Strengthening public reporting and maintaining access to care

A Survey of Interventional Cardiologists' Attitudes and Beliefs About Public Reporting of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Importance

Public reporting of procedural outcomes has been associated with lower rates of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and worse outcomes after myocardial infarction. Contemporary data are limited on the influence of public reporting on interventional cardiologists' clinical decision making.

Objective

To survey a contemporary cohort of interventional cardiologists in Massachusetts and New York about how public reporting of PCI outcomes influences clinical decision making.

Design, Setting, and Participants

An online survey was developed with public reporting experts and administered electronically to eligible physicians in Massachusetts and New York who were identified by Doximity (an online physician networking site) and 2014 Medicare fee-for-service claims for PCI procedures. The personal and hospital characteristics of participants were ascertained via a comprehensive database from Doximity and the American Hospital Association annual surveys of US hospitals (2012 and 2013) and linked to survey responses. Associations between survey responses and characteristics of participants were evaluated in univariable and multivariable analyses.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Reported rate of avoidance of performing PCIs in high-risk patients and of perception of pressure from colleagues to avoid performing PCIs.

Results

Of the 456 physicians approached, 149 (32.7%) responded, including 67 of 129 (51.9%) in Massachusetts and 82 of 327 (25.1%) in New York. The mean (SD) age was 49 (9.2) years; 141 of 149 participants (94.6%) were men. Most participants reported practicing at medium to large, nonprofit hospitals with high-volume cardiac catheterization laboratories and cardiothoracic surgery capabilities. In 2014, participants had higher annual PCI volumes among Medicare patients than nonparticipants did (median, 31; interquartile range [IQR], 13-47 vs median, 17; IQR, 0-41; P < .001). Among participants, 65% reported avoiding PCIs on at least 2 occasions becase of concern that a bad outcome would negatively impact their publicly reported outcomes; 59% reported sometimes or often being pressured by colleagues to avoid performing PCIs because of a concern about the patient's risk of death. After multivariable adjustment, more years of experience practicing interventional cardiology was associated with lower odds of PCI avoidance. The state of practice was not associated with survey responses.

Conclusions and Relevance

Current PCI public reporting programs can foster risk-averse clinical practice patterns, which do not vary significantly between interventional cardiologists in New York and Massachusetts. Coordinated efforts by policy makers, health systems leadership, and the interventional cardiology community are needed to mitigate these unintended consequences.

Management of Patients With Cardiac Arrest Complicating Myocardial Infarction in New York Before and After Public Reporting Policy Changes

BACKGROUND

In 2010, New York State began excluding selected patients with cardiac arrest and coma from publicly reported mortality statistics after percutaneous coronary intervention. We evaluated the effects of this exclusion on rates of coronary angiography, revascularization, and mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using statewide hospitalization files, we identified discharges for acute myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest January 2003 to December 2013 in New York and several comparator states. A difference-in-differences approach was used to evaluate the likelihood of coronary angiography, revascularization, and in-hospital mortality before and after 2010. A total of 26 379 patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest (5619 in New York) were included. Of these, 17 141 (65%) underwent coronary angiography, 12 183 (46.2%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, and 2832 (10.7%) underwent coronary artery bypass grafting. Before 2010, patients with cardiac arrest in New York were less likely to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention compared with referent states (adjusted relative risk, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.85; P<0.001). This relationship was unchanged after the policy change (adjusted relative risk, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.89; interaction P=0.359). Adjusted risks of in-hospital mortality between New York and comparator states after 2010 were also similar (adjusted relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.02; P=0.152 for post- versus pre-2010 in New York; adjusted relative risk, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.92; P<0.001 for comparator states; interaction P=0.103).

CONCLUSIONS

Exclusion of selected cardiac arrest cases from public reporting was not associated with changes in rates of percutaneous coronary intervention or in-hospital mortality in New York. Rates of revascularization in New York for cardiac arrest patients were lower throughout.

Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: The Role of Policy Interventions

OPINION STATEMENT

Health outcomes in cardiovascular disease in the USA have generally been improving over the past several decades. Those gains have been related to both developments in prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease. To further enhance improvement in health outcomes, including cardiovascular outcomes, health policies have been implemented to incentivize prevention. These policies have strong conceptual appeal and have been associated with improvements in some health metrics. However, robust research methods, accounting for bias and statistical confounding, are critical to confirm that these policies are associated with prevention of cardiovascular events for patients over time.