The Impact of Hospitalists on Value-Based Purchasing Program Scores

The Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program: Do hospitalists improve health care value

INTRODUCTION

As healthcare organizations examine the associated benefits of employing a larger hospitalist workforce, there is a need to better understand the association with patients' quality, experience, and efficiency. However, there is a lack of information regarding how hospital use of hospitalists over time influences hospital scoring on quality programs, such as the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Inpatient Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) Program. This study examines the association between hospitalist staffing between 2014 and 2019 and HVBP scores.

METHODS

We used a cross-sectional panel study design. Total Performance Score (TPS) and its domains were obtained from CMS from 2014 to 2019 and merged with the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database. We utilized random-effects multivariable panel regression models and zero-inflated negative binomial regression to examine the association between the hospitalist-staffing ratio and the HVBP Program. All models were adjusted for hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 2126 hospitals were included in the study. The average ratio of hospitalists per staffed bed was 0.06, with a standard deviation of 0.15. This study suggests that hospitals that employ a higher percentage of hospitalists see improvement in their overall TPS (β = 5.40; p < .001), Patient Experience (β = 2.49; p <.05), and Efficiency (incidence-rate ratio= 1.41; p < .001) domain. However, the Clinical Care domain was no different in organizations employing more hospitalists.

CONCLUSION

There are benefits associated with TPS, Patient Experience, and Efficiency from employing hospitalists. Managers should seek opportunities to leverage hospitalists' expertise in providing care, particularly in improving care processes.

Hospitalists, two decades later: Which US hospitals utilize them?

Hospitalists, or specialists of hospital medicine, have long been practicing in Canada and Europe. However, it was not until the mid-1990s, when hospitals in the U.S. started widespread adoption of hospitalists. Since then, the number of hospitalists has grown exponentially in the U.S. from a few hundred to over 50,000 in 2016. Prior studies on hospitalists have well documented benefits hospitals gain from adopting this innovative staffing strategy. However, there is a dearth of research documenting predictors of hospitals' adoption of hospitalists. To fill this gap, this longitudinal study (2003-2015) purposes to determine organizational and market characteristics of U.S. hospitals that utilize hospitalists. Our findings indicate that private not-for-profit, system affiliated, teaching, and urban hospitals, and those located in higher per capita income markets have a higher probability of utilizing hospitalists. Additionally, large or medium, profitable hospitals, and those that treat sicker patients have a higher probability of adoption. Finally, hospitals with a high proportion of Medicaid patients have a lower probability of utilizing hospitalists. Our results suggest that hospitals with greater slack resources and those located in munificent counties are more likely to use hospitalists, while their under-resourced counterparts may experience more barriers in adopting this innovative staffing strategy.

Telehealth and hospital performance: Does it matter?

Introduction

Previous studies indicated that telehealth services may improve hospital performance. However, the extent to which these telehealth provisions would improve hospital total performance score under the hospital value-based purchasing (HVBP) programme is not clear. The aim of this study is to examine the association between telehealth provision and hospital performance.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of the association between the provision of telehealth services and 2699 hospital’s total performance score (TPS) on the 2018 HVBP programme and its four domains. Multivariate regression models were used to analyse TPS and hospital performance on each domain. Telehealth services offered by a hospital was categorically operationalized as hospitals with no telehealth services, with one to two telehealth services, and with three or more telehealth services.

Results

Hospitals with one to two telehealth services have TPS (ß coefficient = 1.50; 95% confident intervals (CI): 0.28, 2.73; p < 0.05) and hospitals with three or more telehealth services have higher efficiency and cost reduction (ß = 1.10; 95% CI: 0.32, 1.87; p < 0.01) domain scores. However, the impact of telehealth on clinical care, person and community engagement, and safety domain scores was not significant.

Discussion

The expansion of hospital telehealth service provision can improve not only the efficiency of care, but also the total performance of the hospital. Since total performance is directly associated with hospital payments from the government, these findings have significant practice and policy implications. In addition, the effect of telehealth on other quality measures such as clinical care and safety needs further investigation.