Value-Based Purchasing Programs (VBPs): Are the Quality Measures Used "Fit for Purpose"?

Quality measurement is an intrinsic component of value-based purchasing, yet the quality measures currently in use for Value-Based Purchasing Programs (VBPs) are generally derived from a potpourri of measures originally built for other purposes. Only a handful of VBPs have definitively shown savings or expanded nationally. We suggest that to shift the health care reimbursement system in the United States to paying for value, quality measures used in VBPs should be vetted as "fit for purpose." We advocate that quality measures deemed "fit" for VBPs be defined primarily by the impact of the quality measures on providers, patients, the provider-patient relationship and what matters to patients. We define 5 attributes of quality measures we believe necessary to link the actions of providers and patients and lead to value for our health care system. "Fit for purpose" quality measures should focus health care delivery on value improvement and create a culture of value in our health care system.

Public reporting and pay for performance in hospital quality improvement.

BACKGROUND: Public reporting and pay for performance are intended to accelerate improvements in hospital care, yet little is known about the benefits of these methods of providing incentives for improving care. METHODS: We measured changes in adherence to 10 individual and 4 composite measures of quality over a period of 2 years at 613 hospitals that voluntarily reported information about the quality of care through a national public-reporting initiative, including 207 facilities that simultaneously participated in a pay-for-performance demonstration project funded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; we then compared the pay-for-performance hospitals with the 406 hospitals with public reporting only (control hospitals). We used multivariable modeling to estimate the improvement attributable to financial incentives after adjusting for baseline performance and other hospital characteristics. RESULTS: As compared with the control group, pay-for-performance hospitals showed greater improvement in all composite measures of quality, including measures of care for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia and a composite of 10 measures. Baseline performance was inversely associated with improvement; in pay-for-performance hospitals, the improvement in the composite of all 10 measures was 16.1% for hospitals in the lowest quintile of baseline performance and 1.9% for those in the highest quintile (P<0.001). After adjustments were made for differences in baseline performance and other hospital characteristics, pay for performance was associated with improvements ranging from 2.6 to 4.1% over the 2-year period. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals engaged in both public reporting and pay for performance achieved modestly greater improvements in quality than did hospitals engaged only in public reporting. Additional research is required to determine whether different incentives would stimulate more improvement and whether the benefits of these programs outweigh their costs.

An administrative claims model suitable for profiling hospital performance based on 30-day mortality rates among patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: A model using administrative claims data that is suitable for profiling hospital performance for heart failure would be useful in quality assessment and improvement efforts. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a hierarchical regression model using Medicare claims data from 1998 that produces hospital risk-standardized 30-day mortality rates. We validated the model by comparing state-level standardized estimates with state-level standardized estimates calculated from a medical record model. To determine the stability of the model over time, we used annual Medicare cohorts discharged in 1999-2001. The final model included 24 variables and had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.70. In the derivation set from 1998, the 25th and 75th percentiles of the risk-standardized mortality rates across hospitals were 11.6% and 12.8%, respectively. The 95th percentile was 14.2%, and the 5th percentile was 10.5%. In the validation samples, the 5th and 95th percentiles of risk-standardized mortality rates across states were 9.9% and 13.9%, respectively. Correlation between risk-standardized state mortality rates from claims data and rates derived from medical record data was 0.95 (SE=0.015). The slope of the weighted regression line from the 2 data sources was 0.76 (SE=0.04) with intercept of 0.03 (SE=0.004). The median difference between the claims-based state risk-standardized estimates and the chart-based rates was <0.001 (25th percentile=-0.003; 75th percentile=0.002). The performance of the model was stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: This administrative claims-based model produces estimates of risk-standardized state mortality that are very good surrogates for estimates derived from a medical record model.

An administrative claims model suitable for profiling hospital performance based on 30-day mortality rates among patients with an acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: A model using administrative claims data that is suitable for profiling hospital performance for acute myocardial infarction would be useful in quality assessment and improvement efforts. We sought to develop a hierarchical regression model using Medicare claims data that produces hospital risk-standardized 30-day mortality rates and to validate the hospital estimates against those derived from a medical record model. METHODS AND RESULTS: For hospital estimates derived from claims data, we developed a derivation model using 140,120 cases discharged from 4664 hospitals in 1998. For the comparison of models from claims data and medical record data, we used the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project database. To determine the stability of the model over time, we used annual Medicare cohorts discharged in 1995, 1997, and 1999-2001. The final model included 27 variables and had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71. In a comparison of the risk-standardized hospital mortality rates from the claims model with those of the medical record model, the correlation coefficient was 0.90 (SE=0.003). The slope of the weighted regression line was 0.95 (SE=0.007), and the intercept was 0.008 (SE=0.001), both indicating strong agreement of the hospital estimates between the 2 data sources. The median difference between the claims-based hospital risk-standardized mortality rates and the chart-based rates was <0.001 (25th and 75th percentiles, -0.003 and 0.003). The performance of the model was stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: This administrative claims-based model for profiling hospitals performs consistently over several years and produces estimates of risk-standardized mortality that are good surrogates for estimates from a medical record model.

