Survival Rates in Trauma Patients Following Health Care Reform in Massachusetts

IMPORTANCE: Massachusetts introduced health care reform (HCR) in 2006, expecting to expand health insurance coverage and improve outcomes. Because traumatic injury is a common acute condition with important health, disability, and economic consequences, examination of the effect of HCR on patients hospitalized following injury may help inform the national HCR debate. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of Massachusetts HCR on survival rates of injured patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of 1,520,599 patients hospitalized following traumatic injury in Massachusetts or New York during the 10 years (2002-2011) surrounding Massachusetts HCR using data from the State Inpatient Databases. We assessed the effect of HCR on mortality rates using a difference-in-differences approach to control for temporal trends in mortality. INTERVENTION: Health care reform in Massachusetts in 2006. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: Survival until hospital discharge. RESULTS: During the 10-year study period, the rates of uninsured trauma patients in Massachusetts decreased steadily from 14.9% in 2002 to 5.0.% in 2011. In New York, the rates of uninsured trauma patients fell from 14.9% in 2002 to 10.5% in 2011. The risk-adjusted difference-in-difference assessment revealed a transient increase of 604 excess deaths (95% CI, 419-790) in Massachusetts in the 3 years following implementation of HCR. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Health care reform did not affect health insurance coverage for patients hospitalized following injury but was associated with a transient increase in adjusted mortality rates. Reducing mortality rates for acutely injured patients may require more comprehensive interventions than simply promoting health insurance coverage through legislation

Impact of date stamping on patient safety measurement in patients undergoing CABG: Experience with the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) provide information on hospital risk-adjusted rates for potentially preventable adverse events. Although designed to work with routine administrative data, it is unknown whether the PSIs can accurately distinguish between complications and pre-existing conditions. The objective of this study is to examine whether the AHRQ PSIs accurately measure hospital complication rates, using the data with present-on-admission (POA) codes to distinguish between complications and pre-existing conditions</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing isolated CABG surgery in California conducted using the 1998–2000 California State Inpatient Database. We calculated the positive predictive value of selected AHRQ PSIs using information from the POA as the gold standard, and the intra-class correlation coefficient to assess the level of agreement between the hospital risk-adjusted PSI rates with and without the information contained in the POA modifier.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The false positive error rate, defined as one minus the positive predictive value, was greater than or equal to 20% for four of the eight PSIs examined: decubitus ulcer, failure-to-rescue, postoperative physiologic and metabolic derangement, and postoperative pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis. Pairwise comparison of the hospital risk-adjusted PSI rates, with and without POA information, demonstrated almost perfect agreement for five of the eight PSI's. For decubitus ulcer, failure-to-rescue, and postoperative pulmonary embolism or DVT, the intraclass-correlation coefficient ranged between 0.63 to 0.79.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>For some of the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators, there are significant differences in the risk-adjusted rates of adverse events depending on whether the POA indicator is used to distinguish between pre-existing conditions and complications. The use of the POA indicator will increase the accuracy of the AHRQ PSIs as measures of adverse outcomes.</p

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

The COVID-19 pandemic and associated inequities in acute myocardial infarction treatment and outcomes

IMPORTANCE: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted usual care for emergent conditions, such as acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Understanding whether Black and Hispanic individuals experiencing AMI had greater increases in poor outcomes compared with White individuals during the pandemic has important equity implications. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased disparities in treatment and outcomes among Medicare patients hospitalized with AMI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study used Medicare data for patients hospitalized with AMI between January 2016 and November 2020. Patients were categorized as Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White. The association between race and ethnicity and outcomes as a function of the proportion of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was evaluated using interrupted time series. Data were analyzed from October 2022 to June 2023. EXPOSURE: The main exposure was a hospital\u27s proportion of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 on a weekly basis as a proxy for care disruption during the pandemic. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Revascularization, 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission, and nonhome discharges. RESULTS: A total of 1 319 273 admissions for AMI (579 817 females [44.0%]; 122 972 Black [9.3%], 117 668 Hispanic [8.9%], and 1 078 633 White [81.8%]; mean [SD] age, 77 [8.4] years) were included. For patients with non-ST segment elevation MI (NSTEMI) overall, the adjusted odds of mortality and nonhome discharges increased by 51% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.51; 95% CI, 1.29-1.76; P \u3c .001) and 32% (aOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.15-1.52; P \u3c .001), respectively, and the odds of revascularization decreased by 27% (aOR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.83; P \u3c .001) among patients hospitalized during weeks with a high hospital COVID-19 burden (\u3e30%) vs patients hospitalized prior to the pandemic. Black individuals with NSTEMI experienced a clinically insignificant 7% greater increase in the odds of mortality (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.15; P = .04) for each 10% increase in the COVID-19 hospital burden but no increases in readmissions or nonhome discharges or reductions in revascularization rates compared with White individuals. There were no differential increases in adverse outcomes among Hispanic compared with White patients with NSTEMI based on hospital COVID-19 burden. Increases in hospital COVID-19 burden were not associated with changes in outcomes or the use of revascularization in STEMI overall or by racial or ethnic group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that while hospital COVID-19 burden was associated with worse treatment and outcomes for NSTEMI, race and ethnicity-associated inequities did not increase significantly during the pandemic. These findings suggest the need for additional efforts to mitigate outcomes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic for patients admitted with AMI when the hospital COVID-19 burden is substantially increased

Was COVID-19 associated with worsening inequities in stroke treatment and outcomes?

