Lauren Gilstrap1,2,3, Jonathan S Skinner2, Barbara Gladders1, A James O'Malley2,4, Amber E Barnato2, Anna N A Tosteson2, Andrea M Austin2. 1. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Heart and Vascular Center, Lebanon, NH (L.G., B.G.). 2. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice (L.G., J.S.S., A.J.O., A.E.B., A.N.A.T., A.M.A.), Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH. 3. Department of Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH (L.G.). 4. Department of Biomedical Data Science (A.J.O.), Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To combat the high cost and increasing burden of quality reporting, the Medicare Payment Advisory (MedPAC) has recommended using claims data wherever possible to measure clinical quality. In this article, we use a cohort of Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and existing quality metrics to explore the impact of changes in quality metric methodology on measured quality performance, the association with patient outcomes, and hospital rankings. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used 100% Medicare Parts A and B and a random 40% sample of Part D from 2008 to 2015 to create (1) a cohort of 295 494 fee-for-service beneficiaries with ≥1 hospitalization for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and (2) a cohort of 1079 hospitals with ≥11 heart failure with reduced ejection fraction admissions in 2014 and 2015. We used Part D data to calculate β-blocker use after discharge and β-blocker use over time. We then varied the quality metric methodologies to explore the impact on measured performance. We then used multivariable time-to-event analyses to explore the impact of metric methodology on the association between quality performance and patient outcomes and Kendall's Tau to describe impact of quality metric methodology on hospital rankings. We found that quality metric methodology had a significant impact on measured quality performance. The association between quality performance and readmissions was sensitive to changes in methodology but the association with 1-year mortality was not. Changes in quality metric methodology also had a substantial impact on hospital quality rankings. CONCLUSIONS: This article highlights how small changes in quality metric methodology can have a significant impact on measured quality performance, the association between quality performance and utilization-based outcomes, and hospital rankings. These findings highlight the need for standardized quality metric methodologies, better case-mix adjustment and cast further doubt on the use of utilization-based outcomes as quality metrics in chronic diseases.
BACKGROUND: To combat the high cost and increasing burden of quality reporting, the Medicare Payment Advisory (MedPAC) has recommended using claims data wherever possible to measure clinical quality. In this article, we use a cohort of Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and existing quality metrics to explore the impact of changes in quality metric methodology on measured quality performance, the association with patient outcomes, and hospital rankings. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used 100% Medicare Parts A and B and a random 40% sample of Part D from 2008 to 2015 to create (1) a cohort of 295 494 fee-for-service beneficiaries with ≥1 hospitalization for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and (2) a cohort of 1079 hospitals with ≥11 heart failure with reduced ejection fraction admissions in 2014 and 2015. We used Part D data to calculate β-blocker use after discharge and β-blocker use over time. We then varied the quality metric methodologies to explore the impact on measured performance. We then used multivariable time-to-event analyses to explore the impact of metric methodology on the association between quality performance and patient outcomes and Kendall's Tau to describe impact of quality metric methodology on hospital rankings. We found that quality metric methodology had a significant impact on measured quality performance. The association between quality performance and readmissions was sensitive to changes in methodology but the association with 1-year mortality was not. Changes in quality metric methodology also had a substantial impact on hospital quality rankings. CONCLUSIONS: This article highlights how small changes in quality metric methodology can have a significant impact on measured quality performance, the association between quality performance and utilization-based outcomes, and hospital rankings. These findings highlight the need for standardized quality metric methodologies, better case-mix adjustment and cast further doubt on the use of utilization-based outcomes as quality metrics in chronic diseases.
Authors: Robert O Bonow; Theodore G Ganiats; Craig T Beam; Kathleen Blake; Donald E Casey; Sarah J Goodlin; Kathleen L Grady; Randal F Hundley; Mariell Jessup; Thomas E Lynn; Frederick A Masoudi; David Nilasena; Ileana L Piña; Paul D Rockswold; Lawrence B Sadwin; Joanna D Sikkema; Carrie A Sincak; John Spertus; Patrick J Torcson; Elizabeth Torres; Mark V Williams; John B Wong; Eric D Peterson; Frederick A Masoudi; Elizabeth DeLong; John P Erwin; Gregg C Fonarow; David C Goff; Kathleen L Grady; Lee A Green; Paul A Heidenreich; Kathy J Jenkins; Ann Loth; David M Shahian Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-04-23 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Rishi K Wadhera; Karen E Joynt Maddox; Jason H Wasfy; Sebastien Haneuse; Changyu Shen; Robert W Yeh Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-12-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Elias J Dayoub; Matthew Seigerman; Sony Tuteja; Taisei Kobayashi; Daniel M Kolansky; Jay Giri; Peter W Groeneveld Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Qian Li; Robert J Glynn; Nancy A Dreyer; Jun Liu; Helen Mogun; Soko Setoguchi Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2011-05-14 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Ankur Gupta; Larry A Allen; Deepak L Bhatt; Margueritte Cox; Adam D DeVore; Paul A Heidenreich; Adrian F Hernandez; Eric D Peterson; Roland A Matsouaka; Clyde W Yancy; Gregg C Fonarow Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Alvin Chandra; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Eldrin F Lewis; Brian L Claggett; Adel R Rizkala; Wenyan Wang; Martin P Lefkowitz; Victor C Shi; Inder S Anand; Junbo Ge; Carolyn S P Lam; Aldo P Maggioni; Felipe Martinez; Milton Packer; Marc A Pfeffer; Burkert Pieske; Margaret M Redfield; Jean L Rouleau; Dirk J Van Veldhuisen; Faiez Zannad; Michael R Zile; John J V McMurray; Scott D Solomon Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2019-07-10 Impact factor: 12.035
Authors: Matthew Shane Loop; Melissa K Van Dyke; Ligong Chen; Todd M Brown; Raegan W Durant; Monika M Safford; Emily B Levitan Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Johanna Birkhäuer; Jens Gaab; Joe Kossowsky; Sebastian Hasler; Peter Krummenacher; Christoph Werner; Heike Gerger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lauren G Gilstrap; Michael E Chernew; Christina A Nguyen; Sartaj Alam; Barbara Bai; J Michael McWilliams; Bruce E Landon; Mary Beth Landrum Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-08-02