Search

Background: Few researchers receive formal training in research translation and dissemination or policy engagement. We created Amplify@LDI, a training program for health services and health policy researchers, to equip them with skills to increase the visibility of their research through translation and dissemination activities. Aims: To describe the program's participants and curriculum, and evaluate the first 2 years of the program. Setting: The Leonard Davis Institute (LDI) at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn). Participants: An annual cohort of 12 LDI Senior Fellows (Penn faculty) from multiple schools, disciplines, and ranks at Penn. Program Description: The Amplify@LDI curriculum includes 6 sessions on different aspects of research translation and dissemination, including media and social engagement, writing Op-Eds, and policy engagement. Program Evaluation: Participants reported measurable increases in time spent on translation and dissemination activities, as well as new enthusiasm for and confidence in policy engagement. Participants' reach (as measured by Altmetric) increased during the program, compared to smaller increases or reductions in reach for two comparator groups. Discussion: In our preliminary evaluation of Amplify@LDI, we find strong evidence of positive impact from participant evaluations, and suggestive evidence that participation in the program is associated with significant increases in the reach of their research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Informal care, or care provided by family and friends, is the most common form of care received by community-dwelling older adults with functional limitations. However, less is known about informal care provision within residential care settings including residential care facilities (for example, assisted living) and nursing homes. Using data from the Health and Retirement Study (2016) and the National Health and Aging Trends Study (2015), we found that informal care was common among older adults with functional limitations, whether they lived in the community, a residential care facility, or a nursing home. The hours of informal care provided were also nontrivial across all settings. This evidence suggests that informal caregiving and some of the associated burdens do not end when a person transitions from the community to residential care or a nursing home setting. It also points to the large role that families play in the care and well-being of these residents, which is especially important considering the recent visitor bans during the COVID-19 epidemic. Family members are an invisible workforce in nursing homes and residential care facilities, providing considerable front-line work for their loved ones. Providers and policy makers could improve the lives of both the residents and their caregivers by acknowledging, incorporating, and supporting this workforce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: It remains unknown whether high-functioning teams can compensate for poor continuity of care to support important patient outcomes.Data Source: Linked VA administrative and Medicare claims data to measure the relationship of team-based care and continuity of care with high-cost utilization.Study Design: Retrospective cohort study of 1.2 million VA-Medicare dual eligible Veterans assigned to a VA primary care provider (PCP) in 2012. Continuity was the proportion of primary care visits to the assigned VA provider of care. Clinics were categorized as low, average, or high-team functioning based on survey data. Our primary outcomes were the number of all-cause hospitalizations, ambulatory care sensitive (ACSC) hospitalizations, and emergency department (ED) visits in 2013.Principal Findings: A 10-percentage point increase in continuity with a VA PCP was associated with 4.5 fewer hospitalizations (p < .001), 3.2 fewer ACSC hospitalizations (p < .001), and 2.6 more ED visits (p = .07) per 1,000 patients. Team-based care was not significantly associated with any high-cost utilization category. Associations were heterogeneous across VA-reliant and nonreliant Veterans. Finally, the interaction results demonstrated that the quality of team-based care functioning could not compensate for poor continuity on hospitalizations, ACSC hospitalizations, or ED visits.Conclusions: In Veterans who were reliant on the VA for services, increasing continuity with a VA PCP and high-functioning team-based care clinics was associated with fewer ED visits and hospitalizations. Furthermore, leveraging combined data from VA and Medicare allowed to better measure continuity and assess high-cost utilization among Veterans who are and are not reliant on the VA for services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Non-profit hospitals are facing greater pressure to address the social determinants of health. Since 2012, with new requirements for greater transparency and community health needs assessments, non-profit tax exemption requirements are believed to incentivize investments in the community, particularly for vulnerable populations. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of community benefit spending by private, acute care, non-profit hospitals from 2012–2014 to measure if hospitals have begun to address local community needs. We measured total community benefit spending and two subsets of spending—health care-related expenditures and community-directed contributions—as the proportion of their total expenditure. We obtained sociodemographic characteristics for their community, defined by ZIP code. In unadjusted and adjusted analyses using hospital-level and community-level covariates, community benefit spending has not varied and community-directed contribution amounts did not reflect local needs. Stronger incentives—tax-based or otherwise—are needed to steer non-profit hospitals to invest in community health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) surgery has been associated with a reduction in episode spending and stable-to-improved quality. However, BPCI may create unintended effects by prompting participating hospitals to increase the overall volume of episodes paid for by Medicare, which could potentially eliminate program-related savings or prompt them to shift case mix to lower-risk patients.Objective: To evaluate whether hospital BPCI participation for LEJR was associated with changes in overall volume and case mix.Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational study using Medicare claims data and a difference-in-differences method to compare 131 markets (hospital referral regions) with at least 1 BPCI participant hospital (n = 322) and 175 markets with no participating hospitals (n = 1340), accounting for 580 043 Medicare beneficiaries treated before (January 2011-September 2013) and 462 161 after (October 2013-December 2015) establishing the BPCI initiative. Hospital-level case-mix changes were assessed by comparing 265 participating hospitals with a 1:1 propensity-matched set of nonparticipating hospitals from non-BPCI markets.Exposures: Hospital BPCI participation.Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in market-level LEJR volume in the before vs after BPCI periods and changes in hospital-level case mix based on demographic, socioeconomic, clinical, and utilization factors.Results: Among the 1 717 243 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent LEJR (mean age, 75 years; 64% women; and 95% nonblack race/ethnicity), BPCI participation was not significantly associated with a change in overall market-level volume. The mean quarterly market volume in non-BPCI markets increased 3.8% from 3.8 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries before BPCI to 3.9 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries after BPCI was launched. For BPCI markets, the mean quarterly market volume increased 4.4% from 3.6 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries before BPCI to 3.8 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries after BPCI was launched. The adjusted difference-in-differences estimate between the market types was 0.32% (95% CI, -0.06% to 0.69%; P = .10). Among 20 demographic, socioeconomic, clinical, and utilization factors, BPCI participation was associated with differential changes in hospital-level case mix for only 1 factor, prior skilled nursing facility use (adjusted difference-in-differences estimate, -0.53%; 95% CI, -0.96% to -0.10%; P = .01) in BPCI vs non-BPCI markets.Conclusions and Relevance: In this observational study of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent LEJR, hospital participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement was not associated with changes in market-level lower extremity joint replacement volume and largely was not associated with changes in hospital case mix. These findings may provide reassurance regarding 2 potential unintended effects associated with bundled payments for LEJR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors analyze the relationship between acute and postacute medical care in the U.S. The authors discuss the problems associated with patient transition between acute and postacute care settings and the medical policies that have been implemented to reduce fragmentation between the two patient care settings. They recommend their own solutions to reducing fragmentation, including integrating acute and postacute care into a single financial entity.

Accurate measurement of performance in health care must account for patient characteristics. Wallace and colleagues reported a study that suggested that current methods for risk adjustment are inadequate. The editorialists discuss the findings and the need to better match policy tools, such as performance measurement, with policy goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Limited consumer use of health care report cards may be due to the large amount of information presented in report cards, which can be difficult to understand. These limitations may be overcome with summary measures. Our objective was to evaluate consumer response to summary measures in the setting of nursing homes.Data Sources/study Setting: 2005-2010 nursing home Minimum Data Set and Online Survey, Certification and Reporting (OSCAR) datasets.Study Design: In December 2008, Medicare converted its nursing home report card to summary or star ratings. We test whether there was a change in consumer demand for nursing homes related to the nursing home's star rating after the information was released.Principal Findings: The star rating system was associated with a significant change in consumer demand for low- and high-scoring facilities. After the star-based rating system was released, 1-star facilities typically lost 8 percent of their market share and 5-star facilities gained over 6 percent of their market share.Conclusions: The nursing home star rating system significantly affected consumer demand for high- and low-rated nursing homes. These results support the use of summary measures in report cards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the perceived usefulness of publicly reported nursing home quality indicators.Study Setting: Primary data were collected from October 2013 to August 2014 among a convenience sample of persons (or family member) recently admitted or anticipating admission to a nursing home within 75 miles of the city of Philadelphia.Study Design: Structured interviews were conducted to assess the salience of data on the Medicare Nursing Home Compare website, including star ratings, clinical quality measures, and benchmarking of individual nursing home quality with state and national data.Data Collection: Interviews were transcribed verbatim, independently coded by two reviewers, and agreement determined. A thematic analysis of transcripts was undertaken.Principal Findings: Thirty-five interviews were completed. Eighty-three percent (n = 29) were caregivers and 17 percent (n = 6) were residents. Star ratings, clinical quality measures, and benchmarking information were salient to decision making, with preferred formats varying across participants. Participants desired additional information on the source of quality data. Confusion