Health Equity Adjustment and Hospital Performance in the Medicare Value-Based Purchasing Program.

Importance: Medicare's Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program will provide a health equity adjustment (HEA) to hospitals that have greater proportions of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and that offer high-quality care beginning in fiscal year 2026. However, which hospitals will benefit most from this policy change and to what extent are unknown. Objective: To estimate potential changes in hospital performance after HEA and examine hospital patient mix, structural, and geographic characteristics associated with receipt of increased payments. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed all 2676 hospitals participating in the HVBP program in fiscal year 2021. Publicly available data on program performance and hospital characteristics were linked to Medicare claims data on all inpatient stays for dual-eligible beneficiaries at each hospital to calculate HEA points and HVBP payment adjustments. Exposures: Hospital Value-Based Purchasing program HEA. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reclassification of HVBP bonus or penalty status and changes in payment adjustments across hospital characteristics. Results: Of 2676 hospitals participating in the HVBP program in fiscal year 2021, 1470 (54.9%) received bonuses and 1206 (45.1%) received penalties. After HEA, 102 hospitals (6.9%) were reclassified from bonus to penalty status, whereas 119 (9.9%) were reclassified from penalty to bonus status. At the hospital level, mean (SD) HVBP payment adjustments decreased by $4534 ($90 033) after HEA, ranging from a maximum reduction of $1 014 276 to a maximum increase of $1 523 765. At the aggregate level, net-positive changes in payment adjustments were largest among safety net hospitals ($28 971 708) and those caring for a higher proportion of Black patients ($15 468 445). The likelihood of experiencing increases in payment adjustments was significantly higher among safety net compared with non-safety net hospitals (574 of 683 [84.0%] vs 709 of 1993 [35.6%]; adjusted rate ratio [ARR], 2.04 [95% CI, 1.89-2.20]) and high-proportion Black hospitals compared with non-high-proportion Black hospitals (396 of 523 [75.7%] vs 887 of 2153 [41.2%]; ARR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.29-1.51]). Rural hospitals (374 of 612 [61.1%] vs 909 of 2064 [44.0%]; ARR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.30-1.58]), as well as those located in the South (598 of 1040 [57.5%] vs 192 of 439 [43.7%]; ARR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.10-1.42]) and in Medicaid expansion states (801 of 1651 [48.5%] vs 482 of 1025 [47.0%]; ARR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.06-1.28]), were also more likely to experience increased payment adjustments after HEA compared with their urban, Northeastern, and Medicaid nonexpansion state counterparts, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Medicare's implementation of HEA in the HVBP program will significantly reclassify hospital performance and redistribute program payments, with safety net and high-proportion Black hospitals benefiting most from this policy change. These findings suggest that HEA is an important strategy to ensure that value-based payment programs are more equitable.

Medicare's Value-Based Purchasing And 30-Day Mortality At Hospitals Caring For High Proportions Of Black Adults.

The care of Black adults is highly concentrated at a limited set of US hospitals that often have limited resources. In 2011, the Medicare Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program began financially penalizing or rewarding hospitals based on thirty-day mortality rates for target conditions (myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia). Because the VBP Program has disproportionately penalized resource-constrained hospitals caring for high proportions of Black adults since its implementation in 2011, clinicians, health system leaders, and policy makers have worried that the program may unintentionally be widening racial disparities in health outcomes. Using Medicare claims for beneficiaries ages sixty-five and older who were hospitalized for three target conditions at 2,908 US hospitals participating in the VBP Program, we found that thirty-day mortality rates were consistently higher for two of three conditions at hospitals with high proportions of Black adults compared with other hospitals. There was no evidence of a differential change in thirty-day mortality among all Medicare beneficiaries with targeted conditions at high-proportion Black hospitals versus other hospitals seven years after the implementation of the VBP Program. However, gaps in mortality between these sites did widen in the subgroup of Black adults with pneumonia. These findings highlight that important concerns remain about the regressive nature and equity implications of national pay-for-performance programs.

Black Americans, hospitalization, and advance care planning: Structural vulnerability in Home Health Value-Based Purchasing.

