Search

Background: Enhanced Recovery (ER) is a change management framework in which a multidisciplinary team of stakeholders utilizes evidence-based medicine to protocolize all aspects of a surgical care to allow more rapid return of function. While service-specific reports of ER adoption are common, institutional-wide adoption is complex, and reports of institution-wide ER adoption are lacking in the United States. We hypothesized that ER principles were generalizable across an institution and could be implemented across a multitude of surgical disciplines with improvements in length of stay, opioid consumption, and cost of care., Methods: Following the establishment of a formal institutional ER program, ER was adopted in 9 distinct surgical subspecialties over 5 years at an academic medical center. We compared length of stay, opioid consumption, and total cost of care in all surgical subspecialties as a function of time using a segmented regression/interrupted time series statistical model., Results: There were 7774 patients among 9 distinct surgical populations including 2155 patients in the pre-ER cohort and 5619 patients in the post-ER cohort. The introduction of an ER protocol was associated with several significant changes: a reduction in length of stay in 5 of 9 specialties; reduction in opioid consumption in 8 specialties; no change or reduction in maximum patient-reported pain scores; and reduction or no change in hospital costs in all specialties. The ER program was associated with an aggregate increase in profit over the study period., Conclusions: Institution-wide efforts to adopt ER can generate significant improvements in patient care, opioid consumption, hospital capacity, and profitability within a large academic medical center., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: See Disclosures at the end of the article., (Copyright © 2020 International Anesthesia Research Society.)

Background Over 180 000 coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedures are performed annually, accounting for $7 to $10 billion in episode expenditures. Assessing tradeoffs between spending and quality contributing to value during 90-day episodes has not been conducted but is essential for success in bundled reimbursement models. We, therefore, identified determinants of variability in hospital 90-day episode value for CABG. Methods Medicare and private payor admissions for isolated CABG from 2014 to 2016 were retrospectively linked to clinical registry data for 33 nonfederal hospitals in Michigan. Hospital composite risk-adjusted complication rates (≥1 National Quality Forum-endorsed, Society of Thoracic Surgeons measure: deep sternal wound infection, renal failure, prolonged ventilation >24 hours, stroke, re-exploration, and operative mortality) and 90-day risk-adjusted, price-standardized episode payments were used to categorize hospitals by value by defining the intersection between complications and spending. Results Among 2573 total patients, those at low- versus high-value hospitals had a higher percentage of prolonged length of stay >14 days (9.3% versus 2.4%, P =0.006), prolonged ventilation (17.6% versus 4.8%, P <0.001), and operative mortality (4.8% versus 0.6%, P =0.001). Mean total episode payments were $51 509 at low-compared with $45 526 at high-value hospitals ( P <0.001), driven by higher readmission ($3675 versus $2177, P =0.005), professional ($7462 versus $6090, P <0.001), postacute care ($7315 versus $5947, P =0.031), and index hospitalization payments ($33 474 versus $30 800, P <0.001). Among patients not experiencing a complication or 30-day readmission (1923/2573, 74.7%), low-value hospitals had higher inpatient evaluation and management payments ($1405 versus $752, P <0.001) and higher utilization of inpatient rehabilitation (7% versus 2%, P <0.001), but lower utilization of home health (66% versus 73%, P =0.016) and emergency department services (13% versus 17%, P =0.034). Conclusions To succeed in emerging bundled reimbursement programs for CABG, hospitals and physicians should identify strategies to minimize complications while optimizing inpatient evaluation and management spending and use of inpatient rehabilitation, home health, and emergency department services.

Background: Healthcare payers in the United States are increasingly tying provider payments to quality and value using pay-for-performance policies. Cost-effectiveness analysis quantifies value in healthcare but is not currently used to design or prioritize pay-for-performance strategies or metrics. Acute ischemic stroke care provides a useful application to demonstrate how simulation modeling can be used to determine cost-effective levels of financial incentives used in pay-for-performance policies and associated challenges with this approach., Methods and Results: Our framework requires a simulation model that can estimate quality-adjusted life years and costs resulting from improvements in a quality metric. A monetary level of incentives can then be back-calculated using the lifetime discounted quality-adjusted life year (which includes effectiveness of quality improvement) and cost (which includes incentive payments and cost offsets from quality improvements) outputs from the model. We applied this framework to an acute ischemic stroke microsimulation model to calculate the difference in population-level net monetary benefit (willingness-to-pay of $50 000 to $150 000/quality-adjusted life year) accrued under current Medicare policy (stroke payment not adjusted for performance) compared with various hypothetical pay-for-performance policies. Performance measurement was based on time-to-thrombolytic treatment with tPA (tissue-type plasminogen activator). Compared with current payment, equivalent population-level net monetary benefit was achieved in pay-for-performance policies with 10-minute door-to-needle time reductions (5057 more acute ischemic stroke cases/y in the 0-3-hour window) incentivized by increasing tPA payment by as much as 18% to 44% depending on willingness-to-pay for health., Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness modeling can be used to determine the upper bound of financial incentives used in pay-for-performance policies, although currently, this approach is limited due to data requirements and modeling assumptions. For tPA payments in acute ischemic stroke, our model-based results suggest financial incentives leading to a 10-minute decrease in door-to-needle time should be implemented but not exceed 18% to 44% of current tPA payment. In general, the optimal level of financial incentives will depend on willingness-to-pay for health and other modeling assumptions around parameter uncertainty and the relationship between quality improvements and long-run quality-adjusted life expectancy and costs.

Utilization management strategies, including prior authorization, are commonly used to facilitate safe and guideline-adherent provision of new, individualized, and potentially costly cardiovascular therapies. However, as currently deployed, these approaches encumber multiple stakeholders. Patients are discouraged by barriers to appropriate access; clinicians are frustrated by the time, money, and resources required for prior authorizations, the frequent rejections, and the perception of being excluded from the decision-making process; and payers are weary of the intensive effort to design and administer increasingly complex prior authorization systems to balance value and appropriate use of these treatments. These issues highlight an opportunity to collectively reimagine utilization management as a transparent and collaborative system. This would benefit the entire healthcare ecosystem, especially in light of the shift to value-based payment. This article describes the efforts and vision of the multistakeholder Prior Authorization Learning Collaborative of the Value in Healthcare Initiative, a partnership between the American Heart Association and the Robert J. Margolis, MD, Center for Health Policy at Duke University. We outline how healthcare organizations can take greater utilization management responsibility under value-based contracting, especially under different state policies and local contexts. Even with reduced payer-mandated prior authorization in these arrangements, payers and healthcare organizations will have a continued shared need for utilization management. We present options for streamlining these programs, such as gold carding and electronic and automated prior authorization processes. Throughout the article, we weave in examples from cardiovascular care when possible. Although reimagining prior authorization requires collective action by all stakeholders, it may significantly reduce administrative burden for clinicians and payers while improving outcomes for patients.

Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of hospitalizations and readmissions in the United States. Particularly among the elderly, its prevalence and costs continue to rise, making it a significant population health issue. Despite tremendous progress in improving HF care and examples of innovation in care redesign, the quality of HF care varies greatly across the country. One major challenge underpinning these issues is the current payment system, which is largely based on fee-for-service reimbursement, leads to uncoordinated, fragmented, and low-quality HF care. While the payment landscape is changing, with an increasing proportion of all healthcare dollars flowing through value-based payment models, no longitudinal models currently focus on chronic HF care. Episode-based payment models for HF hospitalization have yielded limited success and have little ability to prevent early chronic disease from progressing to later stages. The available literature suggests that primary care-based longitudinal payment models have indirectly improved HF care quality and cardiovascular care costs, but these models are not focused on addressing patients' longitudinal chronic disease needs. This article describes the efforts and vision of the multi-stakeholder Value-Based Models Learning Collaborative of The Value in Healthcare Initiative, a collaboration of the American Heart Association and the Robert J. Margolis, MD, Center for Health Policy at Duke University. The Learning Collaborative developed a framework for a HF value-based payment model with a longitudinal focus on disease management (to reduce adverse clinical outcomes and disease progression among patients with stage C HF) and prevention (an optional track to prevent high-risk stage B pre-HF from progressing to stage C). The model is designed to be compatible with prevalent payment models and reforms being implemented today. Barriers to success and strategies for implementation to aid payers, regulators, clinicians, and others in developing a pilot are discussed.

The use of quality measures to adjust health care payments and to rank providers is growing rapidly, but there are many problems with the quality measures that are currently being used. This article discusses some of these problems and then lays out some principles and procedures that should be used in the development and combination of quality measures. Many of the problems with existing quality measures would have been avoided had these principles been applied as they were developed.

Background: Medicare 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 Results: Retrospective 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., Conclusions: Physician 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.

Background: Despite widespread adoption of Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs), healthcare spending reductions have been modest. This may relate to variable participation in ACOs by specialist physicians, who disproportionately drive spending. To examine whether specialist participation in Medicare ACOs was associated with changes in healthcare spending and clinical quality, we analyzed national Medicare data., Methods and Results: Working with a 20% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries (2008 to 2015), we identified those with cardiovascular disease. We estimated linear regression models at the beneficiary-quarter level to evaluate changes in healthcare spending and clinical quality after the start of the Shared Savings Program in 2012. We then examined whether changes in spending and quality across ACOs were conditional on cardiologist participation. Our study included ≈1.6 million beneficiaries per year. Although the number of ACOs increased over the study period (from 114 in 2012 to 392 in 2015), the proportion with any cardiologist participation remained stable (from 80% in 2012 to 83% in 2015). Compared with unaligned beneficiaries, those cared for by ACOs without cardiologist participation were associated with a spending reduction (per quarter) of -$75 (95% CI, -$105 to -$46; P <0.001). Care receipt in an ACO with cardiologist participation was associated with an additional difference in spending of -$56 (95% CI, -$87 to -$25; P <0.001), driven by lower spending for skilled nursing facilities, evaluation and management services, procedural care, and testing. While heart failure admission rates were similar among aligned and unaligned beneficiaries, ACO care was associated with fewer all-cause readmissions ( P <0.001) and emergency department visits ( P <0.001). Rates of these outcomes did not vary by cardiologist participation., Conclusions: Annual spending for beneficiaries with cardiovascular disease was ≈$200 lower when cared for by ACOs with cardiologist participation (compared with those without). These spending reductions did not come at the expense of clinical quality.

Background: Quality improvement initiatives have been developed to improve acute coronary syndrome care largely in high-income country settings. We sought to synthesize the effect size and quality of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies for hospital-based acute coronary syndrome quality improvement interventions on clinical outcomes and process of care measures for their potential implementation in low- and middle-income country settings., Methods and Results: We conducted a bibliometric search of databases and trial registers and a hand search in 2016 and performed an updated search in May 2018 and May 2019. We performed data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and quality of evidence assessments in duplicate. We assessed differences in outcomes by study design comparing RCTs to nonrandomized quasi-experimental studies and by country income status. A meta-analysis was not feasible due to substantial, unexplained heterogeneity among the included studies, and thus, we present a qualitative synthesis. We screened 5858 records and included 32 studies (14 RCTs [n=109 763] and 18 nonrandomized quasi-experimental studies [n=54-423]). In-hospital mortality ranged from 2.1% to 4.8% in the intervention groups versus 3.3% to 5.1% in the control groups in 5 RCTs (n=55 942). Five RCTs (n=64 313) reported 3.0% to 31.0% higher rates of reperfusion for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in the intervention groups. The effect sizes for in-hospital and discharge medical therapies in a majority of RCTs were 3.0% to 10.0% higher in the intervention groups. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality evaluated by 4 RCTs (n=42 384), which reported 2.5% to 15.0% versus 5.9% to 22% 30-day mortality rates in the intervention versus control groups. In contrast, nonrandomized quasi-experimental studies reported larger effect sizes compared to RCTs. There were no significant consistent differences in outcomes between high-income and middle-income countries. Low-income countries were not represented in any of the included studies., Conclusions: Hospital-based acute coronary syndrome quality improvement interventions have a modest effect on process of care measures but not on clinical outcomes with expected differences by study design. Although quality improvement programs have an ongoing and important role for acute coronary syndrome quality of care in high-income country settings, further research will help to identify key components for contextualizing and implementing such interventions to new settings to achieve their desired effects. Systematic Review Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. Unique identifier: CRD42016047604.