Background COVID-19 stressed hospitals and may have disproportionately affected the stroke outcomes and treatment of Black and Hispanic individuals. Methods and Results This retrospective study used 100% Medicare Provider Analysis and Review file data from between 2016 and 2020. We used interrupted time series analyses to examine whether the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated disparities in stroke outcomes and reperfusion therapy. Among 1 142 560 hospitalizations for acute ischemic strokes, 90 912 (8.0%) were Hispanic individuals; 162 752 (14.2%) were non-Hispanic Black individuals; and 888 896 (77.8%) were non-Hispanic White individuals. The adjusted odds of mortality increased by 51% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.51 [95% CI, 1.34-1.69]

Association between the COVID-19 pandemic and insurance-based disparities in mortality after major surgery among US adults

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruptions in surgical care. Whether these disruptions disproportionately impacted economically disadvantaged individuals is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and mortality after major surgery among patients with Medicaid insurance or without insurance compared with patients with commercial insurance. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Vizient Clinical Database for patients who underwent major surgery at hospitals in the US between January 1, 2018, and May 31, 2020. Exposures: The hospital proportion of patients with COVID-19 during the first wave of COVID-19 cases between March 1 and May 31, 2020, stratified as low (≤5.0%), medium (5.1%-10.0%), high (10.1%-25.0%), and very high (\u3e25.0%). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was inpatient mortality. The association between mortality after surgery and payer status as a function of the proportion of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was evaluated with a quasi-experimental triple-difference approach using logistic regression. Results: Among 2 950 147 adults undergoing inpatient surgery (1 550 752 female [52.6%]) at 677 hospitals, the primary payer was Medicare (1 427 791 [48.4%]), followed by commercial insurance (1 000 068 [33.9%]), Medicaid (321 600 [10.9%]), other payer (140 959 [4.8%]), and no insurance (59 729 [2.0%]). Mortality rates increased more for patients undergoing surgery during the first wave of the pandemic in hospitals with a high COVID-19 burden (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.24; P = .01) and a very high COVID-19 burden (AOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.24-1.53; P \u3c .001) compared with patients in hospitals with a low COVID-19 burden. Overall, patients with Medicaid had 29% higher odds of death (AOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.22-1.36; P \u3c .001) and patients without insurance had 75% higher odds of death (AOR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.55-1.98; P \u3c .001) compared with patients with commercial insurance. However, mortality rates for surgical patients with Medicaid insurance (AOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.82-1.30; P = .79) or without insurance (AOR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.47-1.54; P = .60) did not increase more than for patients with commercial insurance in hospitals with a high COVID-19 burden compared with hospitals with a low COVID-19 burden. These findings were similar in hospitals with very high COVID-19 burdens. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a higher risk of mortality after surgery in hospitals with more than 25.0% of patients with COVID-19. However, the pandemic was not associated with greater increases in mortality among patients with no insurance or patients with Medicaid compared with patients with commercial insurance in hospitals with a very high COVID-19 burden

Racial and ethnic disparities in access to minimally invasive mitral valve surgery

IMPORTANCE: Whether people from racial and ethnic minority groups experience disparities in access to minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) is not known. OBJECTIVE: To investigate racial and ethnic disparities in the utilization of MIMVS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study used data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database for patients who underwent mitral valve surgery between 2014 and 2019. Statistical analysis was performed from January 24 to August 11, 2022. EXPOSURES: Patients were categorized as non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic individuals. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The association between MIMVS (vs full sternotomy) and race and ethnicity were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among the 103 753 patients undergoing mitral valve surgery (mean [SD] age, 62 [13] years; 47 886 female individuals [46.2%]), 10 404 (10.0%) were non-Hispanic Black individuals, 89 013 (85.8%) were non-Hispanic White individuals, and 4336 (4.2%) were Hispanic individuals. Non-Hispanic Black individuals were more likely to have Medicaid insurance (odds ratio [OR], 2.21; 95% CI, 1.64-2.98; P \u3c .001) and to receive care from a low-volume surgeon (OR, 4.45; 95% CI, 4.01-4.93; P \u3c .001) compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. Non-Hispanic Black individuals were less likely to undergo MIMVS (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.73; P \u3c .001), whereas Hispanic individuals were not less likely to undergo MIMVS compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.67-1.75; P = .74). Patients with commercial insurance had 2.35-fold higher odds of undergoing MIMVS (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 2.06-2.68; P \u3c .001) than those with Medicaid insurance. Patients operated by very-high volume surgeons (300 or more cases) had 20.7-fold higher odds (OR, 20.70; 95% CI, 12.7-33.9; P \u3c .001) of undergoing MIMVS compared with patients treated by low-volume surgeons (less than 20 cases). After adjusting for patient risk, non-Hispanic Black individuals were still less likely to undergo MIMVS (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99; P = .04) and were more likely to die or experience a major complication (aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.16-1.35; P \u3c .001) compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study, non-Hispanic Black patients were less likely to undergo MIMVS and more likely to die or experience a major complication than non-Hispanic White patients. These findings suggest that efforts to reduce inequity in cardiovascular medicine may need to include increasing access to private insurance and high-volume surgeons