Value-based Purchasing Research Articles

Evaluating the robustness of the CMS Hospital Value-Based Purchasing measurement system.

The Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program (HVBP) is a pay for performance system that impacts traditional Medicare fee-for-service payments to hospitals through rewards and penalties. To explore variation in overall and individual-hospital total performance score (TPS) and embedded domains for hospitals during 2014-2018. Hospital data were retrieved from the publicly available HOSArchive dataset. Distribution of annual TPS and HVBP domain scores for 2014-2018 was evaluated using descriptive statistics. Transitional probabilities were analyzed to evaluate annual movement in the TPS ranking for outlier hospitals in the Top and Bottom 5%. TPS scores are positively skewed while the distribution of domain scores vary with patient experience, (clinical) outcome, and efficiency domains having a large number of (positive) outliers. Mean TPS score decreased from 40.54 in 2014 to 38.04 by 2018. Improvement was shown in mean domain scores for clinical process of care and clinical outcome using 95% confidence intervals, with hospitals gaining 10 points over the study period in clinical outcome. Changes in the mean scores for other domains did not show consistent increases or decreases. Chi-square analyses of hospital ranking categories showed some evidence that, as a group, hospitals initially ranked in the Bottom 5% are making consistent annual movements to higher categories. In contrast, over half of the hospitals ranking in the initial Top 5% remained in the top category across all study years. It may be time for CMS to redesign the HVBP incentive program to assure the measures accurately demonstrate sustained improvement, the domain weights appropriately reflect the level of importance, and the TPS comparative ranking methodology does not discourage lower-performing hospitals from actively improving the care they deliver and achieving top ranks.

Nearly One In Five Skilled Nursing Facilities Awarded Positive Incentives Under Value-Based Purchasing.

Medicare's Skilled Nursing Facility Value-Based Purchasing Program, which awards value-based incentive payments based on hospital readmissions, distributed its first two rounds of incentives during fiscal years 2019 and 2020. Incentive payments were based on achievement or improvement scores-whichever was better. Incentive payments were as low as -2.0percent in both program years and as high as +1.6percent in FY 2019 and +3.1percent in FY 2020. In FY 2019, 26percent of facilities earned positive incentives and 72percent earned negative incentives, compared with 19percent positive and 65percent negative incentives in FY 2020. Larger, rural, and not-for-profit facilities were more likely to earn positive incentives, as were those with the highest registered nurse staffing levels. Although these findings indicate the potential to reward high-quality care at skilled nursing facilities, intended and unintended outcomes of this new value-based purchasing program should be monitored closely for possible program refinements, particularly in light of the disproportionate impacts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on nursing facilities.

Searching for the Best Yardstick: Cost of Quality Improvements in the U.S. Hospital Industry

The Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program is Medicare’s implementation of yardstick incentives applied to hospitals in the U.S. Under the VBP Program, 2% of all Medicare payments to hospitals, estimated to be US$1.9B in fiscal year 2021, are withheld and redistributed based on their relative performance in the quality of delivered care. We develop a dynamic equilibrium model in which hospitals are engaged in a repeated competition under yardstick incentives. Using structural estimation methods, we recover key parameters that govern hospitals’ decisions to invest in quality improvement, including the financial and non-financial costs and uncertain outcomes of investment. By dynamically solving for hospitals’ individually optimal investment policies, we estimate the trajectory of quality improvements for each hospital, including its investment decisions and quality levels throughout the implementation of the VBP Program. Our counterfactual analyses explore the benefits, on the one hand, of modifying the overall size of the yardstick incentives and, on the other hand, of implementing a more focused program tailored to hospital type. We find that increasing the size of the incentives from 2% to 4% would have resulted in an additional quality investment of US$1.2B from 2011 to 2018, leading to a 3.3% reduction in the average rate of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI). Applying yardstick incentives to the tailored hospital peer groups, even without changing the size of the incentives, can lead to an average reduction of 1.4% in the rate of CLABSI among groups of hospitals associated with the highest costs of quality investment.

