Thirty-Day Spending and Outcomes for an Episode of Pneumonia Care Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Recent policy initiatives aim to improve the value of care for patients hospitalized with pneumonia. It is unclear whether higher 30-day episode spending at the hospital level is associated with any difference in patient mortality among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study assessed the association between hospital-level spending and patient-level mortality for a 30-day episode of care. The study used data for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized at an acute care hospital with a principal diagnosis of pneumonia from July 2011 to June 2014. Analysis was conducted by using Medicare payment data made publicly available by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on the Hospital Compare website combined with Medicare Part A claims data to identify patient outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1,017,353 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries were hospitalized for pneumonia across 3,021 US hospitals during the study period. Mean ± SD 30-day spending for an episode of pneumonia care was $14,324 ± $1,305. The observed 30-day all-cause mortality rate was 11.9%. After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, no association was found between higher 30-day episode spending at the hospital level and 30-day patient mortality (adjusted OR, 1.00 for every $1,000 increase in spending; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01). CONCLUSIONS: Higher hospital-level spending for a 30-day episode of care for pneumonia was not associated with any difference in patient mortality.

High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Public Reporting States: the Evidence, Exclusion of Critically Ill Patients, and Implications.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Public reporting of outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is used in some states to drive improvements in care delivery and performance. However, a growing body of evidence suggests unintended consequences, particularly provider aversion to performing PCI in high-risk patients. RECENT FINDINGS: There is mixed evidence regarding the impact of PCI public reporting on patient outcomes. In addition, providers in public reporting states likely have a higher threshold or potentially avoid performing PCI on high-risk patients, such as those with cardiogenic shock. The exclusion of patients with refractory cardiogenic shock from public reports in New York state has reduced provider risk aversion. Though this represents a step in the right direction, other strategies are needed to diminish continued provider risk aversion and strengthen PCI care quality. Public reporting initiatives for PCI are beginning to proliferate nationally. However, the challenge of fostering the positive of aspects of reporting, which incentivize improved care quality and procedural performance, while ensuring that high-risk patients continue to receive appropriate care remains. It is imperative that policymakers and cardiologists continue to develop innovative solutions that address risk aversive provider behaviors towards high-risk patients.