Dataset Information

The effects of competition and bundled payment on patient reported outcome measures after hip replacement surgery.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Competition-promoting reforms and economic incentives are increasingly being introduced worldwide to improve the performance of healthcare delivery. This study considers such a reform which was initiated in 2009 for elective hip replacement surgery in Stockholm, Sweden. The reform involved patient choice of provider, free establishment of new providers and a bundled payment model. The study aimed to examine its effects on hip replacement surgery quality as captured by patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) of health gain (as indicated by the EQ-5D index and a visual analogue scale (VAS)), pain reduction (VAS) and patient satisfaction (VAS) one and six years after the surgery.

Methods

Using patient-level data collected from multiple national registers, we applied a quasi-experimental research design. Data were collected for elective primary total hip replacements that were carried out between 2008 and 2012, and contain information on patient demography, the surgery and PROMs at baseline and at one- and six-years follow-up. In total, 36,627 observations were included in the analysis. First, entropy balancing was applied in order to reduce differences in observable characteristics between treatment groups. Second, difference-in-difference analyses were conducted to eliminate unobserved time-invariant differences between treatment groups and to estimate the causal treatment effects.

Results

The entropy balancing was successful in creating balance in all covariates between treatment groups. No significant effects of the reform were found on any of the included PROMs at one- and six-years follow-up. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust.

Conclusions

Competition and bundled payment had no effects on the quality of hip replacement surgery as captured by post-surgery PROMs of health gain, pain reduction and patient satisfaction. The study provides important insights to the limited knowledge on the effects of competition and economic incentives on PROMs.

SUBMITTER: Goude F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8077897 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes are essential to demonstrate the value of hip and knee arthroplasty, a common target for payment reforms. We compare patient-reported global and condition-specific outcomes after hip and knee arthroplasty based on hospital participation in Medicare's bundled payment programs.MethodsWe performed a prospective observational study using the Comparative Effectiveness of Pulmonary Embolism Prevention after Hip and Knee Replacement trial. Differences in patient-reported outcomes through 6 months were compared between bundle and nonbundle hospitals using mixed-effects regression, controlling for baseline patient characteristics. Outcomes were the brief Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score or the brief Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Health Score, and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, measures of joint function, overall health, and pain, respectively.ResultsRelative to nonbundled hospitals, arthroplasty patients at bundled hospitals had slightly lower improvement in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (-1.8 point relative difference at 6 months; 95% confidence interval -3.2 to -0.4; P = .011) and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (-2.3 point relative difference at 6 months; 95% confidence interval -4.0 to -0.5; P = .010). However, these effects were small, and the proportions of patients who achieved a minimum clinically important difference were similar. Preoperative to postoperative change in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Health Score and Numeric Pain Rating Scale demonstrated a similar pattern of slightly worse outcomes at bundled hospitals with similar rates of achieving a minimum clinically important difference.ConclusionsPatients receiving care at hospitals participating in Medicare's bundled payment programs do not have meaningfully worse improvements in patient-reported measures of function, health, or pain after hip or knee arthroplasty.

Project description:ImportanceThere are marked racial/ethnic differences in hip and knee joint replacement care as well as concerns that value-based payments may exacerbate existing racial/ethnic disparities in care.ObjectiveTo examine changes in joint replacement care associated with Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model among White, Black, and Hispanic patients.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study of Medicare claims from 2013 through 2017 among White, Black, and Hispanic patients undergoing joint replacement in 67 treatment (selected for CJR participation) and 103 control metropolitan statistical areas.ExposuresThe CJR model holds hospitals accountable for spending and quality of joint replacement care during care episodes (index hospitalization through 90 days after discharge).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were spending, discharge to institutional postacute care, and readmission during care episodes.ResultsAmong 688 346 patients, 442 163 (64.2%) were women, and 87 286 (12.7%) were 85 years or older. Under CJR, spending decreased by $439 for White patients (95% CI, -$718 to -$161; from pre-CJR spending in treatment metropolitan statistical areas of $25 264) but did not change for Black patients and Hispanic patients. Discharges to institutional postacute care decreased for all groups (-2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to -0.4, from pre-CJR risk of 46.2% for White patients; -6.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -2.2, from pre-CJR risk of 59.5% for Black patients; and -4.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.6 to -1.0, from pre-CJR risk of 54.3% for Hispanic patients). Readmission risk decreased for Black patients by 3.1 percentage points (95% CI, -5.9 to -0.4, from pre-CJR risk of 21.8%) and did not change for White patients and Hispanic patients. Under CJR, Black-White differences in discharges to institutional postacute care decreased by 3.4 percentage points (95% CI, -6.4 to -0.5, from the pre-CJR Black-White difference of 13.3 percentage points). No evidence was found demonstrating that Black-White differences changed for other outcomes or that Hispanic-White differences changed for any outcomes under CJR.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of patients receiving joint replacements, CJR was associated with decreased readmissions for Black patients. Furthermore, Black patients experienced a greater decrease in discharges to institutional postacute care relative to White patients, representing relative improvements despite concerns that value-based payment models may exacerbate existing disparities. Nonetheless, differences between White and Black patients in joint replacement care still persisted even after these changes.