Evaluation of variation in insurance payor mix among heart transplant centers.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Parizo JT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8034596 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundGeographic disparities in access to deceased donor kidney transplantation persist in the United States under the Kidney Allocation System (KAS) introduced in 2014, and the effect of transplant center practices on the probability of transplantation for wait-listed patients remains unclear.MethodsTo compare probability of transplantation across centers nationally and within donation service areas (DSAs), we conducted a registry study that included all United States incident adult kidney transplant candidates wait listed in 2011 and 2015 (pre-KAS and post-KAS cohorts comprising 32,745 and 34,728 individuals, respectively). For each center, we calculated the probability of deceased donor kidney transplantation within 3 years of wait listing using competing risk regression, with living donor transplantation, death, and waiting list removal as competing events. We examined associations between center-level and DSA-level characteristics and the adjusted probability of transplant.ResultsCandidates received deceased donor kidney transplants within 3 years of wait listing more frequently post-KAS (22%) than pre-KAS (19%). Nationally, the probability of transplant varied 16-fold between centers, ranging from 4.0% to 64.2% in the post-KAS era. Within DSAs, we observed a median 2.3-fold variation between centers, with up to ten-fold and 57.4 percentage point differences. Probability of transplantation was correlated in the post-KAS cohort with center willingness to accept hard-to-place kidneys (r=0.55, P<0.001) and local organ supply (r=0.44, P<0.001).ConclusionsLarge differences in the adjusted probability of deceased donor kidney transplantation persist under KAS, even between centers working with the same local organ supply. Probability of transplantation is significantly associated with organ offer acceptance patterns at transplant centers, underscoring the need for greater understanding of how centers make decisions about organs offered to wait-listed patients and how they relate to disparities in access to transplantation.
| S-EPMC7790218 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceGuidelines endorse routine coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to screen for and treat cardiac allograft vasculopathy in heart transplant recipients. However, the current Appropriate Use Criteria for Revascularization (AUC-R) do not recognize prior heart transplant as a unique PCI indication. Whether this affects rates of rarely appropriate (RA) PCIs is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the rate of RA PCI procedures in heart transplant recipients and how it pertains to hospital PCI appropriateness metrics and pay-for-performance scorecards.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational study used National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry data on all patients undergoing elective PCIs from 96 Medicare-approved heart transplant centers from quarter 3 of 2009 to quarter 2 of 2017. The data were analyzed in July 2018.ExposuresPrior heart transplant.Main outcomes and measuresRates of RA elective PCIs in heart transplant recipients compared with nonrecipients and hospital rates of RA PCI before vs after exclusion of heart transplant recipients using paired t tests. In a subset of heart transplant centers participating in the Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield's Quality-In-Sights Hospital Incentive Program (Q-HIP), we compared the change in Q-HIP scorecards before vs after excluding heart transplant recipients.ResultsOf 168 802 participants, 123 124 (72.9%) were men, 137 457 were white, and the mean (SD) age was 66.3 (11.4) years. Of 168 802 elective PCIs performed in heart transplant centers, 1854 (1.1%) were for heart transplant recipients. Heart transplant recipients were less likely to have ischemic symptoms (14.6% vs 61.4%, P < .001), had lower rates of antecedent stress testing (15.0% vs 58.4%, P < .001), and had higher RA PCI rates (66.0% vs 16.9%, P < .001) compared with nonrecipients. In heart transplant centers, the absolute difference in RA rates (before vs after excluding transplant recipients) was directly associated with the proportion of PCIs performed in heart transplant recipients (r = 0.91; P < .001). In the subset of heart transplant centers participating in Q-HIP during the 2016 and 2017 calendar years, 8 of 20 (40%) and 8 of 16 centers (50%), respectively, could have benefited from a change in their Q-HIP scorecards if their RA PCI rates excluded transplant recipients.Conclusions and relevanceTwo-thirds of PCIs in heart transplant recipients were deemed RA by the AUC-R. The failure of the AUC-R to consider prior heart transplant as a unique PCI indication may lead to inflated RA PCI rates with the potential for affecting quality reporting and pay-for-performance metrics in heart transplant centers.
