Potential Impact of 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Hypertension Guideline on Contemporary Practice: A Cross-Sectional Analysis From NCDR PINNACLE Registry.

Background Clinical implications of change in the 2017 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guideline on the diagnosis and management of hypertension, compared with recommendations by 2014 expert panel and Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC7), are not known. Methods and Results Using data from the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) PINNACLE (Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence) Registry (January 2013-Decemver 2016), we compared the proportion and clinical characteristics of patients seen in cardiology practices diagnosed with hypertension, recommended antihypertensive treatment, and achieving blood pressure (BP) goals per each guideline document. In addition, we evaluated the proportion of patients at the level of practices meeting BP targets defined by each guideline. Of 6 042 630 patients evaluated, 5 027 961 (83.2%) were diagnosed with hypertension per the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline, compared with 4 521 272 (74.8%) per the 2014 panel and 4 545 976 (75.2%) per JNC7. The largest increase in hypertension prevalence was seen in younger ages, women, and those with lower cardiovascular risk. Antihypertensive medication was recommended to 70.6% of patients per the ACC/AHA guideline compared with 61.8% and 65.9% per the 2014 panel and JNC7, respectively. Among those on antihypertensive agents, 41.2% achieved BP targets per the ACC/AHA guideline, compared with 79.4% per the 2014 panel and 64.3% per JNC7. Lower proportions of women, non-White (Black and "other") races, and those at higher cardiovascular risk achieved BP goals. Median practice-level proportion of patients meeting BP targets per the 2014 panel but not the ACC/AHA guideline was 37.8% (interquartile range, 34.8%-40.7%) and per JNC7 but not the ACC/AHA guideline was 22.9% (interquartile range, 19.8%-25.9%). Conclusions Following publication of the 2017 guideline, significantly more people, particularly younger people and those with lower cardiovascular risk, will be diagnosed with hypertension and need antihypertensive treatment compared with previous recommendations. Significant practice-level variation in BP control also exists. Efforts are needed to improve guideline-concordant hypertension management in an effort to improve outcomes.

Reducing Cardiovascular Risk in the Medicare Million Hearts Risk Reduction Model: Insights From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry PINNACLE Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Million Hearts Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction Model provides financial incentives for practices to lower 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk for high-risk (ASCVD ≥30%) Medicare patients. To estimate average practice-level ASCVD risk reduction, we applied optimal trial outcomes to a real-world population with high ASCVD risk. METHODS: This study uses observational registry data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry from January 2013 to June 2016. We modeled ASCVD risk reductions using historical clinical trial data (reducing cholesterol by 26.5%, reducing systolic blood pressure by 10.9%, reducing smoking rates by 21.8%) the average reduction in ASCVD risk associated with individual and combined risk factor modifications, and then percentage of practices achieving the various incentive thresholds for the Million Hearts Model. RESULTS: The final study population included 135 166 patients, with 16 248 (12.0%) with 10-year ASCVD risk of ≥30%, but without existing ASCVD. The mean 10-year ASCVD risk was 41.9% (±1 SD of 11.6). Using risk factor reductions from clinical trials, lowering cholesterol, blood pressure, and smoking rates reduced 10-year ASCVD risk by 3.3% (±3.1), 6.3% (±1.1) and 0.5% (±1.3), respectively. Combining all 3 reductions resulted in a 9.7% (±3.6) reduction, with 67 (27.0%) of practices achieving a patient-level average 10-year ASCVD risk reduction of ≥10%, 181 (73.0%) achieving a 2 to 10% reduction, and no practice achieving <2% reduction. CONCLUSIONS: In cardiology practices, about 1 out of 8 patients have a 10-year ASCVD risk ≥30% and qualify as high risk in the Million Hearts Model. If practices target the three main modifiable risk factors and achieve reductions similar to clinical trial results, ASCVD risk could be substantially lowered and all practices could receive incentive payments. These findings support the potential benefit of the Million Hearts Model and provide guidance to participating practices.

