Insurance-Based Disparities in Outcomes and ECMO Utilization for Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to examine insurance-based disparities in mortality, non-home discharges, and ECMO utilization in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: Using a national database of U.S. academic medical centers and their affiliated hospitals, the risk-adjusted association between mortality, non-home discharge, and ECMO utilization and (1) the type of insurance coverage (private insurance, Medicare, dual enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid, and no insurance) and (2) the weekly hospital COVID-19 burden (0-5.0%; 5.1-10%, 10.1-20%, 20.1-30%, 30.1%-) was evaluated. Modelling was expanded to include an interaction between payer status and the weekly hospital COVID-19 burden to examine whether the lack of private insurance was associated with increases in disparities as the COVID-19 burden increased. RESULTS: Among 760,846 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 214,992 had private insurance, 318,624 had Medicare, 96,192 were dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, 107,548 had Medicaid, and 23,560 had no insurance. Overall, 76,250 died, 211,702 had non-home discharges, 75,703 were mechanically ventilated, and 2,642 underwent ECMO. The adjusted odds of death were higher in patients with Medicare (aOR 1.28; [95% CI: 1.21, 1.35]; P<0.0005), dually enrolled (aOR, 1.39; [1.30, 1.50]; P<0.0005), Medicaid (aOR, 1.28; [1.20, 1.36]; P<0.0005), and no insurance (aOR, 1.43; [1.26, 1.62]; P<0.0005) compared to patients with private insurance. Patients with Medicare (aOR, 0.47; [CI: 0.39, 0.58]; P <0.0005), dually enrolled (aOR, 0.32; [0.24, 0.43]; P<0.0005), Medicaid (aOR, 0.70; [ 0.62, 0.79]; P<0.0005), and no insurance (aOR, 0.40; [0.29, 0.56]; P<0.001] were less likely to be placed on ECMO than patients with private insurance. Mortality, non-home discharges, and ECMO utilization did not change significantly more in patients with private insurance compared to patients without private insurance as the COVID-19 burden increased. CONCLUSION: Among patients with COVID-19, insurance-based disparities in mortality, non-home discharges, and ECMO utilization were substantial, but these disparities did not increase as the hospital COVID-19 burden increased.

The association of nursing home infection preventionists' training and credentialing with resident COVID 19 deaths.

BACKGROUND: Nursing home (NH) residents' vulnerability to COVID-19 underscores the importance of infection preventionists (IPs) within NHs. Our study aimed to determine whether training and credentialing of NH IPs were associated with resident COVID-19 deaths. METHODS: This retrospective observational study utilized data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network NH COVID-19 Module and USAFacts, from May 2020 to February 2021, linked to a 2018 national NH survey. We categorized IP personnel training and credentialing into four groups: (1) LPN without training; (2) RN/advanced clinician without training; (3) LPN with training; and (4) RN/advanced clinician with training. Multivariable linear regression models of facility-level weekly deaths per 1000 residents as a function of facility characteristics, and county-level COVID-19 burden (i.e., weekly cases or deaths per 10,000 population) were estimated. RESULTS: Our study included 857 NHs (weighted n = 14,840) across 489 counties and 50 states. Most NHs had over 100 beds, were for profit, part of chain organizations, and located in urban areas. Approximately 53% of NH IPs had infection control training and 82% were RNs/advanced clinicians. Compared with NHs employing IPs who were LPNs without training, NHs employing IPs who were RNs/advanced clinicians without training had lower weekly COVID-19 death rates (-1.04 deaths per 1000 residents; 95% CI -1.90, -0.18), and NHs employing IPs who were LPNs with training had lower COVID-19 death rates (-1.09 deaths per 1000 residents; 95% CI -2.07, -0.11) in adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: NHs with LPN IPs without training in infection control had higher death rates than NHs with LPN IPs with training in infection control, or NHs with RN/advanced clinicians in the IP role, regardless of IP training. IP training of RN/advanced clinician IPs was not associated with death rates. These findings suggest that efforts to standardize and improve IP training may be warranted.

Was COVID-19 Associated With Worsening Inequities in Stroke Treatment and Outcomes?

Background COVID-19 stressed hospitals and may have disproportionately affected the stroke outcomes and treatment of Black and Hispanic individuals. Methods and Results This retrospective study used 100% Medicare Provider Analysis and Review file data from between 2016 and 2020. We used interrupted time series analyses to examine whether the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated disparities in stroke outcomes and reperfusion therapy. Among 1 142 560 hospitalizations for acute ischemic strokes, 90 912 (8.0%) were Hispanic individuals; 162 752 (14.2%) were non-Hispanic Black individuals; and 888 896 (77.8%) were non-Hispanic White individuals. The adjusted odds of mortality increased by 51% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.51 [95% CI, 1.34-1.69]; P<0.001), whereas the rates of nonhome discharges decreased by 11% (aOR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.82-0.96]; P=0.003) for patients hospitalized during weeks when the hospital's proportion of patients with COVID-19 was >30%. The overall rates of motor deficits (P=0.25) did not increase, and the rates of reperfusion therapy did not decrease as the weekly COVID-19 burden increased. Black patients had lower 30-day mortality (aOR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.69-0.72]; P<0.001) but higher rates of motor deficits (aOR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.12-1.16]; P<0.001) than White individuals. Hispanic patients had lower 30-day mortality and similar rates of motor deficits compared with White individuals. There was no differential increase in adverse outcomes or reduction in reperfusion therapy among Black and Hispanic individuals compared with White individuals as the weekly COVID-19 burden increased. Conclusions This national study of Medicare patients found no evidence that the hospital COVID-19 burden exacerbated disparities in treatment and outcomes for Black and Hispanic individuals admitted with an acute ischemic stroke.

The COVID-19 Pandemic and Associated Inequities in Acute Myocardial Infarction Treatment and Outcomes.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted usual care for emergent conditions, such as acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Understanding whether Black and Hispanic individuals experiencing AMI had greater increases in poor outcomes compared with White individuals during the pandemic has important equity implications. Objective: To investigate whether the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased disparities in treatment and outcomes among Medicare patients hospitalized with AMI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used Medicare data for patients hospitalized with AMI between January 2016 and November 2020. Patients were categorized as Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White. The association between race and ethnicity and outcomes as a function of the proportion of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was evaluated using interrupted time series. Data were analyzed from October 2022 to June 2023. Exposure: The main exposure was a hospital's proportion of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 on a weekly basis as a proxy for care disruption during the pandemic. Main Outcomes and Measures: Revascularization, 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission, and nonhome discharges. Results: A total of 1 319 273 admissions for AMI (579 817 females [44.0%]; 122 972 Black [9.3%], 117 668 Hispanic [8.9%], and 1 078 633 White [81.8%]; mean [SD] age, 77 [8.4] years) were included. For patients with non-ST segment elevation MI (NSTEMI) overall, the adjusted odds of mortality and nonhome discharges increased by 51% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.51; 95% CI, 1.29-1.76; P < .001) and 32% (aOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.15-1.52; P < .001), respectively, and the odds of revascularization decreased by 27% (aOR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.83; P < .001) among patients hospitalized during weeks with a high hospital COVID-19 burden (>30%) vs patients hospitalized prior to the pandemic. Black individuals with NSTEMI experienced a clinically insignificant 7% greater increase in the odds of mortality (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.15; P = .04) for each 10% increase in the COVID-19 hospital burden but no increases in readmissions or nonhome discharges or reductions in revascularization rates compared with White individuals. There were no differential increases in adverse outcomes among Hispanic compared with White patients with NSTEMI based on hospital COVID-19 burden. Increases in hospital COVID-19 burden were not associated with changes in outcomes or the use of revascularization in STEMI overall or by racial or ethnic group. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that while hospital COVID-19 burden was associated with worse treatment and outcomes for NSTEMI, race and ethnicity-associated inequities did not increase significantly during the pandemic. These findings suggest the need for additional efforts to mitigate outcomes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic for patients admitted with AMI when the hospital COVID-19 burden is substantially increased.

