Mandatory public reporting of cardiac surgery outcomes: The 2003 to 2014 Massachusetts experience.

OBJECTIVES: Beginning in 2002, all 14 Massachusetts nonfederal cardiac surgery programs submitted Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) National Database data to the Massachusetts Data Analysis Center for mandatory state-based analysis and reporting, and to STS for nationally benchmarked analyses. We sought to determine whether longitudinal prevalences and trends in risk factors and observed and expected mortality differed between Massachusetts and the nation. METHODS: We analyzed 2003 to 2014 expected (STS predicted risk of operative [in-hospital + 30-day] mortality), observed, and risk-standardized isolated coronary artery bypass graft mortality using Massachusetts STS data (N = 39,400 cases) and national STS data (N = 1,815,234 cases). Analyses included percentage shares of total Massachusetts coronary artery bypass graft volume and expected mortality rates of 2 hospitals before and after outlier designation. RESULTS: Massachusetts patients had significantly higher odds of diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, low ejection fraction, and age ≥75 years relative to national data and lower odds of shock (odds ratio, 0.66; 99% confidence interval, 0.53-0.83), emergency (odds ratio, 0.57, 99% confidence interval, 0.52-0.61), reoperation, chronic lung disease, dialysis, obesity, and female sex. STS predicted risk of operative [in-hospital + 30-day] mortality for Massachusetts patients was higher than national rates during 2003 to 2007 (P < .001) and no different during 2008 to 2014 (P = .135). Adjusting for STS predicted risk of operative [in-hospital + 30-day] mortality, Massachusetts patients had significantly lower odds (odds ratio, 0.79; 99% confidence interval, 0.66-0.96) of 30-day mortality relative to national data. Outlier programs experienced inconsistent, transient influences on expected mortality and their percentage shares of Massachusetts coronary artery bypass graft cases. CONCLUSIONS: During 12 years of mandatory public reporting, Massachusetts risk-standardized coronary artery bypass graft mortality was consistently and significantly lower than national rates, expected rates were comparable or higher, and evidence for risk aversion was conflicting and inconclusive.

Comparison of performance of traditional Medicare vs Medicare managed care.

CONTEXT: Since 2000, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has been collecting information on beneficiaries' experiences with health care for Medicare managed care (MMC) and traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare. OBJECTIVES: To compare beneficiary experiences with managed care and FFS arrangements throughout the country and to assess the stability of those differences over time. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: CMS administered managed care and FFS versions of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) survey to samples of beneficiaries (aged > or =65 years) from Medicare + Choice MMC organizations and from geographic strata within the traditional FFS Medicare program. We analyzed responses collected in 2000 and 2001 from 497,869 respondents: 299,058 beneficiaries enrolled in MMC plans (response rate, 82%) and 198,811 enrolled in FFS Medicare (response rate, 68%). Differences between MMC and FFS within states were assessed after adjustment for case mix and nonresponse. For estimates at the regional and national level, state estimates were combined after weighting by the MMC enrollment in the state. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Four overall ratings (of the plan, personal physician, care received overall, and care received from specialists), 5 measures summarizing beneficiaries' experiences with care (getting care needed; getting care quickly; communication with clinicians; courtesy and respect of physician's office staff; and paperwork, information, and customer service), and reports of receipt of 3 preventive services (flu shots, pneumococcal vaccinations, and being advised to quit smoking) were assessed. RESULTS: Respondents in MMC and FFS plans were similar to each other and to the Medicare population as a whole. Nationally, FFS Medicare beneficiaries rated experiences with care measured by the CAHPS survey higher than did MMC beneficiaries; for instance, in ratings of care received overall (scale of 1-10) (8.91 FFS vs 8.86 MMC, P<.001, in 2000; and 8.88 FFS vs 8.78 MMC, P<.001, in 2001). Differences between FFS and MMC varied across states, however. Managed care enrollees reported significantly fewer problems with paperwork, information, and customer service (2.62 FFS vs 2.55 MMC, P<.001, in 2000; and 2.59 FFS vs 2.51 MMC, P<.001, in 2001). Enrollees in MMC were also more likely to report having received immunizations for influenza and pneumococcus (from any source) (in 2000, 77% of MMC vs 63% of FFS respondents; P<.001), and smokers were more likely to report having received counseling to quit smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that managed care was better at delivering preventive services, whereas traditional Medicare was better in other aspects of care related to access and beneficiary experiences. These relative strengths should be considered when policy decisions are made that affect the availability of choice or influence beneficiaries to choose one model of care over another.

Combining health plan performance indicators into simpler composite measures.

We investigated how the Consumer Assessment of Health Plan Study (CAHPS) survey and the Health Plan Employer Data Information System (HEDIS) measures from Medicare managed care (MMC) plans could be combined into fewer summary performance scores. Four scores summarize most of the variability in these measures, representing (1) care at the doctor's office, (2) customer service and access, (3) vaccinations, and (4) clinical quality measures. These summaries are substantively interpretable, internally consistent, and describe the majority of variation among units in the performance scores analyzed.

Adjusting Performance Measures to Ensure Equitable Plan Comparisons.

When comparing health plans on scores from the Medicare Managed Care Consumer Assessment of Health Plans (MMC-CAHPS®) survey, the results should be adjusted for patient characteristics, not under the control of health plans, that might affect survey results. We developed an adjustment model that uses self-reported measures of health status, age, education, and whether someone helped the respondent with the questionnaire. The associations of health and education with survey responses differed by HCFA administrative region. Consequently, we recommend that the case-mix model include regional interactions. Analyses of the impact of adjustment show that the adjustments were usually small but not negligible.