Strategies to Reduce Low-Value Cardiovascular Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Low-value health care services that provide little or no benefit to patients are common, potentially harmful, and costly. Nearly half of the patients in the United States will receive at least 1 low-value test or procedure annually, creating risk of avoidable complications from subsequent cascades of care and excess costs to patients and society. Reducing low-value care is of particular importance to cardiovascular health given the high prevalence and costs of cardiovascular disease in the United States. This scientific statement describes the current scope and impact of low-value cardiovascular care; reviews existing literature on patient-, clinician-, health system-, payer-, and policy-level interventions to reduce low-value care; proposes solutions to achieve meaningful and equitable reductions in low-value care; and suggests areas for future research priorities.

The Cardiovascular Quality Improvement and Care Innovation Consortium: Inception of a Multicenter Collaborative to Improve Cardiovascular Care.

Despite decades of improvement in the quality and outcomes of cardiovascular care, significant gaps remain. Existing quality improvement strategies are often limited in scope to specific clinical conditions and episodic care. Health services and outcomes research is essential to inform gaps in care but rarely results in the development and implementation of care delivery solutions. Although individual health systems are engaged in projects to improve the quality of care delivery, these efforts often lack a robust study design or implementation evaluation that can inform generalizability and further dissemination. Aligning the work of health care systems and health services and outcomes researchers could serve as a strategy to overcome persisting gaps in cardiovascular quality and outcomes. We describe the inception of the Cardiovascular Quality Improvement and Care Innovation Consortium that seeks to rapidly improve cardiovascular care by (1) developing, implementing, and evaluating multicenter quality improvement projects using innovative care designs; (2) serving as a resource for quality improvement and care innovation partners; and (3) establishing a presence within existing quality improvement and care innovation structures. Success of the collaborative will be defined by projects that result in changes to care delivery with demonstrable impacts on the quality and outcomes of care across multiple health systems. Furthermore, insights gained from implementation of these projects across sites in Cardiovascular Quality Improvement and Care Innovation Consortium will inform and promote broad dissemination for greater impact.

Maximizing Performance in Medicare's Merit Based Incentive Payment System: A Financial Model to Optimize Health Information Technology Resource Allocation.

Participation in the Medicare Quality Payment Program's Merit Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) has forced many healthcare administrators to strategize how to achieve success under value-based payment systems. A financial model was constructed to determine the marginal utility of compliance with various MIPS measures. Solo, small, medium, large, and very large practices were modeled using available data and final rules published by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The model analysis found that small groups were generally incentivized not to comply with MIPS measures. Conversely, larger organizations were found to have strong financial incentives to maximize pursuit of MIPS measures. Incentives to pursue interoperability investments were projected to be generally under $10 200 for small organizations but approximately $690 000 for very large practices whereas the health information technology (IT) resources necessary to pursue these measures may not have nearly the same range of costs. In light of these findings, small groups may be driven to join larger groups as large groups continue to capitalize on their larger incentives to pursue MIPS measures. As financial success under MIPS is dependent on scale, healthcare systems that pursue consolidation may achieve greater success under quality payment programs similar to MIPS which include the newly proposed MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs).

Association Between Medicare Expenditure Growth and Mortality Rates in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Comparison From 1999 Through 2014.

