Trends in HCAHPS Survey Scores, 2008-2019: A Quality Improvement Perspective.

BACKGROUND: HCAHPS' 2008 initial public reporting, 2012 inclusion in the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program (HVBP), and 2015 inclusion in Hospital Star Ratings were intended to improve patient experiences. OBJECTIVES: Characterize pre-COVID-19 (2008-2019) trends in hospital consumer assessment of healthcare providers and systems (HCAHPS) scores. RESEARCH DESIGN: Describe HCAHPS score trends overall, by phase: (1) initial public reporting period (2008-2013), (2) first 2 years of HVBP (2013-2015), and (3) initial HCAHPS Star Ratings reporting (2015-2019); and by hospital characteristics (HCAHPS decile, ownership, size, teaching affiliation, and urban/rural). SUBJECTS: A total of 3909 HCAHPS-participating US hospitals. MEASURES: HCAHPS summary score (HCAHPS-SS) and 9 measures. RESULTS: The mean 2007-2019 HCAHPS-SS improvement in most-positive-category ("top-box") responses was +5.2 percentage points/pp across all hospitals (where differences of 5pp, 3pp, and 1pp are "large," "medium," and "small"). Improvement rate was largest in phase 1 (+0.8/pp/year vs. +0.2pp/year and +0.1pp/year for phases 2 and 3, respectively). Improvement was largest for Overall Rating of Hospital (+8.5pp), Discharge Information (+7.3pp), and Nurse Communication (+6.5pp), smallest for Doctor Communication (+0.8pp). Some measures improved notably through phases 2 and 3 (Nurse Communication, Staff Responsiveness, Overall Rating of Hospital), but others slowed or reversed in Phase 3 (Communication about Medicines, Quietness). Bottom-decile hospitals improved more than other hospitals for all measures. CONCLUSIONS: All HCAHPS measures improved rapidly 2008-2013, especially among low-performing (bottom-decile) hospitals, narrowing the range of performance and improving scores overall. This initial improvement may reflect widespread, general quality improvement (QI) efforts in lower-performing hospitals. Subsequent slower improvement following the introduction of HVBP and Star Ratings may have reflected targeted, resource-intensive QI in higher-performing hospitals.

Patient satisfaction and value based purchasing in hospitals, Odisha, India.

Objective: To examine how a general inpatient satisfaction survey functions as a hospital performance measure. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods pilot study of the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Health Providers and Systems survey in Odisha, India. We divided the study into three steps: cognitive testing of the survey, item testing with exploratory factor analysis and content validity indexing. Cognitive testing involved 50 participants discussing their interpretation of survey items. The survey was then administered to 507 inpatients across five public hospitals in Odisha, followed by exploratory factor analysis. Finally, we interviewed 15 individuals to evaluate the content validity of the survey items. Findings: Cognitive testing revealed that six out of 18 survey questions were not consistently understood within the Odisha inpatient setting, highlighting issues around responsibilities for care. Exploratory factor analysis identified a six-factor structure explaining 66.7% of the variance. Regression models showed that interpersonal care from doctors and nurses had the strongest association with overall satisfaction. An assessment of differential item functioning revealed that patients with a socially marginalized caste reported higher disrespectful care, though this did not translate into differences in reported satisfaction. Content validity indexing suggested that discordance between experiences of disrespectful care and satisfaction ratings might be due to low patient expectations. Conclusion: Using satisfaction ratings without nuanced approaches in value-based purchasing programmes may mask poor-quality interpersonal services, particularly for historically marginalized patients. Surveys should be designed to accurately capture true levels of dissatisfaction, ensuring that patient concerns are not hidden.

Health Equity Adjustment and Hospital Performance in the Medicare Value-Based Purchasing Program.

