Changes in Hospital Quality Associated with Hospital Value-Based Purchasing.

BACKGROUND: Starting in fiscal year 2013, the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program introduced quality performance-based adjustments of up to 1% to Medicare reimbursements for acute care hospitals. METHODS: We evaluated whether quality improved more in acute care hospitals that were exposed to HVBP than in control hospitals (Critical Access Hospitals, which were not exposed to HVBP). The measures of quality were composite measures of clinical process and patient experience (measured in units of standard deviations, with a value of 1 indicating performance that was 1 standard deviation [SD] above the hospital mean) and 30-day risk-standardized mortality among patients who were admitted to the hospital for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia. The changes in quality measures after the introduction of HVBP were assessed for matched samples of acute care hospitals (the number of hospitals included in the analyses ranged from 1364 for mortality among patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction to 2615 for mortality among patients admitted for pneumonia) and control hospitals (number of hospitals ranged from 31 to 617). Matching was based on preintervention performance with regard to the quality measures. We evaluated performance over the first 4 years of HVBP. RESULTS: Improvements in clinical-process and patient-experience measures were not significantly greater among hospitals exposed to HVBP than among control hospitals, with difference-in-differences estimates of 0.079 SD (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.140 to 0.299) for clinical process and -0.092 SD (95% CI, -0.307 to 0.122) for patient experience. HVBP was not associated with significant reductions in mortality among patients who were admitted for acute myocardial infarction (difference-in-differences estimate, -0.282 percentage points [95% CI, -1.715 to 1.152]) or heart failure (-0.212 percentage points [95% CI, -0.532 to 0.108]), but it was associated with a significant reduction in mortality among patients who were admitted for pneumonia (-0.431 percentage points [95% CI, -0.714 to -0.148]). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, HVBP was not associated with improvements in measures of clinical process or patient experience and was not associated with significant reductions in two of three mortality measures. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging.).

Association Between Hospitals' Engagement in Value-Based Reforms and Readmission Reduction in the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program.

Importance: Medicare is experimenting with numerous concurrent reforms aimed at improving quality and value for hospitals. It is unclear if these myriad reforms are mutually reinforcing or in conflict with each other. Objective: To evaluate whether hospital participation in voluntary value-based reforms was associated with greater improvement under Medicare's Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP). Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective, longitudinal study using publicly available national data from Hospital Compare on hospital readmissions for 2837 hospitals from 2008 to 2015. We assessed hospital participation in 3 voluntary value-based reforms: Meaningful Use of Electronic Health Records; the Bundled Payment for Care Initiative episode-based payment program (BPCI); and Medicare's Pioneer and Shared Savings accountable care organization (ACO) programs. We used an interrupted time series design to test whether hospitals' time-varying participation in these value-based reforms was associated with greater improvement in Medicare's HRRP. Main Outcomes and Measures: Thirty-day risk standardized readmission rates for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure, and pneumonia. Results: Among the 2837 hospitals in this study, participation in value-based reforms varied considerably over the study period. In 2010, no hospitals were participating in the meaningful use, ACO, or BPCI programs. By 2015, only 56 hospitals were not participating in at least 1 of these programs. Among hospitals that did not participate in any voluntary reforms, the association between the HRRP and 30-day readmission was -0.76 percentage points for AMI (95% CI, -0.93 to -0.60), -1.30 percentage points for heart failure (95% CI, -1.47 to -1.13), and -0.82 percentage points for pneumonia (95% CI, -0.97 to -0.67). Participation in the meaningful use program alone was associated with an additional change in 30-day readmissions of -0.78 percentage points for AMI (95% CI, -0.89 to -0.67), -0.97 percentage points for heart failure (95% CI, -1.08 to -0.86), and -0.56 percentage points for pneumonia (95% CI, -0.65 to -0.47). Participation in ACO programs alone was associated with an additional change in 30-day readmissions of -0.94 percentage points for AMI (95% CI, -1.29 to -0.59), -0.83 percentage points for heart failure (95% CI, -1.26 to -0.41), and -0.59 percentage points for pneumonia (95% CI, -1.00 to -0.18). Participation in multiple reforms led to greater improvement: participation in all 3 programs was associated with an additional change in 30-day readmissions of -1.27 percentage points for AMI (95% CI, -1.58 to -0.97), -1.64 percentage points for heart failure (95% CI, -2.02 to -1.26), and -1.05 percentage points for pneumonia (95% CI, -1.32 to -0.78). Conclusions and Relevance: Hospital participation in voluntary value-based reforms was associated with greater reductions in readmissions. Our findings lend support for Medicare's multipronged strategy to improve hospital quality and value.

Variation in Payment Rates under Medicare's Inpatient Prospective Payment System.

OBJECTIVE: To measure variation in payment rates under Medicare's Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) and identify the main payment adjustments that drive variation. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Medicare cost reports for all Medicare-certified hospitals, 1987-2013, and Dartmouth Atlas geographic files. STUDY DESIGN: We measure the Medicare payment rate as a hospital's total acute inpatient Medicare Part A payment, divided by the standard IPPS payment for its geographic area. We assess variation using several measures, both within local markets and nationally. We perform a factor decomposition to identify the share of variation attributable to specific adjustments. We also describe the characteristics of hospitals receiving different payment rates and evaluate changes in the magnitude of the main adjustments over time. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Data downloaded from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and the Dartmouth Atlas. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In 2013, Medicare paid for acute inpatient discharges at a rate 31 percent above the IPPS base. For the top 10 percent of discharges, the mean rate was double the IPPS base. Variations were driven by adjustments for medical education and care to low-income populations. The magnitude of variation has increased over time. CONCLUSIONS: Adjustments are a large and growing share of Medicare hospital payments, and they create significant variation in payment rates.

Long-term evidence for the effect of pay-for-performance in primary care on mortality in the UK: a population study.

BACKGROUND: Introduced in 2004, the UK's Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) is the world's largest primary care pay-for-performance programme. We tested whether the QOF was associated with reduced population mortality. METHODS: We used population-level mortality statistics between 1994 and 2010 for the UK and other high-income countries that were not exposed to pay-for-performance. The primary outcome was age-adjusted and sex-adjusted mortality per 100,000 people for a composite outcome of chronic disorders that were targeted by the QOF. Secondary outcomes were age-adjusted and sex-adjusted mortality for ischaemic heart disease, cancer, and a composite of all non-targeted conditions. For each study outcome, we created a so-called synthetic UK as a weighted combination of comparison countries. We then estimated difference-in-differences models to test whether mortality fell more in the UK than in the synthetic UK after the QOF. FINDINGS: Introduction of the QOF was not significantly associated with changes in population mortality for the composite outcome (-3.68 per 100,000 population [95% CI -8.16 to 0.80]; p=0.107), ischaemic heart disease (-2.21 per 100,000 [-6.86 to 2.44]; p=0.357), cancer (0.28 per 100,000 [-0.99 to 1.55]; p=0.679), or all non-targeted conditions (11.60 per 100,000 [-3.91 to 27.11]; p=0.143). INTERPRETATION: Although we noted small mortality reductions for a composite outcome of targeted disorders, the QOF was not associated with significant changes in mortality. Our findings have implications for the probable effects of similar programmes on population health outcomes. The relation between incentives and mortality needs to be assessed in specific disease domains. FUNDING: None.