Project description:ImportanceHigh-volume hospital care for laryngectomy has been shown to be associated with reduced morbidity, mortality, and costs; however, most hospitals in the United States do not perform high volumes of laryngectomies. The influence of market competition on charges and costs for such patients has not been defined.ObjectiveTo examine the association between regional hospital market concentration, hospital charges, and costs for laryngectomy.Design, setting, and participantsThe Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to identify 34 193 patients who underwent laryngectomy for a malignant laryngeal or hypopharyngeal neoplasm from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2011. Hospital laryngectomy volume was modeled as a categorical variable. Hospital market concentration was evaluated using a variable-radius Herfindahl-Hirschman Index from the 2003, 2006, and 2009 Hospital Market Structure Files. Statistical analysis was performed from May 19 to August 15, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresMultivariable generalized linear regression was used to evaluate associations between market concentration and total charges and costs for laryngectomy.ResultsAmong the 34 193 patients (19.3% female and 80.7% male; mean age, 62.7 years [range, 20.0-96.0 years]), 69.2% of procedures were performed at hospitals in highly concentrated (noncompetitive) markets and 26.2% were performed at hospitals in unconcentrated (highly competitive) markets. Most high-volume hospitals (68.0%) were located in highly concentrated markets, followed by unconcentrated markets (32.0%). Market share and volume were not associated with significant differences in total charges. Unconcentrated markets were associated with 28% higher costs (95% CI, 8%-53%) relative to moderately concentrated and highly concentrated markets. High-volume hospitals were associated with 22% lower costs (95% CI, -36% to -5%).Conclusions and relevanceCompetition among hospitals is associated with increased costs of care for laryngectomy. High-volume hospital care is associated with lower costs of care. These data suggest that hospital market consolidation of laryngectomy at centers able to meet minimum volume thresholds may improve health care value.

Project description:BackgroundMedicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), implemented beginning in 2013, seeks to incentivize Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) hospitals to reduce 30-day readmissions for selected inpatient cohorts including acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia. Performance-based penalties, which take the form of a percentage reduction in Medicare reimbursement for all inpatient care services, have a risk of unintended financial burden on hospitals that care for a larger proportion of Medicare patients. To examine the role of this unintended risk on 30-day readmissions, we estimated the association between the extent of their Medicare share of total hospital bed days and changes in 30-day readmissions.MethodsWe used publicly available nationwide hospital level data for 2009-2016 from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare program, CMS Final Impact Rule, and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey. Using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences approach, we compared pre- vs. post-HRRP changes in 30-day readmission rate in hospitals with high and moderate Medicare share of total hospital bed days ("Medicare bed share") vs. low Medicare bed share hospitals.ResultsWe grouped the 1904 study hospitals into tertiles (low, moderate and high) by Medicare bed share; the average bed share in the three tertile groups was 31.2, 47.8 and 59.9%, respectively. Compared to low Medicare bed share hospitals, high bed share hospitals were more likely to be non-profit, have smaller bed size and less likely to be a teaching hospital. High bed share hospitals were more likely to be in rural and non-large-urban areas, have fewer lower income patients and have a less complex patient case-mix profile. At baseline, the average readmissions rate in the low Medicare bed share (control) hospitals was 20.0% (AMI), 24.7% (HF) and 18.4% (pneumonia). The observed pre- to post-program change in the control hospitals was - 1.35% (AMI), - 1.02% (HF) and - 0.35% (pneumonia). Difference in differences model estimates indicated no differential change in readmissions among moderate and high Medicare bed share hospitals.ConclusionsHRRP penalties were not associated with any change in readmissions rate. The CMS should consider alternative options - including working collaboratively with hospitals - to reduce readmissions.

Project description:Importance:The strongest evidence for the effectiveness of Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) involves greater reductions in readmissions for hospitals receiving penalties compared with those not receiving penalties. However, the HRRP penalty is an imperfect measure of hospitals' marginal incentive to avoid a readmission for HRRP-targeted diagnoses. Objectives:To assess the association between hospitals' condition-specific incentives and readmission performance and to examine the responsiveness of hospitals to condition-specific incentives compared with aggregate penalty amounts. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective cohort analysis used Medicare readmissions data from 2823 US short-term acute care hospitals participating in HRRP to compare 3-year (fiscal years 2016-2019) follow-up readmission performance according to tertiles of hospitals' baseline (2016) marginal incentives for each of 5 HRRP-targeted conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and hip and/or knee surgery). Main Outcomes and Measures:Linear regression models were used to estimate mean change in follow-up readmission performance, measured using the excess readmissions ratio, with baseline condition-specific incentives and aggregate penalty amounts. Results:Of 2823 hospitals that participated in the HRRP from baseline to follow-up, 2280 (81%) had more than 1 excess readmission for 1 or more applicable condition and 543 (19%) did not have any excess readmissions. The mean (SD) financial incentive to reduce readmissions for incentivized hospitals ranged from $8762 ($3699) to $58 158 ($26 198) per 1 avoided readmission. Hospitals with greater incentives for readmission avoidance had greater decreases in readmissions compared with hospitals with smaller incentives (45% greater for pneumonia, 172% greater for acute myocardial infarction, 40% greater for hip and/or knee surgery, 32% greater for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 13% greater for heart failure), whereas hospitals with no incentives had increases in excess readmissions of 4% to 7% (median, 4% [percentage change for nonincentivized hospitals was 3.7% for pneumonia, 4.2% for acute myocardial infarction, 7.1% for hip and/or knee surgery, 3.7% for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 3.7% for heart failure]; P < .001). During the study period, each additional $5000 in the incentive amount was associated with a 0.6- to 1.3-percentage point decrease, or up to a 26% decrease, in excess readmissions (P < .001). Regression to the mean explained approximately one-third of the results depending on the condition examined. Conclusions and Relevance:The findings suggest that improvements in readmission avoidance are more strongly associated with incentives from the HRRP than with aggregate penalty amounts, suggesting that the program has elicited sizeable changes. Worsened performance among hospitals with small or no incentives may indicate the need for reconsideration of the program's lack of financial rewards for high-performing hospitals.