| S-EPMC7142805 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6755637 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn October 2018, the U.S. heart allocation system expanded the number of priority "status" tiers from 3 to 6 and added cardiogenic shock requirements for some heart transplant candidates listed with specific types of treatments.ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the impact of the new policy on the treatment practices of transplant centers.MethodsInitial listing data on all adult heart candidates listed from December 1, 2017 to April 30, 2019 were collected from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. The status-qualifying treatments (or exception requests) and hemodynamic values at listing of a post-policy cohort (December 2018 to April 2019) were compared with a seasonally matched pre-policy cohort (December 2017 to April 2018). Candidates in the pre-policy cohort were reclassified into the new priority system statuses by using treatment, diagnosis, and hemodynamics.ResultsComparing the post-policy cohort (N = 1,567) with the pre-policy cohort (N = 1,606), there were significant increases in listings with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (+1.2%), intra-aortic balloon pumps (+ 4 %), and exceptions (+ 12%). Listings with low-dose inotropes (-18%) and high-dose inotropes (-3%) significantly decreased. The new priority status distribution had more status 2 (+14%) candidates than expected and fewer status 3 (-5%), status 4 (- 4%) and status 6 (-8%) candidates than expected (p values <0.01 for all comparisons).ConclusionsAfter implementation of the new heart allocation policy, transplant centers listed more candidates with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, intra-aortic balloon pumps, and exception requests and fewer candidates with inotrope therapy than expected, thus leading to significantly more high-priority status listings than anticipated. If these early trends persist, the new allocation system may not function as intended.
| S-EPMC7304520 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundKidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for an individual requiring kidney replacement therapy, resulting in improved survival and quality of life while costing the health care system less than maintenance dialysis. Achieving and maintaining a kidney transplant requires extensive coordination of several different health care services. To improve the quality of kidney transplant care, quality metrics or indicators that encompass all aspects of the individual's journey to transplant should be measured in a standardized fashion.ObjectiveTo identify, categorize, and evaluate strengths and weaknesses of kidney transplant quality indicators currently being used across Canada.DesignAn environmental scan of quality indicators being used by kidney organizations and programs.SettingA 16-member volunteer pan-Canadian panel with expertise in nephrology, transplant, and quality improvement.SampleTransplant programs, as well as provincial transplant and kidney agencies across Canada.MethodsIndicators were first categorized based on the period of transplant care and then using the Institute of Medicine and Donabedian frameworks. A 4-member subcommittee rated each indicator using a modified version of the Delphi consensus technique based on the American College of Physician/Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality criteria. Consensus ratings were subsequently shared with the entire 16-member panel for additional comments.ResultsWe identified 46 measures related to transplant care across 7 Canadian provinces (9 referral and evaluation, 9 waitlist activity and outcomes, 6 hospitalization for transplant surgery, 12 posttransplant care, 6 organ utilization, 4 living donor). We rated 24 indicators (52%) as necessary to distinguish high-quality from low-quality care, most of which measured effective (n = 10) or efficient (n = 6) care. Only 7 (15%) of 46 indicators evaluated person-centered or equitable care. Fourteen common indicators were measured by 5 of 7 provinces, 10 of which were deemed "necessary," measuring safe (n = 2), effective (n = 5), efficient (n = 2), and equitable (n = 1) care.LimitationsThe panel lacked patient and allied health representation.ConclusionsThere are a large number of kidney transplant quality indicators currently being used in Canada, some of which are common across provinces and focus primarily on measuring effective care. Person-centered and equitable care indicators were lacking, and only half of these indicators were deemed "necessary" for quality improvement. Our results should complement ongoing work to achieve national consensus on the standardization of quality indicators in kidney transplantation.
| S-EPMC8243101 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although the United States possesses one of the most comprehensive transplant registries in the world, nationally representative data on how transplant care is structured and delivered is lacking. Therefore, we surveyed all 208 adult kidney transplant centers in the United States, excluding 37 pediatric and 58 inactive adult centers. Respondents were asked about the characteristics of their kidney transplant programs (25 items), the structure and process of care (18 items), coordination of care (10 items), and the characteristics of transplant physicians and surgeons (9 items). The survey was completed by directors of 156 transplant centers (75% response). The results demonstrated significant variation between centers in several domains. Sixty-five percent of transplant centers do not have a dedicated transplant pharmacist in outpatient care. Two thirds of transplant centers do not see the kidney transplant recipients at least monthly during the first year. Less than 30% of centers perform joint sit-down or walking rounds between nephrology and transplant surgery. There was significant variation in the structure and process of care in kidney transplantation. This implies variation in the use of resources at the transplant centers. This variation should be studied to determine best practices associated with optimal kidney allograft and patient survival.