Importance: Medicare's Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program will provide a health equity adjustment (HEA) to hospitals that have greater proportions of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and that offer high-quality care beginning in fiscal year 2026. However, which hospitals will benefit most from this policy change and to what extent are unknown. Objective: To estimate potential changes in hospital performance after HEA and examine hospital patient mix, structural, and geographic characteristics associated with receipt of increased payments. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed all 2676 hospitals participating in the HVBP program in fiscal year 2021. Publicly available data on program performance and hospital characteristics were linked to Medicare claims data on all inpatient stays for dual-eligible beneficiaries at each hospital to calculate HEA points and HVBP payment adjustments. Exposures: Hospital Value-Based Purchasing program HEA. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reclassification of HVBP bonus or penalty status and changes in payment adjustments across hospital characteristics. Results: Of 2676 hospitals participating in the HVBP program in fiscal year 2021, 1470 (54.9%) received bonuses and 1206 (45.1%) received penalties. After HEA, 102 hospitals (6.9%) were reclassified from bonus to penalty status, whereas 119 (9.9%) were reclassified from penalty to bonus status. At the hospital level, mean (SD) HVBP payment adjustments decreased by $4534 ($90 033) after HEA, ranging from a maximum reduction of $1 014 276 to a maximum increase of $1 523 765. At the aggregate level, net-positive changes in payment adjustments were largest among safety net hospitals ($28 971 708) and those caring for a higher proportion of Black patients ($15 468 445). The likelihood of experiencing increases in payment adjustments was significantly higher among safety net compared with non-safety net hospitals (574 of 683 [84.0%] vs 709 of 1993 [35.6%]; adjusted rate ratio [ARR], 2.04 [95% CI, 1.89-2.20]) and high-proportion Black hospitals compared with non-high-proportion Black hospitals (396 of 523 [75.7%] vs 887 of 2153 [41.2%]; ARR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.29-1.51]). Rural hospitals (374 of 612 [61.1%] vs 909 of 2064 [44.0%]; ARR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.30-1.58]), as well as those located in the South (598 of 1040 [57.5%] vs 192 of 439 [43.7%]; ARR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.10-1.42]) and in Medicaid expansion states (801 of 1651 [48.5%] vs 482 of 1025 [47.0%]; ARR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.06-1.28]), were also more likely to experience increased payment adjustments after HEA compared with their urban, Northeastern, and Medicaid nonexpansion state counterparts, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Medicare's implementation of HEA in the HVBP program will significantly reclassify hospital performance and redistribute program payments, with safety net and high-proportion Black hospitals benefiting most from this policy change. These findings suggest that HEA is an important strategy to ensure that value-based payment programs are more equitable.

Demonstrating proof of concept for value-based agreements in Europe: two real-world cases.

OBJECTIVES: Value-based agreements (VBAs) link access, reimbursement, or price to the real-world usage and impact of a medicine, thereby enabling patient access while reducing clinical or financial uncertainty for the payer. VBAs have the potential to support improved patient outcomes, given the value-oriented approach to care, and lead to overall savings, while enabling payers to share risk and reduce uncertainty. METHODS: This commentary outlines the key challenges, enablers, and a framework for successful implementation by comparing the experience of two VBAs for AstraZeneca medicines, aiming to increase confidence in their future use. RESULTS: Engagement by payers, manufacturers, physicians, and provider institutions, and robust data collection systems that are accessible, simple to use, and add little burden to physicians were key to successfully negotiating a VBA that worked for all stakeholders. In both country systems, a legal/policy framework enabled innovative contracting. CONCLUSIONS: These examples demonstrate proof of concept for VBA implementation in different settings, and may inform future VBAs.

The role of community-level characteristics in comparing United States hospital performance by magnet designation: A propensity score matched study.

AIMS: To assess the impact of community-level characteristics on the role of magnet designation in relation to hospital value-based purchasing quality scores, as health disparities associated with geographical location could confound hospitals' ability to meet outcome metrics. DESIGN: This cross-sectional study was carried out between October 2021 and March 2022 using data from 2016 to 2021. METHODS: Propensity score analysis was used to match hospital and community-level characteristics, implementing nearest neighbour matching to adjust for pre-treatment differences between magnet and non-magnet hospitals to account for multi-level differences. Secondary data were obtained from all operational acute-care facilities in the United States that participated in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' hospital value-based purchasing (HVBP) program. Dependent variables were the four value-based purchasing domains that comprise the Total Performance Score (TPS; Clinical Care, Person and Community Engagement, Safety, and Efficiency and Cost Reduction). RESULTS: Magnet hospitals had increased odds for better scores in the HVBP domains of Clinical Care and Person and Community Engagement, and decreased odds for having better Safety. However, no statistically significant difference was found for the Efficiency domain or the TPS. CONCLUSION: Measuring performance equitably across organizations of various sizes serving diverse communities remains a key factor in ensuring distributive justice. Analysing the TPS components can identify complex influences of community-level characteristics not evident at the composite level. More research is needed where community and nurse-level factors may indirectly affect patient safety. IMPACT: This study's findings on the role of community contexts can inform policymakers designing value-based care programs and healthcare management administrators deliberating on magnet certification investments across diverse community settings. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: For this study of US hospitals' organizational performance, we did not engage members of the patient population nor the general public. However, the multi-disciplinary research team does include diverse perspectives.

