Kristin L. Reiter

Cost-effectiveness of hospital pay-for-performance incentives.

One increasingly popular mechanism for stimulating quality improvements is pay-for-performance, or incentive, programs. This article examines the cost-effectiveness of a hospital incentive system for heart-related care, using a principal-agent model, where the insurer is the principal and hospitals are the agents. Four-year incentive system costs for the payer were

Facilitators of Transforming Primary Care: A Look Under the Hood at Practice Leadership

22,059,383, composed primarily of payments to the participating hospitals, with approximately 5 percent in administrative costs. Effectiveness is measured in stages, beginning with improvements in the processes of heart care. Care process improvements are converted into quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, with reference to literatures on clinical effectiveness and survival. An estimated 24,418 patients received improved care, resulting in a range of QALYs from 733 to 1,701, depending on assumptions about clinical effectiveness. Cost per QALY was found to be between

More extensive implementation of the chronic care model is associated with better lipid control in diabetes

12,967 and

Assessing organizational capacity for achieving meaningful use of electronic health records.

30,081, a level well under consensus measures of the value of a QALY.

Stage 1 of the meaningful use incentive program for electronic health records: a study of readiness for change in ambulatory practice settings in one integrated delivery system.

PURPOSE This study examined how characteristics of practice leadership affect the change process in a statewide initiative to improve the quality of diabetes and asthma care. METHODS We used a mixed methods approach, involving analyses of existing quality improvement data on 76 practices with at least 1 year of participation and focus groups with clinicians and staff in a 12-practice subsample. Existing data included monthly diabetes or asthma measures (clinical measures) and monthly practice implementation, leadership, and practice engagement scores rated by an external practice coach. RESULTS Of the 76 practices, 51 focused on diabetes and 25 on asthma. In aggregate, 50% to 78% made improvements within in each clinical measure in the first year. The odds of making practice changes were greater for practices with higher leadership scores (odds ratios = 2.41–4.20). Among practices focused on diabetes, those with higher leadership scores had higher odds of performing nephropathy screening (odds ratio = 1.37, 95% CI, 1.08–1.74); no significant associations were seen for the intermediate outcome measures of hemoglobin A1c, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Focus groups revealed the importance of a leader, typically a physician, who believed in the transformation work (ie, a visionary leader) and promoted practice engagement through education and cross-training. Practices with greater change implementation also mentioned the importance of a midlevel operational leader who helped to create and sustain practice changes. This person communicated and interacted well with, and was respected by both clinicians and staff. CONCLUSIONS In the presence of a vision for transformation, operational leaders within practices can facilitate practice changes that are associated with clinical improvement.

CEO Compensation and Hospital Financial Performance

Objective: Chronic disease collaboratives help practices redesign care delivery. The North Carolina Improving Performance in Practice program provides coaches to guide implementation of 4 key practice changes: registries, planned care templates, protocols, and self-management support. Coaches rate progress using the Key Drivers Implementation Scales (KDIS). This study examines whether higher KDIS scores are associated with improved diabetes outcomes. Methods: We analyzed clinical and KDIS data from 42 practices. We modeled whether higher implementation scores at year 1 of participation were associated with improved diabetes measures during year 2. Improvement was defined as an increase in the proportion of patients with hemoglobin A1C values <9%, blood pressure values <130/80 mmHg, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels <100 mg/dL. Results: Statistically significant improvements in the proportion of patients who met the LDL threshold were noted with higher “registry” and “protocol” KDIS scores. For hemoglobin A1C and blood pressure values, none of the odds ratios were statistically significant. Conclusions: Practices that implement key changes may achieve improved patient outcomes in LDL control among their patients with diabetes. Our data confirm the importance of registry implementation and protocol use as key elements of improving patient care. The KDIS tool is a pragmatic option for measuring practice changes that are rooted in the Chronic Care Model.

Facing the Recession: How Did Safety‐Net Hospitals Fare Financially Compared with Their Peers?

Background: Health care institutions are scrambling to manage the complex organizational change required for achieving meaningful use (MU) of electronic health records (EHR). Assessing baseline organizational capacity for the change can be a useful step toward effective planning and resource allocation. Purpose: The aim of this article is to describe an adaptable method and tool for assessing organizational capacity for achieving MU of EHR. Data on organizational capacity (people, processes, and technology resources) and barriers are presented from outpatient clinics within one integrated health care delivery system; thus, the focus is on MU requirements for eligible professionals, not eligible hospitals. Methods: We conducted 109 interviews with representatives from 46 outpatient clinics. Findings: Most clinics had core elements of the people domain of capacity in place. However, the process domain was problematic for many clinics, specifically, capturing problem lists as structured data and having standard processes for maintaining the problem list in the EHR. Also, nearly half of all clinics did not have methods for tracking compliance with their existing processes. Finally, most clinics maintained clinical information in multiple systems, not just the EHR. The most common perceived barriers to MU for eligible professionals included EHR functionality, changes to workflows, increased workload, and resistance to change. Practice Implications: Organizational capacity assessments provide a broad institutional perspective and an in-depth clinic-level perspective useful for making resource decisions and tailoring strategies to support the MU change effort for eligible professionals.