Skilled home health (HH) is the largest long-term care setting and the fastest-growing site of healthcare in the United States (U.S.). Home Health Value-Based Purchasing (HHVBP) is a structure of Medicare that penalizes U.S. HH agencies for high hospitalization rates. Prior studies have shown inconsistent evidence about associations of race with hospitalization rates in HH. Evidence supports that Black or African Americans are less likely to participate in advance care planning (ACP), or to complete written advance directives, which could affect their potential for hospitalization when nearing end of life. In this quasi-experimental study, we used Medicare administrative datasets, the Weighted Acute Care Services Use Rates (WACSUR) score, and the Advance Care Planning Protocol (ACPP) score to determine whether the proportion of Black HH patients in the U.S. was correlated with acute care use rates and the robustness of agency protocols on ACP. We used primary and secondary data from the U.S. from 2016-2020. We included Medicare-certified HH agencies. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used. We found a statistical trend showing that the greater proportion of Black patients enrolled in a HH agency, the greater tendency to have a high hospitalization rate. Our findings suggest that HHVBP may encourage patient selection and exacerbate health disparities. Our findings support recommendations for alternative measures of quality in HH to include measures of goal-concordant care coordination when patients are denied admission to HH.

Value-Based Purchasing Design And Effect: A Systematic Review And Analysis.

During the past two decades in the United States, all major payer types-commercial, Medicare, Medicaid, and multipayer coalitions-have introduced value-based purchasing (VBP) contracts to reward providers for improving health care quality while reducing spending. This systematic review qualitatively characterized the financial and nonfinancial features of VBP programs and examined how such features combine to create a level of program intensity that relates to desired quality and spending outcomes. Higher-intensity VBP programs are more frequently associated with desired quality processes, utilization measures, and spending reductions than lower-intensity programs. Thus, although there may be reasons for payers and providers to opt for lower-intensity programs (for example, to increase voluntary participation), these choices apparently have consequences for spending and quality outcomes.

Medicare Beneficiaries' Perspectives on the Quality of Hospital Care and Their Implications for Value-Based Payment.

Importance: Medicare's Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program adjusts hospital payments according to performance on 4 equally weighted quality domains: clinical outcomes, safety, patient experience, and efficiency. The assumption that performance on each domain is equally important may not reflect the preferences of Medicare beneficiaries. Objective: To estimate the relative importance (ie, weight) of the 4 quality domains in the HVBP program from the perspective of Medicare beneficiaries and the impact of using beneficiary value weights on incentive payments for hospitals enrolled in fiscal year 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants: An online survey was conducted in March 2022. A nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries was recruited through Ipsos KnowledgePanel. Value weights were estimated using a discrete choice experiment that asked respondents to choose between 2 hospitals and indicate which they preferred. Hospitals were described using 6 attributes, including (1) clinical outcomes, (2) patient experience, (3) safety, (4) Medicare spending per patient, (5) distance, and (6) out-of-pocket cost. Data analysis was performed from April to November 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: An effects-coded mixed logit regression model was used to estimate the relative importance of quality domains. HVBP program performance was linked to Medicare payment data in the Medicare Inpatient Hospitals by Provider and Service data set and hospital characteristics from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey data set, and the estimated impact of using beneficiary value weights on hospital payments was estimated. Results: A total of 1025 Medicare beneficiaries (518 women [51%]; 879 individuals [86%] aged ≥65 years; 717 White individuals [70%]) responded to the survey. A hospital's performance on clinical outcomes was most highly valued by beneficiaries (49%), followed by safety (22%), patient experience (21%), and efficiency (8%). Nearly twice as many hospitals would see a payment reduction when using beneficiary value weights than would see an increase (1830 vs 922 hospitals); however, the average net decrease was smaller (mean [SD], -$46 978 [$71 211]; median [IQR], -$24 628 [-$53 507 to -$9562]) than the comparable increase (mean [SD], $93 243 [$190 654]; median [IQR], $35 358 [$9906 to $97 348]). Hospitals seeing a net reduction with beneficiary value weights were more likely to be smaller, lower volume, nonteaching, and non-safety-net hospitals located in more deprived areas that served less complex patients. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study of Medicare beneficiaries found that current HVBP program value weights do not reflect beneficiary preferences, suggesting that the use of beneficiary value weights may exacerbate disparities by rewarding larger, high-volume hospitals.