Coaching to Bedside Shift Report and Its Correlation to Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems and Value-Based Purchasing Dimension Scores: A Multihospital Implementation Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this multihospital study was to investigate how the intervention of coaching to bedside shift report (BSR) correlates with Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) outcomes and relates to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program points over a 4-year period (2017-2020) for an acute care hospital health system. BACKGROUND: Hospital leaders' responsibilities include intertwined areas of patient experience and fiscal accountability. Coaching to BSR is reported to have numerous benefits to the patient's experience. Published studies completed with hospital systems evaluating the intervention of coaching to BSR and how it correlated to patient experience and VBP are limited. METHODS: Coaching to BSR was implemented at 16 adult acute care hospitals. Patient-reported BSR rates were collected in tandem with HCAHPS for 4 years. Statistical correlations were assessed between patient-reported BSR and HCAHPS and consequential effect on VBP dimension scores. RESULTS: Coaching to BSR had a significant impact on top- and bottom-box "rate the hospital" HCAHPS scores at a system and hospital level. Value-based purchasing points and percentages increased over 2017-2020, potentially leading to lower CMS penalty claims over the period the BSR was implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Coaching is a key factor when creating a favorable patient experience. The implementation and sustainability of coaching to BSR may result in improved patient experience ratings and increase VBP point accumulation to hospital systems.

Were hospitals with sustained high performance more successful at reducing mortality during the pandemic's second wave?

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic emerged. Variation in COVID-19 patient outcomes between hospitals was later reported. PURPOSE: This study aims to determine whether sustainers-hospitals with sustained high performance on Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Total Performance Score (HVBP-TPS)-more effectively responded to the pandemic and therefore had better patient outcomes. METHODOLOGY: We calculated hospital-specific risk-standardized event rates using deidentified patient-level data from the UnitedHealth Group Clinical Discovery Database. HVBP-TPS from 2016 to 2019 were obtained from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Hospital characteristics were obtained from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database (2019), and county-level predictors were obtained from the Area Health Resource File. We use a repeated-measures regression model assuming an AR(1) type correlation structure to test whether sustainers had lower mortality rates than nonsustainers during the first wave (spring 2020) and the second wave (October to December 2020) of the pandemic. RESULTS: Sustainers did not have significantly lower COVID-19 mortality rates during the first wave of the pandemic, but they had lower COVID-19 mortality rates during the second wave compared to nonsustainers. Larger hospitals, teaching hospitals, and hospitals with higher occupancy rates had higher mortality rates. CONCLUSION: During the first wave of the pandemic, mortality rates did not differ between sustainers and nonsustainers. However, sustainers had lower mortality rates than nonsustainers in the second wave, most likely because of their knowledge management capabilities and existing structures and resources that enable them to develop new processes and routines to care for patients in times of crisis. Therefore, a consistently high level of performance over the years on HVBP-TPS is associated with high levels of performance on COVID-19 patient outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Investing in identifying the knowledge, processes, and resources that foster the dynamic capabilities needed to achieve superior performance in HVBP might enable hospitals to utilize these capabilities to adapt more effectively to future changes and uncertainty.

Is Skilled Nursing Facility Financial Status Related to Readmission Rate Improvement?