was evident regarding the relationship between domain-specific and overall star quality ratings.Conclusions: The Nursing Home Compare website provides salient content and formats for consumers. Increased awareness of this resource and clarity regarding the definition of measures could further support informed decision making regarding nursing home choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The range of hospital charges for similar diagnoses show tremendous variability across U.S. hospitals. This charge variability remains unexplained.Objective: We aimed to describe hospital charge variability in the U.S. and examine its relationship to local health factors.Design: This was a descriptive study of the 2011 Medicare Inpatient Charge data summarizing inpatient hospital charges billed to Medicare. This data was evaluated using 29 county-level measures of health status, health behavior, clinical access and quality, built environment, and socioeconomic status in a clustered, multivariate linear regression.Participants: 2871 U.S. hospitals registered with Medicare and with at least ten discharges for diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) of six common inpatient conditions.Main Measure: Inpatient hospital charges were assessed.Key Results: No community health measures were associated with hospital charges. The one notable exception associated with higher charges was higher rates of uninsured status ($344.84 higher charges for every one-percentage point increase in prevalence (p < 0.001)). One variable was associated with lower hospital charges: the percentage of children living in poverty [$309.30 lower charges for every one-percentage point increase in prevalence (p < 0.001)].Conclusions: Overall, hospital charges lacked an association with population health measures, and their variability remains largely unexplained. However, the association of higher charges with uninsured status raises concerns about hospitals' price-setting strategies, such as price discrimination and cost-shifting strategies that expose vulnerable populations to great financial risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To evaluate the effect of medical home implementation on primary care delivery in the Veterans Health Administration ( VHA). Data Sources/Study Setting/Study Design We link interview-based qualitative data on medical home implementation to quantitative outcomes from VHA clinical encounter data. We use a longitudinal analysis with provider fixed effects (taking advantage of variation in timing of implementation and allowing each provider to serve as a control for him or herself) to test whether patient-aligned care team ( PACT) implementation was associated with changes in organizational processes and patient outcomes. Principal Findings Among 683 PCPs, caring for 321,295 patients, the uptake of eight of nine PACT structural changes significantly increased from July 2010 to June 2012 as did the percentage of primary care appointments occurring by telephone and hospital discharges contacted within 2 days of discharge. We found that PACT implementation was associated with significant improvements in 2-day post-hospital discharge contact, but not primary care visits occurring by telephone or within 3 days of the requested date. We found no association between medical home implementation and rates of emergency department use by patients. Conclusions Medical home implementation at the VHA resulted in large changes in the structure of care but few changes in patient-level outcomes. These results highlight both the complexity of studying the effect of the medical home as well as implementing this model to change primary care delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The traditional approaches to improving the quality of care at U.S. nursing homes-regulation, inspection, and accountability through public reporting-have produced modest results. Greater progress could be made by focusing incentives on broader processes related to improving quality. This could foster a culture of upstream identification and solving of problems that would supplement existing downstream requirements to meet specific safety and care standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Asthma quality assessment often focuses on controller medication use, yet claims-based studies find conflicting associations between this care process and clinical outcomes. Objective: We sought to compare the association between 3 controller-based quality measures and asthma exacerbations to gain better understanding of how processes of care are related to clinical outcomes. Methods: Identifying a cohort of Medicaid beneficiaries with persistent asthma by using Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) criteria for asthma in 2001–2002 in California and New York, we assessed 3 asthma quality metrics in 2002: (1) the current HEDIS measure of at least 1 controller medication filling; (2) at least 4 controller medication prescription fillings; and (3) a controller-to-total asthma medication ratio of at least 0.5. We calculated the odds of having an asthma exacerbation in 2003 as a function of performance on each quality metric, adjusting for race, sex, age, and prior outpatient and acute care use for asthma. Results: Of 90,909 subjects with persistent asthma in California (48.1%) and New York (51.9%), those who obtained at least 1 or at least 4 controller medications had increased likelihood of poor outcomes (adjusted odds ratios, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.73–1.87] and 1.44 [95% CI 1.40–1.48], respectively). Beneficiaries meeting the controller-to-total asthma medication ratio measure were 23.0% less likely to have exacerbations (adjusted odds ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.75-0.80]). Conclusions: A higher controller medication ratio indicated a lower likelihood of asthma exacerbations, whereas assessing the number of controller medication–dispensing events was associated with a higher odds of exacerbation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective. Evidence supporting the use of public reporting of quality information to improve health care quality is mixed. While public reporting may improve reported quality, its effect on quality of care more broadly is uncertain. This study tests whether public reporting in the setting of nursing homes resulted in improvement of reported and broader but unreported quality of postacute care. Data Sources/Study Setting. 