RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Limitations in the quality of race-and-ethnicity information in Medicare's data systems constrain efforts to assess disparities in care among older Americans. Using demographic information from standardized patient assessments may be an efficient way to enhance the accuracy and completeness of race-and-ethnicity information in Medicare's data systems, but it is critical to first establish the accuracy of these data as they may be prone to inaccurate observer-reported or third-party-based information. This study evaluates the accuracy of patient-level race-and-ethnicity information included in the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS) submitted by home health agencies. METHODS: We compared 2017-2022 OASIS-D race-and-ethnicity data to gold-standard self-reported information from the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems® survey in a matched sample of 304,804 people with Medicare coverage. We also compared OASIS data to indirect estimates of race-and-ethnicity generated using the Medicare Bayesian Improved Surname and Geocoding (MBISG) 2.1.1 method and to existing Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administrative records. RESULTS: Compared with existing CMS administrative data, OASIS data are far more accurate for Hispanic, Asian American and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and White race-and-ethnicity; slightly less accurate for American Indian or Alaska Native race-and-ethnicity; and similarly accurate for Black race-and-ethnicity. However, MBISG 2.1.1 accuracy exceeds that of both OASIS and CMS administrative data for every racial-and-ethnic category. Patterns of inconsistent reporting of racial-and-ethnic information among people for whom there were multiple observations in the OASIS and Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) datasets suggest that some of the inaccuracies in OASIS data may result from observation-based reporting that lessens correspondence with self-reported data. CONCLUSIONS: When health record data on race-and-ethnicity includes observer-reported information, it can be less accurate than both true self-report and a high-performing imputation approach. Efforts are needed to encourage collection of true self-reported data and explicit record-level data on the source of race-and-ethnicity information.
RESUMO
Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Overall Star Rating is widely used by patients and consumers, and there is continued stakeholder curiosity surrounding the inclusion of a peer grouping step, implemented to the 2021 Overall Star Rating methods. Objective: To calculate hospital star rating scores with and without the peer grouping step, with the former approach stratifying hospitals into 3-, 4-, and 5-measure group peer groups based on the number of measure groups with at least 3 reported measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used Care Compare website data from January 2023 for 3076 hospitals that received a star rating in 2023. Data were analyzed from April 2023 to December 2023. Exposure: Peer grouping vs no peer grouping. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the distribution of star ratings, with 1 star being the lowest-performing hospitals and 5 stars, the highest. Analyses additionally identified the number of hospitals with a higher, lower, or identical star rating with the use of the peer grouping step compared with its nonuse, stratified by certain hospital characteristics. Results: Among 3076 hospitals that received a star rating in 2023, most were nonspecialty (1994 hospitals [64.8%]), nonteaching (1807 hospitals [58.7%]), non-safety net (2326 hospitals [75.6%]), non-critical access (2826 hospitals [91.9%]) hospitals with fewer than 200 beds (1822 hospitals [59.2%]) and located in an urban geographic designations (1935 hospitals [62.9%]). The presence of the peer grouping step resulted in 585 hospitals (19.0%) being assigned a different star rating than if the peer grouping step was absent, including considerably more hospitals receiving a higher star rating (517 hospitals) rather than a lower (68 hospitals) star rating. Hospital characteristics associated with a higher star rating included urbanicity (351 hospitals [67.9%]), non-safety net status (414 hospitals [80.1%]), and fewer than 200 beds (287 hospitals [55.6%]). Collectively, the presence of the peer grouping step supports a like-to-like comparison among hospitals and supports the ability of patients to assess overall hospital quality. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, inclusion of the peer grouping in the CMS star rating method resulted in modest changes in hospital star ratings compared with application of the method without peer grouping. Given improvement in face validity and the close association between the current peer grouping approach and stakeholder needs for peer-comparison, the current CMS Overall Star Rating method allows for durable comparisons in hospital performance.