GOAL: We examined whether higher skilled nursing facility (SNF) lagged profitability is associated with a lower 30-day all-cause all-payer risk-adjusted hospital readmission rate. Our aim was to provide insight into whether SNFs with limited financial resources are able to respond to incentives to lower their readmission rates to hospitals. METHODS: We used data from 2012-2016 to estimate a fixed effects (FE) model with a time trend. Our data included financial data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Healthcare Cost Report Information System SNF cost reports, facility characteristics including the all-cause all-payer risk-adjusted unplanned 30-day readmission rate from the LTCFocus (Long-Term Care Focus) project at Brown University, and county-level market variables from the Area Health Resource File. We also examined the relationship for a shorter time frame (2012-2015) after stratifying the sample by system membership or ownership. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: SNFs with an increase in the lagged operating margin showed a statistically significant, small decrease (<.01 percentage point) in the risk-adjusted readmission rate. The results were robust for different time periods and model specifications. Fixed effects model estimates for SNFs in the highest quartile of percentage of Medicaid patients (≥73.9%) had a lagged operating margin coefficient that is almost four times as large as the coefficient of the FE model with all SNFs. APPLICATION TO PRACTICE: SNFs have an important role in achieving the national priority of reducing hospital readmissions. The study findings suggest that managers of SNFs should not see low profitability as an obstacle to reducing readmission rates, which is good news given the low average profitability of SNFs. Further, reductions in profitability due to penalties incurred from the recently implemented Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility Value-Based Purchasing Program may not limit SNFs' ability to lower hospital readmission rates, at least initially. However, policymakers may need to determine whether additional resources to high Medicaid SNFs can lower readmission rates for these SNFs.

Leveraging Value-Based Purchasing to Improve Advance Care Planning.

Advance care planning (ACP) is an important component of person-centered care for older adults in nursing facilities. Although nursing facilities have a statutory obligation to offer ACP to residents, there are no minimum training requirements for staff. Lack of consistent ACP training contributes to significant variability in ACP conversation quality, inaccurate or incomplete documentation of preferences, and infrequent re-evaluation of prior decisions. Indiana added ACP training for nursing facility staff to the Value-Based Purchasing formula for 2019. Facilities received 5 points (of a 100-point total formula) if at least one staff member completed the designated ACP training during the year. ACP Foundations Training was developed by faculty at Indiana University and made available to all Indiana nursing facilities. A total of 1,087 participants, representing 94.2% (501 of 532) Indiana nursing facilities, completed the training. Approximately every participant (99.4%) agreed that the training had practical value. This academic-government partnership was successful in providing basic information about ACP to staff at most nursing facilities across Indiana and offers a model for states to provide critical educational content to nursing facility staff by incentivizing training. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 48(2), 31-35.].

Radiology in the Era of Value-based Healthcare: A Multi-Society Expert Statement from the ACR, CAR, ESR, IS3R, RANZCR, and RSNA.

Background The Value-Based Healthcare (VBH) concept is designed to improve individual healthcare outcomes without increasing expenditure, and is increasingly being used to determine resourcing of and reimbursement for medical services. Radiology is a major contributor to patient and societal healthcare at many levels. Despite this, some VBH models do not acknowledge radiology's central role; this may have future negative consequences for resource allocation. Methods, findings and interpretation This multi-society paper, representing the views of Radiology Societies in Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, describes the place of radiology in VBH models and the health-care value contributions of radiology. Potential steps to objectify and quantify the value contributed by radiology to healthcare are outlined. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

First Year of Skilled Nursing Facility Value-based Purchasing Program Penalizes Facilities With Poorer Financial Performance.

BACKGROUND: The Skilled Nursing Facility Value-based Purchasing Program (SNF-VBP) incentivizes facilities to coordinate care, improve quality, and lower hospital readmissions. However, SNF-VBP may unintentionally punish facilities with lower profit margins struggling to invest resources to lower readmissions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the SNF-VBP penalty amounts by skilled nursing facility (SNF) profit margin quintiles and examine whether facilities with lower profit margins are more likely to be penalized by SNF-VBP. RESEARCH DESIGN: We combined the first round of SNF-VBP performance data with SNF profit margins and characteristics data. Our outcome variables included estimated penalty amount and a binary measure for whether facilities were penalized by the SNF-VBP. We categorized SNFs into 5 profit margin quintiles and examined the relationship between profit margins and SNF-VBP performance using descriptive and regression analysis. RESULTS: The average profit margins for SNFs in the lowest profit margin quintile was -14.4% compared with the average profit margin of 11.1% for SNFs in the highest profit margin quintile. In adjusted regressions, SNFs in the lowest profit margin quintile had 17% higher odds of being penalized under SNF-VBP compared with facilities in the highest profit margin quintile. The average penalty for SNFs in the lowest profit margin quintile was $22,312. CONCLUSIONS: SNFs in the lowest profit margins are more likely to be penalized by the SNF-VBP, and these losses can exacerbate quality problems in SNFs with lower quality. Alternative approaches to measuring and rewarding SNFs under SNF-VBP or programs to assist struggling SNFs is warranted, particularly considering the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, which requires resources for prevention and management.