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a common and expensive procedure that has become a target for bundled payment initiatives. We described the magnitude and determinants of variation in 90-day PCI episode payments across a diverse array of patients and hospitals., Methods and Results: We linked clinical registry data from PCIs performed at 33 Michigan hospitals to 90-day episodes of care constructed using Medicare fee-for-service and commercial insurance claims from January 2012 to October 2016. Payments were price standardized and risk adjusted using clinical and administrative variables in an observed-over-expected framework. Hospitals were stratified into quartiles based on average episode payments. Payment components between the highest and the lowest quartiles were compared with identified drivers of variation (ie, index hospitalization/procedure, readmissions, postacute care, and professional fees). Among 40 925 90-day PCI episodes, the average risk-adjusted 90-day episode payment by hospital ranged between $22 154 and $27 205 with a median of $24 696 (interquartile range, $24 190-$25 643). Hospitals in the lowest and the highest quartiles had average episode payments of $23 744 and $26 504, respectively (difference, $2760). Readmission payments were the primary driver of this variation (46.2%), followed by postacute care (22.6%). Readmissions remained the primary driver of variation in key subgroups, including inpatient and outpatient PCI, as well as PCI for acute myocardial infarction and nonacute myocardial infarction indications., Conclusions: Substantial hospital-level variation exists in 90-day PCI episode payments. Over half the variation between high- and low-payment hospitals was related to care after the index procedure, primarily because of readmissions and postacute care. Hospitals and policymakers should consider targeting these components when developing initiatives to reduce PCI-related spending.

Background: Heart failure (HF) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Despite advancement in the management of HF, outcomes remain suboptimal, particularly among the uninsured. In 2014, the Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid eligibility, and millions of low-income adults gained insurance. Little is known about Medicaid expansion's effect on inpatient HF care., Methods and Results: We used the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry to assess changes in inpatient care quality and outcomes among low-income patients (<65 years old) hospitalized for HF after Medicaid expansion, in expansion, and nonexpansion states. Patients were classified as low-income if covered by Medicaid, uninsured, or missing insurance. Expansion states were those that implemented expansion in 2014. Piecewise logistic multivariable regression models were constructed to track quarterly trends of quality and outcome measures in the pre (January 1, 2010-December 31, 2013) and postexpansion (January 1, 2014-June 30, 2017) periods. These measures were compared between expansion versus nonexpansion states during the postexpansion period. The cohort included 58 804 patients hospitalized across 391 sites. In states that expanded Medicaid, uninsured HF hospitalizations declined from 7.9% to 4.4%, and Medicaid HF hospitalizations increased from 18.3% to 34.6%. Defect-free HF care was increasing during the preexpansion period (adjusted odds ratio/quarter, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.08) but did not change after expansion (adjusted odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.02). Patterns were similar for other quality measures. There were no quality measures for which the rate of improvement sped up after expansion. In-hospital mortality rates remained similar during the preexpansion (adjusted odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.02) and postexpansion periods (adjusted odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.03). Among nonexpansion states, uninsured HF hospitalizations increased (11.6% to 16.7%) as did Medicaid HF hospitalizations (17.9% to 26.6%), and no quarterly improvement was observed for most quality measures in the post compared with preexpansion period. During the postexpansion period, defect-free care and mortality did not differ between expansion and nonexpansion states., Conclusions: Medicaid expansion was associated with a significant decline in uninsured HF hospitalizations but not improvements in quality of care or in-hospital mortality among sites participating in a national quality improvement initiative. Efforts beyond insurance expansion are needed to improve in-hospital outcomes for low-income patients with HF., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Assessments of healthcare value have largely focused on measuring outcomes of care at a given level of cost with less attention paid to appropriateness. However, understanding how appropriateness relates to outcomes and costs is essential to determining healthcare value., Methods and Results: In a retrospective cohort study design, administrative data from fee-for-service Medicare patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Michigan hospitals between June 30, 2010, and December 31, 2014, were linked with clinical data from a statewide PCI registry to calculate hospital-level measures of (1) appropriate use criteria scores, (2) 90-day risk-standardized readmission and mortality rates, and (3) 90-day risk-standardized episode costs. We then used Spearman correlation coefficients to assess the relationship between these measures. A total of 29 839 PCIs were performed at 33 PCI hospitals during the study period. A total of 13.3% were for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, 25.0% for non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, 47.1% for unstable angina, 9.8% for stable angina, and 4.7% for other. The overall hospital-level mean appropriate use criteria score was 8.4±0.2. Ninety-day risk-standardized readmission occurred in 23.7%±3.7% of cases, 90-day risk-standardized mortality in 4.3%±0.6%, and mean risk-standardized episode costs were $26 159±$1074. Hospital-level appropriate use criteria scores did not correlate with 90-day readmission, mortality, or episode costs., Conclusions: Among Medicare patients undergoing PCI in Michigan, we found hospital-level appropriate use criteria scores did not correlate with 90-day readmission, mortality, or episode costs. This finding suggests that a comprehensive understanding of healthcare value requires multidimensional consideration of appropriateness, outcomes, and costs., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Patients living in disadvantaged neighborhoods are at high risk for adverse outcomes after acute myocardial infarction (MI). Whether residential socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with quality of in-hospital care among patients presenting with MI is unclear., Methods and Results: Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between SES, quality of care, and in-hospital cardiovascular outcomes among patients with MI from diverse SES neighborhoods from July 2008 to December 2013, at 586 participating hospitals in the Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With The Guidelines quality improvement program. Patients were categorized according to which SES summary measure group they resided in through linkage with US census block data. Outcomes were in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events. Quality of MI care was assessed with the defect-free care measure that delineates the proportion of eligible patients who received all acute and discharge guideline-recommended therapies. Among 390 692 patients, there was a substantially longer median arrival-to-angiography time in lower SES neighborhoods (lowest 8.0 hours, low 5.5 hours, medium 4.8 hours, high 4.5 hours, highest 3.4 hours; P <0.0001), and a higher proportion of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients treated with fibrinolysis (lowest 23.1%, low 20.2%, medium 18.0%, high 14.2%, highest 5.9%; P <0.0001). However, after adjustment for clinical risk factors, insurance status, and hospital characteristics, socioeconomic disadvantage was not associated with lower rates of guideline-recommended defect-free acute care. Patients presenting from more disadvantaged neighborhoods had a progressively higher independent risk of in-hospital mortality ( P global =0.03) and major bleeding ( P global <0.001), along with lower quality of discharge care., Conclusions: In this national registry of MI, patients living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods received equitable in-hospital care compared with advantaged neighborhoods. However, they experienced substantial delays in receiving angiography. Furthermore, patients living in disadvantaged neighborhoods remain at higher risk of adverse in-hospital outcomes after MI, including mortality. These observations suggest there are further opportunities for improvement in acute and discharge MI care., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Prior studies suggest that low-risk ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention can be considered for early discharge. We describe the implementation of an STEMI risk score to decrease cost while maintaining optimal patient outcomes., Methods and Results: We determined the impact of risk-guided STEMI care on healthcare value through the retrospective application of the Zwolle Risk Score to 967 patients receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention between 2009 and 2011. Of these patients, 540 (56%) were categorized as low risk, indicating they may be safely triaged directly to a telemetry unit rather than the intensive care unit and targeted for early discharge. We subsequently developed and implemented a modified Zwolle Risk Calculator into the electronic medical record to support application of the fast-track protocol for low-risk STEMI patients. Among 549 prospective patients with STEMI, 62% were low risk, and the fast-track protocol was followed in 75% of cases. Prospective results confirmed lower rates of complications (low risk 8.3% versus high risk 38.7%; P <0.001) and in-hospital mortality (low risk 0.4% versus High risk 12.5%; P <0.001) in the low-risk cohort. Low-risk patients had a shorter median length of stay (median and [25th, 75th percentiles]: low risk 2 [2, 3] versus high risk: 3 [2, 6]; P <0.001) and lower overall costs (low risk $6720 [$5280-$9030] versus high risk $11 783 [$7953-$25 359]; P <0.001). Low-risk patients treated on-protocol had shorter median length of stay (on-protocol 2 [1, 2] versus off-protocol 2 [2, 3]; P <0.001) and hospital costs (on-protocol $6090 [$4730, $7356] versus off-protocol $11 783 [$7953, $25 359]; P <0.001) than those treated off-protocol. On-protocol low-risk patients in the prospective cohort also had lower costs and shorter length of stay than low-risk patients in the retrospective cohort ( P <0.001 for both)., Conclusions: In our study, risk-guided triage and discharge after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI improved healthcare value by reducing costs of care without compromising quality of care or patient outcomes., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Progress in achieving "universal access to safe, affordable surgery, and anesthesia care when needed" is dependent on consensus not only about the key messages but also on what metrics should be used to set goals and measure progress. The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery not only achieved consensus on key messages but also recommended 6 key metrics to inform national surgical plans and monitor scale-up toward 2030. These metrics measure access to surgery, as well as its timeliness, safety, and affordability: (1) Two-hour access to the 3 Bellwether procedures (cesarean delivery, emergency laparotomy, and management of an open fracture); (2) Surgeon, Anesthetist, and Obstetrician workforce >20/100,000; (3) Surgical volume of 5000 procedures/100,000; (4) Reporting of perioperative mortality rate; and (5 and 6) Risk rates of catastrophic expenditure and impoverishment when requiring surgery. This article discusses the definition, validity, feasibility, relevance, and progress with each of these metrics. The authors share their experience of introducing the metrics in the Pacific and sub-Saharan Africa. We identify appropriate messages for each potential stakeholder-the patients, practitioners, providers (health services and hospitals), public (community), politicians, policymakers, and payers. We discuss progress toward the metrics being included in core indicator lists by the World Health Organization and the World Bank and how they have been, or may be, used to inform National Surgical Plans in low- and middle-income countries to scale-up the delivery of safe, affordable, and timely surgical and anesthesia care to all who need it.

