Elizabeth Goldstein

Development, Implementation, and Public Reporting of the HCAHPS Survey

The authors describe the history and development of the CAHPS Hospital Survey (also known as HCAHPS) and its associated protocols. The randomized mode experiment, vendor training, and “dry runs” that set the stage for initial public reporting are described. The rapid linkage of HCAHPS data to annual payment updates (“pay for reporting”) is noted, which in turn led to the participation of approximately 3,900 general acute care hospitals (about 90% of all such United States hospitals). The authors highlight the opportunities afforded by this publicly reported data on hospital inpatients’ experiences and perceptions of care. These data, reported on www.hospitalcompare.hhs. gov, facilitate the national comparison of patients’ perspectives of hospital care and can be used alone or in conjunction with other clinical and outcome measures. Potential benefits include increased transparency, improved consumer decision making, and increased incentives for the delivery of high-quality health care.

Effects of Survey Mode, Patient Mix, and Nonresponse on CAHPS® Hospital Survey Scores

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the need for survey mode adjustments to hospital care evaluations by discharged inpatients and develop the appropriate adjustments. DATA SOURCE A total of 7,555 respondents from a 2006 national random sample of 45 hospitals who completed the CAHPS Hospital (HCAHPS [Hospital Consumer Assessments of Healthcare Providers and Systems]) Survey. STUDY DESIGN/DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS We estimated mode effects in linear models that predicted each HCAHPS outcome from hospital-fixed effects and patient-mix adjustors. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS Patients randomized to the telephone and active interactive voice response (IVR) modes provided more positive evaluations than patients randomized to mail and mixed (mail with telephone follow-up) modes, with some effects equivalent to more than 30 percentile points in hospital rankings. Mode effects are consistent across hospitals and are generally larger than total patient-mix effects. Patient-mix adjustment accounts for any nonresponse bias that could have been addressed through weighting. CONCLUSIONS Valid comparisons of hospital performance require that reported hospital scores be adjusted for survey mode and patient mix.

Characteristics of Hospitals Demonstrating Superior Performance in Patient Experience and Clinical Process Measures of Care

Prior research suggests hospital quality of care is multidimensional. In this study, the authors jointly examine patient experience of care and clinical care measures from 2,583 hospitals based on inpatients discharged in 2006 and 2007. The authors use multinomial logistic regression to identify key characteristics of hospitals that perform in the top quartile on both, either, and neither dimension of quality. Top performers on both quality measures tend to be small (<100 beds), large (>200 beds) and rural, located in the New England or West North Central Census divisions, and nonprofit. Top performers in patient experience only are most often small and rural, located in the East South Central division, and government owned. Top performers in clinical care only are most often medium to large and urban, located in the West North Central division, and non—government owned. These findings provide an overview of how these dimensions of quality vary across hospitals.

Racial/Ethnic Differences in Patients’ Perceptions of Inpatient Care Using the HCAHPS Survey:

Using HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, also known as the CAHPS Hospital Survey) data from 2,684 hospitals, the authors compare the experiences of Hispanic, African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multiracial inpatients with those of non-Hispanic White inpatients to understand the roles of between- and within-hospital differences in patients’ perspectives of hospital care. The study finds that, on average, non-Hispanic White inpatients receive care at hospitals that provide better experiences for all patients than the hospitals more often used by minority patients. Within hospitals, patient experiences are more similar by race/ethnicity, though some disparities do exist, especially for Asians. This research suggests that targeting hospitals that serve predominantly minority patients, improving the access of minority patients to better hospitals, and targeting the experiences of Asians within hospitals may be promising means of reducing disparities in patient experience.

Do hospitals rank differently on HCAHPS for different patient subgroups

Prior research documents differences in patient-reported experiences by patient characteristics. Using nine measures of patient experience from 1,203,229 patients discharged in 2006-2007 from 2,684 acute and critical access hospitals, the authors find that adjusted hospital scores measure distinctions in quality for the average patient with high reliability. The authors also find that hospital “ranks” (the relative scores of hospitals for patients of a given type) vary substantially by patient health status and race/ ethnicity/language, and moderately by patient education and age (p < .05 for almost all measures). Quality improvement efforts should examine hospital performance with both sicker and healthier patients, because many hospitals that do well with one group (relative to other hospitals) may not do well with another. The experiences of American Indians/Alaska Natives should also receive particular attention. As HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) data accumulate, reports that drill down to hospital performance for patient subtypes (especially by health status) may be valuable.