Magnet Hospitals and 30-Day Readmission and Mortality Rates for Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: US hospitals are penalized for excess 30-day readmissions and mortality for select conditions. Under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services policy, readmission prevention is incentivized to a greater extent than mortality reduction. A strategy to potentially improve hospital performance on either measure is by improving nursing care, as nurses provide the largest amount of direct patient care. However, little is known as to whether achieving nursing excellence, such as Magnet status, is associated with improved hospital performance on readmissions and mortality. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between hospitals' Magnet status and performance on readmission and mortality rates for Medicare beneficiaries. RESEARCH DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional analysis of Medicare readmissions and mortality reduction programs from 2013 to 2016. A propensity score-matching approach was used to take into account differences in baseline characteristics when comparing Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals. SUBJECTS: The sample was comprised of 3877 hospitals. MEASURES: The outcome measures were 30-day risk-standardized readmission and mortality rates. RESULTS: Following propensity score matching on hospital characteristics, we found that Magnet hospitals outperformed non-Magnet hospitals in reducing mortality; however, Magnet hospitals performed worse in reducing readmissions for acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting, and stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Magnet hospitals performed better on the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Mortality Program than the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. The results of this study suggest the need for The Magnet Recognition Program to examine the role of nurses in postdischarge activities as a component of its evaluation criteria.

Leveraging the Similarities Between Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Value-Based Healthcare.

OBJECTIVES: This article aims to explore overlaps and differences between the emerging concept of value-based healthcare (VBHC) and the established field of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), as well as the feasibility of integrating them together. Interest in VBHC has grown significantly in developed countries that seek to preserve the sustainability of their healthcare systems. Consequently, it is likely that VBHC will soon play a meaningful role in health economic policy and decision making. Because VBHC and CEA share many similarities, academics have pointed out that integration could lead to opportunities for improvements in both fields. METHODS: An exploration of overlapping topics in VBHC and CEA literature was performed to establish initial links between them. A new methodologic approach is described to consolidate key value frameworks from the respective fields. RESULTS: Several key themes emerged in which these 2 concepts can reinforce each other: interpretation of value, sensitivity to outcome changes, scientific credibility, methodology and measurement, and usability in decision making. Subsequently, an initial method is described of how the VBHC framework for value could be integrated into CEA through a so-called value-based healthcare quality-adjusted life year (VBHC-QALY). CONCLUSION: This article introduces the existing VBHC value framework to the cornerstone of modern CEA and substantiates the presumption of health economists that valuable synergies arise from consolidating the individual strengths of CEA and VBHC. Through integration CEA can help establish robust methods for VBHC implementation, while the latter can complement the former with a new viewpoint and conceptual toolbox for patient centricity and the definition of value.

Are Drugs Priced in Accordance With Value? A Comparison of Value-Based and Net Prices Using Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Reports.

OBJECTIVES: The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an independent organization that reviews drugs and devices with a focus on emerging agents. As part of their evaluation, ICER estimates value-based prices (VBP) at $50 000 to $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained thresholds. We compared actual estimated net prices to ICER-estimated VBPs. METHODS: We reviewed ICER final evidence reports from November 2007 to October 2020. List prices were combined with average discounts obtained from SSR Health to estimate net prices. If a drug had been evaluated more than once for the same indication, only the more recent VBP was included. RESULTS: A total of 34 ICER reports provided unique VBPs for 102 drugs. The net price of 81% of drugs exceeded the $100 000 per QALY VBP and 71% exceeded the $150 000 per QALY VBP. The median change in net price needed to reach the $150 000 per QALY VBP was a 36% reduction. The median decrease in net price needed was highest for drugs targeting rare inherited disorders (n = 15; 62%) and lowest for cardiometabolic disorders (n = 6; 162% price increase). The reduction in net prices needed to reach ICER-estimated VBPs was higher for drugs evaluated for the first approved indication, rare diseases, less competitive markets, and if the drug approval occurred before the ICER report became available. CONCLUSION: Net prices are often above VBPs estimated by ICER. Although gaining awareness among decision makers, the long-term impact of ICER evaluations on pricing and access to new drugs continues to evolve.