Value-Based Purchasing Financial Outcomes Among Minority-Serving Skilled Nursing Facilities

Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) ties post-acute payments to readmissions performance. Minority-serving SNFs tend to be poorly resourced and understanding the financial implications of SNF-VBP is important. Our study examined VBP payments and penalties among minority-serving SNFs. We conducted cross-sectional analysis using public data sources. We defined minority-serving as SNFs with >50% of residents who are African American (AA)/Black (n=764) or with >50% of residents who are Hispanic/Latino (n=164). Majority-White SNFs (>50% residents who are White) were the reference group (n=11,002). Outcomes examined were: being in top 20% of performance rankings; receiving a bonus; receiving a bonus that was above the median bonus dollar amount; being in bottom 20% of performance rankings; receiving a penalty; receiving a penalty that was below the median penalty dollar amount. Logistic models estimated the likelihood of experiencing each performance outcome for AA/Black-serving and Hispanic/Latino-serving SNFs in reference to majority-White SNFs. Results show that minority-serving SNFs not only perform worse but also experience greater negative financial impacts. Among those penalized, Hispanic/Latino-serving SNFs had the largest average penalty amounts: $32,575 compared to approximately $26,000 for both AA/Black- and White-serving SNFs. Hispanic/Latino-serving SNFs had 1.69 times the odds of receiving larger than median penalties and AA/Black-serving SNFs had 27% lower odds of receiving higher than median bonus payments. Average penalties approximate the average salary for a certified nursing assistant, the primary direct care worker in this setting. Results from this study raise concerns over long-term impacts. Alternative approaches to encouraging quality should be considered.

Correlates of Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Performance in the SNF Value-Based Purchasing Program

We examined the results of the 2020 skilled nursing facility (SNF) value-based purchasing (SNF VBP) program to identify correlates and potential drivers of SNF performance in this program. The SNF VBP program provides incentive payments to SNFs based on their performance on a risk-adjusted hospital readmission measure (i.e., the rate at which SNF residents are admitted back to the hospital within 30-days of being admitted to the SNF). SNFs are assessed on this measure for both improvement compared to their historical baseline and overall achievement compared to their peers. All SNFs that are covered under Medicare’s prospective payment system are included in the SNF VBP program. We performed analyses to assess the correlation between individual SNFs’ performance in the 2020 SNF VBP (n=15,201), which is based on actual performance in fiscal year 2018, with contemporaneous matched data related to SNF health inspection results, staffing, and performance on quality measures (these data form the basis of the five-star quality rating system on the Nursing Home Compare website). We also examined longitudinal trends in these non-SNF VBP program variables and their association with changes in SNF performance in the SNF VBP program. We controlled for important SNF-specific factors (e.g., for-profit status, connected to a hospital). We found strong contemporaneous and longitudinal associations between SNF VBP program performance and some, but not all, of these factors. Our findings are supported by decades of empirical research in SNF quality and highlight potential policy alternatives that could further incentivize high quality care in SNFs.

Effectiveness of value-based purchasing for substance use treatment engagement and retention

IntroductionMany people drop out of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment within the first few sessions, which suggests the need for innovative strategies to address this. We examined the effectiveness of incentive-based contracting for Maine's publicly funded outpatient (OP) and intensive outpatient (IOP) SUD treatment, to determine its potential for improving treatment engagement and retention. MethodsMaine's incentive-based contract with federally block grant–funded OP and IOP treatment agencies created a natural experiment, in which we could compare treatment engagement and retention with a group of state-licensed treatment agencies that were not part of the incentive-based contract. We used administrative data for OP (N = 18,375) and IOP (N = 5986) SUD treatment admissions from FY2005–FY2011 to capture trends prior to and after the FY2008 contract implementation date. We performed multivariable difference-in-difference logistic regression models following propensity score matching of clients. ResultsTwo-thirds (66%) of OP admissions engaged in treatment, defined as 4+ treatment sessions, and 85% of IOP admissions satisfied the similar criteria of 4+ treatment days. About 40–45% of OP admissions reached the threshold for retention, defined as 90 days in treatment. IOP treatment completion was attained by 50–58% of admissions. For OP, the incentive and nonincentive groups had no significant differences in percentages with treatment engagement (AOR = 1.28, DID = 5.9%, p = .19), and 90-day retention was significant in the opposite direction of what we hypothesized (AOR = 0.80, DID = −4.6%, p = .0003). For IOP, the incentive group had a significant, but still small, increase in percentage with treatment engagement (AOR = 1.52, DID = 5.5%, p = .003), but the corresponding increase in treatment completion was not similarly significant (AOR = 1.12, DID = 2.7%, p = .53). In all models, individual-level variables were strong predictors of outcomes. ConclusionWe found little to no impact of the incentive-based contract on the treatment engagement, retention, and completion measures, adding to the body of evidence that shows few or null results for value-based purchasing in SUD treatment programs. The limited success of such efforts is likely to reflect the bandwidth that providers and programs have to focus on new endeavors, the importance of the incentive funding to their bottom line, and forces beyond their immediate control.