Importance: Many studies have considered the association between Medicare spending and health outcomes at a point in time; few have considered the association between the long-term growth in spending and outcomes. Objective: To assess whether components of growth in Medicare expenditures are associated with mortality rates between January 1, 1999, and June 30, 2014, for beneficiaries hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional analysis of a random 20% sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2000 (n=72 473) and January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004 (n=38 248), and 100% sample from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008 (n=159 558) and January 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014 (n=209 614) admitted with acute myocardial infarction to 1220 hospitals. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary exposure measures include the growth of 180-day expenditure components (eg, inpatient, physician, and postacute care) and early percutaneous coronary intervention by hospitals adjusted for price differences and inflation. The primary outcome is the risk-adjusted 180-day case fatality rate. Results: Patients in each of the years 2004, 2008, and 2013-2014 (relative to those in 1999-2000) were qualitatively of equivalent age, less likely to be white or female, and more likely to be diabetic (all P < .001). Adjusted expenditures per patient increased 13.9% from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2000, and January 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014, but declined 0.5% between 2008 and 2013-2014. Mean (SD) expenditures in the 5.0% of hospitals (n = 61) with the most rapid expenditure growth between 1999-2000 and 2013-2014 increased by 44.1% ($12 828 [$2315]); for the 5.0% of hospitals with the slowest expenditure growth (n = 61), mean expenditures decreased by 18.7% (-$7384 [$4141]; 95% CI, $8177-$6496). The growth in early percutaneous coronary intervention exhibited a negative association with 180-day case fatality. Spending on cardiac procedures was positively associated with 180-day mortality, while postacute care spending exhibited moderate cost-effectiveness ($455 000 per life saved after 180 days; 95% CI, $323 000-$833 000). Beyond spending on noncardiac procedures, growth in other components of spending was not associated with health improvements. Conclusions and Relevance: Health improvements for patients with acute myocardial infarction varied across hospitals and were associated with the diffusion of cost-effective care, such as early percutaneous coronary intervention and, to a lesser extent, postacute care, rather than overall expenditure growth. Interventions designed to promote hospital adoption of cost-effective care could improve patient outcomes and, if accompanied by cuts in cost-ineffective care (inside and outside of the hospital setting), also reduce expenditures.

Patient-Provider Communication and Health Outcomes Among Individuals With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in the United States: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2010 to 2013.

BACKGROUND: Consumer-reported patient-provider communication (PPC) assessed by Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Survey in ambulatory settings is incorporated as a complementary value metric for patient-centered care of chronic conditions in pay-for-performance programs. In this study, we examine the relationship of PPC with select indicators of patient-centered care in a nationally representative US adult population with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population consisted of a nationally representative sample of 6810 individuals (aged ≥18 years), representing 18.3 million adults with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (self-reported or International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition diagnosis) reporting a usual source of care in the 2010 to 2013 pooled Medical Expenditure Panel Survey cohort. Participants responded to questions from Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Survey that assessed PPC, and we developed a weighted PPC composite score using their responses, categorized as 1 (poor), 2 (average), and 3 (optimal). Outcomes of interest were (1) patient-reported outcomes: 12-item Short Form physical/mental health status, (2) quality of care measures: statin and ASA use, (3) healthcare resource utilization: emergency room visits and hospital stays, and (4) total annual and out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease patients reporting poor versus optimal were over 2-fold more likely to report poor outcomes; 52% and 26% more likely to report that they are not on statin and aspirin, respectively, had a significantly greater utilization of health resources (odds ratio≥2 emergency room visit, 1.41 [95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.81]; odds ratio≥2 hospitalization, 1.36 [95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.79]), as well as an estimated $1243 ($127-$2359) higher annual healthcare expenditure. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals a strong relationship between PPC and patient-reported outcomes, utilization of evidence-based therapies, healthcare resource utilization, and expenditures among those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The Learning Healthcare System and Cardiovascular Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

The learning healthcare system uses health information technology and the health data infrastructure to apply scientific evidence at the point of clinical care while simultaneously collecting insights from that care to promote innovation in optimal healthcare delivery and to fuel new scientific discovery. To achieve these goals, the learning healthcare system requires systematic redesign of the current healthcare system, focusing on 4 major domains: science and informatics, patient-clinician partnerships, incentives, and development of a continuous learning culture. This scientific statement provides an overview of how these learning healthcare system domains can be realized in cardiovascular disease care. Current cardiovascular disease care innovations in informatics, data uses, patient engagement, continuous learning culture, and incentives are profiled. In addition, recommendations for next steps for the development of a learning healthcare system in cardiovascular care are presented.

Adoption of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Management Guideline in Cardiology Practices Nationwide.