Gender differences in patients' perceptions of inpatient care.

OBJECTIVE To examine gender differences in inpatient experiences and how they vary by dimensions of care and other patient characteristics. DATA SOURCE A total of 1,971,632 patients (medical and surgical service lines) discharged from 3,830 hospitals, July 2007-June 2008, and completing the HCAHPS survey. STUDY DESIGN We compare the experiences of male and female inpatients on 10 HCAHPS dimensions using multiple linear regression, adjusting for survey mode and patient mix. Additional models add additional patient characteristics and their interactions with patient gender. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS We find generally less positive experiences for women than men, especially for Communication about Medicines, Discharge Information, and Cleanliness. Gender differences are similar in magnitude to previously reported HCAHPS differences by race/ethnicity. The gender gap is generally larger for older patients and for patients with worse self-reported health status. Gender disparities are largest in for-profit hospitals. CONCLUSIONS Targeting the experiences of women may be a promising means of improving overall patient experience scores (because women comprise a majority of all inpatients); the experiences of older and sicker women, and those in for-profit hospitals, may merit additional examination.

Use of Medicaid 1915(c) Home- and Community-Based Care Waivers to Reconfigure State Long-Term Care Systems:

Since Congressional authorization in 1981, Medicaid 1915(c) home- and community-based care waivers have influenced states’ efforts to transform their long-term care systems. In 1997, every state participated in the 1915(c) waiver program, while waiver expenditures, at

State Policy Choices and Medicaid Long-Term Care Expenditures

8.1 billion, represented 59.6 percent of all Medicaid community-based care expenditures. To explore state-level factors that appear related to these expenditures, the authors turn to a body of work on Medicaid resource allocation. They compare the influence of five factors—sociodemographic, supply, economic, programmatic, and political environment—on states’ allocations to long-term care expenditures and 1915(c) waiver expenditures. The state economic environment was an important influence on total, as well as waiver expenditures. State regulation of long-term care supply demonstrated the most substantive relationship, increasing the share of dollars supporting 1915(c) waivers from 11.6 to 20.0 over the study period, all else equal.

Reporting CAHPS and HEDIS Data by Race/Ethnicity for Medicare Beneficiaries

State long-term care policies are directed toward a variety of goals. Concerns with expenditure control are primary. Certain states are also seeking to increase the availability of community-based care. A more balanced system would assist consumers in attaining valued goals, while being consonant with federal policy initiatives and legal rulings. The authors examine the relationship between state policies and Medicaid long-term care expenditures. These relationships are tested by multiple regression analysis, using a random effects model for 1991 through 1997. Prospective payment may moderate nursing facility expenditure growth and total long-term care expenditures. Institutional supply constraints demonstrated a positive relationship to both forms of community-based care expenditures. The authors found no evidence of Medicare maximization as a policy to constrain Medicaid expenditure growth. Finally, the authors note the importance of additional work in exploring the dynamics between state long-term care policies and expenditures for individuals with differing disabilities.

Unveiling SEER-CAHPS®: A New Data Resource for Quality of Care Research

OBJECTIVE To produce reliable and informative health plan performance data by race/ethnicity for the Medicare beneficiary population and to consider appropriate presentation strategies. DATA SOURCES Patient experience data from the 2008-2009 Medicare Advantage (MA) and fee-for-service (FFS) CAHPS surveys and 2008-2009 HEDIS data (MA beneficiaries only). STUDY DESIGN Mixed effects linear (and binomial) regression models estimated the reliability and statistical informativeness of CAHPS (HEDIS) measures. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS Seven CAHPS and seven HEDIS measures were reliable and informative for four racial/ethnic subgroups-Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific Islanders-at sample sizes of 100 beneficiaries (200 for prescription drug plans). Although many plans lacked adequate sample size for reporting group-specific data, reportable plans contained a large majority of beneficiaries from each of the four racial/ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS Statistically reliable and valid information on health plan performance can be reported by race/ethnicity. Many beneficiaries may have difficulty understanding such reports, however, even with careful guidance. Thus, it is recommended that health plan performance data by subgroups be reported as supplemental data and only for plans meeting sample size requirements.