Measuring risk-adjusted value using Medicare and ACS-NSQIP: is high-quality, low-cost surgical care achievable everywhere?

ObjectiveTo evaluate the relationship between risk-adjusted cost and quality for colectomy procedures and to identify characteristics of "high value" hospitals (high quality, low cost).BackgroundPolicymakers are currently focused on rewarding high-value health care. Hospitals will increasingly be held accountable for both quality and cost.MethodsRecords (2005-2008) for all patients undergoing colectomy procedures in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) were linked to Medicare inpatient claims. Cost was derived from hospital payments by Medicare. Quality was derived from the occurrence of 30-day postoperative major complications and/or death as recorded in ACS-NSQIP. Risk-adjusted cost and quality metrics were developed using hierarchical multivariable modeling, consistent with a National Quality Forum-endorsed colectomy measure.ResultsThe study population included 14,745 colectomy patients in 169 hospitals. Average hospitalization cost was $21,350 (SD$20,773, median $16,092, interquartile range$14,341-$24,598). Thirty-four percent of patients had a postoperative complication and/or death. Higher hospital quality was significantly correlated with lower cost (correlation coefficient 0.38, P < 0.001). Among hospitals classified as high quality, 52% were found to be low cost (representing highest value hospitals) whereas 14% were high cost (P = 0.001). Forty-one percent of low-quality hospitals were high cost. Highest "value" hospitals represented a mix of teaching/nonteaching affiliation, small/large bed sizes, and regional locations.ConclusionsUsing national ACS-NSQIP and Medicare data, this study reports an association between higher quality and lower cost surgical care. These results suggest that high-value surgical care is being delivered in a wide spectrum of hospitals and hospital types

Measuring risk-adjusted value using Medicare and ACS-NSQIP: is high-quality, low-cost surgical care achievable everywhere?

ObjectiveTo evaluate the relationship between risk-adjusted cost and quality for colectomy procedures and to identify characteristics of "high value" hospitals (high quality, low cost).BackgroundPolicymakers are currently focused on rewarding high-value health care. Hospitals will increasingly be held accountable for both quality and cost.MethodsRecords (2005-2008) for all patients undergoing colectomy procedures in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) were linked to Medicare inpatient claims. Cost was derived from hospital payments by Medicare. Quality was derived from the occurrence of 30-day postoperative major complications and/or death as recorded in ACS-NSQIP. Risk-adjusted cost and quality metrics were developed using hierarchical multivariable modeling, consistent with a National Quality Forum-endorsed colectomy measure.ResultsThe study population included 14,745 colectomy patients in 169 hospitals. Average hospitalization cost was $21,350 (SD$20,773, median $16,092, interquartile range$14,341-$24,598). Thirty-four percent of patients had a postoperative complication and/or death. Higher hospital quality was significantly correlated with lower cost (correlation coefficient 0.38, P < 0.001). Among hospitals classified as high quality, 52% were found to be low cost (representing highest value hospitals) whereas 14% were high cost (P = 0.001). Forty-one percent of low-quality hospitals were high cost. Highest "value" hospitals represented a mix of teaching/nonteaching affiliation, small/large bed sizes, and regional locations.ConclusionsUsing national ACS-NSQIP and Medicare data, this study reports an association between higher quality and lower cost surgical care. These results suggest that high-value surgical care is being delivered in a wide spectrum of hospitals and hospital types

Describing the density of high-level trauma centers in the 15 largest US cities.

BackgroundThere has been a proliferation of urban high-level trauma centers. The aim of this study was to describe the density of high-level adult trauma centers in the 15 largest cities in the USA and determine whether density was correlated with urban social determinants of health and violence rates.MethodsThe largest 15 US cities by population were identified. The American College of Surgeons' (ACS) and states' department of health websites were cross-referenced for designated high-level (levels 1 and 2) trauma centers in each city. Trauma centers and associated 20 min drive radius were mapped. High-level trauma centers per square mile and per population were calculated. The distance between high-level trauma centers was calculated. Publicly reported social determinants of health and violence data were tested for correlation with trauma center density.ResultsAmong the 15 largest cities, 14 cities had multiple high-level adult trauma centers. There was a median of one high-level trauma center per every 150 square kilometers with a range of one center per every 39 square kilometers in Philadelphia to one center per596 square kilometers in San Antonio. There was a median of one high-level trauma center per 285 034 people with a range of one center per 175 058 people in Columbus to one center per 870 044 people in San Francisco. The median minimum distance between high-level trauma centers in the 14 cities with multiple centers was 8 kilometers and ranged from 1 kilometer in Houston to 43 kilometers in San Antonio. Social determinants of health, specifically poverty rate and unemployment rate, were highly correlated with violence rates. However, there was no correlation between trauma center density and social determinants of health or violence rates.DiscussionHigh-level trauma centers density is not correlated with social determinants of health or violence rates.Level of evidenceVI.Study typeEconomic/decision

Predictors of asthma control in everyday clinical practice in Switzerland

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of improved asthma control under conditions of everyday practice in Switzerland. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A subgroup of 1380 patients with initially inadequately controlled asthma was defined from a cohort of 1893 asthmatic patients (mean age 45.3 + or - 19.2 years) recruited by 281 office-based physicians who participated in a previously-conducted asthma control survey in Switzerland. Multiple regression techniques were used to identify predictors of improved asthma control, defined as an absolute decrease of 0.5 points or more in the Asthma Control Questionnaire between the baseline (V1) and follow-up visit (V2). RESULTS: Asthma control between V1 and V2 improved in 85.7%. Add-on treatment with montelukast was reported in 82.9% of the patients. Patients with worse asthma control at V1 and patients with good self-reported adherence to therapy had significantly higher chances of improved asthma control (OR = 1.24 and 1.73, 95% CI 1.18-1.29 and 1.20-2.50, respectively). Compared to adding montelukast and continuing the same inhaled corticosteroid/fixed combination (ICS/FC) dose, the addition of montelukast to an increased ICS/FC dose yielded a 4 times higher chance of improved asthma control (OR = 3.84, 95% CI 1.58-9.29). Significantly, withholding montelukast halved the probability of achieving improved asthma control (OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.33-078). The probability of improved asthma control was almost 5 times lower among patients in whom FEV(1) was measured compared to those in whom it was not (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.09-0.55). Patients with severe persistent asthma also had a significantly lower probability of improved control (OR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.07-0.32), as did older patients (OR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.97-0.99). Subgroup analyses which excluded patients whose asthma may have been misdiagnosed and might in reality have been chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) showed comparable results. CONCLUSIONS: Under conditions of everyday clinical practice, the addition of montelukast to ICS/FC and good adherence to therapy increased the likelihood of achieving better asthma control at the follow-up visit, while older age and more severe asthma significantly decreased it