Low Preoperative Serum Creatinine is Common and Associated With Poor Outcomes After Nonemergent Inpatient Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between low preoperative serum creatinine and postoperative outcomes. BACKGROUND: The association between low creatinine and poor surgical outcomes is not well understood. METHODS: We identified patients with creatinine in the 7 days preceding nonemergent inpatient surgery in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2005 to 2020. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between creatinine and 30-day mortality and major complications. RESULTS: Of 1,809,576 patients, 27.8% of males and 23.5% of females had low preoperative serum creatinine, 14.6% experienced complications, and 1.2% died. For males, compared with the reference creatinine of 0.85 to 1.04, those with serum creatinine ≤0.44 had 55% increased odds of mortality [ adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.55; 95% CI, 1.29-1.86] and 82% increased odds of major complications (aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.69-1.97). Similarly, for females, compared with the reference range of 0.65 to 0.84, those with serum creatinine ≤0.44 had 49% increased odds of mortality (aOR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.32-1.67) and 76% increased odds of major complications (aOR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.70-1.83). These associations persisted for the total cohort, among those with mildly low albumin, and for those with creatinine values measured 8 to 30 days preoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: A low preoperative creatinine is common and associated with poor outcomes after nonemergent inpatient surgery. A low creatinine may help identify high-risk patients who may benefit from further evaluation and optimization.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Access to Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery.

Importance: Whether people from racial and ethnic minority groups experience disparities in access to minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) is not known. Objective: To investigate racial and ethnic disparities in the utilization of MIMVS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database for patients who underwent mitral valve surgery between 2014 and 2019. Statistical analysis was performed from January 24 to August 11, 2022. Exposures: Patients were categorized as non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic individuals. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association between MIMVS (vs full sternotomy) and race and ethnicity were evaluated using logistic regression. Results: Among the 103 753 patients undergoing mitral valve surgery (mean [SD] age, 62 [13] years; 47 886 female individuals [46.2%]), 10 404 (10.0%) were non-Hispanic Black individuals, 89 013 (85.8%) were non-Hispanic White individuals, and 4336 (4.2%) were Hispanic individuals. Non-Hispanic Black individuals were more likely to have Medicaid insurance (odds ratio [OR], 2.21; 95% CI, 1.64-2.98; P < .001) and to receive care from a low-volume surgeon (OR, 4.45; 95% CI, 4.01-4.93; P < .001) compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. Non-Hispanic Black individuals were less likely to undergo MIMVS (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.73; P < .001), whereas Hispanic individuals were not less likely to undergo MIMVS compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.67-1.75; P = .74). Patients with commercial insurance had 2.35-fold higher odds of undergoing MIMVS (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 2.06-2.68; P < .001) than those with Medicaid insurance. Patients operated by very-high volume surgeons (300 or more cases) had 20.7-fold higher odds (OR, 20.70; 95% CI, 12.7-33.9; P < .001) of undergoing MIMVS compared with patients treated by low-volume surgeons (less than 20 cases). After adjusting for patient risk, non-Hispanic Black individuals were still less likely to undergo MIMVS (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99; P = .04) and were more likely to die or experience a major complication (aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.16-1.35; P < .001) compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, non-Hispanic Black patients were less likely to undergo MIMVS and more likely to die or experience a major complication than non-Hispanic White patients. These findings suggest that efforts to reduce inequity in cardiovascular medicine may need to include increasing access to private insurance and high-volume surgeons.

Association of Medicare Mandatory Bundled Payment Reform With Joint Replacement Surgery Use for Beneficiaries With Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias.

