Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32074242›Full record

ArticleJAMA cardiology2020

Performance in Federal Value-Based Programs of Hospitals Recognized by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology for High-Quality Heart Failure and Acute Myocardial Infarction Care.

Rishi K Wadhera, Muthiah Vaduganathan, Ginger Y Jiang, Yang Song, Jiaman Xu, Changyu Shen, Deepak L Bhatt, Robert W Yeh, Gregg C Fonarow

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. New Strategies to Prevent Rehospitalizations for Heart Failure.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Emerging Comorbidities in Heart Failure.Heart failure clinics · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Rishi K WadheraRichard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Division of Cardiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Muthiah VaduganathanBrigham and Women's Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ginger Y JiangRichard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Division of Cardiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Yang SongBaim Institute for Clinical Research, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jiaman XuRichard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Division of Cardiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Changyu ShenRichard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Division of Cardiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Deepak L BhattBrigham and Women's Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Robert W YehRichard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Division of Cardiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Gregg C FonarowDavid Geffen School of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles.

Funding

The Harvard Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR002541 · NCATS · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI NADLER, LEE MARSHALL · 2018 to 2022
$93.0M
Use of Registries, Claims and Health System Data to Enhance the Evaluation of Cardiovascular Therapies in Clinical TrialsR01HL136708 · NHLBI · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI Issa J. Dahabreh, Robert Yeh · 2017 to 2026
$6.9M
Explaining Rising Heart Failure Mortality in MedicareK23HL148525 · NHLBI · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI WADHERA, RISHI KUMAR · 2019 to 2023
$863k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002541NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL148525NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL136708
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have implemented national value-based programs that incentivize hospitals to deliver better cardiovascular care. However, it is unclear how hospitals recognized for high-quality cardiovascular care by American Heart Association (AHA) and American College of Cardiology (ACC) national quality improvement initiatives (termed award hospitals) have performed under value-based programs. Objective: To determine if hospitals that received awards for high-quality cardiovascular care from the AHA/ACC were less likely to be penalized under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program (VBP) compared with other hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This national cross-sectional study included data from short-term acute care hospitals in the United States that were participating in the HRRP or VBP in fiscal year 2018. Exposures: Recognition awards for high-quality care from the AHA's Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure and ACC's Chest Pain-MI (myocardial infarction) Registry national quality improvement initiatives. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of hospitals that received a financial penalty or financial reward under the HRRP or VBP, median payment adjustments, and hospital-level 30-day mortality rates. Results: This study included 3175 hospitals participating in the HRRP and 2781 hospitals participating in the VBP in fiscal year 2018. Under the HRRP, a higher proportion of award hospitals received financial penalties compared with other hospitals (419 [85.5%] vs 2112 [78.7%]; P < .001), although payment reductions were similar (median, 0.39% [interquartile range (IQR), 0.08%-0.84%] vs 0.33% [IQR, 0.03%-0.89%]; P = .17). Under the VBP, a higher proportion of award hospitals received penalties compared with other hospitals (250 [51.7%] vs 950 [41.4%]; P < .001), and fewer award hospitals received financial rewards (234 [48.4%] vs 1347 [58.6%]; P < .001). Median payment reductions were higher for award hospitals than other hospitals (0.01% [IQR, 0.00%-0.38%] vs 0.0% [IQR, 0.00%-0.28%]; P < .001), and median payment increases were lower (0.0% [IQR, 0.00%-0.34%] vs 0.13% [IQR, 0.00%-0.60%]; P < .001). Thirty-day mortality at award hospitals was similar (acute myocardial infarction, 13.2% vs 13.2%; P = .76) or slightly lower (heart failure, 11.3% vs 11.7%; P = .001) compared with other hospitals. Conclusions and Relevance: Hospitals that received awards for high-quality cardiovascular care from the AHA/ACC were more likely to be penalized and less likely to be financially rewarded by federal value-based programs. These findings highlight the potential need to standardize measurement of cardiovascular care quality.

Indexed as

CardiologyGovernment ProgramsQuality Indicators, Health CareQuality of Health CareAmerican Heart AssociationCross-Sectional StudiesEconomics, HospitalHeart FailureHospital MortalityHospitalsHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID32074242
PMCPMC7042832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.