Association of Dual Eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid With Heart Failure Quality and Outcomes Among Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Hospitals.

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services uses a new peer group-based payment system to compare hospital performance as part of its Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, which classifies hospitals into quintiles based on their share of dual-eligible beneficiaries for Medicare and Medicaid. However, little is known about the association of a hospital's share of dual-eligible beneficiaries with the quality of care and outcomes for patients with heart failure (HF). Objective: To evaluate the association between a hospital's proportion of patients with dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid and HF quality of care and outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study evaluated 436 196 patients hospitalized for HF using the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017. The analysis included patients 65 years or older with available data on dual-eligibility status. Hospitals were divided into quintiles based on their share of dual-eligible patients. Quality and outcomes were analyzed using unadjusted and adjusted multivariable logistic regression models. Data analysis was performed from April 1, 2020, to January 1, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause readmission. The secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, 30-day HF readmissions, 30-day all-cause mortality, and HF process of care measures. Results: A total of 436 196 hospitalized HF patients 65 years or older from 535 hospital sites were identified, with 258 995 hospitalized patients (median age, 81 years; interquartile range, 74-87 years) at 455 sites meeting the study criteria and included in the primary analysis. A total of 258 995 HF hospitalizations from 455 sites were included in the primary analysis of the study. Hospitals in the highest dual-eligibility quintile (quintile 5) tended to care for patients who were younger, were more likely to be female, belonged to racial minority groups, or were located in rural areas compared with quintile 1 sites. After multivariable adjustment, hospitals with the highest quintile of dual eligibility were associated with lower rates of key process measures, including evidence-based ß-blocker prescription, measure of left ventricular function, and anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. Differences in clinical outcomes were seen with higher 30-day all-cause (adjusted odds ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.14-1.35) and HF (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.27) readmissions in higher dual-eligible quintile 5 sites compared with quintile 1 sites. Risk-adjusted in-hospital and 30-day mortality did not significantly differ in quintile 1 vs quintile 5 hospitals. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, hospitals with a higher share of dual-eligible patients provided care with lower rates of some of the key HF quality of care process measures and with higher 30-day all-cause or HF readmissions compared with lower dual-eligibility quintile hospitals.

Association of Hospital Racial Composition and Payer Mix With Mortality in Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Background Patient characteristics insufficiently explain disparities in cardiovascular outcomes among hospitalized patients, suggesting a role for community or hospital-level factors. Here, we evaluate the association of hospital racial composition and payer mix with all-cause inpatient mortality for patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods and Results Using the National Inpatient Sample, we identified adult hospitalizations from 2014 with a primary diagnosis of ACS (n=550 005). We divided National Inpatient Sample hospitals into quartiles based on percent of minority (black, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, Native American race/ethnicity) and low-income payer (Medicaid or uninsured) discharges in 2014. We utilized logistic regression to determine whether hospital minority or low-income payer makeup associated with all-cause inpatient mortality among those admitted for ACS . In adjusted models, ACS patients admitted to hospitals with >12.4% to 25.4% (Quartile 2), >25.4% to 44.3% (Q3), and >44.3% (Q4) minority discharges experienced a 14% (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06-1.23), 13% (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04-1.23), and 15% (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04-1.26) increased odds of all-cause inpatient mortality compared with hospitals with ≤12.4% (Q1) minority discharges. ACS patients admitted to hospitals with >18.7% to 25.7% (Q2) and >34.0% (Q4) low-income payer discharges experienced a 9% (OR 1.09, 1.01-1.17) and 9% (OR 1.09, 1.00-1.19) increased odds of all-cause inpatient mortality when compared with hospitals with ≤18.7% (Q1) low-income payer discharges. Conclusions Hospital minority and low-income payer makeup positively associate with odds of all-cause inpatient mortality among patients admitted for acute coronary syndrome.

Hospital-Based Quality Improvement Interventions for Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement initiatives have been developed to improve acute coronary syndrome care largely in high-income country settings. We sought to synthesize the effect size and quality of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies for hospital-based acute coronary syndrome quality improvement interventions on clinical outcomes and process of care measures for their potential implementation in low- and middle-income country settings. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a bibliometric search of databases and trial registers and a hand search in 2016 and performed an updated search in May 2018 and May 2019. We performed data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and quality of evidence assessments in duplicate. We assessed differences in outcomes by study design comparing RCTs to nonrandomized quasi-experimental studies and by country income status. A meta-analysis was not feasible due to substantial, unexplained heterogeneity among the included studies, and thus, we present a qualitative synthesis. We screened 5858 records and included 32 studies (14 RCTs [n=109 763] and 18 nonrandomized quasi-experimental studies [n=54-423]). In-hospital mortality ranged from 2.1% to 4.8% in the intervention groups versus 3.3% to 5.1% in the control groups in 5 RCTs (n=55 942). Five RCTs (n=64 313) reported 3.0% to 31.0% higher rates of reperfusion for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in the intervention groups. The effect sizes for in-hospital and discharge medical therapies in a majority of RCTs were 3.0% to 10.0% higher in the intervention groups. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality evaluated by 4 RCTs (n=42 384), which reported 2.5% to 15.0% versus 5.9% to 22% 30-day mortality rates in the intervention versus control groups. In contrast, nonrandomized quasi-experimental studies reported larger effect sizes compared to RCTs. There were no significant consistent differences in outcomes between high-income and middle-income countries. Low-income countries were not represented in any of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-based acute coronary syndrome quality improvement interventions have a modest effect on process of care measures but not on clinical outcomes with expected differences by study design. Although quality improvement programs have an ongoing and important role for acute coronary syndrome quality of care in high-income country settings, further research will help to identify key components for contextualizing and implementing such interventions to new settings to achieve their desired effects. Systematic Review Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. Unique identifier: CRD42016047604.