| S-EPMC4149821 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The current U.S. priority ranking for heart candidates is based on treatment intensity, not objective markers of severity of illness. This system may encourage centers to overtreat candidates. OBJECTIVES:This study sought to describe national variation in the intensity of treatment of adult heart transplantation candidates and identify center-level predictors of potential overtreatment. METHODS:The registrations of all U.S. adult heart transplantation candidates from 2010 to 2015 were collected from the SRTR (Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients). "Potential overtreatment" was defined as treatment of a candidate who did not meet American Heart Association cardiogenic shock criteria with either high-dose inotropes or an intra-aortic balloon pump. Multilevel logistic regression and propensity score models were used to adjust for candidate variability at each center. Center-level variables associated with potential overtreatment were identified. RESULTS:From 2010 to 2015, 108 centers listed 12,762 adult candidates who were not in cardiogenic shock for heart transplantation. Of these, 1,471 (11.6%) were potentially overtreated with high-dose inotropes or intra-aortic balloon pumps. In the bottom quartile of centers, only 2.1% of candidates were potentially overtreated compared with 27.6% at top quartile centers, an interquartile difference of 25.5% (95% confidence interval: 21% to 30%). Adjusting for candidate differences did not significantly alter the interquartile difference. Local competition with 2 or more centers increased the odds of potential overtreatment by 50% (adjusted odds ratio: 1.50; 95% confidence interval: 1.07 to 2.11). CONCLUSIONS:There is wide variation in the treatment practices of adult heart transplantation centers. Competition for transplantable donor hearts is associated with the potential overtreatment of hemodynamically stable candidates. Overtreatment may compromise the fair and efficient allocation of scarce deceased donor hearts.
| S-EPMC6019274 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDifferences among pediatric transplant centers in long-term survival of pediatric recipients of heart transplants can be mostly explained by differences in 90-day mortality.ObjectiveTo understand characteristics associated with high-performing pediatric HT centers by comparing key outcomes among centers stratified by 90-day risk-adjusted mortality.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included recipients of HT aged younger than 18 years in the US. Analyses included 44 US centers during 2006 to 2015 using the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network database. A risk model for 90-day mortality was developed using data from all recipients to estimate expected 90-day mortality and 90-day standardized mortality ratio (SMR; calculated as observed mortality divided by expected mortality) for each center. Centers were stratified into tertiles by SMR and compared for key outcomes. Data were analyzed from January to March 2020.ExposuresHigh-, medium-, and low-performing centers (SMR tertile).Main outcomes and measuresPosttransplant 90-day mortality across recipient risk spectrum and incidence of and mortality following early posttransplant complications.ResultsOf 3211 children analyzed, 1016 (31.6%) were infants younger than 1 year and 1459 (45.4%) were girls. The median (interquartile range) age was 4 (0-12) years. Centers were stratified by SMR tertile, and SMR was 0 to 0.71 among 15 high-performing centers, 0.79 to 1.12 among 14 medium-performing centers, and 1.19 to 3.33 among 15 low-performing centers. High-performing centers had 90-day mortality of 0.8% (95% CI, 0.3%-1.8%) in children with low risk and expected mortality of 2.0%, 2.3% (95% CI, 0.6%-5.7%) in children with intermediate risk and expected mortality of 6.5%, and 16.7% (95% CI, 7.9%-29.3%) in children with high risk and expected mortality of 30.8%. Incidence of acute rejection during transplant hospitalization was 10.3% at high-performing centers, 10.3% at medium-performing centers, and 9.7% at low-performing centers (P for trend = .68), and incidence of post-HT kidney failure requiring dialysis was 4.1% at high-performing centers, 5.2% at medium-performing centers, and 8.5% at low-performing centers (P for trend = .001). Ninety-day mortality was significantly lower at high-performing centers among children treated for rejection (high-performing: 2.0%; medium-performing: 6.9%; low-performing: 11.7%; P for trend = .006) and among recipients receiving dialysis for post-HT kidney failure (high-performing: 17.5%; medium-performing: 39.4%; low-performing: 47.6%; P for trend < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study found that high-performing pediatric HT centers had lower 90-day mortality across the recipient risk spectrum and lower mortality among recipients who develop rejection or post-HT kidney failure during transplant hospitalization. These findings suggest presence of superior processes and systems of care at high-performing pediatric HT centers.