Importance: Medicare beneficiaries with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) are a particularly vulnerable group in whom arthritis is a frequently occurring comorbidity. Medicare's mandatory bundled payment reform-the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model-was intended to improve quality and reduce spending in beneficiaries undergoing joint replacement surgical procedures for arthritis. In the absence of adjustment for clinical risk, hospitals may avoid performing elective joint replacements for beneficiaries with ADRD. Objective: To evaluate the association of the CJR model with utilization of joint replacements for Medicare beneficiaries with ADRD. Design Setting and Participants: This cohort study used national Medicare data from 2013 to 2017 and multivariable linear probability models and a triple differences estimation approach. Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of arthritis were identified from 67 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) mandated to participate in CJR and 104 control MSAs. Data were analyzed from July 2020 to July 2021. Exposures: Implementation of the CJR model in 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were separate binary indicators for whether or not a beneficiary underwent hip or knee replacement. Key independent variables were the MSA group, before-CJR and after-CJR phase, ADRD diagnosis, and their interactions. The linear probability models controlled for beneficiary characteristics, MSA fixed effects, and time trends. Results: The study included 24 598 729 beneficiary-year observations for 9 624 461 unique beneficiaries, of which 250 168 beneficiaries underwent hip and 474 751 underwent knee replacements. The mean (SD) age of the 2013 cohort was 77.1 (7.9) years, 3 110 922 (66.4%) were women, 3 928 432 (83.8%) were non-Hispanic White, 792 707 (16.9%) were dually eligible for Medicaid, and 885 432 (18.9%) had an ADRD diagnosis. Before CJR implementation, joint replacement rates were lower among beneficiaries with ADRD (hip replacements: 0.38% vs 1.17% for beneficiaries with and without ADRD, respectively; P < .001; knee replacements: 0.70% vs 2.25%; P < .001). After controlling for relevant covariates, CJR was associated with a 0.07-percentage-point decline in hip replacements for beneficiaries with ADRD (95% CI, -0.13 to -0.001; P = .046) and a 0.07-percentage-point decline for beneficiaries without ADRD (95% CI, -0.12 to -0.02; P = .01) residing in CJR MSAs compared with beneficiaries in control MSAs. However, this change in hip replacement rates for beneficiaries with ADRD was not statistically significantly different from the change for beneficiaries without ADRD (percentage point difference: 0.01; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.09; P = .88). No statistically significant changes in knee replacement rates were noted for beneficiaries with ADRD compared with those without ADRD with CJR implementation (percentage point difference: -0.03, 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.02; P = .27). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with arthritis, the CJR model was not associated with a decline in joint replacement utilization among beneficiaries with ADRD compared with beneficiaries without ADRD in the first 2 years of the program, thereby alleviating patient selection concerns.

Association Between the COVID-19 Pandemic and Insurance-Based Disparities in Mortality After Major Surgery Among US Adults.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruptions in surgical care. Whether these disruptions disproportionately impacted economically disadvantaged individuals is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and mortality after major surgery among patients with Medicaid insurance or without insurance compared with patients with commercial insurance. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Vizient Clinical Database for patients who underwent major surgery at hospitals in the US between January 1, 2018, and May 31, 2020. Exposures: The hospital proportion of patients with COVID-19 during the first wave of COVID-19 cases between March 1 and May 31, 2020, stratified as low (≤5.0%), medium (5.1%-10.0%), high (10.1%-25.0%), and very high (>25.0%). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was inpatient mortality. The association between mortality after surgery and payer status as a function of the proportion of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was evaluated with a quasi-experimental triple-difference approach using logistic regression. Results: Among 2 950 147 adults undergoing inpatient surgery (1 550 752 female [52.6%]) at 677 hospitals, the primary payer was Medicare (1 427 791 [48.4%]), followed by commercial insurance (1 000 068 [33.9%]), Medicaid (321 600 [10.9%]), other payer (140 959 [4.8%]), and no insurance (59 729 [2.0%]). Mortality rates increased more for patients undergoing surgery during the first wave of the pandemic in hospitals with a high COVID-19 burden (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.24; P = .01) and a very high COVID-19 burden (AOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.24-1.53; P < .001) compared with patients in hospitals with a low COVID-19 burden. Overall, patients with Medicaid had 29% higher odds of death (AOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.22-1.36; P < .001) and patients without insurance had 75% higher odds of death (AOR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.55-1.98; P < .001) compared with patients with commercial insurance. However, mortality rates for surgical patients with Medicaid insurance (AOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.82-1.30; P = .79) or without insurance (AOR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.47-1.54; P = .60) did not increase more than for patients with commercial insurance in hospitals with a high COVID-19 burden compared with hospitals with a low COVID-19 burden. These findings were similar in hospitals with very high COVID-19 burdens. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a higher risk of mortality after surgery in hospitals with more than 25.0% of patients with COVID-19. However, the pandemic was not associated with greater increases in mortality among patients with no insurance or patients with Medicaid compared with patients with commercial insurance in hospitals with a very high COVID-19 burden.