Hospitalizations, nursing home admissions, and deaths attributable to diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate all-cause hospitalizations, nursing home admissions, and deaths attributable to diabetes using a new methodology based on longitudinal data for a representative sample of older U.S. adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A simulation model, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) I Epidemiologic Followup Study, was used to represent the natural history of diabetes and control for a variety of baseline risk factors. The model was applied to 6,265 NHANES III adults aged 45-74 years. The prevalence of risk factors in NHANES III, fielded in 1988-1994, better represents today's adults. RESULTS: For all NHANES III adults aged 45-74 years, a diagnosis of diabetes accounted for 8.6% of hospitalizations, 12.3% of nursing home admissions, and 10.3% of deaths in 1988-1994. For people with diabetes, diabetes alone was responsible for 43.4% of hospitalizations, 52.1% of nursing home admissions, and 47% of deaths. Adjusting for related cardiovascular conditions, which may provide more accurate estimates of attributable risks for people with diabetes, increased these estimates to 51.4, 57.1, and 56.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Risks of institutionalization and death attributable to diabetes are large. Efforts to translate recent trials of primary prevention into practice and continued efforts to prevent complications of diabetes could have a substantial impact on hospitalizations, nursing home admissions, and deaths and their societal costs.

Trends in care practices and outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: While diabetes is a major issue for the aging U.S. population, few studies have described the recent trends in both preventive care practices and complications among the Medicare population with diabetes. Using the Medicare Quality Monitoring System (MQMS), this 2004 study describes these trends from 1992 to 2001 and how these rates vary across demographic subgroups. METHODS: Outcomes include age- and gender-adjusted rates of 15 indicators associated with diabetes care from 1992 to 2001, the absolute change in rates from 1992 to 2001, and 2001 rates by demographic subgroups. The data were cross-sectional samples of Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes from 1992 to 2001 from the Medicare 5% Standard Analytic Files. RESULTS: Use of preventive care practices rose from 1992 to 2001: 45 percentage points for HbA1c tests, 51 for lipid tests, 8 for eye exams, and 38 for self-monitoring of glucose levels (all p<0.05). Rates for short-term and some long-term complications of diabetes (e.g., lower-extremity amputations and cardiovascular conditions) fell from 1992 to 2001 (p<0.05). However, rates of other long-term complications such as nephropathy, blindness, and retinopathy rose during the period (p<0.05). Nonwhites and beneficiaries aged <65 and >85 exhibited consistently higher complication rates and lower use of preventive services. CONCLUSIONS: The Medicare program has seen some significant improvement in preventive care practices and significant declines in lower-limb amputations and cardiovascular conditions. However, rates for other long-term complications have increased, with evidence of subgroup disparities. The MQMS results provide an early warning for policymakers to focus on the diabetes care provided to some vulnerable subgroups.

A national progress report on diabetes: successes and challenges.

Over the last few decades, numerous public health agencies and other private and public organizations have sought to prevent and delay the disabling complications of diabetes by increasing the use of preventive care practices and reducing risk factors for complications among people with diabetes. Now, federal diabetes surveillance activities are yielding encouraging reports that progress is being made in increasing the use of preventive care practices, reducing risk factors for complications, and preventing or delaying diabetes complications. However, although several gains have been noted, levels of preventive care practices remain suboptimal, risk factors for diabetes complications are too prevalent, and diabetes complications are too pervasive. Furthermore, with compelling evidence that the onset of diabetes can be prevented or delayed among adults at high risk, prevention of diabetes has become a major new challenge. Additional efforts are needed to address the growing problems of obesity and physical inactivity, to identify the most efficacious and cost-effective prevention strategies and interventions, and to implement surveillance activities that allow us to gauge our success. Although progress has been made against diabetes complications, the current epidemic of diabetes increases the urgency of primary prevention efforts.

Diabetes is the strongest risk factor for lower-extremity amputation in new hemodialysis patients.

OBJECTIVE: End-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, especially those with diabetes, have an increased risk of nontraumatic lower-extremity amputation (LEA). The present study aims to examine the association of demographic and clinical variables with the risk of hospitalization for LEA among incident hemodialysis patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The study population consisted of incident hemodialysis patients from the study years 1996-1999 of the ESRD Core Indicator/Clinical Performance Measures (CPM) Project. Cox proportional hazard modeling was used to identify factors associated with LEA. RESULTS: Four percent (116 of 3,272) of noncensored incident patients had an LEA during the 12-month follow-up period. Factors associated with LEA included diabetes as the cause of ESRD or preexisting comorbidity (hazard ratio 6.4, 95% CI 3.4-12.0), cardiovascular comorbidity (1.8, 1.2-2.8), hemodialysis inadequacy (urea reduction ratio [URR] <58.5% (1.9, 1.1-3.3), and lower serum albumin level (1.6, 1.1-2.3). Among patients with diabetes, hemodialysis inadequacy and cardiovascular comorbidity were risk factors for LEA (2.6, 1.4-4.8, and 1.7, 1.1-2.6, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that diabetes is a potent risk factor for LEA in new hemodialysis patients. In ESRD patients with diabetes, a multipronged approach may reduce the rate of LEA. Potentially beneficial strategies include adherence to hemodialysis adequacy guidelines, aggressive treatment of cardiovascular comorbidities, and the utilization of LEA prevention strategies recommended for the general population of patients with diabetes.