Home Health Care Quality, Its Costs and Implications for Home Health Value-Based Purchasing.

The Home Health Value-based Purchasing (HHVBP) demonstration, incorporating a payment formula designed to incentivize both high-quality care and quality improvement, is expected to become a national program after 2022, when the demonstration ends. This study investigated the relationship between costs and several quality dimensions, to inform HHVBP policy. Using Medicare cost reports, OASIS and Home Health Compare data for 7,673 home health agencies nationally, we estimated cost functions with instrumental variables for quality. The estimated net marginal costs varied by composite quality measure, baseline quality, and agency size. For four of the five composite quality measures, the net marginal cost was negative for low-quality agencies, suggesting that quality improvement was cost saving for this agency type. As the magnitude of the net marginal cost is commensurate with the payment incentive planned for HHVBP, it should be considered when designing the incentives for HHVBP, to maximize their effectiveness.

Informed Application of the Standards on Support Surface Performance for Clinically Meaningful Use.

The Support Surface Standards Initiative (S3I) has evolved with the goal of standardizing language and performance evaluation of support surfaces. There is a consumer need for education about support surface standards to transfer new information with clinical relevance. To develop a framework for meaningful dialogue through consensus building that drives value-based purchasing, propose a clinically relevant path for understanding how to apply data from the standards into critical interprofessional analysis and support surface selection, and navigate the first tier of a process targeted as an educational initiative within the Standards Committee. The authors purposively sampled the S3I Tissue Integrity Group with a semi-structured qualitative survey to identify the essential components of support surfaces standard performance testing. A two-phase interview and review process was implemented within the larger S3I group to achieve consensus on content for knowledge transfer, with a threshold of 80% agreement within the Standards Committee. Meaningful consensus was achieved on content associated with knowledge transfer of standards data. These standards will function as reliable benchmarks, enabling consumers to compare individual characteristics of one support surface to another. Product comparison will be based on the single characteristics of support surfaces and how those characteristics are relevant to the specific needs of the individual patient or patient populations, transferred in language that is meaningful to end users of the standards. The consensus process facilitated construction of a clinically relevant, interprofessional framework for the product selection process within the Standards Committee. It will enable the next tier of educational dissemination beyond the Standards Committee to a broader base of consumers to engage in value-based purchasing with enhanced understanding of support surface performance characteristics.

How What You Measure Matters: Risk-Adjusted Length of Stay and Observation Status.

* Abbreviations: OBS — : observation status RA-LOS — : risk-adjusted geometric mean length of stay The underlying vision for pediatric quality measurement is improved care and health outcomes for children. Quality measures help realize this vision, through capturing system successes and failures in supporting child health. There are a large number of quality measures, some of which are focused on processes, some on outcomes, and some on use.1 To accurately assess successes and failures in care delivery, measure design matters. This is because measures can deeply incentivize behavior because of their use in reputational (eg, public reporting) and financial incentive (value-based purchasing) programs. In this issue of Pediatrics , Gay et al2 focus on risk-adjusted geometric mean length of stay (RA-LOS), a commonly used metric for understanding hospital use. Hospitals and payers often use this to assess efficiency and throughput, with the most familiar manifestation being the focus on “discharge before noon.” But increased RA-LOS can also signal issues with patient safety and increased hospital-acquired conditions.3,4 Hence, getting this measure design right is important because the measure informs hospitals not only about their relative efficiency and throughput compared with other hospitals nationally but also about potentially important failures in patient safety. Ga2y et al2 focus on a specific … Address correspondence to Naomi S. Bardach, MD, MAS, Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, 3333 California St, Suite 265, San Francisco, CA 94118. E-mail: naomi.bardach{at}ucsf.edu

A cross-sectional study of trauma certification and hospital referral region diversity: A system theory approach