| S-EPMC7607438 | biostudies-literature
Project description:MOLECULAR PROFILING IMPROVES DIAGNOSES OF REJECTION AND INFECTION IN TRANSPLANTED ORGANS. The monitoring of transplanted hearts is currently based on histological evaluation of endomyocardial biopsies, a method that is fairly insensitive and that does not always accurately discriminate between rejection and infection in the heart. Accurate diagnosis of rejection and infection is absolutely crucial, however, as the respective treatments are completely different. Using microarrays we analyzed gene expression in 76 cardiac biopsies from 40 heart recipients undergoing rejection, no rejection, or T. cruzi infection. We found a set of 98 genes whose expression patterns were typical of acute rejection, and 87 genes that discriminated between rejection and T. cruzi infection. These sets revealed acute rejection episodes up to two weeks earlier, and trypanosome infection up to two months earlier than did histological evaluation. When applied to raw data from other institutions, the two sets of predictive genes were also able to accurately pinpoint acute rejection of lung and kidney transplants, as well as bacterial infections in kidneys. In addition to their usefulness as diagnostic tools, the data suggest that there are similarities in the biology of the processes involved in rejection of different grafts and also in the tissue responses to pathogens as diverse as bacteria and protozoa. pre-rejection: GSM47949, GSM48048, GSM49625 non-rejection: GSM47957, GSM48045, GSM48049, GSM48057, GSM48072, GSM48089, GSM48092, GSM49624, GSM49654, GSM49656, GSM49657, GSM49658, GSM49661, GSM49666, GSM49748, GSM49750, GSM49751, GSM49752, GSM49754, GSM49756, GSM49757, GSM49758, GSM49762, GSM49765, GSM49766, GSM49767, GSM49769, GSM49771, GSM49773, GSM49774, GSM49781, GSM49782, GSM49783, GSM49784 acute rejection: GSM48040, GSM48043, GSM48046, GSM48047, GSM48050, GSM48053, GSM48056, GSM49655, GSM49747, GSM49749, GSM49755, GSM49759, GSM49761, GSM49763, GSM49764, GSM49780 pre-Chagas disease reactivation: GSM48089, GSM49756, GSM49757, GSM49758, GSM49767, GSM49769, GSM49771 Chagas disease reactivation: GSM49753, GSM49760, GSM49768, GSM49772, GSM49775, GSM49776, GSM49777, GSM49778 Toxoplasma myocarditis: GSM48058 first subset ("summer"): GSM47949, GSM47957, GSM48040, GSM48043, GSM48045, GSM48046, GSM48047, GSM48048, GSM48049, GSM48050, GSM48053, GSM48056, GSM48057, GSM48058, GSM48072, GSM48089, GSM48092, GSM49624, GSM49625, GSM49654, GSM49655, GSM49656, GSM49657, GSM49658, GSM49661, GSM49666, GSM49747, GSM49748, GSM49749, GSM49750, GSM49751, GSM49752 second subset ("winter"): GSM49753, GSM49754, GSM49755, GSM49756, GSM49757, GSM49758, GSM49759, GSM49760, GSM49761, GSM49762, GSM49763, GSM49764, GSM49765, GSM49766, GSM49767, GSM49768, GSM49769, GSM49770, GSM49771, GSM49772, GSM49773, GSM49774, GSM49775, GSM49776, GSM49777, GSM49778, GSM49780, GSM49781, GSM49782, GSM49783, GSM49784 Keywords = cardiac transplant Keywords = acute rejection Keywords = infection Keywords: repeat sample
2005-10-24 | GSE2596 | GEO
Project description:BACKGROUND:Health information technology (HIT) provides new opportunities for primary care clinics to support patients with health insurance enrollment and maintenance. We present strategies, early findings, and clinic reflections on the development and implementation of HIT tools designed to streamline and improve health insurance tracking at community health centers. METHODS:We are conducting a hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial to assess novel health insurance enrollment and support tools in primary care clinics. Twenty-three clinics in 7 health centers from the OCHIN practice-based research network are participating in the implementation component of the trial. Participating health centers were randomized to 1 of 2 levels of implementation support, including arm 1 (n = 4 health centers, 11 clinic sites) that received HIT tools and educational materials and arm 2 (n = 3 health centers, 12 clinic sites) that received HIT tools, educational materials, and individualized implementation support with a practice coach. We used mixed-methods (qualitative and quantitative) to assess tool use rates and facilitators and barriers to implementation in the first 6 months. RESULTS:Clinics reported favorable attitudes toward the HIT tools, which replace less efficient and more cumbersome processes, and reflect on the importance of clinic engagement in tool development and refinement. Five of 7 health centers are now regularly using the tools and are actively working to increase tool use. Six months after formal implementation, arm 2 clinics demonstrated higher rates of tool use, compared with arm 1. DISCUSSION:These results highlight the value of early clinic input in tool development, the potential benefit of practice coaching during HIT tool development and implementation, and a novel method for coupling a hybrid implementation-effectiveness design with principles of improvement science in primary care research.
| S-EPMC6201700 | biostudies-literature