Mortality, Hospital Costs, Payments, and Readmissions Associated With Clostridium difficile Infection Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: The management of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) among hospitalized patients is costly, and ongoing payment reform is compelling hospitals to reduce its burden. To assess the impact of CDI on mortality, hospital costs, healthcare use, and Medicare payments for beneficiaries who were discharged with CDI listed as a secondary International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification claim diagnosis. METHODS: Data were analyzed from the 2009 to 2010 5% random sample Medicare Standard Analytic Files of beneficiary claims. Patients with index hospitalizations with CDI as a secondary diagnosis and no previous hospitalization within 30 days were identified. Outcomes included inpatient and 30-day mortality, inpatient costs, index hospital payments, all-provider payments, net hospital losses, payment to cost ratio, length of stay (LOS), and 30-day readmission; outcomes were each risk adjusted using propensity score matching and regression modeling techniques. RESULTS: A total of 3262 patients with CDI were identified after matching to patients without a CDI diagnosis. After risk adjustment, secondary CDI was associated with statistically significantly (all P < 0.05) greater inpatient mortality (3.1% vs. 1.7%), 30-day mortality (4.1% vs. 2.2%), longer LOS (7.0 days vs. 3.8 days), higher rates of 30-day hospital readmissions (14.8% vs. 10.4%), and greater hospital costs ($16,184 vs. $13,954) compared with the non-CDI cohort. The risk-adjusted payment-to-cost ratio was shown to be lower for patients with CDI than those without (0.76 vs. 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Secondary CDI is associated with greater adjusted mortality, costs, LOS, and hospital readmissions, while receiving similar hospital reimbursement compared with patients without CDI in a Medicare population.

A questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of observational studies to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report.

Evidence-based health care decisions are best informed by comparisons of all relevant interventions used to treat conditions in specific patient populations. Observational studies are being performed to help fill evidence gaps. Widespread adoption of evidence from observational studies, however, has been limited because of various factors, including the lack of consensus regarding accepted principles for their evaluation and interpretation. Two task forces were formed to develop questionnaires to assist decision makers in evaluating observational studies, with one Task Force addressing retrospective research and the other Task Force addressing prospective research. The intent was to promote a structured approach to reduce the potential for subjective interpretation of evidence and drive consistency in decision making. Separately developed questionnaires were combined into a single questionnaire consisting of 33 items. These were divided into two domains: relevance and credibility. Relevance addresses the extent to which findings, if accurate, apply to the setting of interest to the decision maker. Credibility addresses the extent to which the study findings accurately answer the study question. The questionnaire provides a guide for assessing the degree of confidence that should be placed from observational studies and promotes awareness of the subtleties involved in evaluating those.