Importance: The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Cholesterol Management Guideline recommends moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin therapy in eligible patients. Objective: To examine adoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline in US cardiology practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: Among 161 cardiology practices, trends in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) were analyzed before (September 1, 2012, to November 1, 2013) and after (February 1, 2014, to April 1, 2015) publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline among 4 mutually exclusive risk groups within the ACC Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry. Interrupted time series analysis was used to evaluate for differences in trend in use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT use in hierarchical logistic regression models. Participants were a population-based sample of 1 105 356 preguideline patients (2 431 192 patient encounters) and 1 116 472 postguideline patients (2 377 219 patient encounters). Approximately 97% of patients had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Exposures: Moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT use before and after publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time trend in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin and nonstatin LLT. Results: In the study cohort, the mean (SD) age was 69.6 (12.1) years among 1 105 356 patients (40.2% female) before publication of the guideline and 70.0 (11.9) years among 1 116 472 patients (39.8% female) after publication of the guideline. Although there was a trend toward increasing use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins overall and in the ASCVD cohort, such a trend was already present before publication of the guideline. No significant difference in trend in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins was observed in other groups. The use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statin therapy was 62.1% (before publication of the guideline) and 66.6% (after publication of the guideline) in the overall cohort, 62.7% (before publication) and 67.0% (after publication) in the ASCVD cohort, 50.6% (before publication) and 52.3% (after publication) in the cohort with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (ie, ≥190 mg/dL), 52.4% (before publication) and 55.2% (after publication) in the diabetes cohort, and 41.9% (before publication) and 46.9% (after publication) in the remaining group with 10-year ASCVD risk of 7.5% or higher. In hierarchical logistic regression models, there was a significant increase in the use of moderate-intensity to high-intensity statins in the overall cohort (4.8%) and in the ASCVD cohort (4.3%) (P < .01 for slope for both). There was no significant change for other risk cohorts. Nonstatin LLT use remained unchanged in the preguideline and postguideline periods in the hierarchical logistic regression models for all of the risk groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Adoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA Cholesterol Management Guideline in cardiology practices was modest. Timely interventions are needed to improve guideline-concordant practice to reduce the burden of ASCVD.

Current State of Value-Based Purchasing Programs.

The US healthcare system is rapidly moving toward rewarding value. Recent legislation, such as the Affordable Care Act and the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, solidified the role of value-based payment in Medicare. Many private insurers are following Medicare's lead. Much of the policy attention has been on programs such as accountable care organizations and bundled payments; yet, value-based purchasing (VBP) or pay-for-performance, defined as providers being paid fee-for-service with payment adjustments up or down based on value metrics, remains a core element of value payment in Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. This review article summarizes the current state of VBP programs and provides analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for the future. Multiple inpatient and outpatient VBP programs have been implemented and evaluated; the impact of those programs has been marginal. Opportunities to enhance the performance of VBP programs include improving the quality measurement science, strengthening both the size and design of incentives, reducing health disparities, establishing broad outcome measurement, choosing appropriate comparison targets, and determining the optimal role of VBP relative to alternative payment models. VBP programs will play a significant role in healthcare delivery for years to come, and they serve as an opportunity for providers to build the infrastructure needed for value-oriented care.

Bringing Patient-Centered Outcomes Research to Life.

A substantial gap exists between medical evidence that is known and medical evidence that is put into practice. Although the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has a long history of developing the content of evidence, the agency now pivots to close that gap by focusing on evidence dissemination and implementation. Achieving better health outcomes requires both the generation of new patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) knowledge and the appropriate and timely implementation of that knowledge into practice. The Affordable Care Act provided funds to support both types of PCOR efforts, with AHRQ building on years of experience to advance research dissemination and implementation. This article describes the work the AHRQ has done, is doing, and will do in the future. To communicate PCOR evidence findings, AHRQ is currently synthesizing research findings into convincing collections of evidence that can be best taken up by clinicians, patients and caregivers, and policymakers. The future direction for AHRQ is to improve the context for evidence and practice improvement, thereby creating an environment receptive to PCOR. Toward this goal, AHRQ is actively engaging partners, such as professional societies and insurers, to make evidence central to decision making. In addition, AHRQ recently launched two programs that seek to both understand and encourage the use of evidence in clinical practice. Throughout these efforts, AHRQ will continually assess needs and adapt initiatives to ensure that PCOR translates into improved patient-centered health outcomes.