• Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
  • Bookmark and Share
  • email
  • |
  • print
  • |
  • rss

tool name

close
tool goes here

Study: Paying hospitals based on quality didn't cut death rates

email this story print this story jump to comments

WASHINGTON — Medicare's largest effort to pay hospitals based on how they perform — an inspiration for key parts of the 2010 health care law — did not lead to fewer deaths, a new study has found.

The New England Journal of Medicine study casts doubt on a central premise of the health law's effort to rework the financial incentives for hospitals with the aim of saving money while improving patient care. This fall, Medicare is going to start altering its payments to more than 3,000 hospitals based on how patients rate their stays and how completely hospitals follow a handful of clinical guidelines for basic care.

That effort, the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program, is modeled on a six-year project called the Medicare Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration (HQID). Between 2003 and 2009, the 252 hospitals participating in the program were measured on three dozen performance metrics, including their mortality rates for heart attack and heart-bypass surgery. Those that did best earned bonuses, and those that did the worst lost money.

But the study, published Wednesday, found that the mortality rate at the participating hospitals was virtually the same as the mortality rate for the 3,363 hospitals that were not part of the project. While the mortality rate dropped slightly over the course of the project among participating hospitals, it also dropped for the other hospitals.

"Pay for performance is really important," said Ashish Jha, an associate professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study. "This says to me that we haven't figured out the pay part or the performance part."

The study's findings are at odds with the way the Premier healthcare alliance has portrayed the project.

On its website, Premier, which oversees quality improvement efforts for its membership of hospitals and health systems, estimated the project saved the lives of 8,500 heart attack patients over five years.

Blair Childs, a senior vice president at Premier, said it wasn't surprising that the Premier hospitals didn't prevent substantially more deaths from heart attacks and heart bypasses, because there were so few deaths to begin with.

Childs also said that lowering mortality wasn't the primary goal of the demonstration project. Most of the quality metrics look at whether hospital staff performed particular procedures, such as giving heart attack patients a beta-blocker on arrival and discharge. By those standards, the Premier hospitals surpassed other hospitals, he said.

"The goal of HQID was to determine whether incentives would improve care processes in hospitals and it did do that, there's no question," Childs said.

Childs agreed with the New England Journal article that focusing on these "process" measures might not be the best way to actually improve patient outcomes. He said a current project Premier is running called Quest among 293 hospitals has found that a better way to reduce mortality is to focus on preventing septic shock, when the bloodstream is infected with bacteria, and respiratory conditions such as pneumonia in patients on ventilators.

In a statement, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said: "The Premier demonstration was an effort under the last administration, separate from the value-based purchasing model that we're implementing into Medicare's hospital payment system. Our model for improving quality in hospitals is much more aggressive, covering all hospitals and including both incentives for hospitals that do well on quality metrics, and consequences for hospitals that do not improve."

CMS has said it eventually wants to tie hospital payment to actual outcomes. But in the value-based program's first year, process measures will account for 70 percent of hospitals' financial incentives, with patient satisfaction scores making up the rest. In the second year, starting in fall 2013, Medicare will take into account mortality rates for three conditions — heart failure, heart attack and pneumonia. But process measures will continue to play a dominant part in judging hospital performance.

In an interview, Jha cautioned Medicare against making hospitals accountable for too many different things, diffusing their focus from the ones that matter most. For instance, he said, one measure Medicare is using — what percent of patients received written instructions about how to take care of themselves after discharge — has been shown in studies to have no effect on whether patients are readmitted.

"At the end of the day, you are going to ask people to make improvements and you want them to focus on what's important," Jha said. "And if you give them 18 different metrics and some are easy but not that important, and some are hard but important, people are going to naturally gravitate toward what's easy and you're not going to have meaningful impact."

Chas Roades, chief research officer at The Advisory Board Company, a consulting firm, said he believes Medicare's new effort will improve quality in the long-term. But he cautioned that it might take a while.

"Like most of these kinds of quality improvements, I think the early gains are going to be the very low performers, and less about the top performers improving even more," he said. "What I think it will do in the reasonably near term is reduce the spread between the worst performers and the best performers, mostly by pulling up the bottom."

Dr. Donald Berwick, the former CMS administrator, said he hadn't read the study and thus couldn't comment on it. But he said that "conceptually," paying for performance "has to be the right way to go" because the current system of reimbursement for procedures has proven not to work. Getting the right measurements will be crucial, he said. "The angel may be in the details," he said.

(Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent news service of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy organization that isn't affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.)

ON THE WEB

New England Journal of Medicine study of hospitals' performance

MORE FROM KAISER HEALTH NEWS

Coverage of the nation's health-care debate

Kaiser Family Foundation on Twitter

MORE FROM MCCLATCHY

Kaiser Health News on McClatchy

Is health care law really a 'job killer'? Experts doubt it

McClatchy Newspapers 2012
  • Bookmark and Share
  • email
  • |
  • print
  • |
  • rss

tool name

close
tool goes here
JOIN THE DISCUSSION

We welcome comments. To post one, you must sign in using either your McClatchyDC login or your login for Facebook, Twitter or Disqus. Just click the appropriate box below.

Please keep your comment civil, short and to the point. Obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. If you find a comment abusive or inappropriate, please flag it for the moderator by placing your cursor on the comment, then clicking the "flag" link that appears. Thanks for your participation.

Stay Connected

Sign up for email newsletters RSS
Follow us on your iPhone Follow us on your Android device
Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us using Google Currents

ABOUT THIS SECTION

Kaiser and McClatchy

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a nonprofit news organization committed to in-depth coverage of health care policy and politics. Kaiser Health News is funded by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit private operating foundation based in Menlo Park, Calif., which is dedicated to producing and communicating the best possible analysis and information on health issues.


KHN’s editors decide what stories its staff will cover, and McClatchy editors independently decide which of those stories will appear on the McClatchyDC Web site. KHN stories also may be distributed to other news organizations.


KHN's editors include Laurie McGinley, the executive editor for news, who spent 27 years at the Wall Street Journal; Peggy Girshman, executive editor for online, who was a former managing editor of National Public Radio and former executive editor at Congressional Quarterly, and John Fairhall, senior editor, who was a reporter and editor at the Baltimore Sun for 27 years.


Read more about KHN, its staff and its advisory board here.


The Kaiser Family Foundation is a non-profit private foundation that focuses on the major health care issues facing the U.S., as well as the U.S. role in global health policy. It was founded in 1948 by industrialist Henry John Kaiser, whose businesses included Kaiser Aluminum and Kaiser Steel and who created Kaiser Permanente to provide health care for his workers and their families.


After Henry Kaiser died in 1967, his conglomerate broke up, and the Foundation, which had been a beneficiary of the shares, sold its stock, divesting itself completely by 1985. Neither KHN nor the Foundation has any association with Kaiser Permanente or Kaiser Industries. Family members who remained active with the foundation do not hold seats on the board of either Kaiser Permanente or Kaiser Industries.


Read more about the Kaiser Family Foundation here.