time series analysis was used to evaluate for differences in trend in use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT use in hierarchical logistic regression models. Participants were a population-based sample of 1 105 356 preguideline patients (2 431 192 patient encounters) and 1 116 472 postguideline patients (2 377 219 patient encounters). Approximately 97% of patients had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).ExposuresModerate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT use before and after publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline.Main outcomes and measuresTime trend in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT.ResultsIn the study cohort, the mean (SD) age was 69.6 (12.1) years among 1 105 356 patients (40.2% female) before publication of the guideline and 70.0 (11.9) years among 1 116 472 patients (39.8% female) after publication of the guideline. Although there was a trend toward increasing use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins overall and in the ASCVD cohort, such a trend was already present before publication of the guideline. No significant difference in trend in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins was observed in other groups. The use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin therapy was 62.1% (before publication of the guideline) and 66.6% (after publication of the guideline) in the overall cohort, 62.7% (before publication) and 67.0% (after publication) in the ASCVD cohort, 50.6% (before publication) and 52.3% (after publication) in the cohort with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (ie, ≥190 mg/dL), 52.4% (before publication) and 55.2% (after publication) in the diabetes cohort, and 41.9% (before publication) and 46.9% (after publication) in the remaining group with 10-year ASCVD risk of 7.5% or higher. In hierarchical logistic regression models, there was a significant increase in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins in the overall cohort (4.8%) and in the ASCVD cohort (4.3%) (P < .01 for slope for both). There was no significant change for other risk cohorts. Nonstatin LLT use remained unchanged in the preguideline and postguideline periods in the hierarchical logistic regression models for all of the risk groups.Conclusions and relevanceAdoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA Cholesterol Management Guideline in cardiology practices was modest. Timely interventions are needed to improve guideline-concordant practice to reduce the burden of ASCVD.

Project description:ImportanceClinical decisions are ideally based on evidence generated from multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical outcomes, but historically, few clinical guideline recommendations have been based entirely on this type of evidence.ObjectiveTo determine the class and level of evidence (LOE) supporting current major cardiovascular society guideline recommendations, and changes in LOE over time.Data sourcesCurrent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical guideline documents (2008-2018), as identified on cardiovascular society websites, and immediate predecessors to these guideline documents (1999-2014), as referenced in current guideline documents.Study selectionComprehensive guideline documents including recommendations organized by class and LOE.Data extraction and synthesisThe number of recommendations and the distribution of LOE (A [supported by data from multiple RCTs or a single, large RCT], B [supported by data from observational studies or a single RCT], and C [supported by expert opinion only]) were determined for each guideline document.Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion of guideline recommendations supported by evidence from multiple RCTs (LOE A).ResultsAcross 26 current ACC/AHA guidelines (2930 recommendations; median, 121 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 76-155]), 248 recommendations (8.5%) were classified as LOE A, 1465 (50.0%) as LOE B, and 1217 (41.5%) as LOE C. The median proportion of LOE A recommendations was 7.9% (25th-75th percentiles, 0.9%-15.2%). Across 25 current ESC guideline documents (3399 recommendations; median, 130 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 111-154]), 484 recommendations (14.2%) were classified as LOE A, 1053 (31.0%) as LOE B, and 1862 (54.8%) as LOE C. When comparing current guidelines with prior versions, the proportion of recommendations that were LOE A did not increase in either ACC/AHA (median, 9.0% [current] vs 11.7% [prior]) or ESC guidelines (median, 15.1% [current] vs 17.6% [prior]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong recommendations in major cardiovascular society guidelines, only a small percentage were supported by evidence from multiple RCTs or a single, large RCT. This pattern does not appear to have meaningfully improved from 2008 to 2018.

Project description:ImportanceLittle is known regarding the durability of clinical practice guideline recommendations over time.ObjectiveTo characterize variations in the durability of class I ("procedure/treatment should be performed/administered") American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline recommendations.Design, setting, and participantsTextual analysis by 4 independent reviewers of 11 guidelines published between 1998 and 2007 and revised between 2006 and 2013.Main outcomes and measuresWe abstracted all class I recommendations from the first of the 2 most recent versions of each guideline and identified corresponding recommendations in the subsequent version. We classified recommendations replaced by less determinate or contrary recommendations as having been downgraded or reversed; we classified recommendations for which no corresponding item could be identified as having been omitted. We tested for differences in the durability of recommendations according to guideline topic and underlying level of evidence using bivariable hypothesis tests and conditional logistic regression.ResultsOf 619 index recommendations, 495 (80.0%; 95% CI, 76.6%-83.1%) were retained in the subsequent guideline version, 57 (9.2%; 95% CI, 7.0%-11.8%) were downgraded or reversed, and 67 (10.8%; 95% CI, 8.4%-13.3%) were omitted. The percentage of recommendations retained varied across guidelines from 15.4% (95% CI, 1.9%-45.4%) to 94.1% (95% CI, 80.3%-99.3%; P < .001). Among recommendations with available information on level of evidence, 90.5% (95% CI, 83.2%-95.3%) of recommendations supported by multiple randomized studies were retained, vs 81.0% (95% CI, 74.8%-86.3%) of recommendations supported by 1 randomized trial or observational data and 73.7% (95% CI, 65.8%-80.5%) of recommendations supported by opinion (P = .001). After accounting for guideline-level factors, the probability of being downgraded, reversed, or omitted was greater for recommendations based on opinion (odds ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.69-5.85; P < .001) or on 1 trial or observational data (odds ratio, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.45-8.41; P = .005) vs recommendations based on multiple trials.Conclusions and relevanceThe durability of class I cardiology guideline recommendations for procedures and treatments promulgated by the ACC/AHA varied across individual guidelines and levels of evidence. Downgrades, reversals, and omissions were most common among recommendations not supported by multiple randomized studies.

