Reproducibility of hospital rankings based on centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Compare measures as a function of measure reliability

Importance: Unreliable performance measures can mask poor-quality care and distort financial incentives in value-based purchasing. Objective: To examine the association between test-retest reliability and the reproducibility of hospital rankings. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a cross-sectional design, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Compare data were analyzed for the 2017 (based on 2014-2017 data) and 2018 (based on 2015-2018 data) reporting periods. The study was conducted from December 13, 2020, to September 30, 2021. This analysis was based on 28 measures, including mortality (acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and coronary artery bypass grafting), readmissions (acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and coronary artery bypass grafting), and surgical complications (postoperative acute kidney failure, postoperative respiratory failure, postoperative sepsis, and failure to rescue). Exposures: Measure reliability based on test-retest reliability testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: The reproducibility of hospital rankings was quantified by calculating the reclassification rate across the 2017 and 2018 reporting periods after categorizing the hospitals into terciles, quartiles, deciles, and statistical outliers. Linear regression analysis was used to examine the association between the reclassification rate and the intraclass correlation coefficient for each of the classification systems. Results: The analytic cohort consisted of 28 measures from 4452 hospitals with a median of 2927 (IQR, 2378-3160) hospitals contributing data for each measure. The hospitals participating in the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (n = 3195) had a median bed size of 141 (IQR, 69-261), average daily census of 70 (IQR, 24-155) patients, and a median disproportionate share hospital percentage of 38.2% (IQR, 18.7%-36.6%). The median intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.78 (IQR, 0.72-0.81), ranging between 0.50 and 0.85. The median reclassification rate was 70% (IQR, 62%-71%) when hospitals were ranked by deciles, 43% (IQR, 39%-45%) when ranked by quartiles, 34% (IQR, 31%-36%) when ranked by terciles, and 3.8% (IQR, 2.0%-6.2%) when ranked by outlier status. Increases in measure reliability were not associated with decreases in the reclassification rate. Each 0.1-point increase in the intraclass correlation coefficient was associated with a 6.80 (95% CI, 2.28-11.30; P = .005) percentage-point increase in the reclassification rate when hospitals were ranked into performance deciles, 4.15 (95% CI, 1.16-7.14; P = .008) when ranked into performance quartiles, 1.47 (95% CI, 1.84, 4.77; P = .37) when ranked into performance terciles, and 3.70 (95% CI, 1.30-6.09; P = .004) when ranked by outlier status. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, more reliable measures were not associated with lower rates of reclassifying hospitals using test-retest reliability testing. These findings suggest that measure reliability should not be assessed with test-retest reliability testing

Factors contributing to disparities in mortality among patients with non-small-cell lung cancer

Historically, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who are non-white, have low incomes, low educational attainment, and non-private insurance have worse survival. We assessed whether differences in survival were attributable to sociodemographic factors, clinical characteristics at diagnosis, or treatments received. We surveyed a multiregional cohort of patients diagnosed with NSCLC from 2003 to 2005 and followed through 2012. We used Cox proportional hazard analyses to estimate the risk of death associated with race/ethnicity, annual income, educational attainment, and insurance status, unadjusted and sequentially adjusting for sociodemographic factors, clinical characteristics, and receipt of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Of 3250 patients, 64% were white, 16% black, 7% Hispanic, and 7% Asian; 36% of patients had income

Factors contributing to disparities in mortality among patients with non–small‐cell lung cancer

Historically, non–small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who are non‐white, have low incomes, low educational attainment, and non‐private insurance have worse survival. We assessed whether differences in survival were attributable to sociodemographic factors, clinical characteristics at diagnosis, or treatments received. We surveyed a multiregional cohort of patients diagnosed with NSCLC from 2003 to 2005 and followed through 2012. We used Cox proportional hazard analyses to estimate the risk of death associated with race/ethnicity, annual income, educational attainment, and insurance status, unadjusted and sequentially adjusting for sociodemographic factors, clinical characteristics, and receipt of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Of 3250 patients, 64% were white, 16% black, 7% Hispanic, and 7% Asian; 36% of patients had incomes <$20 000/y; 23$60 000/y, not attending college, and not having private insurance were all associated with an increased risk of mortality. Black‐white differences were not statistically significant after adjustment for sociodemographic factors, although patients with patients without a high school diploma and patients with incomes <$40 000/y continued to have an increased risk of mortality. Differences by educational attainment were not statistically significant after adjustment for clinical characteristics. Differences by income were not statistically significant after adjustment for clinical characteristics and treatments. Clinical characteristics and treatments received primarily contributed to mortality disparities by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status in patients with NSCLC. Additional efforts are needed to assure timely diagnosis and use of effective treatment to lessen these disparities.Using data from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) consortium, a large, multi‐regional observational study of newly diagnosed cancer patients, we documented higher unadjusted mortality for NSCLC among patients who were black, have lower income, less well‐educated, and with non‐private insurance. We used a series of Cox proportional hazards model to estimate the increased risk of death associated with sociodemographic factors, clinical characteristics, and treatments received to determine what accounted for the disparities. We found that patients’ clinical characteristics and treatments received primarily contributed to the mortality disparities that we observed in patients with NSCLC.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146607/1/cam41796.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146607/2/cam41796_am.pd