Objective: With increasing emphasis on high "value" care, we designed this study to evaluate the relationship between hospital costs and patient outcomes in pediatric critical care., Design: Post hoc analysis of data from an existing administrative national database, Pediatric Health Information Systems. Multivariable mixed effects logistic regression models were fitted to evaluate association of hospital cost tertiles with odds of mortality after adjusting for patient and center characteristics., Setting: Forty-seven children's hospitals across the United States., Patients: Patients 18 years old or younger admitted to a PICU at a Pediatric Health Information Systems participating hospital were included (2004-2015)., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: A total of 917,663 patients from 47 hospitals were included. Median cost per patient was $42,181 in the low-cost hospitals (341,689 patients, 16 hospitals), $56,806 in the middle-cost hospitals (310,293 patients, 16 hospitals), and $82,588 in the high-cost hospitals (265,681 patients, 15 hospitals). In unadjusted analysis, patients cared for in the high-cost tertile hospitals were younger in age, associated with more comorbidities, had higher resource utilization (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and nitric oxide), had higher prevalence of cardiac arrest, and were associated with worse outcomes (including mortality). In adjusted analysis, high-cost tertile hospitals were not associated with improved mortality, when compared with low- and medium-cost tertile hospitals (low cost vs high cost: odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.79-1.25 and middle cost vs high cost: odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.86-1.41). When stratified by diagnoses category, we noted similar trends among cardiac and noncardiac patients., Conclusions: This large observational study did not demonstrate any relationship between hospital costs and patient outcomes in children with critical illness. Further efforts are needed to evaluate quality-cost relationship and high value care in critically ill children across centers of varying volume by linking data from clinical and administrative databases.

Objectives: High quality data is fundamental to using key performance indicators (KPIs) for performance monitoring. However, the resources required to collect high quality data are often significant and should usually be targeted at high priority areas. As part of a study of 11 emergency department (ED) KPIs in Ireland, the primary objective of this study was to estimate the relative cost of collecting the additional minimum data set (MDS) elements for those 11 KPIs., Methods: An economic cost analysis focused on 12 EDs in the Republic of Ireland. The resource use data were obtained using two separate focus group interviews. The number of available MDS elements was obtained from a sample of 100 patient records per KPI per participating ED. Unit costs for all resource use were taken at the midpoint of the relevant staff salary scales., Results: An ED would need to spend an estimated additional &OV0556;3561 per month on average to capture all the MDS elements relevant to the 11 KPIs investigated. The additional cost ranges from 14.8 to 39.2%; this range is 13.9-32.3% for small EDs, whereas the range for medium EDs is 11.7-40%. Regional EDs have a higher additional estimated cost to capture all the relevant MDS elements (&OV0556;3907), compared with urban EDs (&OV0556;3353)., Conclusion: The additional cost of data collection, contingent on that already collected, required to capture all the relevant MDS elements for the KPIs examined, ranges from 14.8 to 39.2% per KPI, with variation identified between regional and urban hospitals.