BackgroundThere are clear racial/ethnic disparities in the trauma care service delivery. However, no study has examined the relationships between structural determinants of trauma care designations (L-I through L-IV) or verification and social factors of the surrounding health region in the U.S. ObjectiveThis study examined the relationship between U.S. community segregation in a hospital referral region (HRR) and hospitals’ attainment of trauma certification and trauma designation L-I/II. MethodsTwo-year retrospective analysis of 2,348 acute hospitals that participated in the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) Program. Multivariate Poisson and 1:2 matching ratio using Propensity Score Matching regressions were used. Our primary variables were composite segregation scores for each county—aggregated to the HRR level (n=303)—and hospital performance on the HVBP Program. ResultsSegregated HRRs are 69% and 40% less likely to have an increase in the number of hospitals with trauma care designations L-I/II and trauma certification, respectively. Our matching ratio showed that hospitals with trauma certification or hospitals with trauma care designations L-I/II were more likely to be within HRRs with lower community diversity. ConclusionOur findings highlight that system disparities exist in trauma care. Research is needed to determine if other factors, such as resource allocation and reimbursement distribution, impact the availability of trauma facilities.

Association Between Federal Value-Based Incentive Program Implementation and Hospital-Onset C. difficile Infection Rates

Background: The Hospital-Acquired Conditions Reduction Program (HACRP) and Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) are federal value-based incentive programs that financially reward or penalize hospitals based on quality metrics. Hospital-onset C. difficile infection (HO-CDI) rates reported to the CDC NHSN became a target quality metric for both HACRP and HVBP in October 2016, but the impact of these programs on HO-CDI rates is unknown. Methods: We used an interrupted time-series design to examine the association between HACRP/HVBP implementation in October 2016 and quarterly rates of HO-CDI per 10,000 patient days among incentive-eligible acute-care hospitals conducting facility-wide HO-CDI NHSN surveillance between January 2013 and March 2019. Generalized estimating equations were used to fit negative binomial regression models to assess for immediate program impact (ie, level change) and changes in the slope of HO-CDI rates, controlling for each hospital’s predominant method for CDI testing (nucleic acid amplification including PCR (NAAT), enzyme immunoassay for toxin (EIA), or other testing method including cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay and toxigenic culture). Results: Of the 265 study hospitals studied, most were medium-sized (100–399 beds, 55%), not-for-profit (77%), teaching hospitals (70%), and were located in a metropolitan area (87%). Compared to EIA, rates of HO-CDI were higher when detected by NAAT (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.55; 95% CI, 1.41–1.70) or other testing methods (IRR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.26–1.71). Controlling for CDI testing methods, HACRP/HVBP implementation was associated with an immediate 6% decline in HO-CDI rates (IRR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89–0.99) and a 4% decline in slope per year-quarter thereafter (IRR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95–0.97) (Fig. 1). Conclusions: HACRP/HVBP implementation was associated with both immediate and gradual improvements in HO-CDI rates, independent of CDI testing methods of differing sensitivity. Future research may evaluate the precise mechanisms underlying this improvement and if this impact is sustained in the long term.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Reengineering the Discharge Management of Heart Failure Patients Discharged to Skilled Nursing Facilities Utilizing a Multidisciplinary Team Approach Reduces 30-day Readmission Rate

Introduction Value Based Purchasing (VBP) Initiatives were developed by Medicare in an effort to reduce expenditures while preserving quality of care. The challenge is the large volume of hospitalized Heart Failure (HF) patients (4,000/year) with a historically high 30-day readmission rate (27%). HF patients discharged to Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNF) (23%) were at higher risk of readmission, p-value Hypothesis Development of a designated multidisciplinary HF Team (NP, PharmD, Case manager and SNF leadership) approach that integrates a standardized comprehensive pre/post discharge multidisciplinary management plan will decrease 30-Day readmission rates. Methods January 15 - April 1, 2019 was the implementation phase of the SNF Heart Failure Readmission Reduction Initiative (SNF -HFRRI) Pilot Project which included generation of a daily patient list with Primary HF (ICD-10) and HF anticipated discharge list from case management. Daily HF Team morning rounds were conducted to review patient/family education, appropriate medication/adherence, and discharge readiness. HF patients identified to be discharged to a SNF were flagged for further in-depth pre-discharge HF NP consult/PharmD counsel and to develop a warm handoff to SNF leadership. Post discharge HF weekly telephone assessment with SNF senior RN leadership and attendings were conducted. Retrospective review of prospectively collected data was analyzed based on age, gender, NYHA, ACC stage, LOS, Unit of discharge and 30-Day Readmission and included Pre-SNF-HFRRI (June 1, 2018 - January 15, 2019); Implementation Phase (January 15, 2019 -March 31, 2019); Post SNF-HFRRI (April 1, 2019 November 15, 2019). Results We identified 182 HF patients (88-Pre-SNF-HFRRI and 94 Post SNF-HFRRI). Continuous variables (age, LOS) and categorical variables (gender, NYHA, LVEF, ACC stage, reason for readmission, hospital unit discharged and 30-day readmission) were summarized; pre/post groups were compared using Wilcoxon rank, chi square and Fisher's exact test. The groups were comparable to age, LOS, LVEF, ACC class, units discharged. A structured weekly post discharge phone assessment incorporating Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy was statistically significant, p Conclusion Our newly integrated multidisciplinary HF team approach that incorporates a structured post-discharge collaborative approach can prevent avoidable 30-day readmissions and improve discharge preparedness.

