Comparing Outcomes and Costs of Medical Patients Treated at Major Teaching and Non-teaching Hospitals: A National Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Teaching hospitals typically pioneer investment in new technology and cultivate workforce characteristics generally associated with better quality, but the value of this extra investment is unclear. OBJECTIVE: Compare outcomes and costs between major teaching and non-teaching hospitals by closely matching on patient characteristics. DESIGN: Medicare patients at 339 major teaching hospitals (resident-to-bed (RTB) ratios ≥ 0.25); matched patient controls from 2439 non-teaching hospitals (RTB ratios < 0.05). PARTICIPANTS: Forty-three thousand nine hundred ninety pairs of patients (one from a major teaching hospital and one from a non-teaching hospital) admitted for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), 84,985 pairs admitted for heart failure (HF), and 74,947 pairs admitted for pneumonia (PNA). EXPOSURE: Treatment at major teaching hospitals versus non-teaching hospitals. MAIN MEASURES: Thirty-day all-cause mortality, readmissions, ICU utilization, costs, payments, and value expressed as extra cost for a 1% improvement in survival. KEY RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was lower in teaching than non-teaching hospitals (10.7% versus 12.0%, difference = - 1.3%, P < 0.0001). The paired cost difference (teaching - non-teaching) was $273 (P < 0.0001), yielding $211 per 1% mortality improvement. For the quintile of pairs with highest risk on admission, mortality differences were larger (24.6% versus 27.6%, difference = - 3.0%, P < 0.0001), and paired cost difference = $1289 (P < 0.0001), yielding $427 per 1% mortality improvement at 30 days. Readmissions and ICU utilization were lower in teaching hospitals (both P < 0.0001), but length of stay was longer (5.5 versus 5.1 days, P < 0.0001). Finally, individual results for AMI, HF, and PNA showed similar findings as in the combined results. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among Medicare patients admitted for common medical conditions, 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.

Comparing Outcomes and Costs of Surgical Patients Treated at Major Teaching and Nonteaching Hospitals: A National Matched Analysis.

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.

Rationing in the intensive care unit: to disclose or disguise?

INTRODUCTION: Growing pressures to ration intensive care unit beds and services pose novel challenges to clinicians. Whereas the question of how to allocate scarce intensive care unit resources has received much attention, the question of whether to disclose these decisions to patients and surrogates has not been explored. KEY CONSIDERATIONS: We explore how considerations of professionalism, dual agency, patients' and surrogates' preferences, beneficence, and healthcare efficiency and efficacy influence the propriety of disclosing rationing decisions in the intensive care unit. CONCLUSIONS: There are compelling conceptual reasons to support a policy of routine disclosure. Systematic disclosure of prevailing intensive care unit norms for making allocation decisions, and of at least the most consequential specific decisions, can promote transparent, professional, and effective healthcare delivery. However, many empiric questions about how best to structure and implement disclosure processes remain to be answered. Specifically, research is needed to determine how best to operationalize disclosure processes so as to maximize prospective benefits to patients and surrogates and minimize burdens on clinicians and intensive care units.

Positive and negative spillovers of the Health Disparities Collaboratives in federally qualified health centers: staff perceptions.

INTRODUCTION: Quality improvement (QI) interventions are usually evaluated for their intended effect; little is known about whether they generate significant positive or negative spillovers. METHODS: We mailed a 39-item self-administered survey to the 1256 staff at 135 federally qualified health centers (FQHC) implementing the Health Disparities Collaboratives (HDC), a large-scale QI collaborative intervention. We asked about the extent to which the HDC yielded improvements or detriments beyond its condition(s) of focus, particularly for non-HDC aspects of patient care and FQHC function. RESULTS: Response rate was 68.7%. The HDC was perceived to improve non-HDC patient care and general FQHC functioning more often than it was regarded as diminishing them. In all, 45% of respondents indicated that the HDC improved the quality of care for chronic conditions not being emphasized by the HDC; 5% responded that the HDC diminished that quality. Seventy-five percent stated that the HDC improved care provided to patients with multiple chronic conditions; 4% signified that the HDC diminished it. Fifty-five percent of respondents indicated that the HDC improved their FQHC's ability to move patients through their center, and 80% indicated that the HDC improved their FQHC's QI plan as a whole; 8% and 2% indicated that the HDC diminished these, respectively. DISCUSSION: On balance, the HDC was perceived to yield more positive spillovers than negative ones. This QI intervention appears to have generated effects beyond its condition of focus; QI's unintended effects should be included in evaluations to develop a better understanding of QI's net impact.

Sustaining quality improvement in community health centers: perceptions of leaders and staff.