A Matched Cohort Analysis of Drain Usage in Elective Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC) Study

STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective, cohort analysis of multi-institutional database. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to analyze the impact of drain use following elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgeries. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: After ACDF, a drain is often placed to prevent postoperative hematoma. However, there has been no high quality evidence to support its use with ACDF despite the theoretical benefits and risks of drain placement. METHODS: The Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative database was queried to identify all patients undergoing elective ACDF between February 2014 and October 2019. Cases were divided into two cohorts based on drain use. Propensity-score matching was utilized to adjust for inherent differences between the two cohorts. Measured outcomes included surgical site hematoma, length of stay, surgical site infection, dysphagia, home discharge, readmission within 30 days, and unplanned reoperation. RESULTS: We identified 7943 patients during the study period. Propensity-score matching yielded 3206 pairs. On univariate analysis of matched cohorts, there were no differences in rate of postoperative hematoma requiring either return to OR or readmission. We noted patients with drains had a higher rate of dysphagia (4.6% vs. 6.3%; P = 0.003) and had longer hospital stay (P \u3c 0.001). On multivariate analysis, drain use was associated with significantly increased length of stay (relative risk 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.34; P \u3c 0.001). There were no significant differences in other outcomes measured. CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrated that drain use is associated with significant longer hospital stay.Level of Evidence: 3

Associations Between Relative Value Units and Patient-Reported Back Pain and Disability

Objective: To describe associations between health care utilization measures and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Method: Primary data were collected from patients ≥65 years with low back pain visits from 2011 to 2013. Six PROs of pain and functionality were collected 12 and 24 months after the index visits and total and spine-specific relative value units (RVUs) from electronic health records were tabulated over 1 year. We calculated correlation coefficients between RVUs and 12- and 24-month PROs and conducted linear regressions with each 12- and 24-month PRO as the outcome variables and RVUs as predictors of interest. Results: We observed very weak correlations between worse PROs at 12 and 24 months and greater 12-month utilization. In regression analyses, we observed slight associations between greater utilization and worse 12- and 24-month PROs. Discussion: We found that 12-month health care utilization is not strongly associated with PROs at 12 or 24 months

Association of early imaging for back pain with clinical outcomes in older adults

IMPORTANCE: In contrast to the recommendations for younger adults, many guidelines allow for older adults with back pain to undergo imaging without waiting 4 to 6 weeks. However, early imaging may precipitate interventions that do not improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare function and pain at the 12-month follow-up visit among older adults who received early imaging with those who did not receive early imaging after a new primary care visit for back pain without radiculopathy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort of 5239 patients 65 years or older with a new primary care visit for back pain (2011-2013) in 3 US health care systems. We matched controls 1:1 using propensity score matching of demographic and clinical characteristics, including diagnosis, pain severity, pain duration, functional status, and prior resource use. EXPOSURES: Diagnostic imaging (plain films, computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) of the lumbar or thoracic spine within 6 weeks of the index visit. PRIMARY OUTCOME: back or leg pain-related disability measured by the modified Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (score range, 0-24; higher scores indicate greater disability) 12 months after enrollment. RESULTS: Among the 5239 patients, 1174 had early radiographs and 349 had early MRI/CT. At 12 months, neither the early radiograph group nor the early MRI/CT group differed significantly from controls on the disability questionnaire. The mean score for patients who underwent early radiography was 8.54 vs 8.74 among the control group (difference, -0.10 [95% CI, -0.71 to 0.50]; mixed model, P = .36). The mean score for the early MRI/CT group was 9.81 vs 10.50 for the control group (difference,-0.51 [-1.62 to 0.60]; mixed model, P = .18). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among older adults with a new primary care visit for back pain, early imaging was not associated with better 1-year outcomes. The value of early diagnostic imaging in older adults for back pain without radiculopathy is uncertain

A simulation model approach to analysis of the business case for eliminating health care disparities

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Purchasers can play an important role in eliminating racial and ethnic disparities in health care. A need exists to develop a compelling "business case" from the employer perspective to put, and keep, the issue of racial/ethnic disparities in health care on the quality improvement agenda for health plans and providers.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>To illustrate a method for calculating an employer business case for disparity reduction and to compare the business case in two clinical areas, we conducted analyses of the direct (medical care costs paid by employers) and indirect (absenteeism, productivity) effects of eliminating known racial/ethnic disparities in mammography screening and appropriate medication use for patients with asthma. We used Markov simulation models to estimate the consequences, for defined populations of African-American employees or health plan members, of a 10% increase in HEDIS mammography rates or a 10% increase in appropriate medication use among either adults or children/adolescents with asthma.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The savings per employed African-American woman aged 50-65 associated with a 10% increase in HEDIS mammography rate, from direct medical expenses and indirect costs (absenteeism, productivity) combined, was $50. The findings for asthma were more favorable from an employer point of view at approximately$1,660 per person if raising medication adherence rates in African-American employees or dependents by 10%.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>For the employer business case, both clinical scenarios modeled showed positive results. There is a greater potential financial gain related to eliminating a disparity in asthma medications than there is for eliminating a disparity in mammography rates.</p