Purpose: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a hospital-based pneumonia nurse navigator program., Design: This study used a retrospective, formative evaluation., Methods: Data of patients admitted from January 2012 through December 2014 to a large community hospital with a primary or secondary diagnosis of pneumonia, excluding aspiration pneumonia, were used. Data included patient demographics, diagnoses, insurance coverage, core measures, average length of stay (ALOS), disposition, readmission rate, financial outcomes, and patient barriers to care were collected. Descriptive statistics and parametric testing were used to analyze data., Results: Core measure performance was sustained at the 90th percentile 2 years after the implementation of the navigator program. The ALOS did not decrease to established benchmarks; however, the SD for ALOS decreased by nearly half after implementation of the navigator program, suggesting the program decreased the number and length of extended stays. Charges per case decreased by 21% from 2012 to 2014. Variable costs decreased by 4% over a 2-year period, which increased net profit per case by 5%. Average readmission payments increased by 8% from 2012 to 2014, and the net revenue per case increased by 8.3%., Conclusion: The pneumonia nurse navigator program may improve core measures, reduce ALOS, and increase net revenue. Future evaluations are necessary to substantiate these findings and optimize the cost and quality performance of navigator programs.

The movement toward value-based payment models, driven by governmental policies, federal statutes, and market forces, is propelling the importance of effectively managing the health of populations to the forefront in the United States and other developed countries. However, for many anesthesiologists, population health management is a new or even foreign concept. A primer on population health management and its potential perioperative application is thus presented here. Although it certainly continues to evolve, population health management can be broadly defined as the specific policies, programs, and interventions directed at optimizing population health. The Population Health Alliance has created a particularly cogent conceptual framework and interconnected and very useful population health process model, which together identify the key components of population health and its management. Population health management provides a useful rationale for patients, providers, payers, and policymakers to move collectively away from the traditional system of individual, siloed providers to a more integrated, coordinated, team-based approach, thus creating a holistic view of the patient population. The goal of population health management is to keep the targeted patient population as healthy as possible, thus minimizing the need for costly interventions such as emergency department visits, acute hospitalizations, laboratory testing and imaging, and diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Population health management strategies are increasingly more important to leaders of health care systems as the health of populations for which they care, especially in a strong cost risk-sharing environment, must be optimized. Most population health management efforts rely on a patient-centric team approach, coordination of care, effective communication, robust outcomes data analysis, and continuous quality improvement. Anesthesiologists have an opportunity to help lead these efforts in concert with their surgical and nursing colleagues. The Triple Aim of Healthcare includes (1) improving the patient experience of care (including quality and satisfaction); (2) improving the health of populations; and (3) reducing per-capita costs of care. The Perioperative Surgical Home essentially seeks to transform perioperative care by achieving the Triple Aim, including improving the health of the surgical population. Many health care delivery systems and many clinicians (including anesthesiologists) are just beginning their population health management journeys. However, by doing so, they are preparing to navigate a much greater risk-sharing landscape, where these efforts can create greater financial stability by preventing major financial loss. Anesthesiologists can and should be leaders in this effort to add value by improving the comprehensive continuum of care of our patients.

Background: In creating the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, Congress has mandated pay-for-performance (P4P) for all physicians, including anesthesiologists. There are currently no National Quality Forum-endorsed risk-adjusted outcome metrics for anesthesiologists to use as the basis for P4P., Methods: Using clinical data from the New York State Cardiac Surgery Reporting System, we conducted a retrospective observational study of 55,436 patients undergoing cardiac surgery between 2009 and 2012. Hierarchical logistic regression modeling was used to examine the variation in in-hospital mortality or major complications (Q-wave myocardial infarction, renal failure, stroke, and respiratory failure) among anesthesiologists, controlling for patient demographics, severity of disease, comorbidities, and hospital quality., Results: Although the variation in performance among anesthesiologists was statistically significant (P = 0.025), none of the anesthesiologists in the sample was classified as a high- or low-performance outliers. The contribution of anesthesiologists to outcomes represented 0.51% of the overall variability in patient outcomes (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.0051; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.002-0.014), whereas the contribution of hospitals to patient outcomes was 2.90% (ICC = 0.029; 95% CI, 0.017-0.050). The anesthesiologist median odds ratio (MOR) was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.08-1.24), suggesting that the variation between anesthesiologist was modest, whereas the hospital MOR was 1.35 (95% CI, 1.25-1.48). In a separate analysis, the contribution of surgeons to overall outcomes represented 1.76% of the overall variability in patient outcomes (ICC = 0.018, 95% CI, 0.010-0.031), and the surgeon MOR was 1.26 (95% CI, 1.19-1.37). Twelve of the surgeons were identified as performance outliers., Conclusions: The impact of anesthesiologists on the total variability in cardiac surgical outcomes was probably about one-fourth as large as the surgeons' contribution. None of the anesthesiologists caring for cardiac surgical patients in New York State over a 3+ year period were identified as performance outliers. The use of a performance metric based on death or major complications for P4P may not be feasible for cardiac anesthesiologists.

