Literature DB >> 24368657

Does pay-for-performance improve surgical outcomes? An evaluation of phase 2 of the Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration.

Terry Shih1, Lauren H Nicholas, Jyothi R Thumma, John D Birkmeyer, Justin B Dimick.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24368657      PMCID: PMC3949123          DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000425

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  19 in total

1.  Comparison of the Elixhauser and Charlson/Deyo methods of comorbidity measurement in administrative data.

Authors:  Danielle A Southern; Hude Quan; William A Ghali
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Public reporting and pay for performance in hospital quality improvement.

Authors:  Peter K Lindenauer; Denise Remus; Sheila Roman; Michael B Rothberg; Evan M Benjamin; Allen Ma; Dale W Bratzler
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-01-26       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Will pay-for-performance and quality reporting affect health care disparities?

Authors:  Lawrence P Casalino; Arthur Elster; Andy Eisenberg; Evelyn Lewis; John Montgomery; Diana Ramos
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2007-04-10       Impact factor: 6.301

4.  Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data.

Authors:  A Elixhauser; C Steiner; D R Harris; R M Coffey
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 5.  Assessing quality using administrative data.

Authors:  L I Iezzoni
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1997-10-15       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Improved bariatric surgery outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries after implementation of the medicare national coverage determination.

Authors:  Ninh T Nguyen; Samuel Hohmann; Johnathan Slone; Esteban Varela; Brian R Smith; David Hoyt
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2010-01

7.  Mortality among hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries in the first 2 years following ACGME resident duty hour reform.

Authors:  Kevin G Volpp; Amy K Rosen; Paul R Rosenbaum; Patrick S Romano; Orit Even-Shoshan; Yanli Wang; Lisa Bellini; Tiffany Behringer; Jeffrey H Silber
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-09-05       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Pay for performance, quality of care, and outcomes in acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Seth W Glickman; Fang-Shu Ou; Elizabeth R DeLong; Matthew T Roe; Barbara L Lytle; Jyotsna Mulgund; John S Rumsfeld; W Brian Gibler; E Magnus Ohman; Kevin A Schulman; Eric D Peterson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-06-06       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Effects of the Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration on Medicare patient mortality and cost.

Authors:  Andrew M Ryan
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 3.402

10.  Reduced mortality with hospital pay for performance in England.

Authors:  Matt Sutton; Silviya Nikolova; Ruth Boaden; Helen Lester; Ruth McDonald; Martin Roland
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-11-08       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  19 in total

1.  Association Between Physician Teamwork and Health System Outcomes After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

Authors:  John M Hollingsworth; Russell J Funk; Spencer A Garrison; Jason Owen-Smith; Samuel A Kaufman; Francis D Pagani; Brahmajee K Nallamothu
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2016-11-08

2.  The effects of a schizophrenia pay-for-performance program on patient outcomes in Taiwan.

Authors:  Tsung-Tai Chen; Jing-Jung Yang; Ya-Seng Arthur Hsueh; Vinchi Wang
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-05-27       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Risk Stratification for Surgical Site Infections in Colon Cancer.

Authors:  Ramzi Amri; Anne M Dinaux; Hiroko Kunitake; Liliana G Bordeianou; David L Berger
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 14.766

4.  The Cost of Complications Following Major Resection of Malignant Neoplasia.

Authors:  Cheryl K Zogg; Taylor D Ottesen; Kareem J Kebaish; Anoop Galivanche; Shilpa Murthy; Navin R Changoor; Donald L Zogg; Timothy M Pawlik; Adil H Haider
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 5.  Implementation Processes and Pay for Performance in Healthcare: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Karli K Kondo; Cheryl L Damberg; Aaron Mendelson; Makalapua Motu'apuaka; Michele Freeman; Maya O'Neil; Rose Relevo; Allison Low; Devan Kansagara
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Obesity, regardless of comorbidity, influences outcomes after colorectal surgery-time to rethink the pay-for-performance metrics?

Authors:  Iyare O Esemuede; Alice C A Murray; Steven A Lee-Kong; Daniel L Feingold; Ravi P Kiran
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-10-21       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  Long-Term Skills Retention Following a Randomized Prospective Trial on Adaptive Procedural Training.

Authors:  Adriana G Ramirez; Yinin Hu; Helen Kim; Sara K Rasmussen
Journal:  J Surg Educ       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 2.891

Review 8.  Pay-for-performance in orthopedics: how we got here and where we are going.

Authors:  Ashton H Goldman; Stephen Kates
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

9.  Achieving moral, high quality, affordable medical care in America through a true free market.

Authors:  David McKalip
Journal:  Linacre Q       Date:  2016-11

Review 10.  Pay-for-Performance: Disappointing Results or Masked Heterogeneity?

Authors:  Adam A Markovitz; Andrew M Ryan
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 3.929

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.