Demonstrating proof of concept for value-based agreements in Europe: two real-world cases.

OBJECTIVES: Value-based agreements (VBAs) link access, reimbursement, or price to the real-world usage and impact of a medicine, thereby enabling patient access while reducing clinical or financial uncertainty for the payer. VBAs have the potential to support improved patient outcomes, given the value-oriented approach to care, and lead to overall savings, while enabling payers to share risk and reduce uncertainty. METHODS: This commentary outlines the key challenges, enablers, and a framework for successful implementation by comparing the experience of two VBAs for AstraZeneca medicines, aiming to increase confidence in their future use. RESULTS: Engagement by payers, manufacturers, physicians, and provider institutions, and robust data collection systems that are accessible, simple to use, and add little burden to physicians were key to successfully negotiating a VBA that worked for all stakeholders. In both country systems, a legal/policy framework enabled innovative contracting. CONCLUSIONS: These examples demonstrate proof of concept for VBA implementation in different settings, and may inform future VBAs.

The geography of Medicare's hospital value-based purchasing in relation to market demographics.

OBJECTIVE: To illustrate the association between the sociodemographic characteristics of hospital markets and the geographic patterns of Medicare hospital value-based purchasing (HVBP) scores. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: This is a secondary analysis of United States hospitals with a HVBP Total Performance Score (TPS) for 2019 in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare database (4/2021 release) and American Community Survey (ACS) data for 2015-2019. STUDY DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study using spatial multivariable autoregressive models with HVBP TPS and component domain scores as dependent variables and hospital market demographics as the independent variables. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We calculated hospital market demographics using ZIP code level data from the ACS, weighted the 2019 CMS inpatient Hospital Service Area file. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Spatial autoregressive models using eight nearest neighbors with diversity index, race and ethnicity distribution, families in poverty, unemployment, and lack of health insurance among residents ages 19-64 years provided the best model fit. Diversity index had the highest statistically significant contribution to lower TPS (ß = -12.79, p < 0.0001), followed by the percent of the population coded to "non-Hispanic, some other race" (ß = -2.59, p < 0.0023), and the percent of families in poverty (ß = -0.26, p < 0.0001). Percent of the population was non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native (ß = 0.35, p < 0.0001) and percent non-Hispanic Asian (ß = 0.12, p < 0.02071) were associated with higher TPS. Lower predicted TPS was observed in large urban cities throughout the US as well as in states throughout the Southeastern US. Similar geographic patterns were observed for the predicted Patient Safety, Person and Community Engagement, and Efficiency and Cost Reduction domain scores but are not for predicted Clinical Outcomes scores. CONCLUSIONS: The lower predicted scores seen in cities and in the Southeastern region potentially reflect an inherent-that is, structural-association between market sociodemographics and HVBP scores.

The role of community-level characteristics in comparing United States hospital performance by magnet designation: A propensity score matched study.

AIMS: To assess the impact of community-level characteristics on the role of magnet designation in relation to hospital value-based purchasing quality scores, as health disparities associated with geographical location could confound hospitals' ability to meet outcome metrics. DESIGN: This cross-sectional study was carried out between October 2021 and March 2022 using data from 2016 to 2021. METHODS: Propensity score analysis was used to match hospital and community-level characteristics, implementing nearest neighbour matching to adjust for pre-treatment differences between magnet and non-magnet hospitals to account for multi-level differences. Secondary data were obtained from all operational acute-care facilities in the United States that participated in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' hospital value-based purchasing (HVBP) program. Dependent variables were the four value-based purchasing domains that comprise the Total Performance Score (TPS; Clinical Care, Person and Community Engagement, Safety, and Efficiency and Cost Reduction). RESULTS: Magnet hospitals had increased odds for better scores in the HVBP domains of Clinical Care and Person and Community Engagement, and decreased odds for having better Safety. However, no statistically significant difference was found for the Efficiency domain or the TPS. CONCLUSION: Measuring performance equitably across organizations of various sizes serving diverse communities remains a key factor in ensuring distributive justice. Analysing the TPS components can identify complex influences of community-level characteristics not evident at the composite level. More research is needed where community and nurse-level factors may indirectly affect patient safety. IMPACT: This study's findings on the role of community contexts can inform policymakers designing value-based care programs and healthcare management administrators deliberating on magnet certification investments across diverse community settings. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: For this study of US hospitals' organizational performance, we did not engage members of the patient population nor the general public. However, the multi-disciplinary research team does include diverse perspectives.