Association of Time Elapsed Since Ischemic Stroke With Risk of Recurrent Stroke in Older Patients Undergoing Elective Nonneurologic, Noncardiac Surgery.

Importance: Perioperative strokes are a major cause of death and disability. There is limited information on which to base decisions for how long to delay elective nonneurologic, noncardiac surgery in patients with a history of stroke. Objective: To examine whether an association exists between the time elapsed since an ischemic stroke and the risk of recurrent stroke in older patients undergoing elective nonneurologic, noncardiac surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the 100% Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files, including the Master Beneficiary Summary File, between 2011 and 2018 and included elective nonneurologic, noncardiac surgeries in patients 66 years or older. Patients were excluded if they had more than 1 procedure during a 30-day period, were transferred from another hospital or facility, were missing information on race and ethnicity, were admitted in December 2018, or had tracheostomies or gastrostomies. Data were analyzed May 7 to October 23, 2021. Exposures: Time interval between a previous hospital admission for acute ischemic stroke and surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: Acute ischemic stroke during the index surgical admission or rehospitalization for stroke within 30 days of surgery, 30-day all-cause mortality, composite of stroke and mortality, and discharge to a nursing home or skilled nursing facility. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (AORs) to quantify the association between outcome and time since ischemic stroke. Results: The final cohort included 5 841 539 patients who underwent elective nonneurologic, noncardiac surgeries (mean [SD] age, 74.1 [6.1] years; 3 371 329 [57.7%] women), of which 54 033 (0.9%) had a previous stroke. Patients with a stroke within 30 days before surgery had higher adjusted odds of perioperative stroke (AOR, 8.02; 95% CI, 6.37-10.10; P < .001) compared with patients without a previous stroke. The adjusted odds of stroke were not significantly different at an interval of 61 to 90 days between previous stroke and surgery (AOR, 5.01; 95% CI, 4.00-6.29; P < .001) compared with 181 to 360 days (AOR, 4.76; 95% CI, 4.26-5.32; P < .001). The adjusted odds of 30-day all-cause mortality were higher in patients who underwent surgery within 30 days of a previous stroke (AOR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.99-3.16; P < .001) compared with those without a history of stroke, and the AOR decreased to 1.49 (95% CI, 1.15-1.92; P < .001) at 61 to 90 days from previous stroke to surgery but did not decline significantly, even after an interval of 360 or more days. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that, among patients undergoing nonneurologic, noncardiac surgery, the risk of stroke and death leveled off when more than 90 days elapsed between a previous stroke and elective surgery. These findings suggest that the recent scientific statement by the American Heart Association to delay elective nonneurologic, noncardiac surgery for at least 6 months after a recent stroke may be too conservative.

Association Between the COVID-19 Pandemic and Disparities in Access to Major Surgery in the US.