Project description:IntroductionThe 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association blood pressure guideline redefined hypertension and lowered the blood pressure treatment target. Empirical data on the guideline's impact are needed.MethodsData were analyzed from Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study participants who attended baseline pre-guideline (2016-2017) and post-guideline (2018-2019) visits with baseline systolic blood pressure between 120 and 159 mmHg. Participants were grouped according to baseline systolic blood pressure by change in classification under the new guideline as follows: not reclassified (120-129 mmHg), reclassified to Stage 1 hypertension (130-139 mmHg), and reclassified to Stage 2 hypertension (140-159 mmHg). Means and 95% CIs for systolic blood pressure changes between baseline and follow-up, changes in antihypertensive use, and percentages that achieved the post-guideline recommendation (systolic blood pressure <130 mmHg) were calculated. Analyses were performed in 2021-2022.ResultsAmong 2,193 community-dwelling Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities participants aged 71-95 years at baseline, systolic blood pressure changes between baseline and follow-up visits differed among participants not reclassified (+4.1 mmHg, 95% CI=3.0, 5.3 mmHg), reclassified to Stage 1 hypertension (-1.1 mmHg, 95% CI= -2.2, 0.1 mmHg), and reclassified to Stage 2 hypertension (-5.7 mmHg, 95% CI= -6.8, -4.7 mmHg). Antihypertensive use changed from 77.3% to 78.4% (p=0.25) among participants reclassified to Stage 1 hypertension and from 78.3% to 81.4% (p<0.01) among participants reclassified to Stage 2 hypertension. At follow-up, 41.8% of the Stage 1 and 22.4% of the Stage 2 hypertension groups reached the systolic blood pressure <130 mmHg goal.ConclusionsThere were small decreases in systolic blood pressure and increases in antihypertensive therapy among older adults reclassified to Stage 2 hypertension but not among those reclassified to Stage 1 hypertension by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.

Project description:ObjectivesThe AHA/ACC-2017 hypertension guideline recommends an age-independent target blood pressure (BP) of less than 130/80 mmHg. In an elderly cohort without established cardiovascular disease (CVD) at baseline, we determined the impact of this guideline on the prevalence of hypertension and associated CVD risk.MethodsNineteen thousand, one hundred and fourteen participants aged at least 65 years from the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) study were grouped by baseline BP: 'pre-2017 hypertensive' (BP ≥140/90 mmHg and/or on antihypertensive drugs); 'reclassified hypertensive' (normotensive by pre-2017 guidelines; hypertensive by AHA/ACC-2017 guideline), and 'normotensive' (BP <130 and <80 mmHg). For each group, we evaluated CVD risk factors, predicted 10-year CVD risk using the Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) risk equation, and reported observed CVD event rates during a median 4.7-year follow-up.ResultsOverall, 74.4% (14 213/19 114) were 'pre-2017 hypertensive'; an additional 12.3% (2354/19 114) were 'reclassified hypertensive' by the AHA/ACC-2017 guideline. Of those 'reclassified hypertensive', the majority (94.5%) met criteria for antihypertensive treatment although 29% had no other traditional CVD risk factors other than age. Further, a relatively lower mean 10-year predicted CVD risk (18% versus 26%, P < 0.001) and lower CVD rates (8.9 versus 12.1/1000 person-years, P = 0.01) were observed in 'reclassified hypertensive' compared with 'pre-2017 hypertensive'. Compared with 'normotensive', a hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for CVD events of 1.60 (1.26-2.02) for 'pre-2017 hypertensive' and 1.26 (0.93-1.71) for 'reclassified hypertensive' was observed.ConclusionApplying current CVD risk calculators in the elderly 'reclassified hypertensive', as a result of shifting the BP threshold lower, increases eligibility for antihypertensive treatment but documented CVD rates remain lower than hypertensive patients defined by pre2017 BP thresholds.

Project description:Although HIV is associated with increased atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, it is unknown whether guidelines can identify HIV-infected adults who may benefit from statins. We compared the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and 2004 Adult Treatment Panel III recommendations in HIV-infected adults and evaluated associations with carotid artery intima-media thickness and plaque. Carotid artery intima-media thickness was measured at baseline and 3 years later in 352 HIV-infected adults without clinical atherosclerotic CVD and not on statins. Plaque was defined as IMT >1.5 mm in any segment. At baseline, the median age was 43 (interquartile range, 39-49), 85% were men, 74% were on antiretroviral medication, and 50% had plaque. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines were more likely to recommend statins compared with the Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines, both overall (26% versus 14%; P<0.001), in those with plaque (32% versus 17%; P=0.0002), and in those without plaque (16% versus 7%; P=0.025). In multivariable analysis, older age, higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, pack per year of smoking, and history of opportunistic infection were associated with baseline plaque. Baseline IMT (hazard ratio, 1.18 per 10% increment; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.33; P=0.005) and plaque (hazard ratio, 2.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-4.08; P=0.037) were each associated with all-cause mortality, independent of traditional CVD risk factors. Although the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommended statins to a greater number of HIV-infected adults compared with the Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines, both failed to recommend therapy in the majority of HIV-affected adults with carotid plaque. Baseline carotid atherosclerosis but not atherosclerotic CVD risk scores was an independent predictor of mortality. HIV-specific guidelines that include detection of subclinical atherosclerosis may help to identify HIV-infected adults who are at increased atherosclerotic CVD risk and may be considered for statins.

Dataset Information

Performance in Federal Value-Based Programs of Hospitals Recognized by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology for High-Quality Heart Failure and Acute Myocardial Infarction Care.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Exposures

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Performance in Federal Value-Based Programs of Hospitals Recognized by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology for High-Quality Heart Failure and Acute Myocardial Infarction Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets