Evaluating Popular Media and Internet-Based Hospital Quality Ratings for Cancer Surgery

Abstract Background The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) developed risk-adjusted “Star Ratings,” which serve as a guide for patients to compare hospital quality (1 star = lowest, 5 stars = highest). Although star ratings are not based on surgical care, for many procedures, surgical outcomes are concordant with star ratings. In an effort to address variability in hospital mortality after complex cancer surgery, the use of CMS Star Ratings to identify the safest hospitals was evaluated. Methods Patients older than 65 years of age who underwent complex cancer surgery (lobectomy, colectomy, gastrectomy, esophagectomy, pancreaticoduodenectomy) were evaluated in CMS Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files (2013-2016). The impact of reassignment was modeled by applying adjusted mortality rates of patients treated at 5-star hospitals to those at 1-star hospitals (Peters-Belson method). Results There were 105 823 patients who underwent surgery at 3146 hospitals. The 90-day mortality decreased with increasing star rating (1 star = 10.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.8% to 11.1%; and 5 stars = 6.4%, 95% CI = 6.0% to 6.8%). Reassignment of patients from 1-star to 5-star hospitals (7.8% of patients) was predicted to save 84 Medicare beneficiaries each year. This impact varied by procedure (colectomy = 47 lives per year; gastrectomy = 5 lives per year). Overall, 2189 patients would have to change hospitals each year to improve outcomes (26 patients moved to save 1 life). Conclusions Mortality after complex cancer surgery is associated with CMS Star Rating. However, the use of CMS Star Ratings by patients to identify the safest hospitals for cancer surgery would be relatively inefficient and of only modest impact.

Download Full-text

Relationship of Hospital Star Ratings to Race, Education, and Community Income

Journal of Hospital Medicine ◽

10.12788/jhm.3393 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 15 (10) ◽

pp. 588-593

Author(s):

Bo Shi ◽

Christopher King ◽

Sean Shenghsiu Huang

Keyword(s):

Educational Attainment ◽

Multinomial Logistic Regression ◽

Hospital Quality ◽

Minority Population ◽

Lower Income ◽

Community Characteristics ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Quality Ratings ◽

Relationship Of ◽

Racial Ethnic

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) publishes hospital quality ratings to provide more transparent and useable quality information to patients and stakeholders. However, there is a gap in the literature regarding the geographic distribution of the hospitals with higher star ratings. In this paper, we focus on the associations between star ratings and community characteristics, including racial/ethnic mix, household income, educational attainment, and regional difference. METHODS: A retrospective study and cross-sectional logistic and multinomial logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: According to the multivariate regression results, hospitals in areas with lower income, lower educational attainment, and higher minority population shares have lower quality ratings (lower income: odds ratio [OR] 0.67; 95% CI, 0.49-0.91; lower education: OR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51-0.85; higher minority: OR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40-0.69). Compared with hospitals in the Midwest, hospitals in Northeast, South, and West regions have lower quality ratings (Northeast: OR 0.37; 95% CI, 0.25-0.56; South: OR 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51-0.91; West: OR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.97). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Overall, our results show that hospitals with higher star ratings are less likely to be located in communities with higher minority populations, lower income, and lower levels of educational attainment. Findings contribute to the discussion of integrating social factors in hospital quality star rating calculation methodologies.

Download Full-text