Importance: Racial minority groups account for 70% of excess deaths not related to COVID-19. Understanding the association of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS's) moratorium delaying nonessential operations with racial disparities will help shape future pandemic responses. Objective: To evaluate the association of the CMS's moratorium on elective operations during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic among Black individuals, Asian individuals, and individuals of other races compared with White individuals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study assessed a 719-hospital retrospective cohort of 3 470 905 adult inpatient hospitalizations for major surgery between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2020. Exposure: The first wave of COVID-19 infections between March 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the association between changes in monthly elective surgical case volumes and the first wave of COVID-19 infections as a function of patient race, evaluated using negative binomial regression analysis. Results: Among 3 470 905 adults (1 823 816 female [52.5%]) with inpatient hospitalizations for major surgery, 70 752 (2.0%) were Asian, 453 428 (13.1%) were Black, 2 696 929 (77.7%) were White, and 249 796 (7.2%) were individuals of other races. The number of monthly elective cases during the first wave was 49% (incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.486-0.492; P < .001) compared with the baseline period. The relative reduction in unadjusted elective surgery cases for Black (unadjusted IRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.01; P = .36), Asian (unadjusted IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.14; P = .001), and other race individuals (unadjusted IRR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-1.00; P = .05) during the surge period compared with the baseline period was very close to the change in cases for White individuals. After adjustment for age, sex, comorbidities, and surgical procedure, there was still no evidence that the first wave of the pandemic was associated with disparities in access to elective surgery. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the CMS's moratorium on nonessential operations was associated with a 51% reduction in elective operations. It was not associated with greater reductions in operations for racial minority individuals than for White individuals. This evidence suggests that the early response to the pandemic did not increase disparities in access to surgical care.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database: 2021 Update on Echocardiography.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (ACSD) is the world's premier clinical outcomes registry for adult cardiac surgery and a driving force for quality improvement in cardiac surgery. Echocardiographic data provide a wealth of hemodynamic, structural, and functional data and have been part of STS ACSD data collection since its inception. An increasing body of evidence suggests that the use of echocardiography in patients undergoing cardiac surgery has a positive impact on postoperative outcomes. In this report, we describe and summarize the type and rate of reporting of echocardiography-related variables in the STS ACSD, including the Adult Cardiac Anesthesiology Module, from July 2017 to December 2019 for the most frequently performed cardiac surgical procedures. With this review, we aim to increase awareness of the importance of collecting accurate and consistent echocardiography data in the STS ACSD and to highlight opportunities for growth and improvement.

Reproducibility of Hospital Rankings Based on Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Compare Measures as a Function of Measure Reliability.

Importance: Unreliable performance measures can mask poor-quality care and distort financial incentives in value-based purchasing. Objective: To examine the association between test-retest reliability and the reproducibility of hospital rankings. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a cross-sectional design, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Compare data were analyzed for the 2017 (based on 2014-2017 data) and 2018 (based on 2015-2018 data) reporting periods. The study was conducted from December 13, 2020, to September 30, 2021. This analysis was based on 28 measures, including mortality (acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and coronary artery bypass grafting), readmissions (acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and coronary artery bypass grafting), and surgical complications (postoperative acute kidney failure, postoperative respiratory failure, postoperative sepsis, and failure to rescue). Exposures: Measure reliability based on test-retest reliability testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: The reproducibility of hospital rankings was quantified by calculating the reclassification rate across the 2017 and 2018 reporting periods after categorizing the hospitals into terciles, quartiles, deciles, and statistical outliers. Linear regression analysis was used to examine the association between the reclassification rate and the intraclass correlation coefficient for each of the classification systems. Results: The analytic cohort consisted of 28 measures from 4452 hospitals with a median of 2927 (IQR, 2378-3160) hospitals contributing data for each measure. The hospitals participating in the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (n = 3195) had a median bed size of 141 (IQR, 69-261), average daily census of 70 (IQR, 24-155) patients, and a median disproportionate share hospital percentage of 38.2% (IQR, 18.7%-36.6%). The median intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.78 (IQR, 0.72-0.81), ranging between 0.50 and 0.85. The median reclassification rate was 70% (IQR, 62%-71%) when hospitals were ranked by deciles, 43% (IQR, 39%-45%) when ranked by quartiles, 34% (IQR, 31%-36%) when ranked by terciles, and 3.8% (IQR, 2.0%-6.2%) when ranked by outlier status. Increases in measure reliability were not associated with decreases in the reclassification rate. Each 0.1-point increase in the intraclass correlation coefficient was associated with a 6.80 (95% CI, 2.28-11.30; P = .005) percentage-point increase in the reclassification rate when hospitals were ranked into performance deciles, 4.15 (95% CI, 1.16-7.14; P = .008) when ranked into performance quartiles, 1.47 (95% CI, 1.84, 4.77; P = .37) when ranked into performance terciles, and 3.70 (95% CI, 1.30-6.09; P = .004) when ranked by outlier status. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, more reliable measures were not associated with lower rates of reclassifying hospitals using test-retest reliability testing. These findings suggest that measure reliability should not be assessed with test-retest reliability testing.

