Hospital quality reporting and improvement in quality of care for patients with acute myocardial infarction

"The reputation premium": does hospital ranking improvement lead to a higher healthcare spending?

Global health systems have often disclosed hospital quality and performance information via hospital ranking or rating programs over the last 20 years. This study aims to examine the relationship between hospital ranking and healthcare spending. Using the Basic Medical Insurance claims data from a big city in central China and the hospital ranking data from the Fudan Chinese Hospital League Table from 2016 to 2018, this study exploits the variation of hospital reputable ranking across hospitals and periods to employ the difference-in-differences (DiD) design. To alleviate the self-selection bias emerging from inpatients' selection of hospitals and the extrapolation bias emerging from the potential mis-specification of our linear model, we combine the DiD design with the 3-to-1 optimal Mahalanobis metric matching method. This study finds that ceteris paribus one hospital ascending from the Regional Famous Hospital Group to the National Famous Hospital Group significantly increases inpatients' total healthcare costs, reimbursement costs, and out-of-pocket costs by 5.9%, 6.2%, and 4.0%, respectively. Mechanism analysis reveals that it should be attributed more to physician moral hazard than patient willingness-to-pay. Leads and lags (event study) analysis validates our DiD identification framework and shows that the impact materializes slowly but significantly. In the robustness check, we transfer the outcome variables from the log value to the level value and control five digits of ICD-10 for the disease fixed-effects. The results are highly robust.

Healthcare utilization associated with adherence to antibiotics for abdominal surgeries in Japan: cross-sectional analysis of administrative database

BACKGROUND

Since patients receiving surgery may experience surgical site infections, therapeutic guidelines for reducing hospitalization time and cost include appropriate antibiotic use. However, the association between adherence to therapeutic guidelines and healthcare utilization is currently unclear.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to confirm the positive association between the adherence to guidelines of antibiotic therapy and a reduction in the length of stay and cost of hospitalization, especially considering the high infection rates in abdominal surgery.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used administrative data (diagnosis procedure combination data) collected using the case-mix system implemented in acute-care hospitals in Japan. We assessed the length of hospital stay and cost of hospitalization for patients who received prophylactic antibiotic for abdominal surgeries consistent with therapeutic guidelines. The data of patients aged 15 years or older who received appendectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy or inguinal hernia repair were extracted. The appropriateness of antibiotic prophylaxis was evaluated in terms of the Japanese guidelines for antibiotic selection and treatment duration. To assess the mean difference in antibiotic costs and length of stay, we performed the propensity score matching by confounding factors. Furthermore, we assessed the progress in healthcare utilization of this therapy over a decade.

RESULTS

Of the 302 233 patients who received single general surgery from April 2014 to March 2016, 198 885 were eligible for analysis after applying the exclusion criteria (143 975 in the adherence and 54 910 in the non-adherence group). Each group comprised 48 439 patients after propensity score matching. Inappropriate antibiotic selection and duration were observed in 9294 (9.8%) and 687 (0.7%) of inguinal hernia repairs, 6431 (25.3%) and 311 (1.2%) of appendectomies and 38 134 (48.5%) and 391 (0.5%) of laparoscopic cholecystectomy cases, respectively. After propensity score matching by operation type, average hospitalization length (6.5 [SD 3.8] and 7.3 [SD 4.8] days) and costs (536 000 [SD 167 000] JPY and 573 000 [SD 213 000] JPY) differed significantly between adherence and non-adherence groups.

CONCLUSION

The results revealed that unnecessary healthcare utilization was associated with failure to adhere to therapeutic guidelines for prophylactic antibiotic therapy in elective general surgeries. We concluded that the progress of reduction in length of hospitalization over the decade was successful. Notably, adherence to treatment duration was better than that was 10 years ago. In this decade, administrators in hospitals have attempted to reduce the duration of hospitalization by developing various clinical pathways for surgical procedures and quality indicators. However, 15 877 patients (8.7%) were prescribed oral antibiotics the day after surgery. These observations should be evaluated further.

Mechanisms and impact of public reporting on physicians and hospitals' performance: A systematic review (2000-2020)

BACKGROUND

Public performance reporting (PPR) of physician and hospital data aims to improve health outcomes by promoting quality improvement and informing consumer choice. However, previous studies have demonstrated inconsistent effects of PPR, potentially due to the various PPR characteristics examined. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review of the impact and mechanisms (selection and change), by which PPR exerts its influence.

METHODS

Studies published between 2000 and 2020 were retrieved from five databases and eight reviews. Data extraction, quality assessment and synthesis were conducted. Studies were categorised into: user and provider responses to PPR and impact of PPR on quality of care.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies were identified: 24 on user and provider responses to PPR, 14 on impact of PPR on quality of care, and seven on both. Most of the studies reported positive effects of PPR on the selection of providers by patients, purchasers and providers, quality improvement activities in primary care clinics and hospitals, clinical outcomes and patient experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings provide moderate level of evidence to support the role of PPR in stimulating quality improvement activities, informing consumer choice and improving clinical outcomes. There was some evidence to demonstrate a relationship between PPR and patient experience. The effects of PPR varied across clinical areas which may be related to the type of indicators, level of data reported and the mode of dissemination. It is important to ensure that the design and implementation of PPR considered the perspectives of different users and the health system in which PPR operates in. There is a need to account for factors such as the structural characteristics and culture of the hospitals that could influence the uptake of PPR.

Comparison of the association of risperidone and quetiapine with deteriorating performance in walking and dressing in subjects with Parkinson's disease: a retrospective cohort study using administrative claims data

This retrospective cohort study was performed to investigate the association between risperidone and deteriorating performance in walking and dressing in subjects with Parkinson's disease using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination data. These data include inpatient claims including information from the time of admission to discharge from 89 acute phase National Hospitals in Japan. The data were evaluated by implementing the inverse probability of treatment weighting, using propensity scores estimated from the clinical characteristics of subjects prescribed risperidone or quetiapine. The generalized estimation equation was used to estimate the adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In total, 304 subjects were eligible for participation, and were hospitalized between April 2012 and March 2017 (108 and 196 for risperidone and quetiapine groups, respectively). The performance of walking deteriorated at discharge, with 22.2% and 10.2% recorded at admission for the risperidone and quetiapine groups (aRR, 1.7; 95% CI, 0.9 to 3.4), respectively. The performance of dressing also deteriorated: 24.1% and 10.7% in the risperidone and quetiapine groups (aRR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.7), respectively. These results suggest an association between risperidone and deteriorating performance in dressing in subjects with Parkinson's disease in comparison with quetiapine.