1999–2005 nursing home Minimum Data Set and inpatient Medicare claims. Study Design. We examined changes in postacute care quality in U.S. nursing homes in response to the initiation of public reporting on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website, Nursing Home Compare. We used small nursing homes that were not subject to public reporting as a contemporaneous control and also controlled for patient selection into nursing homes. Postacute care quality was measured using three publicly reported clinical quality measures and 30-day potentially preventable rehospitalization rates, an unreported measure of quality. Principal Findings. Reported quality of postacute care improved after the initiation of public reporting for two of the three reported quality measures used in Nursing Home Compare. However, rates of potentially preventable rehospitalization did not significantly improve and, in some cases, worsened. Conclusions. Public reporting of nursing home quality was associated with an improvement in most postacute care performance measures but not in the broader measure of rehospitalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies suggest that most hospitals now have relatively high adherence with recommended acute myocardial infarction (AMI) process measures. Little is known about hospitals with consistently poor adherence with AMI process measures and whether these hospitals also have increased patient mortality.Methods and Results: We conducted a retrospective study of 2761 US hospitals reporting AMI process measures to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Compare database during 2004 to 2006 that could be linked to 2005 Medicare Part A data. The main outcome measures were hospitals' combined compliance with 5 AMI measures (aspirin and beta-blocker on admission and discharge and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker use at discharge for patients with left ventricular dysfunction) and risk-adjusted 30-day mortality for 2005. We stratified hospitals into those with low AMI adherence (ranked in the lowest decile for AMI adherence for 3 consecutive years [2004-2006, n=105]), high adherence (ranked in the top decile for 3 consecutive years [n=63]), and intermediate adherence (all others [n=2593]). Mean AMI performance varied significantly across low-, intermediate-, and high-performing hospitals (mean score, 68% versus 92% versus 99%, P<0.001). Low-performing hospitals were more likely than intermediate- and high-performing hospitals to be safety-net providers (19.2% versus 11.0% versus 6.4%; P=0.005). Low-performing hospitals had higher unadjusted 30-day mortality rates (23.6% versus 17.8% versus 14.9%; P<0.001). These differences persisted after adjustment for patient characteristics (16.3% versus 16.0% versus 15.7%; P=0.02).Conclusions: Consistently low-performing hospitals differ substantially from other US hospitals. Targeting quality improvement efforts toward these hospitals may offer an attractive opportunity for improving AMI outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent work has shown that clinically complex patients are more likely to receive recommended care, but it is unknown whether higher achievement on individual performance goals results in improved care for complex patients or detracts from other important but unmeasured aspects of care, resulting in unmet needs and lower satisfaction with care.Objective: To examine the relationship between measured performance and satisfaction with care among clinically complex patientsDesign and Participants: An observational analysis of a national sample of 35,927 veterans included in the External Peer Review Program in fiscal years 2003 and 2004.Measurements: First, compliance with individual performance measures (breast cancer screening with mammography, colorectal cancer screening, influenza vaccination, pneumococcal vaccination, lipid monitoring, use of ACE inhibitor in heart failure, and diabetic eye examination), as well as overall receipt of recommended care, was estimated as a function of each patient's clinical complexity. Second, global satisfaction with care was estimated as a function of clinical complexity and compliance with performance measures.Main Results: Higher clinical complexity was predictive of slightly higher overall performance (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.18) and higher performance on most individual performance measures, an effect that was mediated by increased visit frequency. High measured performance was associated with higher satisfaction with care among patients with high clinical complexity. In fact, as complexity increased, the effect of achieving high performance on the odds of being satisfied with care also increasedConclusions: Not only was measured performance higher in clinically complex patients, but satisfaction with care was also higher among clinically complex patients with high measured performance, suggesting that compliance with performance measures in clinically complex patients does not crowd out unmeasured care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study examining trends in disparities in the quality of medical care between hospitals with a high and low percentage of Medicaid patients. The design and setting of the longitudinal study using public data on hospital performance for Medicaid patients between 2004 and 2006 are detailed. The outcomes measured changes in medical performance to estimate disparities in hospital quality during the period studied. Results showed that hospitals that treated a high percentage of Medicaid patients had a reduced chance of achieving high-performance status and were more likely to incur financial penalties for low performance ratings.