Association Between the Physician Quality Score in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System and Hospital Performance in Hospital Compare in the First Year of the Program.

Importance: The scientific validity of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) quality score as a measure of hospital-level patient outcomes is unknown. Objective: To examine whether better physician performance on the MIPS quality score is associated with better hospital outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of 38 830 physicians used data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Compare (2017) merged with CMS Hospital Compare data. Data analysis was conducted from September to November 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Linear regression was used to examine the association between physician MIPS quality scores aggregated at the hospital level and hospitalwide measures of (1) postoperative complications, (2) failure to rescue, (3) individual postoperative complications, and (4) readmissions. Results: The study cohort of 38 830 clinicians (5198 [14.6%] women; 12 103 [31.6%] with 11-20 years in practice) included 6580 (17.2%) general surgeons, 8978 (23.4%) orthopedic surgeons, 1617 (4.2%) vascular surgeons, 582 (1.5%) cardiac surgeons, 904 (2.4%) thoracic surgeons, 18 149 (47.4%) anesthesiologists, and 1520 (4.0%) intensivists at 3055 hospitals. The MIPS quality score was not associated with the hospital composite rate of postoperative complications. MIPS quality scores for vascular surgeons in the 11th to 25th percentile, compared with those in the 51st to 100th percentile, were associated with a 0.55-percentage point higher hospital rate of failure to rescue (95% CI, 0.06-1.04 percentage points; P = .03). MIPS quality scores for cardiac surgeons in the 1st to 10th percentile, compared with those in the 51st to 100th percentile, were associated with a 0.41-percentage point higher hospital coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) mortality rate (95% CI, 0.10-0.71 percentage points; P = .01). MIPS quality scores for cardiac surgeons in the 1st to 10th percentile and 11th to 25th percentile, compared with those in the 51st to 100th percentile, were associated with 0.65-percentage point (95% CI, 0.013-1.16 percentage points; P = .02) and 0.48-percentage point (95% CI, 0.07-0.90 percentage points; P = .02) higher hospital CABG readmission rates, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, better performance on the physician MIPS quality score was associated with better hospital surgical outcomes for some physician specialties during the first year of MIPS.

Levels of Evidence Supporting the North American and European Perioperative Care Guidelines for Anesthesiologists between 2010 and 2020: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Although there are thousands of published recommendations in anesthesiology clinical practice guidelines, the extent to which these are supported by high levels of evidence is not known. This study hypothesized that most recommendations in clinical practice guidelines are supported by a low level of evidence. METHODS: A registered (Prospero CRD42020202932) systematic review was conducted of anesthesia evidence-based recommendations from the major North American and European anesthesiology societies between January 2010 and September 2020 in PubMed and EMBASE. The level of evidence A, B, or C and the strength of recommendation (strong or weak) for each recommendation was mapped using the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association classification system or the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The outcome of interest was the proportion of recommendations supported by levels of evidence A, B, and C. Changes in the level of evidence over time were examined. Risk of bias was assessed using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. RESULTS: In total, 60 guidelines comprising 2,280 recommendations were reviewed. Level of evidence A supported 16% (363 of 2,280) of total recommendations and 19% (288 of 1,506) of strong recommendations. Level of evidence C supported 51% (1,160 of 2,280) of all recommendations and 50% (756 of 1,506) of strong recommendations. Of all the guidelines, 73% (44 of 60) had a low risk of bias. The proportion of recommendations supported by level of evidence A versus level of evidence C (relative risk ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.18 to 4.74; P = 0.933) or level of evidence B versus level of evidence C (relative risk ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.72 to 3.72; P = 0.243) did not increase in guidelines that were revised. Year of publication was also not associated with increases in the proportion of recommendations supported by level of evidence A (relative risk ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.23; P = 0.340) or level of evidence B (relative risk ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.15; P = 0.283) compared to level of evidence C. CONCLUSIONS: Half of the recommendations in anesthesiology clinical practice guidelines are based on a low level of evidence, and this did not change over time. These findings highlight the need for additional efforts to increase the quality of evidence used to guide decision-making in anesthesiology.