Value-Based Payment for Clinicians Treating Cardiovascular Disease: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association.

Clinician payment is transitioning from fee-for-service to value-based payment, with reimbursement tied to health care quality and cost. However, the overarching goals of value-based payment-to improve health care quality, lower costs, or both-have been largely unmet. This policy statement reviews the current state of value-based payment and provides recommended best practices for future design and implementation. The policy statement is divided into sections that detail different aspects of value-based payment: (1) key program design features (patient population, quality measurement, cost measurement, and risk adjustment), (2) the role of equity during design and evaluation, (3) adjustment of payment, and (4) program implementation and evaluation. Each section introduces the topic, describes important considerations, and lists examples from existing programs. Each section includes recommended best practices for future program design. The policy statement highlights 4 key themes for successful value-based payment. First, programs should carefully weigh the incentives between lowering cost and improving quality of care and ensure that there is adequate focus on quality of care. Second, the expansion of value-based payment should be a tool for improving equity, which is central to quality of care and should be a focal point of program design and evaluation. Third, value-based payment should continue to move away from fee for service toward more flexible funding that allows clinicians to focus resources on the interventions that best help patients. Last, successful programs should find ways to channel clinicians' intrinsic motivation to improve their performance and the care for their patients. These principles should guide the future development of clinician value-based payment models.

A Novel Scoring System and Correlative Analysis of the Strength and Effectiveness of Nationwide High School Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Mandates: Insights from a High School CPR Study.

BACKGROUND: Numerous states have introduced cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training mandates for high school students and staff to prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD). However, the content and implementation of these mandates vary substantially. Furthermore, a comprehensive and objective assessment of these mandates and their impact is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a thorough evaluation of CPR training mandates across the United States. METHODS: We developed a novel scoring system based on proposed CPR standards, training and certification requirements, and legislative action to assess current mandates. This was used to rate the CPR mandates across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Mandate scores were then compared to available real-world registry data as a surrogate for efficacy from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: State CPR mandate scores ranged from 0 to 47, with a higher score indicating more robust mandates. The median and mean scores were 24 [IQR 19.5-27] and 21.52±8.61, respectively, with 35 being the highest score. Intra-observer variability was 0.986 (95% CI 0.944-1.028; p<0.001). The year of implementation did not influence the strength of the score (R2=-0.173; 95% CI -0.447-0.131, p=0.262), Correlation between SCD rate (R2=-0.76; 95% CI -0.492-0.367, p=0.742), bystander-initiated CPR (R2= -0.006; 95% CI -0.437-0.427, p=0.978), automatic external defibrillator use (R2= -0.125; 95% CI -0.528-0.324, p=0.590), or cardiovascular death rate (R2=-0.13; 95% CI -0.379-0.21, p=0.355) failed to reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Modest scoring consistency highlights the need for robust, standardized CPR requirements to potentially mitigate SCD. This study lays the groundwork for evidence-informed policy development in this area.

Work Activities and Compensation of Male and Female Cardiologists.

BACKGROUND: Much remains unknown about experiences, including working activities and pay, of women in cardiology, which is a predominantly male specialty. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to describe the working activities and pay of female cardiologists compared with their male colleagues and to determine whether sex differences in compensation exist after accounting for differences in work activities and other characteristics. METHODS: The personal, job, and practice characteristics of a national sample of practicing cardiologists were described according to sex. We applied the Peters-Belson technique and multivariate regression analysis to evaluate whether gender differences in compensation existed after accounting for differences in other measured characteristics. The study used 2013 data reported by practice administrators to MedAxiom, a subscription-based service provider to cardiology practices. Data regarding cardiologists from 161 U.S. practices were included, and the study sample included 2,679 subjects (229 women and 2,450 men). RESULTS: Women were more likely to be specialized in general/noninvasive cardiology (53.1% vs. 28.2%), and a lower proportion (11.4% vs. 39.3%) reported an interventional subspecialty compared with men. Job characteristics that differed according to sex included the proportion working full-time (79.9% vs. 90.9%; p < 0.001), the mean number of half-days worked (387 vs. 406 days; p = 0.001), and mean work relative value units generated (7,404 vs. 9,497; p < 0.001) for women and men, respectively. Peters-Belson analysis revealed that based on measured job and productivity characteristics, the women in this sample would have been expected to have a mean salary that was $31,749 (95% confidence interval: $16,303 to $48,028) higher than that actually observed. Multivariate analysis confirmed the direction and magnitude of the independent association between sex and salary. CONCLUSIONS: Men and women practicing cardiology in this national sample had different job activities and salaries. Substantial sex-based salary differences existed even after adjusting for measures of personal, job, and practice characteristics.

Coronary CT angiography versus myocardial perfusion imaging for near-term quality of life, cost and radiation exposure: a prospective multicenter randomized pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes and resource utilization after coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) versus myocardial perfusion single-photon emission CT (MPS) in patients with stable angina and suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) has not been examined. OBJECTIVE: We determined the near-term clinical effect and resource utilization after cardiac CTA compared with MPS. METHODS: We randomly assigned 180 patients (age, 57.3 ± 9.8 years; 50.6% men) presenting with stable chest pain and suspected CAD at 2 sites to initial diagnostic evaluation by coronary CTA (n = 91) or MPS (n = 89). The primary outcome was near-term angina-specific health status; the secondary outcomes were incident medical and invasive treatments for CAD, CAD health care costs, and estimated radiation dose. RESULTS: No patients experienced myocardial infarction or death with 98.3% follow-up at 55 ± 34 days. Both arms experienced comparable improvements in angina-specific health status. Patients who received coronary CTA had increased incident aspirin (22% vs 8%; P = 0.04) and statin (7% vs -3.5%; P = 0.03) use, similar rates of CAD-related hospitalization, invasive coronary angiography, noninvasive cardiac imaging tests, and increased revascularization (8% vs 1%; P = 0.03). Coronary CTA had significantly lower total costs ($781.08 [interquartile range (IQR), $367.80-$4349.48] vs $1214.58 [IQR, $978.02-$1569.40]; P < 0.001) with no difference in induced costs. Coronary CTA had a significantly lower total estimated effective radiation dose (7.4 mSv [IQR, 5.0-14.0 mSv] vs 13.3 mSv [IQR, 13.1-38.0 mSv]; P < 0.0001) with no difference in induced radiation. CONCLUSION: In a pilot randomized controlled trial, patients with stable CAD undergoing coronary CTA and MPS experience comparable improvements in near-term angina-related quality of life. Compared with MPS, coronary CTA evaluation is associated with more aggressive medical therapy, increased coronary revascularization, lower total costs, and lower effective radiation dose.