Project description:ImportanceSurvival rates after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) vary significantly among US centers; whether this variation is owing to differences in IHCA care quality is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate hospital-level variation to determine whether hospital process composite performance measures of IHCA care quality are associated with patient outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsUsing data from the American Heart Association's Get With the Guidelines-Resuscitation (GWTG-R) program, we analyzed 35 283 patients 18 years or older with IHCA treated at 261 US hospitals from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012. We calculated the hospital process composite performance score for IHCA using 5 guideline-recommended process measures. Opportunity-based scores were calculated for all patients, aggregated at the hospital level, divided into quartiles, and then associated with risk-standardized survival and neurologic status by a test for trend. The scores were then evaluated through hierarchical logistic regression and reported as odds ratios per 10% increment in hospital process composite performance.InterventionsAcute care treatments for IHCA.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was survival to discharge measured as risk standard survival rates, and the secondary outcome was favorable neurologic status at hospital discharge.ResultsOf the 35 283 adults included in this study, the median age was 67 years (interquartile range [IQR] 56-78 years), and 57.9% were male. The median IHCA hospital process composite performance was 89.7% (interquartile range, 85.4%-93.1%) and varied among hospital quartiles from 82.6% (lowest) to 94.8% (highest). The IHCA hospital process composite performance was linearly associated with risk-standardized hospital survival to discharge rates: 21.1%, 21.4%, 22.8%, and 23.4% from lowest to highest performance quartiles, respectively (P < .001). After adjustment, each 10% increase in a hospital's process composite performance was associated with a 22% higher odds of survival (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.37; P = .01). Hospital process composite quality performance was also associated with favorable neurologic status at discharge (P = .004).Conclusions and relevanceThe quality of guideline-based care for IHCA varies significantly among US hospitals and is associated with patient survival and neurologic outcomes.

Project description:ImportanceCertificate of need laws provide state-level regulation of health system expenditure. These laws are intended to limit spending and control hospital expansion in order to prevent excess capacity and improve quality of care. Several states have recently introduced legislation to modify or repeal these regulations, as encouraged by executive order 13813, issued in October 2017 by the Trump administration.ObjectiveTo evaluate the difference in markers of hospital activity and quality by state certificate of need status. These markers include hospital procedural volume, hospital market share, county-level procedures per 10 000 persons, and patient-level postoperative outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional study involving Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who underwent 1 of the following 10 procedures from January 1, 2016, through November 30, 2018: total knee or hip arthroplasty, coronary artery bypass grafting, colectomy, ventral hernia repair, lower extremity vascular bypass, lung resection, pancreatic resection, cystectomy, or esophagectomy.ExposuresState certificate of need regulation status as determined by data from the National Conference of State Legislatures.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes of interest included hospital procedural volume; hospital market share (range, 0-1; reflecting 0%-100% of market share); county-level procedures per 10 000 persons; and patient-level postoperative 30-day mortality, surgical site infection, and readmission.ResultsA total of 1 545 952 patients (58.0% women; median age 72 years; interquartile range, 68-77 years) at 3631 hospitals underwent 1 of the 10 operations. Of these patients, 468 236 (30.3%) underwent procedures in the 15 states without certificate of need regulations and 1 077 716 (69.7%) in the 35 states with certificate of need regulations. The total number of procedures ranged between 729 855 total knee arthroplasties (47.21%) and 4558 esophagectomies (0.29%). When comparing states without vs with certificate of need regulations, there were no significant differences in overall hospital procedural volume (median hospital procedure volume, 241 vs 272 operations per hospital for 3 years; absolute difference, 31; 95% CI, -27.64 to 89.64; P = .30). There were no statistically significant differences between states without vs with certificate of need regulations for median hospital market share (median, 28% vs 52%; absolute difference, 24%; 95% CI, -5% to 55%; P = .11); procedure rates per 10 000 Medicare-eligible population (median, 239.23 vs 205.41 operations per Medicare-eligible population in 3 years; absolute difference, 33.82; 95% CI, -84.08 to 16.43; P = .19); or 30-day mortality (1.17% vs 1.33%, odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.16; P = .52), surgical site infection (1.24% vs 1.25%; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.04; P = .21), or readmission rate (9.69% vs 8.40%; OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.12; P = .19).Conclusions and relevanceAmong Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a range of surgical procedures from 2016 through 2018, there were no significant differences in markers of hospital volume or quality between states without vs with certificate of need laws. Policy makers should consider reevaluating whether the current approach to certificate of need regulation is achieving the intended objectives and whether those objectives should be updated.

Dataset Information

Association Between Hospital Performance Metrics and Market Share.

Publications

Association Between Hospital Performance Metrics and Market Share.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets