RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes and costs between major teaching and nonteaching hospitals on a national scale by closely matching on patient procedures and characteristics. BACKGROUND: Teaching hospitals have been shown to often have better quality than nonteaching hospitals, but cost and value associated with teaching hospitals remains unclear. METHODS: A study of Medicare patients at 340 teaching hospitals (resident-to-bed ratios ≥ 0.25) and matched patient controls from 2444 nonteaching hospitals (resident-to-bed ratios < 0.05).We studied 86,751 pairs admitted for general surgery (GS), 214,302 pairs of patients admitted for orthopedic surgery, and 52,025 pairs of patients admitted for vascular surgery. RESULTS: In GS, mortality was 4.62% in teaching hospitals versus 5.57%, (a difference of -0.95%, <0.0001), and overall paired cost difference = $915 (P < 0.0001). For the GS quintile of pairs with highest risk on admission, mortality differences were larger (15.94% versus 18.18%, difference = -2.24%, P < 0.0001), and paired cost difference = $3773 (P < 0.0001), yielding $1682 per 1% mortality improvement at 30 days. Patterns for vascular surgery outcomes resembled general surgery; however, orthopedics outcomes did not show significant differences in mortality across teaching and nonteaching environments, though costs were higher at teaching hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare patients, as admission risk of mortality increased, the absolute mortality benefit of treatment at teaching hospitals also increased, though accompanied by marginally higher cost. Major teaching hospitals appear to return good value for the extra resources used in general surgery, and to some extent vascular surgery, but this was not apparent in orthopedic surgery.
Asunto(s)
Economía Hospitalaria , Costos de Hospital , Hospitales de Enseñanza/economía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Operativos/economía , Anciano , Costos y Análisis de Costo , Femenino , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Humanos , Masculino , Medicare/economía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Operativos/mortalidad , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Coronary atherosclerosis raises the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and is usually included in AMI risk-adjustment models. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not cause atherosclerosis, but may contribute to the notation of atherosclerosis in administrative claims. We investigated how adjustment for atherosclerosis affects rankings of hospitals that perform PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 414 715 Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for AMI between 2009 and 2011. The outcome was 30-day mortality. Regression models determined the association between patient characteristics and mortality. Rankings of the 100 largest PCI and non-PCI hospitals were assessed with and without atherosclerosis adjustment. Patients admitted to PCI hospitals or receiving interventional cardiology more frequently had an atherosclerosis diagnosis. In adjustment models, atherosclerosis was associated, implausibly, with a 42% reduction in odds of mortality (odds ratio=0.58, P<0.0001). Without adjustment for atherosclerosis, the number of expected lives saved by PCI hospitals increased by 62% (P<0.001). Hospital rankings also changed: 72 of the 100 largest PCI hospitals had better ranks without atherosclerosis adjustment, while 77 of the largest non-PCI hospitals had worse ranks (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Atherosclerosis is almost always noted in patients with AMI who undergo interventional cardiology but less often in medically managed patients, so adjustment for its notation likely removes part of the effect of interventional treatment. Therefore, hospitals performing more extensive imaging and more PCIs have higher atherosclerosis diagnosis rates, making their patients appear healthier and artificially reducing the expected mortality rate against which they are benchmarked. Thus, atherosclerosis adjustment is detrimental to hospitals providing more thorough AMI care.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/terapia , Infarto del Miocardio/terapia , Evaluación de Procesos y Resultados en Atención de Salud/normas , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/normas , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud/normas , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Comorbilidad , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/mortalidad , Femenino , Estado de Salud , Humanos , Masculino , Medicare , Infarto del Miocardio/diagnóstico por imagen , Infarto del Miocardio/mortalidad , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/efectos adversos , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/mortalidad , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To develop a method to allow a hospital to compare its performance using its entire patient population to the outcomes of very similar patients treated elsewhere. DATA SOURCES/SETTING: Medicare claims in orthopedics and common general, gynecologic, and urologic surgery from Illinois, New York, and Texas from 2004 to 2006. STUDY DESIGN: Using two example "focal" hospitals, each hospital's patients were matched to 10 very similar patients selected from 619 other hospitals. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: All patients were used at each focal hospital, and we found the 10 closest matched patients from control hospitals with exactly the same principal procedure as each focal patient. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We achieved exact matches on all procedures and very close matches for other patient characteristics for both hospitals. There were few to no differences between each hospital's patients and their matched control patients on most patient characteristics, yet large and significant differences were observed for mortality, failure-to-rescue, and cost. CONCLUSION: Indirect standardization matching can produce fair audits of quality and cost, allowing for a comprehensive, transparent, and relevant assessment of all patients at a focal hospital. With this approach, hospitals will be better able to benchmark their performance and determine where quality improvement is most needed.
Asunto(s)
Costos de Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Medicare/estadística & datos numéricos , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud/tendencias , Calidad de la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Benchmarking/métodos , Humanos , Illinois , Modelos Estadísticos , New York , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Riesgo , Texas , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Develop an improved method for auditing hospital cost and quality tailored to a specific hospital's patient population. DATA SOURCES/SETTING: Medicare claims in general, gynecologic and urologic surgery, and orthopedics from Illinois, New York, and Texas between 2004 and 2006. STUDY DESIGN: A template of 300 representative patients from a single index hospital was constructed and used to match 300 patients at 43 hospitals that had a minimum of 500 patients over a 3-year study period. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: From each of 43 hospitals we chose 300 patients most resembling the template using multivariate matching. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found close matches on procedures and patient characteristics, far more balanced than would be expected in a randomized trial. There were little to no differences between the index hospital's template and the 43 hospitals on most patient characteristics yet large and significant differences in mortality, failure-to-rescue, and cost. CONCLUSION: Matching can produce fair, directly standardized audits. From the perspective of the index hospital, "hospital-specific" template matching provides the fairness of direct standardization with the specific institutional relevance of indirect standardization. Using this approach, hospitals will be better able to examine their performance, and better determine why they are achieving the results they observe.
Asunto(s)
Benchmarking/métodos , Auditoría Financiera/métodos , Costos de Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Medicare/economía , Medicare/estadística & datos numéricos , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Calidad de la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Humanos , Illinois , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Modelos Estadísticos , New York , Texas , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Develop an improved method for auditing hospital cost and quality. DATA SOURCES/SETTING: Medicare claims in general, gynecologic and urologic surgery, and orthopedics from Illinois, Texas, and New York between 2004 and 2006. STUDY DESIGN: A template of 300 representative patients was constructed and then used to match 300 patients at hospitals that had a minimum of 500 patients over a 3-year study period. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: From each of 217 hospitals we chose 300 patients most resembling the template using multivariate matching. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The matching algorithm found close matches on procedures and patient characteristics, far more balanced than measured covariates would be in a randomized clinical trial. These matched samples displayed little to no differences across hospitals in common patient characteristics yet found large and statistically significant hospital variation in mortality, complications, failure-to-rescue, readmissions, length of stay, ICU days, cost, and surgical procedure length. Similar patients at different hospitals had substantially different outcomes. CONCLUSION: The template-matched sample can produce fair, directly standardized audits that evaluate hospitals on patients with similar characteristics, thereby making benchmarking more believable. Through examining matched samples of individual patients, administrators can better detect poor performance at their hospitals and better understand why these problems are occurring.