Coaching to Bedside Shift Report and Its Correlation to Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems and Value-Based Purchasing Dimension Scores: A Multihospital Implementation Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this multihospital study was to investigate how the intervention of coaching to bedside shift report (BSR) correlates with Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) outcomes and relates to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program points over a 4-year period (2017-2020) for an acute care hospital health system. BACKGROUND: Hospital leaders' responsibilities include intertwined areas of patient experience and fiscal accountability. Coaching to BSR is reported to have numerous benefits to the patient's experience. Published studies completed with hospital systems evaluating the intervention of coaching to BSR and how it correlated to patient experience and VBP are limited. METHODS: Coaching to BSR was implemented at 16 adult acute care hospitals. Patient-reported BSR rates were collected in tandem with HCAHPS for 4 years. Statistical correlations were assessed between patient-reported BSR and HCAHPS and consequential effect on VBP dimension scores. RESULTS: Coaching to BSR had a significant impact on top- and bottom-box "rate the hospital" HCAHPS scores at a system and hospital level. Value-based purchasing points and percentages increased over 2017-2020, potentially leading to lower CMS penalty claims over the period the BSR was implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Coaching is a key factor when creating a favorable patient experience. The implementation and sustainability of coaching to BSR may result in improved patient experience ratings and increase VBP point accumulation to hospital systems.

Were hospitals with sustained high performance more successful at reducing mortality during the pandemic's second wave?

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic emerged. Variation in COVID-19 patient outcomes between hospitals was later reported. PURPOSE: This study aims to determine whether sustainers-hospitals with sustained high performance on Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Total Performance Score (HVBP-TPS)-more effectively responded to the pandemic and therefore had better patient outcomes. METHODOLOGY: We calculated hospital-specific risk-standardized event rates using deidentified patient-level data from the UnitedHealth Group Clinical Discovery Database. HVBP-TPS from 2016 to 2019 were obtained from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Hospital characteristics were obtained from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database (2019), and county-level predictors were obtained from the Area Health Resource File. We use a repeated-measures regression model assuming an AR(1) type correlation structure to test whether sustainers had lower mortality rates than nonsustainers during the first wave (spring 2020) and the second wave (October to December 2020) of the pandemic. RESULTS: Sustainers did not have significantly lower COVID-19 mortality rates during the first wave of the pandemic, but they had lower COVID-19 mortality rates during the second wave compared to nonsustainers. Larger hospitals, teaching hospitals, and hospitals with higher occupancy rates had higher mortality rates. CONCLUSION: During the first wave of the pandemic, mortality rates did not differ between sustainers and nonsustainers. However, sustainers had lower mortality rates than nonsustainers in the second wave, most likely because of their knowledge management capabilities and existing structures and resources that enable them to develop new processes and routines to care for patients in times of crisis. Therefore, a consistently high level of performance over the years on HVBP-TPS is associated with high levels of performance on COVID-19 patient outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Investing in identifying the knowledge, processes, and resources that foster the dynamic capabilities needed to achieve superior performance in HVBP might enable hospitals to utilize these capabilities to adapt more effectively to future changes and uncertainty.

Hospital value-based payment programs and disparity in the United States: A review of current evidence and future perspectives.