A Review of Current Approaches to Defining and Valuing Innovation in Health Technology Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: The growing focus on the value of new drugs for patients and society has led to a more differentiated notion of innovation in the context of pharmaceutical products. The goal of this article is to provide an overview of the current debate about the definition and assessment of innovation and how innovation is considered in reimbursement and pricing decisions. METHODS: To compile the relevant literature, we followed a 2-step approach. First, we searched for peer-reviewed literature that deals with the definition of pharmaceutical innovation. Second, we reviewed health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines of 11 selected countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Sweden, and The Netherlands) regarding aspects of innovation that are currently considered as relevant by the respective HTA bodies. RESULTS: All countries in our sample use 1 of 2 types of reward mechanism for novel drugs that they consider provide some sort of benefit. Generally, the focus is on the therapeutic benefit of a drug, whereas, depending on the exact arrangement, other aspects can also be taken into account. A reduction in side effects and aspects of treatment convenience can be invoked in some of the countries. Mostly, however, they are not considered unless they are already captured in the clinical outcomes used to measure the therapeutic benefit. CONCLUSION: Our review shows that although the health economic literature discusses a range of aspects on how innovation may generate value even without providing an immediate added therapeutic benefit (or on top of it), these are only selectively considered in the reviewed HTA guidelines. For most part, only the added therapeutic value is crucial when it comes to pricing and reimbursement decisions.

Discrete choice experiment on educating value-based healthcare.

INTRODUCTION: Identifying costs and values in healthcare interventions as well as the ability to measure and consider costs relative to value for patients are pivotal in clinical decision-making and medical education. This study explores residents' preferences in educating value-based healthcare (VBHC) during postgraduate medical education. Exploring residents' preferences in VBHC education, in order to understand what shapes their choices, might contribute to improved medical residency education and healthcare as a whole. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) examined which conditions for educating VBHC are preferred by residents. DCE gives more insight into the trade-off's residents make when choosing alternatives, and which conditions for educating VBHC have the most influence on residents' preference. RESULTS: This DCE shows that residents prefer knowledge on both medical practice as well as the process of care-to be educated by an expert on VBHC together with a clinician. They prefer limited protected time to conduct VBHC initiatives (thus while at work) and desire the inclusion of VBHC in formal educational plans. CONCLUSION: When optimising graduate and postgraduate medical education curricula, these preferences should be considered to create necessary conditions for the facilitation and participation of residents in VBHC education and the set-up of VBHC initiatives.

Differences in Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) Scores for a Single Surgeon Comparing Two Institutions: An Unfair Reimbursement Metric.

BACKGROUND: Emphasis on value-based purchasing links physician financial remuneration to patient-derived outcome scores. Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) surveys aim to provide a uniform comparison tool. Of the 22 different survey questions, only 3 (13.6%) focus on experience related to doctors. We sought to determine how HCAHPS scores differ for a single surgeon performing more than 500 total joint arthroplasties annually, divided almost equally between two centers. METHODS: HCAHPS data from 2015 to 2018 for a single, fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeon were collected from two different hospitals. More than 200 cases were performed at each center with the same staff. One center is a large metropolitan academic-teaching hospital, and the other is a suburban private hospital. The purpose of the study was to determine if differences existed regarding HCHAPS scores between the two institutions. RESULTS: A significant difference was found between institutions regarding questions pertaining to "hospital environment," "admission process," and "hospital staff concern for pain," with more patients responding favorably in Institution Two than Institution One. CONCLUSION: Patient perceptions and ratings of overall experience differ significantly between hospitals even when surgery is performed by a single surgeon. These results lend credence to the fact that surgeons should not be unduly penalized for the hospital in which they operate, and financial remuneration involving HCAHPS scores must be approached with caution. This unfair system could potentially drive surgeons to perform the majority of their cases in the hospital system with higher scores in the nonphysician related domains as this would affect overall patient satisfaction, and thus, financial compensation.