Between 2013 and 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the National Cardiovascular Data Registry publically reported risk-adjusted 30-day readmission rates after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as a pilot project. A key strength of this public reporting effort included risk adjustment with clinical rather than administrative data. Furthermore, because readmission after PCI is common, expensive, and preventable, this metric has substantial potential to improve quality and value in American cardiology care. Despite this, concerns about the metric exist. For example, few PCI readmissions are caused by procedural complications, limiting the extent to which improved procedural technique can reduce readmissions. Also, similar to other readmission measures, PCI readmission is associated with socioeconomic status and race. Accordingly, the metric may unfairly penalize hospitals that care for underserved patients. Perhaps in the context of these limitations, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has not yet included PCI readmission among metrics that determine Medicare financial penalties. Nevertheless, provider organizations may still wish to focus on this metric to improve value for cardiology patients. PCI readmission is associated with low-risk chest discomfort and patient anxiety. Therefore, patient education, improved triage mechanisms, and improved care coordination offer opportunities to minimize PCI readmissions. Because PCI readmission is common and costly, reducing PCI readmission offers provider organizations a compelling target to improve the quality of care, and also performance in contracts involve shared financial risk., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Since 2006, the Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) has promoted 3 perioperative antibiotic recommendations designed to reduce the incidence of surgical site infections. Despite good evidence for the efficacy of these recommendations, the efforts of SCIP have not measurably improved the rates of surgical site infections. We offer 3 arguments as to why SCIP has fallen short of expectations. We then suggest a reorientation of quality improvement efforts to focus less on reporting, and incentivizing adherence to imperfect metrics, and more on creating local and regional quality collaboratives to educate clinicians about how to improve practice. Ultimately, successful quality improvement projects are behavioral interventions that will only succeed to the degree that they motivate individual clinicians, practicing within a particular context, to do the difficult work of identifying failures and iteratively working toward excellence.

Background: Difficult airway cases can quickly become emergencies, increasing the risk of life-threatening complications or death. Emergency airway management outside the operating room is particularly challenging., Methods: We developed a quality improvement program-the Difficult Airway Response Team (DART)-to improve emergency airway management outside the operating room. DART was implemented by a team of anesthesiologists, otolaryngologists, trauma surgeons, emergency medicine physicians, and risk managers in 2005 at The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. The DART program had 3 core components: operations, safety, and education. The operations component focused on developing a multidisciplinary difficult airway response team, standardizing the emergency response process, and deploying difficult airway equipment carts throughout the hospital. The safety component focused on real-time monitoring of DART activations and learning from past DART events to continuously improve system-level performance. This objective entailed monitoring the paging system, reporting difficult airway events and DART activations to a Web-based registry, and using in situ simulations to identify and mitigate defects in the emergency airway management process. The educational component included development of a multispecialty difficult airway curriculum encompassing case-based lectures, simulation, and team building/communication to ensure consistency of care. Educational materials were also developed for non-DART staff and patients to inform them about the needs of patients with difficult airways and ensure continuity of care with other providers after discharge., Results: Between July 2008 and June 2013, DART managed 360 adult difficult airway events comprising 8% of all code activations. Predisposing patient factors included body mass index >40, history of head and neck tumor, prior difficult intubation, cervical spine injury, airway edema, airway bleeding, and previous or current tracheostomy. Twenty-three patients (6%) required emergent surgical airways. Sixty-two patients (17%) were stabilized and transported to the operating room for definitive airway management. There were no airway management-related deaths, sentinel events, or malpractice claims in adult patients managed by DART. Five in situ simulations conducted in the first program year improved DART's teamwork, communication, and response times and increased the functionality of the difficult airway carts. Over the 5-year period, we conducted 18 airway courses, through which >200 providers were trained., Conclusions: DART is a comprehensive program for improving difficult airway management. Future studies will examine the comparative effectiveness of the DART program and evaluate how DART has impacted patient outcomes, operational efficiency, and costs of care.

Background: As healthcare spending continues to increase, reimbursement cuts have become 1 type of healthcare reform to contain costs. Little is known about the long-term impact of cuts in reimbursement, especially under a global budget cap with fee-for-service (FFS) reimbursement, on processes and outcomes of care. The FFS-based reimbursement cuts have been implemented since July 2002 in Taiwan. We examined the long-term association of FFS-based reimbursement cuts with trends in processes and outcomes of care for stroke., Methods and Results: We analyzed all 411,487 patients with stroke admitted to general acute care hospitals in Taiwan during the period 1997 to 2010 through Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. We used a quasi-experimental design with quarterly measures of healthcare utilization and outcomes and used segmented autoregressive integrated moving average models for the analysis. After accounting for secular trends and other confounders, the implementation of the FFS-based reimbursement cuts was associated with trend changes in computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging scanning (0.31% per quarter; P=0.013), antiplatelet/anticoagulant use (-0.20% per quarter; P<0.001), statin use (0.18% per quarter; P=0.027), physiotherapy/occupational therapy assessment (0.25% per quarter; P<0.001), and 30-day mortality (0.06% per quarter; P<0.001)., Conclusions: There are improvement trends in processes and outcomes of care over time. However, the reimbursement cuts from the FFS-based global budget cap are associated with trend changes in processes and outcomes of care for stroke. The FFS-based reimbursement cuts may have long-term positive and negative associations with stroke care., (© 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: When complications arise following outpatient plastic surgery, patients may require hospital-based acute care after discharge. The extent to which these events vary across centers may reflect the quality of care provided. The authors conducted this study to describe the frequency and variation of hospital-based acute care rates across ambulatory surgery centers., Methods: From the 2009 to 2010 California, Florida, Nebraska, and New York ambulatory surgery databases, the authors identified adult patients who underwent common outpatient plastic surgery procedures between July of 2009 and September of 2010. Hospital-based acute care was defined as any emergency department visit or hospital admission within 30 days of discharge. Performance across centers was assessed by calculating observed-to-expected ratios derived from multivariable logistic regression models., Results: The authors identified 72,308 discharges from 519 centers. Most were female patients (80.9 percent); self-pay patients (41.5 percent); and underwent blepharoplasty (36.9 percent), breast augmentation (14.2 percent), or multiple procedures (12.2 percent). The observed hospital-based, acute care rate was 42.8 encounters per 1000 discharges, with most managed in the emergency department for symptoms or complications of care. The median charges associated with these encounters were $2183 and $26,299 for emergency department visits and hospital admissions, respectively. Wide variation was noted in hospital-based acute care rates, with 15 centers (2.9 percent) performing significantly better and 27 (5.2 percent) performing significantly worse than expected after adjusting for case mix., Conclusions: The overall rate of hospital-based acute care after common outpatient plastic surgery procedures is low but measurable. However, the frequency of these events varies across centers and may reflect the quality of care provided.

The Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services has made a policy decision that socioeconomic factors should not be adjusted for in its various quality measures and point both to arguments made by the National Quality Forum and to analysis of the distributions of quality results to support this view. We present counterarguments to this viewpoint and use the results reported by the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services to support its position to demonstrate that adjustments are necessary. We further argue that the incentives for providers to improve performance would not be weakened by including socioeconomic factor adjustments.

Objective: We sought to determine whether the changes in incentive design in phase 2 of Medicare's flagship pay-for-performance program, the Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration (HQID), reduced surgical mortality or complication rates at participating hospitals., Background: The Premier HQID was initiated in 2003 to reward high-performing hospitals. The program redesigned its incentive structure in 2006 to also reward hospitals that achieved significant improvement. The impact of the change in incentive structure on outcomes in surgical populations is unknown., Methods: We examined discharge data for patients who underwent coronary artery bypass (CABG), hip replacement, and knee replacement at Premier hospitals and non-Premier hospitals in Hospital Compare from 2003 to 2009 in 12 states (n = 861,411). We assessed the impact of incentive structural changes in 2006 on serious complications and 30-day mortality. In these analyses, we adjusted for patient characteristics using multiple logistic regression models. To account for improvement in outcomes over time, we used difference-in-difference techniques that compare trends in Premier versus non-Premier hospitals. We repeated our analyses after stratifying hospitals into quintiles according to risk-adjusted mortality and serious complication rates., Results: After restructuring incentives in 2006 in Premier hospitals, there were lower risk-adjusted mortality and complication rates for both cardiac and orthopedic patients. However, after accounting for temporal trends in non-Premier hospitals, there were no significant improvements in mortality for CABG [odds ratio (OR) = 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.92-1.28] or joint replacement (OR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.58-1.12). Similarly, there were no significant improvements in serious complications for CABG (OR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.97-1.14) or joint replacement (OR = 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.23). Analysis of the "worst" quintile hospitals that were targeted in the incentive structural changes also did not reveal a change in mortality [(OR = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.78-1.32) for CABG and (OR = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.22-4.26) for joint replacement] or serious complication rates [(OR = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.88-1.34) for CABG and (OR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.67-1.28) for joint replacement]., Conclusions: Despite recent enhancements to incentive structures, the Premier HQID did not improve surgical outcomes at participating hospitals. Unless significantly redesigned, pay-for-performance may not be a successful strategy to improve outcomes in surgery.

Background and Purpose: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposes to use 30-day hospital readmissions after ischemic stroke as part of the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program for payment determination beginning in 2016. The proportion of poststroke readmissions that is potentially preventable is unknown., Methods: Thirty-day readmissions for all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged≥65 years discharged alive with a primary diagnosis of ischemic stroke (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification 433, 434, 436) between December 2005 and November 2006 were analyzed. Preventable readmissions were identified based on 14 Prevention Quality Indicators developed for use with administrative data by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. National, hospital-level, and regional preventable readmission rates were estimated. Random-effects logistic regression was also used to determine patient-level factors associated with preventable readmissions., Results: Among 307 887 ischemic stroke discharges, 44 379 (14.4%) were readmitted within 30 days; 5322 (1.7% of all discharges) were the result of a preventable cause (eg, pneumonia), and 39 057 (12.7%) were for other reasons (eg, cancer). In multivariate analysis, older age and cardiovascular-related comorbid conditions were strong predictors of preventable readmissions. Preventable readmission rates were highest in the Southeast, Mid-Atlantic, and US territories and lowest in the Mountain and Pacific regions., Conclusions: On the basis of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Prevention Quality Indicators, we found that a small proportion of readmissions after ischemic stroke were classified as preventable. Although other causes of readmissions not reflected in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality measures could also be avoidable, hospital-level programs intended to reduce all-cause readmissions and costs should target high-risk patients.

Background: There is an urgent need to improve outcomes and reduce costs for patients with heart failure (HF). Physician volume is associated with better outcomes for patients undergoing procedures, but its association with outcomes for medically managed diseases, such as HF, is not well understood., Methods and Results: We used Medicare inpatient data in 2009 to examine all HF admissions to acute care hospitals in the United States. We divided physicians into quintiles according to their volume of patients with HF. We used patient-level regression to compare 30-day risk-adjusted mortality, readmissions, and costs across volume groups, controlling for patient, physician, and hospital characteristics. We examined physician volume within strata of hospital volume and physician specialty. Patients cared for by the high-volume physicians had lower mortality than those by the low-volume physicians (8.9% versus 9.7%; P<0.001); this relationship was strongest in low-volume hospitals. In contrast, patients cared for by high-volume physicians had higher readmission rates (25.8% versus 21.5%; P<0001); this relationship was similar across hospital volume groups. Finally, costs were higher for the high-volume physicians ($8982 versus $8731; P=0.002, a difference that was consistent across hospital volume groups). The relationship between physician volume and mortality was strongest for internists (9.2% versus 10.6%; P<0.001) and weakest for cardiologists (6.4% versus 6.7%; P=0.485)., Conclusions: Physician volume is associated with lower mortality for HF, particularly in low-volume institutions and among noncardiologist physicians. Our findings suggest that clinician expertise may play an important role in HF care.

The derivations of the standardized infection ratio (SIR) are reviewed in this report. To be most understandable to the consumer, the SIR National Benchmark of 1.0 should reflect what is obtainable.The SIR is a tool intended to be used by consumers in value purchasing to compare differences between facilities and thus should not adjust for these differences. Ideally, factors used in risk adjustment should solely be based upon patient characteristics. Thus, facility-specific adjustments (i.e., medical school affiliation, major teaching institution and unit bed size) should be used with caution in calculating the SIR and their use made clearly transparent to health-care consumers.Using data downloaded from the US Department of Health and Human Services' website, Hospital Compare, we observed an average SIR for central line blood stream infections of 0.568 and an SIR at the peak of the distribution curve approximating 0.35. A suggested methodology to calculate an obtainable SIR is to set the National Benchmark of 1.0 at the location of the distribution curve's peak. The curve's peak is more reflective of higher performing facilities. The SIR needs to reflect the expected performance of facilities, which are using up-to-date methods of infection control. The remainder of the facility SIRs can then be adjusted accordingly.It is recommended that the obtainable SIR be calculated every other year using data from the most recent 3 years. This enables the SIR to be reset as the control of health care-associated infections progressively improves.