Magnet Hospitals and 30-Day Readmission and Mortality Rates for Medicare Beneficiaries.

US hospitals are penalized for excess 30-day readmissions and mortality for select conditions. Under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services policy, readmission prevention is incentivized to a greater extent than mortality reduction. A strategy to potentially improve hospital performance on either measure is by improving nursing care, as nurses provide the largest amount of direct patient care. However, little is known as to whether achieving nursing excellence, such as Magnet status, is associated with improved hospital performance on readmissions and mortality. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between hospitals' Magnet status and performance on readmission and mortality rates for Medicare beneficiaries. This is a cross-sectional analysis of Medicare readmissions and mortality reduction programs from 2013 to 2016. A propensity score-matching approach was used to take into account differences in baseline characteristics when comparing Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals. The sample was comprised of 3877 hospitals. The outcome measures were 30-day risk-standardized readmission and mortality rates. Following propensity score matching on hospital characteristics, we found that Magnet hospitals outperformed non-Magnet hospitals in reducing mortality; however, Magnet hospitals performed worse in reducing readmissions for acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting, and stroke. Magnet hospitals performed better on the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Mortality Program than the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. The results of this study suggest the need for The Magnet Recognition Program to examine the role of nurses in postdischarge activities as a component of its evaluation criteria.

Association of Electronic Health Record Use Above Meaningful Use Thresholds With Hospital Quality and Safety Outcomes

By 2018, Medicare spent more than $30 billion to incentivize the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs), based partially on the belief that EHRs would improve health care quality and safety. In a time when most hospitals are well past minimum meaningful use (MU) requirements, examining whether EHR implementation beyond the minimum threshold is associated with increased quality and safety may guide the future focus of EHR development and incentive structures. To determine whether EHR implementation above MU performance thresholds is associated with changes in hospital patient satisfaction, efficiency, and safety. This quantile regression analysis of cross-sectional data used publicly available data sets from 2362 acute care hospitals in the United States participating in both the MU and Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) programs from January 1 to December 31, 2016. Data were analyzed from August 1, 2019, to May 22, 2020. Seven MU program performance measures, including medication and laboratory orders placed through the EHR, online health information availability and access rates, medication reconciliation through the EHR, patient-specific educational resources, and electronic health information exchange. The HVBP outcomes included patient satisfaction survey dimensions, Medicare spending per beneficiary, and 5 types of hospital-acquired infections. Among the 2362 participating hospitals, mixed associations were found between MU measures and HVBP outcomes, all varying by outcome quantile and in some cases by interaction with EHR vendor. Computerized provider order entry (CPOE) for laboratory orders was associated with decreased ratings of every patient satisfaction outcome at middle quantiles (communication with nurses: β = -0.33 [P = .04]; communication with physicians: β = -0.50 [P < .001]; responsiveness of hospital staff: β = -0.57 [P = .03]; care transition performance: β = -0.66 [P < .001]; communication about medicines: β = -0.52 [P = .002]; cleanliness and quietness: β = -0.58 [P = .007]; discharge information: β = -0.48 [P < .001]; and overall rating: β = -0.95 [P < .001]). However, at middle quantiles, CPOE for medication orders was associated with increased ratings for communication with physicians (τ = 0.5; β = 0.54; P = .009), care transition (τ = 0.5; β = 1.24; P < .001), discharge information (τ = 0.5; β = 0.41; P = .01), and overall hospital ratings (τ = 0.5; β = 0.97; P = .02). At high quantiles, electronic health information exchange was associated with improved ratings of communication with nurses (τ = 0.9; β = 0.23; P = .03). Medication reconciliation had positive associations with increased communication with nursing at low quantiles (τ = 0.1; β = 0.60; P < .001), increased discharge information at middle quantiles (τ = 0.5; β = 0.28; P = .03), and responsiveness of hospital staff at middle (τ = 0.5; β = 0.77; P = .001) and high (τ = 0.9; β = 0.84; P = .001) quantiles. Patients accessing their health information online was not associated with any outcomes. Increased use of patient-specific educational resources identified through the EHR was associated with increased ratings of communication with physicians at high quantiles (τ = 0.9; β = 0.20; P = .02) and with decreased spending at low-spending hospitals (τ = 0.1; β = -0.40; P = .008). Increasing EHR implementation, as measured by MU criteria, was not straightforwardly associated with increased HVBP measures of patient satisfaction, spending, and safety in this study. These results call for a critical evaluation of the criteria by which EHR implementation is measured and increased attention to how different EHR products may lead to differential outcomes.