Beginning in the early 2010s, an array of Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) programs has been developed in the United States (U.S.) to contain costs and improve health care quality. Despite documented successes in these efforts in some instances, there have been growing concerns about the programs' unintended consequences for health care disparities due to their built-in biases against health care organizations that serve a disproportionate share of disadvantaged patient populations. We explore the effects of three Medicare hospital VBP programs on health and health care disparities in the U.S. by reviewing their designs, implementation history, and evidence on health care disparities. The available empirical evidence thus far suggests varied impacts of hospital VBP programs on health care disparities. Most of the reviewed studies in this paper demonstrate that hospital VBP programs have the tendency to exacerbate health care disparities, while a few others found evidence of little or no worsening impacts on disparities. We discuss several policy options and recommendations which include various reform approaches and specific programs ranging from those addressing upstream structural barriers to health care access, to health care delivery strategies that target service utilization and health outcomes of vulnerable populations under the VBP programs. Future studies are needed to produce more explicit, conclusive, and consistent evidence on the impacts of hospital VBP programs on disparities.

Association of the Home Health Value-Based Purchasing Model With Quality, Utilization, and Medicare Payments After the First 5 Years.

Importance: The original Home Health Value-Based Purchasing (HHVBP) model provided financial incentives to home health agencies for quality improvement in 9 randomly selected US states. Objective: To evaluate quality, utilization, and Medicare payments for home health patients in HHVBP states compared with those in comparison states. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted in 2021 with secondary data from January 2013 to December 2020. A difference-in-differences design and multivariate linear regression were used to compare outcomes for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries who received home health care in HHVBP states with those in 41 comparison states during 3 years of preintervention (2013-2015) and the subsequent 5 years (2016-2020). Exposures: Home health care provided by a home health agency in HHVBP states and comparison states. Main Outcomes and Measures: Utilization (unplanned hospitalizations, emergency department visits, skilled nursing facility [SNF] visits) for Medicare beneficiaries within 60 days of beginning home health, Medicare payments during and 37 days after home health episodes, and quality of care (functional status, patient experience) during home health episodes. Results: Among 34 058 796 home health episodes (16 584 870 beneficiaries; mean [SD] age of 76.6 [11.7] years; 60.5% female; 11.2% Black non-Hispanic; 79.5% White non-Hispanic) from January 2016 to December 2020, 22.6% were in HHVBP states and 77.4% were in non-HHVBP states. For the HHVBP and non-HHVBP groups, 60.4% and 61.0% of episodes were provided to female patients; 10.0% and 13.6% were provided to Black non-Hispanic patients, and 82.4% and 75.2% were provided to White non-Hispanic patients, respectively. Unplanned hospitalizations decreased by 0.15 percentage points (95% CI, -0.30 to -0.01) more in HHVBP states, a 1.0% decline compared with 15.7% at baseline. The use of SNFs decreased by 0.34 percentage points (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.27) more in HHVBP states, a 6.9% decline compared with the 4.9% baseline average. There was an association between HHVBP and a reduction in average Medicare payments per day of $2.17 (95% CI, -$3.67 to -$0.68) in HHVBP states, primarily associated with reduced inpatient and SNF services, which corresponded to an average annual Medicare savings of $190 million. There was greater functional improvement in HHVBP states than comparison states and no statistically significant change in emergency department use or most measures of patient experience. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the HHVBP model was associated with lower Medicare payments that were associated with lower utilization of inpatient and SNF services, with better or similar quality of care.

Association of the Medicare Value-Based Purchasing Program With Changes in Patient Care Experience at Safety-net vs Non-Safety-net Hospitals.