The Effect of Minimum Nurse Staffing Legislation on Uncompensated Care Provided by California Hospitals

BackgroundMeaningful Use (MU) provides financial incentives for electronic health record (EHR) implementation. EHR implementation holds promise for improving healthcare delivery, but also requires substantial changes for providers and staff. Establishing readiness for these changes may be important for realizing potential EHR benefits. Our study assesses whether provider/staff perceptions about the appropriateness of MU and their departments’ ability to support MU-related changes are associated with their reported readiness for MU-related changes.MethodsWe surveyed providers and staff representing 47 ambulatory practices within an integrated delivery system. We assessed whether respondent’s role and practice-setting type (primary versus specialty care) were associated with reported readiness for MU (i.e., willingness to change practice behavior and ability to document actions for MU) and hypothesized predictors of readiness (i.e., perceived appropriateness of MU and department support for MU). We then assessed associations between reported readiness and the hypothesized predictors of readiness.ResultsIn total, 400 providers/staff responded (response rate approximately 25%). Individuals working in specialty settings were more likely to report that MU will divert attention from other patient-care priorities (12.6% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.019), as compared to those in primary-care settings. As compared to advanced-practice providers and nursing staff, physicians were less likely to have strong confidence in their department’s ability to solve MU implementation problems (28.4% vs. 47.1% vs. 42.6%, p = 0.023) and to report strong willingness to change their work practices for MU (57.9% vs. 83.3% vs. 82.0%, p < 0.001). Finally, provider/staff perceptions about whether MU aligns with departmental goals (OR = 3.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.13 to 7.48); MU will divert attention from other patient-care priorities (OR = 2.26, 95% CI = 1.26 to 4.06); their department will support MU-related change efforts (OR = 3.99, 95% CI = 2.13 to 7.48); and their department will be able to solve MU implementation problems (OR = 2.26, 95% CI = 1.26 to 4.06) were associated with their willingness to change practice behavior for MU.ConclusionsOrganizational leaders should gauge provider/staff perceptions about appropriateness and management support of MU-related change, as these perceptions might be related to subsequent implementation.

Trends in asset structure between not-for-profit and investor-owned hospitals.

Growing interest in pay-for-performance and the level of chief executive officers’ (CEOs’) pay raises questions about the link between performance and compensation in the health sector. This study compares the compensation of nonprofit hospital CEOs in Ontario, Canada to the three longest reported and most used measures of hospital financial performance. Our sample consisted of 132 CEOs from 92 hospitals between 1999 and 2006. Unbalanced panel data were analyzed using fixed effects regression. Results suggest that CEO compensation was largely unrelated to hospital financial performance. Inflation-adjusted salaries appeared to increase over time independent of hospital performance, and hospital size was positively correlated with CEO compensation. The apparent upward trend in salary despite some declines in financial performance challenges the fundamental assumption underlying this article, that is, financial performance is likely linked to CEO compensation in Ontario. Further research is needed to understand long-term performance related to compensation incentives.

The Cost to Successfully Apply for Level 3 Medical Home Recognition

OBJECTIVE To examine the effect of the recession on the financial performance of safety-net versus non-safety-net hospitals. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Hospital Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases, Medicare Cost Reports, American Hospital Association Annual Survey, InterStudy, and Area Health Resource File. STUDY DESIGN Retrospective, longitudinal panel of hospitals, 2007-2011. Safety-net hospitals were identified using percentage of patients who were Medicaid or uninsured. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate average effects of the recession on hospital operating and total margins, revenues and expenses in each year, 2008-2011, comparing safety-net with non-safety-net hospitals. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS 1,453 urban, nonfederal, general acute hospitals in 32 states with complete data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS Safety-net hospitals, as identified in 2007, had lower operating and total margins. The gap in operating margin between safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals was sustained throughout the recession; however, total margin was more negatively affected for non-safety-net hospitals in 2008. Higher percentages of Medicaid and uninsured patients were associated with lower revenue in private hospitals in all years, and lower revenue and expenses in public hospitals in 2011. CONCLUSIONS Safety-net hospitals may not be disproportionately vulnerable to macro-economic fluctuations, but their significantly lower margins leave less financial cushion to weather sustained financial pressure.