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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- 2024 Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics: A Report of US and Global Data From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2024Review
- Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2023 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2023Review
- New Strategies to Prevent Rehospitalizations for Heart Failure.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Machine learning algorithms for claims data-based prediction of in-hospital mortality in patients with heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2021Article
- Association of Socioeconomic Disadvantage With Mortality and Readmissions Among Older Adults Hospitalized for Pulmonary Embolism in the United States.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
- The Critical Need for Process Improvement in Heart Failure.Heart failure clinics · 2020Article
- Evaluation of Risk-Adjusted Home Time After Acute Myocardial Infarction as a Novel Hospital-Level Performance Metric for Medicare Beneficiaries.Circulation · 2020Article
- Emerging Comorbidities in Heart Failure.Heart failure clinics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.