Advancing value in oral health through meaningful measurement.

Central to all value-based purchasing (VBP) approaches are value metrics, the measurements used to drive improvement, facilitate payment, and evaluate results of VBP programs. This article outlines approaches for adopting meaningful measurement systems that can be used to support VBP in the near term and identifies systemic changes critical to developing more robust measurement systems to advance VBP in the future.

Measuring and Improving Quality in the US: Where Are We Today?

In the 50 years since the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) was established, the United States has gone from a shared perspective that high-quality care was being routinely delivered to becoming aware of the significant and pervasive problems with quality. Efforts to stimulate improved quality have included public reporting, pay for performance, and value-based purchasing. In addition, maintenance of certification, systematic reviews of research, practice guidelines, electronic health records, and quality improvement programs have offered support for different dimensions of quality. Despite these programs and infrastructure, there is little evidence that quality has improved systematically in the United States. There are areas in which quality is better but many other areas in which quality has remained the same or even worsened. The focus on financial incentives as a primary tool for motivating improvement may not be productive and there is little evidence from research that quality varies with payment or incentives. Quality is a systems issue and requires system solutions. The ABFM has had a long commitment to assessing quality and has an opportunity to lead the way in reimagining quality measurement and assessment.

Value-Based Care: An Executive Briefing

In today’s challenging health care environment, the paradigm shift from volume to value requires nurse leaders to develop enhanced skills to transform health care in 2020. Key drivers for success include: igniting innovation and change; embracing data and analytics; and launching new care delivery models that soar beyond organizational boundaries. Value-based care is here to stay, and nursing must be the catalyst for change. Equipped with new skills and the knowledge of CMS Pay for Performance programs, nurse leaders will design the future health care landscape.

Sternal-Wound Infections following Coronary Artery Bypass Graft: Could Implementing Value-Based Purchasing be Beneficial?

Background/ObjectivesSternal-wound infections (SWIs) are rare but consequential healthcare-healthcare-associated infections following coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). The impact of SWIs associated on the cost of health care provision is unknown. The aim of this study was to quantify the burden of CABG-related SWIs across countries with mature health care systems and estimate value-based purchasing (VBP) levels based on the local burden.MethodsA structured literature review identified relevant data for 14 countries (the Netherlands, France, Germany, Austria, the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Japan, Spain, the United States, Brazil, Israel, Taiwan, and Thailand). Data, including SWI rates, CABG volume, and length of stay, were used to populate a previously published Markov model that simulates the patient’s CABG-care pathway and estimates the economic (US$) and care burden of SWIs for each country. Based on this burden, scenarios for VBP were explored for each country. A feasible cost of intervention per patient for an intervention providing a 20% reduction in the SWI rate was calculated.ResultsThe SWI burden varied considerably between settings, with SWIs occurring in 2.8% (the United Kingdom) to 10.4% (the Netherlands) of CABG procedures, while the costs per SWI varied between US$8172 (Brazil) to US$54 180 (Japan). Additional length of stay after SWI was the largest cost driver. The overall highest annual burden was identified in the United States (US$336 million) at a mean cost of US$36 769 per SWI. Given the SWI burden, the median cost of intervention per patient that a hospital could afford ranged from US$20 (US$13 to US$42) in France to US$111 (US$65 to US$183) in Japan.ConclusionsSWIs represent a large burden with a median cost of US$13 995 per case and US$900 per CABG procedure. By tackling SWIs, there is potential to simultaneously reduce the burden on health care systems and improve outcomes for patients. Mutually beneficial VBP agreements might be one method to promote uptake of novel methods of SWI prevention.