Importance: Safety-net hospitals, which have limited financial resources and care for disadvantaged populations, have lower performance on measures of patient experience than non-safety-net hospitals. In 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) program began tying hospital payments to patient-reported experience scores, but whether implementation of this program narrowed differences in scores between safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals is unknown. Objective: To evaluate whether the VBP program's implementation was associated with changes in measures of patient-reported experience at safety-net hospitals compared with non-safety-net hospitals between 2008 and 2019. Design Setting and Participants: This cohort study evaluated 2266 US hospitals that participated in the VBP program between 2008 and 2019. Safety-net hospitals were defined as those in the highest quartile of the disproportionate share hospital index. Data were analyzed from December 2021 to February 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems global measures of patient-reported experience and satisfaction, including a patient's overall rating of a hospital and willingness to recommend a hospital. Secondary outcomes included the 7 other Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems measures encompassing communication ratings, clinical processes ratings, and hospital environment ratings. Piecewise linear mixed regression models were used to assess annual trends in performance on each patient experience measure by hospital safety-net status before (July 1, 2007-June 30, 2011) and after (July 1, 2011-June 30, 2019) implementation of the VBP program. Results: Of 2266 US hospitals, 549 (24.2%) were safety-net hospitals. Safety-net hospitals were more likely than non-safety-net hospitals to be nonteaching (67.6% [371 of 549] vs 53.1% [912 of 1717]; P < .001) and urban (82.5% [453 of 549] vs 77.4% [1329 of 1717]; P = .01). Safety-net hospitals consistently had lower patient experience scores than non-safety-net hospitals across all measures from 2008 to 2019. The percentage of patients rating safety-net hospitals as a 9 or 10 out of 10 increased during the pre-VBP program period (annual percentage change, 1.84%; 95% CI, 1.73%-1.96%) and at a slower rate after VBP program implementation (annual percentage change, 0.49%; 95% CI, 0.45%-0.53%) at safety-net hospitals. Similar patterns were observed at non-safety-net hospitals (pre-VBP program annual percentage change, 1.84% [95% CI, 1.77%-1.90%] and post-VBP program annual percentage change, 0.42% [95% CI, 0.41%-0.45%]). There was no differential change in performance between these sites after the VBP program implementation (adjusted differential change, 0.07% [95% CI, -0.08% to 0.23%]; P = .36). These patterns were similar for the global measure that assessed whether patients would definitely recommend a hospital. There was also no differential change in performance between safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals under the VBP program across measures of communication, including doctor (adjusted differential change, -0.09% [95% CI, -0.19% to 0.01%]; P = .08) and nurse (adjusted differential change, -0.01% [95% CI, -0.12% to 0.10%]; P = .86) communication as well as clinical process measures (staff responsiveness adjusted differential change, 0.13% [95% CI, -0.03% to 0.29%]; P = .11; and discharge instructions adjusted differential change, -0.02% [95% CI, -0.12% to 0.07%]; P = .62). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of 2266 US hospitals found that the VBP program was not associated with improved patient experience at safety-net hospitals vs non-safety-net hospitals during an 8-year period. Policy makers may need to explore other strategies to address ongoing differences in patient experience and satisfaction, including additional support for safety-net hospitals.

The Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program: Do hospitalists improve health care value.

INTRODUCTION: As healthcare organizations examine the associated benefits of employing a larger hospitalist workforce, there is a need to better understand the association with patients' quality, experience, and efficiency. However, there is a lack of information regarding how hospital use of hospitalists over time influences hospital scoring on quality programs, such as the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Inpatient Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) Program. This study examines the association between hospitalist staffing between 2014 and 2019 and HVBP scores. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional panel study design. Total Performance Score (TPS) and its domains were obtained from CMS from 2014 to 2019 and merged with the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database. We utilized random-effects multivariable panel regression models and zero-inflated negative binomial regression to examine the association between the hospitalist-staffing ratio and the HVBP Program. All models were adjusted for hospital characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 2126 hospitals were included in the study. The average ratio of hospitalists per staffed bed was 0.06, with a standard deviation of 0.15. This study suggests that hospitals that employ a higher percentage of hospitalists see improvement in their overall TPS (ß = 5.40; p < .001), Patient Experience (ß = 2.49; p <.05), and Efficiency (incidence-rate ratio= 1.41; p < .001) domain. However, the Clinical Care domain was no different in organizations employing more hospitalists. CONCLUSION: There are benefits associated with TPS, Patient Experience, and Efficiency from employing hospitalists. Managers should seek opportunities to leverage hospitalists' expertise in providing care, particularly in improving care processes.