Recovery of renal function among ESRD patients in the US medicare program.

BACKGROUND: Patients started on long term hemodialysis have typically had low rates of reported renal recovery with recent estimates ranging from 0.9-2.4% while higher rates of recovery have been reported in cohorts with higher percentages of patients with acute renal failure requiring dialysis. STUDY DESIGN: Our analysis followed approximately 194,000 patients who were initiated on hemodialysis during a 2-year period (2008 & 2009) with CMS-2728 forms submitted to CMS by dialysis facilities, cross-referenced with patient record updates through the end of 2010, and tracked through December 2010 in the CMS SIMS registry. RESULTS: We report a sustained renal recovery (i.e no return to ESRD during the available follow up period) rate among Medicare ESRD patients of > 5% - much higher than previously reported. Recovery occurred primarily in the first 2 months post incident dialysis, and was more likely in cases with renal failure secondary to etiologies associated with acute kidney injury. Patients experiencing sustained recovery were markedly less likely than true long-term ESRD patients to have permanent vascular accesses in place at incident hemodialysis, while non-White patients, and patients with any prior nephrology care appeared to have significantly lower rates of renal recovery. We also found widespread geographic variation in the rates of renal recovery across the United States. CONCLUSIONS: Renal recovery rates in the US Medicare ESRD program are higher than previously reported and appear to have significant geographic variation. Patients with diagnoses associated with acute kidney injury who are initiated on long-term hemodialysis have significantly higher rates of renal recovery than the general ESRD population and lower rates of permanent access placement.

Quality of care for myocardial infarction in rural and urban hospitals.

BACKGROUND: In the mid-1990s, significant gaps existed in the quality of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) care between rural and urban hospitals. Since then, overall AMI care quality has improved. This study uses more recent data to determine whether rural-urban AMI quality gaps have persisted. METHODS: Using inpatient records data for 34,776 Medicare beneficiaries with AMI from 2000-2001, unadjusted and logistic regression analysis compared receipt of 5 recommended treatments between admissions to urban, large rural, small rural, and isolated small rural hospitals as defined by Rural Urban Commuting Area codes. RESULTS: Substantial proportions of hospital admissions in all areas did not receive guideline-recommended treatments (eg, 17.0% to 23.6% without aspirin within 24 hours of admission, 30.8% to 46.6% without beta-blockers at arrival/discharge). Admissions to small rural and isolated small rural hospitals were least likely to receive most treatments (eg, 69.2% urban, 68.3% large rural, 59.9% small rural, 53.4% isolated small rural received discharge beta-blocker prescriptions). Adjusted analyses found no treatment differences between admissions to large rural and urban area hospitals, but admissions to small rural and isolated small rural hospitals had lower rates of discharge prescriptions such as aspirin and beta-blockers than urban hospital admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Many simple guidelines that improve AMI outcomes are inadequately implemented, regardless of geographic location. In small rural and isolated small rural hospitals, addressing barriers to prescription of beneficial discharge medications is particularly important. The best quality improvement practices should be identified and translated to the broadest range of institutions and providers.

Assessment of the Medicare quality improvement organization program.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown improvement in quality of health care in the United States. However, the factors responsible for this improvement are largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of the Medicare Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) Program in 4 clinical settings by using performance data for 41 quality measures during the 7th Scope of Work. DESIGN: Observational study in which differences in quality measures were compared between baseline and remeasurement periods for providers that received different levels of QIO interventions. SETTING: Nursing homes, home health agencies, hospitals, and physician offices in the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and 2 U.S. territories. PARTICIPANTS: Providers receiving focused QIO assistance related to quality measures and providers receiving general informational assistance from QIOs. MEASUREMENTS: 5 nursing home quality measures, 11 home health measures, 21 hospital measures, and 4 physician office measures. RESULTS: For nursing home, home health, and physician office measures, providers recruited specifically by QIOs for receipt of assistance showed greater improvement in performance on 18 of 20 measures than did providers who were not recruited; similar improvement was seen on the other 2 measures. Nursing homes and home health agencies improved more in all measures on which they chose to work with the QIO than in other measures. Nineteen of 21 hospital measures showed improvement; in this setting, QIOs were contracted for improvement initiatives solely at the statewide level. Overall, improvement was seen in 34 of 41 measures from baseline to remeasurement in the 7th Scope of Work. LIMITATIONS: As in any observational study, selection bias, regression to the mean, and secular trends may have influenced the results. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are consistent with an impact of the QIO Program and QIO technical assistance on the observed improvement. Future evaluations of the QIO Program will attempt to better address the limitations of the design of this study.

Change in the quality of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries, 1998-1999 to 2000-2001.

CONTEXT: Despite widespread concern regarding the quality and safety of health care, and a Medicare Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) program intended to improve that care in the United States, there is only limited information on whether quality is improving. OBJECTIVE: To track national and state-level changes in performance on 22 quality indicators for care of Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN, PATIENTS, AND SETTING: National observational cross-sectional studies of national and state-level fee-for-service data for Medicare beneficiaries during 1998-1999 (baseline) and 2000-2001 (follow-up). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Twenty-two QIO quality indicators abstracted from state-wide random samples of medical records for inpatient fee-for-service care and from Medicare beneficiary surveys or Medicare claims for outpatient care. Absolute improvement is defined as the change in performance from baseline to follow-up (measured in percentage points for all indicators except those measured in minutes); relative improvement is defined as the absolute improvement divided by the difference between the baseline performance and perfect performance (100%). RESULTS: The median state's performance improved from baseline to follow-up on 20 of the 22 indicators. In the median state, the percentage of patients receiving appropriate care on the median indicator increased from 69.5% to 73.4%, a 12.8% relative improvement. The average relative improvement was 19.9% for outpatient indicators combined and 11.9% for inpatient indicators combined (P<.001). For all but one indicator, absolute improvement was greater in states in which performance was low at baseline than those in which it was high at baseline (median r = -0.43; range: 0.12 to -0.93). When states were ranked on each indicator, the state's average rank was highly stable over time (r = 0.93 for 1998-1999 vs 2000-2001). CONCLUSIONS: Care for Medicare fee-for-service plan beneficiaries improved substantially between 1998-1999 and 2000-2001, but a much larger opportunity remains for further improvement. Relative rankings among states changed little. The improved care is consistent with QIO activities over this period, but these cross-sectional data do not provide conclusive information about the degree to which the improvement can be attributed to the QIOs' quality improvement efforts.