Changes in patient experiences and assessment of gaming among large clinician practices in precursors of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System

Trends in patient perceptions of care toward rural and urban hospitals in the United States: 2014-2019

PURPOSE

Understanding rural-urban disparities in patient satisfaction is critical to identify gaps for improvement in patient-centered care and tailor interventions to specific patient needs, especially those in the Frontier and Remote areas (FAR). This study aimed to examine disparities in patient perceptions of care between urban, rural non-FAR, and FAR hospitals between 2014 and 2019.

METHODS

This is a retrospective longitudinal study using 2014-2019 Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems data linked to American Hospital Annual Survey data (3,524 hospitals in 2014 and 3,440 hospitals in 2019). Multivariable linear regression models were used to identify differential trends in patient perceptions of care by hospital rurality over 2014-2019, adjusting hospital- and county-level characteristics.

FINDINGS

In 2014, patients at rural non-FAR and FAR hospitals had lower percentages of willingness to definitely recommend these hospitals than urban hospitals (average percentage difference, 95% CI: -4.0% [-4.5%, -3.5%]; -2.0% [-2.8%, -1.2%]); yet, over the study period, rural hospitals experienced steeper increases in patient willingness to recommend (0.2% [0.07%, 0.4%]; 0.4% [0.08%, 0.7%]). FAR hospitals also showed improvements in patient experience in a clean environment, communication with nurses, communication about medicines, and responsiveness of staff. Communication with doctors showed slight decreases across hospital locations.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient perceptions of care were generally improved in all US hospitals from 2014 to 2019, except communications with doctors. These findings highlight the potential for enhancing patient satisfaction and experience in urban hospitals and suggest the need to improve patient willingness to recommend in rural FAR hospitals.

Differential Hospital Participation in Bundled Payments in Communities with Higher Shares of Marginalized Populations

BACKGROUND

Medicare's voluntary bundled payment programs have demonstrated generally favorable results. However, it remains unknown whether uneven hospital participation in these programs in communities with greater shares of minorities and patients of low socioeconomic status results in disparate access to practice redesign innovations.

OBJECTIVE

Examine whether communities with higher proportions of marginalized individuals were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-Advanced).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study using ordinary least squares regression controlling for patient and community factors.

PARTICIPANTS

Medicare fee-for-service patients enrolled from 2015-2017 (pre-BPCI-Advanced) and residing in 2,058 local communities nationwide defined by Hospital Service Areas (HSAs). Each community's share of marginalized patients was calculated separately for each of the share of beneficiaries of Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, or dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid.

MAIN MEASURES

Dichotomous variable indicating whether a given community had at least one hospital that ever participated in BPCI-Advanced from 2018-2022.

KEY RESULTS

Communities with higher shares of dual-eligible individuals were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced than communities with the lowest quartile of dual-eligible individuals (Q4: -15.1 percentage points [pp] lower than Q1, 95% CI: -21.0 to -9.1, p < 0.001). There was no consistent significant relationship between community proportion of Black beneficiaries and likelihood of having a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced. Communities with higher shares of Hispanic beneficiaries were more likely to have a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced than those in the lowest quartile (Q4: 19.2 pp higher than Q1, 95% CI: 13.4 to 24.9, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Communities with greater shares of dual-eligible beneficiaries, but not racial or ethnic minorities, were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced Policymakers should consider approaches to incentivize more socioeconomically uniform participation in voluntary bundled payments.

Hospital-physician Integration and Value-based Payment: Early Results From MIPS

BACKGROUND

Hospital-physician integration is often justified as a driver of clinical quality improvement due to joint resources covering a broad spectrum of care. Value-based programs, such as the Medicare Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), are intended to tie financial incentives to clinical quality, which may confer an advantage on such integrated practices.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the relationship between hospital-physician integration and MIPS performance by comparing hospital-integrated practices and independent practices.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional study using data from the Quality Payment Program for the performance year 2020.

SUBJECTS

Physician practices with a valid MIPS composite score in performance year 2020.

MEASURES

Hospital integration was based on whether at least 75% of a practice's physicians either billed most of their services using hospital outpatient department codes or billed through a hospital tax identifier. The primary outcome was the MIPS quality category score, and the secondary outcomes were the specific quality measures reported by practice groups.

RESULTS

Of the 20 most frequently reported measures, 14 were common in both groups. No difference was observed in the quality category score between hospital-integrated practices and independent practices in either unadjusted comparisons or after adjusting for practice characteristics, including practice size, geography, specialty mix, and case mix. In the secondary outcome models for specific quality measures, hospital-integrated practices achieved higher scores on most overlap measures but not all.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings on quality category score suggest that hospital integration does not confer much advantage in the context of MIPS quality performance.