The Health Disparities Collaboratives are the largest national quality improvement (QI) initiatives in community health centers. This article identifies the incentives and assistance personnel believe are necessary to sustain QI. In 2004, 1006 survey respondents (response rate 67%) at 165 centers cited lack of resources, time, and staff burnout as common barriers. Release time was the most desired personal incentive. The highest funding priorities were direct patient care services (44% ranked no. 1), data entry (34%), and staff time for QI (26%). Participants also needed help with patient self-management (73%), information systems (77%), and getting providers to follow guidelines (64%).

The cost consequences of improving diabetes care: the community health center experience.

BACKGROUND: Despite significant interest in the business case for quality improvement (QI), there are few evaluations of the impact of QI programs on outpatient organizations. The financial impact of the Health Disparities Collaboratives (HDC), a national QI program conducted in community health centers (HCs), was examined. METHODS: Chief executive officers (CEOs) from health centers in two U.S. regions that participated in the Diabetes HDC (N = 74) were surveyed. In case studies of five selected centers, program costs/revenues, clinical costs/revenues, overall center financial health, and indirect costs/benefits were assessed. RESULTS: CEOs were divided on the HDC's overall effect on finances (38%, worsened; 48%, no change; 14%, improved). Case studies showed that the HDC represented a new administrative cost ($6-$22/patient, year 1) without a regular revenue source. In centers with billing data, the balance of diabetes-related clinical costs/revenues and payor mix did not clearly worsen or improve with the program's start. The most commonly mentioned indirect benefits were improved chronic illness care and enhanced staff morale. DISCUSSION: CEO perceptions of the overall financial impact of the HDC vary widely; the case studies illustrate the numerous factors that may influence these perceptions. Whether the identified balance of costs and benefits is generalizable or sustainable will have to be addressed to optimally design financial reimbursement and incentives.

The perceived financial impact of quality improvement efforts in community health centers.

We administered surveys to 100 chief executive officers (CEOs) of community health centers to determine their perceptions of the financial impact of the Health Disparities Collaboratives, a national quality improvement initiative. One third of the CEOs believed that the HDC had a negative financial impact on their health center, and this perception was significantly correlated with centers having a higher proportion of uninsured patients. Performance-based payment incentives may improve care but may also add new financial burdens to facilities that treat the uninsured population. As such, a provider's payer mix may need to be considered in the design of QI programs if they are to be sustainable.

The cost-effectiveness of improving diabetes care in U.S. federally qualified community health centers.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of improving diabetes care with the Health Disparities Collaborative (HDC), a national collaborative quality improvement (QI) program conducted in community health centers (HCs). DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Data regarding the impact of the Diabetes HDC program came from a serial cross-sectional follow-up study (1998, 2000, 2002) of the program in 17 Midwestern HCs. Data inputs for the simulation model of diabetes came from the latest clinical trials and epidemiological studies. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a societal cost-effectiveness analysis, incorporating data from QI program evaluation into a Monte Carlo simulation model of diabetes. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Data on diabetes care processes and risk factor levels were extracted from medical charts of randomly selected patients. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: From 1998 to 2002, multiple processes of care (e.g., glycosylated hemoglobin testing [HbA1C] [71-->92 percent] and ACE inhibitor prescribing [33-->55 percent]) and risk factor levels (e.g., 1998 mean HbA1C 8.53 percent, mean difference 0.45 percent [95 percent confidence intervals -0.72, -0.17]) improved significantly. With these improvements, the HDC was estimated to reduce the lifetime incidence of blindness (17-->15 percent), end-stage renal disease (18-->15 percent), and coronary artery disease (28-->24 percent). The average improvement in quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was 0.35 and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $33,386/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: During the first 4 years of the HDC, multiple improvements in diabetes care were observed. If these improvements are maintained or enhanced over the lifetime of patients, the HDC program will be cost-effective for society based on traditionally accepted thresholds.

Estimating costs of quality improvement for outpatient healthcare organisations: a practical methodology.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient healthcare organisations worldwide participate in quality improvement (QI) programmes. Despite the importance of understanding the financial impact of such programmes, there are no established standard methods for empirically assessing QI programme costs and their consequences for small outpatient healthcare organisations. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: The costs and cost consequences were evaluated for a diabetes QI programme implemented throughout the USA in federally qualified community health centres. For five case study centres, survey instruments and methods for data analysis were developed. RESULTS: Two types of cost/revenue were evaluated. Direct costs/revenues, such as personnel time, items purchased and grants received, were evaluated using self-administered surveys. Cost/revenue consequences, which were cost/revenue changes that may have occurred due to changes in patient utilisation or physician behaviour, were evaluated using electronic billing data. Other methods for evaluating cost/revenue consequences if electronic billing data are not available are also discussed. CONCLUSION: This paper describes a practical taxonomy and method for assessing the costs and revenues of QI programmes for outpatient organisations. Results of such analyses will be useful for healthcare organisations implementing QI programmes and also for policy makers designing incentives for QI participation.