Early Performance of Hospital Value-based Purchasing Program in Medicare: A Systematic Review.

Under the Affordable Care Act, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has greatly expanded inpatient fee-for-value programs including the Hospital Value-based Purchasing (HVBP) program. Existing evidence from the HVBP program is mixed. There is a need for a systematic review of the HVBP program to inform discussions on how to improve the program's effectiveness. To review and summarize studies that evaluated the HVBP program's impact on clinical processes, patient satisfaction, costs and outcomes, or assessed hospital characteristics associated with performance on the program. We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest database for literature published between January 2013 and July 2019 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Of 988 studies reviewed, 33 studies that met the selection criteria were included. A small group of studies (n=7) evaluated the impact of the HVBP program, and no impact on processes or patient outcomes was reported. None of the included studies evaluated the effect of HVBP program on health care costs. Other studies (n=28) evaluated the hospital characteristics associated with HVBP performance, suggesting that safety-net hospitals reportedly performed worse on several quality and cost measures. Other hospital characteristics' associations with performance were unclear. Our findings suggest that the current HVBP does not lead to meaningful improvements in quality of care or patient outcomes and may negatively affect safety-net hospitals. More rigorous and comprehensive adjustment is needed for more valid hospital comparisons.

Association Between Federal Value-Based Incentive Programs and Health Care–Associated Infection Rates in Safety-Net and Non–Safety-Net Hospitals

In the US, federal value-based incentive programs are more likely to penalize safety-net institutions than non-safety-net institutions. Whether these programs differentially change the rates of targeted health care-associated infections in safety-net vs non-safety-net hospitals is unknown. To assess the association of Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) and Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) implementation with changes in rates of targeted health care-associated infections and disparities in rates among safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals. This interrupted time series included all US acute care hospitals enrolled in the Preventing Avoidable Infectious Complications by Adjusting Payment study that participated in mandatory reporting to the National Healthcare Safety Network from January 1, 2013, through June 30, 2018. Hospital characteristics were obtained from the 2015 American Hospital Association annual survey. Penalty statuses for 2015 to 2018 were obtained from Hospital Compare. Data were analyzed between July 9, 2018, and October 1, 2019. HACRP and HVBP implementation in fiscal year 2015 or 2016. The primary outcomes were rates of 4 health care-associated infections: central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), surgical site infection (SSI) after colon surgical procedures, and SSI after abdominal hysterectomy procedures. Regression models were fit using generalized estimating equations to assess the association of HACRP and HVBP implementation with health care-associated infection rates and disparities in infection rates. Of the 618 acute care hospitals included in this study, 473 (76.5%) were non-safety net and 145 (23.5%) were considered safety net. In these hospitals, HACRP and HVBP implementation was not associated with improvements in level or trend for any health care-associated infection examined (eg, CAUTI in safety-net hospitals: incidence rate ratio [IRR] for level change, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.79-1.23; P = .89]; IRR for change in slope, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.97-1.03; P = .80]). Before program implementation, infection rates were statistically significantly higher for safety-net than for non-safety-net hospitals for CLABSI (IRR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.42; P = .004), CAUTI (IRR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.16-1.64; P < .001), and SSI after colon surgical procedure (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06-1.50; P = .009). The disparity persisted over time when comparing the last year of the study with the first year (CLABSI: ratio of ratios [ROR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.77-1.13; P = .48]; CAUTI: ROR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73-1.10; P = .31]; SSI after colon surgical procedures: ROR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.78-1.20; P = .75]). Rates of SSI after abdominal hysterectomy procedure were similar in safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals before implementation (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.91-1.40; P = .27) but higher after implementation (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.11-1.83; P = .006), although this change was not significant (ROR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.91-1.59; P = .20). This study found that HACRP and HVBP implementation was not associated with any improvements in targeted health care-associated infections among safety-net or non-safety-net hospitals or with changes in disparities in infection rates. Given the persistent health care-associated infection rate disparities, these programs appear to function as a disproportionate penalty system for safety-net hospitals that offer no measurable benefits for patients.