Performance on Patient Experience Measures of Former Chief Medical Residents as Physician Exemplars Chosen by the Profession

Importance

Physicians' knowledge about each other's quality is central to clinical decision-making, but such information is not well understood and is rarely harnessed to identify exemplars for disseminating best practices or quality improvement. One exception is chief medical resident selection, which is typically based on interpersonal, teaching, and clinical skills.

Objective

To compare care for patients of primary care physicians (PCPs) who were former chiefs with care for patients of nonchief PCPs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Using 2010 to 2018 Medicare Fee-For-Service Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey data (response rate, 47.6%), Medicare claims for random 20% samples of fee-for-service beneficiaries, and medical board data from 4 large US states, we compared care for patients of former chief PCPs with care for patients of nonchief PCPs in the same practice using linear regression. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to January 2023.

Exposures

Receiving the plurality of primary care office visits from a former chief PCP.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Composite of 12 patient experience items as primary outcome and 4 spending and utilization measures as secondary outcomes.

Results

The CAHPS samples included 4493 patients with former chief PCPs and 41 278 patients with nonchief PCPs. The 2 groups were similar in age (mean [SD], 73.1 [10.3] years vs 73.2 [10.3] years), sex (56.8% vs 56.8% female), race and ethnicity (1.2% vs 1.0% American Indian or Alaska Native, 1.3% vs 1.9% Asian or Pacific Islander, 4.8% vs. 5.6% Hispanic, 7.3% vs 6.6% non-Hispanic Black, and 81.5% vs. 80.0% non-Hispanic White), and other characteristics. The Medicare claims for random 20% samples included 289 728 patients with former chief PCPs and 2 954 120 patients with nonchief PCPs. Patients of former chief PCPs rated their care experiences significantly better than patients of nonchief PCPs (adjusted difference in composite, 1.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.4-2.8; effect size of 0.30 standard deviations (SD) of the physician-level distribution of performance; P = .01), including markedly higher ratings of physician-specific communication and interpersonal skills typically emphasized in chief selection. Differences were large for patients of racial and ethnic minority groups (1.16 SD), dual-eligible patients (0.81 SD), and those with less education (0.44 SD) but did not vary significantly across groups. Differences in spending and utilization were minimal overall.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, patients of PCPs who were former chief medical residents reported better care experiences than patients of other PCPs in the same practice, especially for physician-specific items. The study results suggest that the profession possesses information about physician quality, motivating the development and study of strategies for harnessing such information to select and repurpose exemplars for quality improvement.

Physician-Peer Relationships and Patient Experiences With Specialist Care

IMPORTANCE

Peer relationships may motivate physicians to aspire to high professional standards but have not been a major focus of quality improvement efforts.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether peer relationships between primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists formed during training motivate improved specialist care for patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this quasi-experimental study, difference-in-differences analysis was used to estimate differences in experiences with specialist care reported by patients of the same PCP for specialists who did vs did not co-train with the PCP, controlling for any differences in patient ratings of the same specialists in the absence of co-training ties. Specialist visits resulting from PCP referrals from 2016 to 2019 in a large health system were analyzed, including a subset of undirected referrals in which PCPs did not specify a specialist. Data were collected from January 2016 to December 2019 and analyzed from March 2020 to October 2022.

EXPOSURE

The exposure was PCP-specialist overlap in training (medical school or postgraduate medical) at the same institution for at least 1 year (co-training).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Composite patient experience rating of specialist care constructed from Press Ganey's Medical Practice Survey.

RESULTS

Of 9920 specialist visits for 8655 patients (62.9% female; mean age, 57.4 years) with 502 specialists in 13 specialties, 3.1% (306) involved PCP-specialist dyads with a co-training tie. Co-training ties between PCPs and specialists were associated with a 9.0 percentage point higher adjusted composite patient rating of specialist care (95% CI, 5.6-12.4 percentage points; P < .001), analogous to improvement from the median to the 91st percentile of specialist performance. This association was stronger for PCP-specialist dyads with full temporal overlap in training (same class or cohort) and consistently strong for 9 of 10 patient experience items, including clarity of communication and engagement in shared decision-making. In secondary analyses of objective markers of altered specialist practice in an expanded sample of visits not limited by the availability of patient experience data, co-training was associated with changes in medication prescribing, suggesting behavioral changes beyond interpersonal communication. Patient characteristics varied minimally by co-training status of PCP-specialist dyads. Results were similar in analyses restricted to undirected referrals (in which PCPs did not specify a specialist). Concordance between PCPs and specialists in physician age, sex, medical school graduation year, and training institution (without requiring temporal overlap) was not associated with better care experiences.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this quasi-experimental study, PCP-specialist co-training elicited changes in specialist care that substantially improved patient experiences, suggesting potential gains from strategies encouraging the formation of stronger physician-peer relationships.