Race to the Top of the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Medicare's Hospital Valued-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program measures hospitals' total performance score (TPS); its measurement strategies have changed regularly since its rollout in 2013. Because the program influences care delivery, it is important to examine how the policy has changed hospitals' behavior and how it may inform future policies. The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between hospitals' performance on TPS annually from 2013 to 2018 and organizational characteristics. Using the HVBP TPS from 2013 to 2018 and associated hospital characteristics-hospital size, teaching hospital status, system membership, ownership type, urban/rural location, average percentages of patients from Medicare and Medicaid, operating margins, percentages of inpatient revenue as a proportion of total revenue, and case mix index-we conducted a retrospective cohort study of all U.S. hospitals participating in the HVBP program. Regression and panel analyses found that organizations that were expected to have robust and rigid resources were unable to score in the superior category consistently. In addition, organizations were unable to consistently perform positively over time because of changes in the HVBP program measurement and the required organizational responses. Policymakers should consider the ability of organizations to respond to changes to the HVBP program. Likewise, healthcare managers, particularly those in larger organizations, should seek to remove bureaucracy or allow for greater resource slack to meet these changes.

A reason to renovate: The association between hospital age of plant and value-based purchasing performance.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Value-based purchasing (VBP) is increasing in influence in the health care industry; however, questions remain regarding the structural factors associated with improved performance. This study evaluates the association between age of hospital infrastructure and VBP outcomes. METHODOLOGY: Data on 1,911 hospitals from three sources (the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database, the American Hospital Association DataViewer Financial Module, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital VBP Total Performance Scores data set) were evaluated. Age of health care facilities was represented by the "average age of plant" financial ratio. VBP performance was measured by an aggregate Total Performance Score composed of four equally weighted domains, including Efficiency and Cost Reduction, Clinical Care, Patient- and Caregiver-Centered Experience, and Patient Safety. We hypothesize that average age of plant is negatively correlated with each of these measures. RESULTS: Hospitals within the lowest quartile of average age of plant (0-8.13 years) were found to have a total Performance Score of 2.35 points higher than hospitals with a an average age of plant in the fourth quartile (14.63 years and above; R = 21.5%; p < .001) while controlling for hospital ownership, size, teaching status, geographic location, service mix, case mix, length of stay, community served, and labor force relative cost. Comparable results were found within the VBP domains, specifically for Clinical Care (ß = 4.09, p < .001) and Patient Experience (ß = 3.41, p < .001). Findings for the Patient Safety and Efficiency domains were not significant. A secondary and more granular examination of capitalized assets indicates organizations with higher building asset accumulated depreciation per bed in service were associated with lower total performance (ß = -.25, p < .001), Clinical Care (ß = -.31, p < .05), and Patient Experience scores (ß = -.45, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide evidence of an inverse association between a hospital's age of plant and specific elements of VBP performance. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To date, no studies have investigated the relationship between hospital age of plant and value-based care. The results of our study may serve as supportive foundational evidence for health care leaders to target future capital investments to improve VBP outcomes.

An innovation procurement clinical framework: A qualitative study.

Innovation Procurement Strategies (IPS) strive for purchasing healthcare solutions that do not yet exist on the market and are increasingly being advocated to improve health outcomes while managing escalating healthcare costs. Due to the newness of IPS, there are limited resources available to healthcare organizations and professionals looking to engage in IPS. The purpose of this study was to develop an evidence-based clinical framework to guide healthcare organizations and professionals. Adopting a qualitative grounded theory approach, we interviewed participants with experience in innovation procurement to understand the skills, resources, and supports needed to initiate and oversee an IPS project. Using thematic design and open coding, three overarching themes emerged from the data and formed the basis of our IPS clinical framework. By describing the components, skills, and supports and resources necessary for engaging in IPS, our framework addresses the knowledge gap in healthcare organizations and professionals wishing to implement IPS.