How much time do patients with diabetes spend on self-care?

INTRODUCTION: Little is reported about how much time patients spend on self-management, a cornerstone of diabetes care. METHODS: We studied a cross-section of 1482 diabetic patients enrolled in 3 northeastern United States managed care plans. Patients were surveyed about how much time they spent on foot care, exercise, and food shopping/preparation (7/00 to 9/01). Logistic regressions modeled which types of patients were likely to spend time, and linear regressions modeled characteristics associated with spending more/less time. RESULTS: Patients (57.9% > or = 55 years; 51.6% women; 36.2% African American; 31.1% on insulin) spent 58 (mean) minutes/day on self-care (interquartile range 19, 84). Many patients skipped individual self-care elements: 37.9% reported no foot care, 37.7% no exercise, and 54.4% no time on food shopping/preparation. One fourth of patients with severe foot neuropathy symptoms spent no time on foot care. Never self-testers were less likely than others to engage in foot care (odds ratio (OR) 0.4 (95% CI 0.3, 0.6), exercise (OR 0.4 (95% CI 0.3, 0.6)), and food shopping/preparation (OR 0.7 (95% CI 0.5, 1.0)), and were likely to spend 30 minutes less total self-care time than frequent self-testers (P <.01). DISCUSSION: Most people spent considerable time engaged in self-care, but many skipped individual tasks, offering clinicians opportunities for collaborative decision making.

Survival advantage for adult Hispanic hemodialysis patients? Findings from the end-stage renal disease clinical performance measures project.

One-year follow-up mortality in Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients and its association with intermediate outcomes of dialytic care were examined utilizing the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) ESRD Clinical Performance Measures (CPM) Project and administrative data. Demographic and clinical information was collected on a national random sample of adult in-center hemodialysis (HD) patients for the period of October through December, 1998. Patients were categorized as Hispanic, non-Hispanic White, or non-Hispanic Black. Of 8336 patients 994 (12%) were identified as Hispanic, 3618 (43%) as non-Hispanic White, and 3111 (37%) as non-Hispanic Black. The adjusted 12-mo mortality risk (99% CI) for Hispanics was 0.76 (0.60 to 0.96; P < 0.01) and for non-Hispanic Blacks 0.66 (0.56 to 0.78, P < 0.001) compared with non-Hispanic Whites (referent). Similar 12-mo mortality risks were noted in the groups with diabetes mellitus or hypertension as the causes of ESRD and among patients > or = 65 yr. After controlling for demographic and geographic variables, Hispanics compared with the referent group, non-Hispanic Whites, were more likely to have a mean serum albumin > or = 4.0/3.7 g/dL (BCG/BCP) (1.5 [1.2 to 1.7]; P < 0.001) and as likely to have a mean Kt/V > or = 1.2, mean hemoglobin > or = 11 g/dL, and an arteriovenous fistula as their vascular access. These data suggest that adult Hispanic HD patients have a 12-mo survival intermediate to non-Hispanic Blacks and non-Hispanic Whites and experience equivalent or better intermediate outcomes of dialytic care compared with non-Hispanic Whites.

Disparity in outcomes for adult Native American hemodialysis patients? Findings from the ESRD Clinical Performance Measures Project, 1996 to 1999.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information regarding the quality of care for Native American hemodialysis patients. Outcomes, including 1-year hospitalization and mortality, for adult Native American in-center hemodialysis patients selected for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) end-stage renal disease (ESRD) Clinical Performance Measures (CPM) Project were compared to those for white and black patients to determine if disparity in care existed for this group. METHODS: Clinical data were abstracted from medical records for the last quarters of 1995 to 1998 and linked to United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data files for data on comorbidities and 1-year hospitalization and mortality. Associations of race were tested by bivariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard modeling. RESULTS: Two percent (467 of 27876) of patients were Native American, 37% black, and 51% white. Native American, compared to black and white patients, were more likely to have diabetes mellitus as the cause of ESRD (72%, 37%, and 38%, respectively, P < 0.01). In multivariate analyses, Native American patients were more likely to achieve a mean urea reduction ratio (URR) > or = 65% compared to whites (referent) [hazards ratio (HR) (95% CI) 1.7 (1.3, 2.2)] and be dialyzed with an arteriovenous fistula [HR (95% CI) 1.7 (1.2, 2.5)]. They were as likely as Whites to achieve a mean hematocrit > or =33% and a mean serum albumin > or =4.0/3.7 g/dL. In multivariate analyses, Native Americans were no more likely to be hospitalized or die during the follow-up period than whites. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that adult Native American hemodialysis patients experience equivalent or better dialytic care and are no more likely to experience 1-year hospitalization or mortality compared to whites.