Performance measurement has been widely advocated as a means to improve health care delivery and, ultimately, clinical outcomes. However, the evidence supporting the value of using the same quality measures designed for patients with a single clinical condition in patients with multiple conditions is weak. If clinically complex patients, defined here as patients with multiple clinical conditions, present greater challenges to achieving quality goals, providers may shun them or ignore important, but unmeasured, clinical issues. This paper summarizes the proceedings of a conference addressing the challenge of measuring quality of care in the patient with multiple clinical conditions with the goal of informing the implementation of quality measurement systems and future research programs on this topic. The conference had three main areas of discussion. First, the potential problems caused by applying current quality standards to patients with multiple conditions were examined. Second, the advantages and disadvantages of three strategies to improve quality measurement in clinically complex patients were evaluated: excluding certain clinically complex patients from a given standard, relaxing the performance target, and assigning a greater weight to some measures based on the expected clinical benefit or difficulty of reaching the performance target. Third, the strengths and weaknesses of potential novel measures such change in functional status were considered. The group concurred that, because clinically complex patients present a threat to the implementation of quality measures, high priority must be assigned to a research agenda on this topic. This research should evaluate the impact of quality measurement on these patients and expand the range of quality measures relevant to the care of clinically complex patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the results of research which compared hospital care at 3,657 acute care hospitals which were included in Hospital Care, the website of the United States Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The research looked at the number of cases of myocardial infarction, heart failure and pneumonia which were treated at the hospitals and compared the mortality rates which were seen in the cases. A discussion of concerns about the quality of medical care in the U.S. which were seen by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and led to the creation of Hospital Compare and the research, is presented.

Discusses why physicians are unwilling to acknowledge the presence the scarcity or the influence that it has on their practice in the U.S. Potential consequences of this denial on patients and the health care system; Patient placement on organ waiting lists; Fiscal scarcity in primary care; Prevention of the development of fair allocation systems.

In this article the authors discuss strategies to improve the quality of medical care in the U.S. They are critical of a lack of progress which has been made in improving the quality of medical care in the U.S. Also discussed are incentives that could be initiated which could provide incentives to improve quality and to reward excellent medical care.

Increasing recognition of the adverse events older adults experience in post-acute care in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) has led to multiple efforts to improve care integration between hospitals and SNFs. We sought to measure current care integration activities between hospitals and SNFs. Cross-sectional survey. A total of 500 randomly selected Medicare-certified SNFs in the United States in 2019. The survey inquired about 12 care integration activities with the 2 highest volume referring hospitals for each SNF. We collapsed survey responses into 5 categories of integration based on high correlations between the individual measures. These were: (1) formal integration (co-location or co-ownership); (2) informal integration (eg, formal affiliation, participation in SNF collaborative, shared pay for performance, or clinical leadership meetings between hospital and SNF); (3) shared quality/safety activities (eg, initiatives to improve medication safety or reduce hospital admission); (4) shared care coordinators; and/or (5) shared supervising clinicians. We then conducted multivariate regressions to examine associations between different care integration activities and hospital/SNF characteristics. Our overall response rate was 53.0%, including 265 SNFs that represented 487 SNF-hospital pairs. Informal integration was most common (in 53.3% of pairs), whereas shared clinicians (43.0%), care coordinators (36.5%), shared quality/safety activities (35.1%), and formal integration (7.4%) were present in a minority. Hospital-SNF pairs had lower odds of being formally integrated if the SNF was for-profit compared with not-for-profit [odds ratio (OR) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03–0.42, adjusted P =.04)] and higher odds of sharing quality improvement activities in metropolitan rather than rural areas (OR 4.06, 95% CI 1.80–9.17, adjusted P =.02) and in the Midwest compared with West (OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.44–6.06, adjusted P =.049). These findings raise important questions about what is driving variability in hospital-SNF integration activities, and which activities may be most effective for improving transitional care outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]