Background: Many wish to change incentives for primary care practices through bundled population-based payments and substantial performance feedback and bonus payments. Recognizing patient differences in costs and outcomes is crucial, but customized risk adjustment for such purposes is underdeveloped., Research Design: Using MarketScan's claims-based data on 17.4 million commercially insured lives, we modeled bundled payment to support expected primary care activity levels (PCAL) and 9 patient outcomes for performance assessment. We evaluated models using 457,000 people assigned to 436 primary care physician panels, and among 13,000 people in a distinct multipayer medical home implementation with commercially insured, Medicare, and Medicaid patients., Methods: Each outcome is separately predicted from age, sex, and diagnoses. We define the PCAL outcome as a subset of all costs that proxies the bundled payment needed for comprehensive primary care. Other expected outcomes are used to establish targets against which actual performance can be fairly judged. We evaluate model performance using R(2)'s at patient and practice levels, and within policy-relevant subgroups., Results: The PCAL model explains 67% of variation in its outcome, performing well across diverse patient ages, payers, plan types, and provider specialties; it explains 72% of practice-level variation. In 9 performance measures, the outcome-specific models explain 17%-86% of variation at the practice level, often substantially outperforming a generic score like the one used for full capitation payments in Medicare: for example, with grouped R(2)'s of 47% versus 5% for predicting "prescriptions for antibiotics of concern.", Conclusions: Existing data can support the risk-adjusted bundled payment calculations and performance assessments needed to encourage desired transformations in primary care.

Background: Government regulation is intended to enhance quality, safety, fairness, or competition in the regulated industry. Such regulation entails both direct and indirect costs., Objectives: To estimate the costs associated with the regulation of quality of the nursing home industry., Sample: This study includes 11,168 free-standing nursing homes nationally, between 2004 and 2006., Research Design: Data included information from the Medicare cost reports, Minimum Data Set, Medicare Denominator file, OSCAR, and a survey of States' Certification and Licensing Offices conducted by the authors. These data were used to create variables measuring nursing homes costs, outputs, wages, competition, adjusted deficiency citations, ownership, state-fixed effects, and an index of each state's regulatory stringency. We estimated hybrid cost functions which included the regulatory stringency index., Results: The estimated cost functions demonstrated the typical behavior expected of nursing home cost functions. The stringency index was positively and significantly associated with costs, indicating that nursing homes located in states with more stringent regulatory requirements face higher costs, ceteris paribus. The average incremental costs of a 1 standard deviation increase in the stringency index resulted in a 1.1% increase in costs., Conclusions: This study for the first time places a price tag on the regulation of quality in nursing homes. It offers an order of magnitude on the costs to the industry of complying with the current set of standards and given the current level of enforcement. Complementary studies of the benefits that these regulations entail are needed to gain a comprehensive assessment of the effect of the regulation.

The inclusion of the failure to rescue (FTR) measure as one of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Inpatient Prospective Payment System measures has raised questions about the characteristics of FTR cases and their outcomes. In this study, we validated 75% of the identified FTR complications using medical record review (n = 461). Nearly half (49.5%) of the complications originated in the community and were present on admission. Acute renal failure, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and sepsis most often originated in the community. Cardiac arrest/shock, pneumonia, and pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis most often developed in the hospitals. These findings have important implications for practice as clinical leadership focuses on the prevention and aggressive management of complications to prevent death, increased length of stay, and possible reductions in Medicare diagnosis related groups' reimbursements.

Background: Improved understanding of the economic value of registered nurse services can help inform staffing decisions and policies., Objectives: To quantify the economic value of professional nursing., Methods: We synthesize findings from the literature on the relationship between registered nurse staffing levels and nursing-sensitive patient outcomes in acute care hospitals. Using hospital discharge data to estimate incidence and cost of these patient outcomes together with productivity measures, we estimate the economic implications of changes in registered nurse staffing levels., Subjects: Medical and surgical patients in nonfederal acute care hospitals. Data come from a literature review, and hospital discharge data from the 2005 Nationwide Inpatient Sample., Measures: Patient nosocomial complications, healthcare expenditures, and national productivity., Results: As nurse staffing levels increase, patient risk of nosocomial complications and hospital length of stay decrease, resulting in medical cost savings, improved national productivity, and lives saved., Conclusions: Only a portion of the services that professional nurses provide can be quantified in pecuniary terms, but the partial estimates of economic value presented illustrate the economic value to society of improved quality of care achieved through higher staffing levels.

Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the methodology for nursing leaders to determine the cost of adverse events and effective levels of nurse staffing., Background: The growing transparency of quality and cost outcomes motivates healthcare leaders to optimize the effectiveness of nurse staffing. Most hospitals have robust cost accounting systems that provide actual patient-level direct costs. These systems allow an analysis of the cost consumed by patients during a hospital stay. By knowing the cost of complications, leaders have the ability to justify the cost of improved staffing when quality evidence shows that higher nurse staffing improves quality., Methods: An analysis was performed on financial and clinical data from hospital databases of 3,200 inpatients. The purpose was to establish a methodology to determine actual cost per case. Three diagnosis-related groups were the focus of the analysis. Five adverse events were analyzed along with the costs., Results: A regression analysis reported that the actual direct cost of an adverse event was dollars 1,029 per case in the congestive heart failure cases and dollars 903 in the surgical cases. There was a significant increase in the cost per case in medical patients with urinary tract infection and pressure ulcers and in surgical patients with urinary tract infection and pneumonia. The odds of pneumonia occurring in surgical patients decreased with additional registered nurse hours per patient day., Conclusion: Hospital cost accounting systems are useful in determining the cost of adverse events and can aid in decision making about nurse staffing. Adverse events add costs to patient care and should be measured at the unit level to adjust staffing to reduce adverse events and avoid costs.

In an effort to provide high quality care in a more cost-effective manner, health care providers have found it necessary to implement a series of decision support strategies designed to improve outcomes of care. While each of these strategies has measurable benefits, they each come along with additional costs. This article will describe a methodology for measuring the costs and direct and indirect benefits from decision support activities.