Quality, cost, and their trade-off in treating AMI and stroke patients in European hospitals

Abstract

ObjectivesThis study compared the cost and in-hospital mortality of hospital care for two major diseases, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke, by pooling patient-level data from five European countries (Finland, France, Germany, Spain, and Sweden). We examined whether a cost–quality trade-off existed in these countries by comparing hospital-level costs and survival rates, and whether hospitals which performed well in terms of cost or quality in treating one patient group (AMI) performed well also in treating the other patient group (stroke). MethodsA fixed-effect probit regression model for survival and the linear model for log costs were used to calculate indicators for hospital quality and cost, which were plotted against each other. FindingsBoth with AMI and stroke there were remarkable differences between hospitals and countries in (both crude and adjusted) rates of patients discharged alive. Swedish and French hospitals had lower mortality than hospitals in Germany, Finland and Spain in the care of AMI patients. However, a longer length of stay in Spanish and German hospitals may bias the results in the two countries. The Finnish hospitals seemed to have lower mortality than the other countries’ hospitals in the care of stroke patients. There was no correlation at either the national or hospital level in the quality of treatment of these two diseases. We did not find a clear cost–quality trade-off. The only notable exception was Sweden, where the costs for AMI patients were higher in hospitals with the highest quality of care. ConclusionsCountries should identify the best performing hospitals both in terms of cost and quality in order to learn from hospitals that demonstrate better practice. It is equally important to better understand the reasons behind the observed differences between hospitals in costs and quality.