Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38598240›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Claims-Based vs Agency-Reported Patient Outcomes Among Home Health Agencies, 2013-2019.

Amanda C Chen, Christina Xiang Fu, David C Grabowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Amanda C ChenDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Christina Xiang FuDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
David C GrabowskiDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Tradeoffs in the Design of Public Long-Term Care BenefitsP01AG032952 · NIA · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI Bruce E. Landon · 2009 to 2026
$39.0M
NIA NIH HHS P01 AG032952
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Given the growth of home health agency (HHA) care, it is important to understand whether quality reporting programs, such as star ratings, are associated with improved patient outcomes. Objective: To assess the immediate and long-term association of the introduction of HHA star ratings with patient-level quality outcomes, comparing claims-based and agency-reported measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used Medicare HHA claims and agency-reported assessments to identify sequential patient episodes (ie, spells) among US adults with traditional Medicare who received HHA care (2013-2019). An interrupted time series (ITS) model was used to measure changes in trends and levels before and after the introduction of star ratings. Statistical analysis was performed from November 2022 to September 2023. Exposure: The exposure was the introduction of HHA star ratings. The postexposure period was set as starting January 1, 2016, to account for the period when both star ratings (quality of patient care and patient satisfaction rating) were publicly reported. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes included claims-based hospitalization measures (both during the patient spell and 30 days after HHA discharge) and agency-reported functional measures, such as improvement in ambulation, bathing, and bed transferring. There was also a measure to capture timely initiation of care among post-acute care HHA users, defined as HHA care initiated within 2 days of inpatient discharge. Results: This study identified 22 958 847 patient spells to compare annual changes over time; 9 750 689 patient spells were included during the pre-star ratings period from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2015 (6 067 113 [62.2%] female; 1 100 145 [11.3%] Black, 512 487 [5.3%] Hispanic, 7 845 197 [80.5%] White; 2 656 124 [27.2%] dual eligible; mean [SD] patient spell duration, 70.9 [124.9] days; mean [SD] age, 77.4 [12.0] years); 13 208 158 patient spells were included during the post-star ratings period from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019 (8 104 69 [61.4%] female; 1 385 180 [10.5%] Black, 675 536 [5.1%] Hispanic, 10 664 239 [80.7%] White; 3 318 113 [25.1%] dual eligible; mean [SD] patient spell duration, 65.3 [96.2] days; mean [SD] age, 77.7 [11.6] years). Results from the ITS models found that the introduction of star ratings was associated with an acceleration in the mean [SE] hospitalization rate during the spell (0.39% [0.05%] per year) alongside functional improvements in ambulation (2.40% [0.29%] per year), bed transferring (3.95% [0.48%] per year) and bathing (2.34% [0.19%] per year) (P < .001). This occurred alongside a 1.21% (0.12%) per year reduction in timely initiation of care (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found an observed improvement in agency-reported functional measures, which contrasted with slower increases in more objective measures such as hospitalization rates and declines in timely initiation of care. These findings suggest a complex picture of HHA quality of care after the introduction of star ratings.

Indexed as

Blood Group AntigensHome Care AgenciesAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHospitalizationHumansInpatientsMaleMedicareUnited StatesBlood Group Antigens

Identifiers

PMID38598240
PMCPMC11007578

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.