Reductions in Mortality Associated With Intensive Public Reporting of Hospital Outcomes

It is unclear whether public reporting of hospital and physician performance has improved outcomes for the conditions being reported. We studied the effect of intensive public reporting on hospital mortality for 6 high-frequency, high-mortality medical conditions. Patients in Pennsylvania were matched to patients in other states with varying public reporting environments using propensity score methods. The effect of public reporting was estimated using a difference in differences approach. Patients treated at hospitals subjected to intensive public reporting had significantly lower odds of in-hospital mortality when compared with similar patients treated at hospitals in environments with no public reporting or only limited reporting. Overall, the 2000-2003 in-hospital mortality odds ratio for Pennsylvania patients versus non-Pennsylvania patients ranged from 0.59 to 0.79 across 6 clinical conditions (all P < .0001). For the same comparison using the 1997-1999 period, odds ratios ranged from 0.72 to 0.90, suggesting improvement when intensive public reporting occurred. (Am J Med Qual 2008;23:279-286)

[1]  P. Romano.  Improving the quality of hospital care in America. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  D. Rubin,et al.  The Bias Due to Incomplete Matching , 1985 .

[3]  D B Nash,et al.  How Pennsylvania hospitals have responded to publicly released reports on coronary artery bypass graft surgery. , 1998, The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement.

[4]  D B Rubin,et al.  Matching using estimated propensity scores: relating theory to practice. , 1996, Biometrics.

[5]  Francois S de Brantes,et al.  A middle ground on public accountability. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  E J Topol,et al.  Outmigration for coronary bypass surgery in an era of public dissemination of clinical outcomes. , 1996, Circulation.

[7]  N. Wintfeld,et al.  Report cards on cardiac surgeons. Assessing New York State's approach. , 1995, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  R. Johannes,et al.  Adverse Outcomes From Hospital-Acquired Infection in Pennsylvania Cannot Be Attributed to Increased Risk on Admission , 2006, American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality.

[9]  Gregory D. Berg,et al.  A Matched‐Cohort Study of Health Services Utilization and Financial Outcomes for a Heart Failure Disease‐Management Program in Elderly Patients , 2004, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[10]  E. DeLong,et al.  The effects of New York's bypass surgery provider profiling on access to care and patient outcomes in the elderly. , 1998, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  Y. Tabak,et al.  Using Automated Clinical Data for Risk Adjustment: Development and Validation of Six Disease-Specific Mortality Predictive Models for Pay-for-Performance , 2007, Medical care.

[12]  C. Naylor.  Public profiling of clinical performance. , 2002, JAMA.

[13]  J. Hibbard,et al.  Hospital performance reports: impact on quality, market share, and reputation. , 2005, Health affairs.

[14]  L. Parsons,et al.  Primary angioplasty and selection bias inpatients presenting late (>12 h) after onset of chest pain and ST elevation myocardial infarction. , 2002, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[15]  A. M. Walker,et al.  An application of propensity score matching using claims data , 2005, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

[16]  A. Jha,et al.  Care in U.S. hospitals--the Hospital Quality Alliance program. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  E L Hannan,et al.  Benefits and hazards of reporting medical outcomes publicly. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  E. Kuhn,et al.  Report cards on cardiac surgeons. , 1995, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  J. Doshi,et al.  Impact of prescription coverage on hospital and physician costs: a case study of medicare beneficiaries with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. , 2004, Clinical therapeutics.

[20]  X Zhang,et al.  Multivariate Matching and Bias Reduction in the Surgical Outcomes Study , 2001, Medical care.

[21]  D. Asch,et al.  The unintended consequences of publicly reporting quality information. , 2005, JAMA.

[22]  Jerod M. Loeb,et al.  Quality of Care in U.S. Hospitals as Reflected by Standardized Measures, 2002-2004 , 2005 .

[23]  D. Pryor,et al.  Assessment of coronary artery bypass graft surgery performance in New York. Is there a bias against taking high-risk patients? , 1997, Medical care.

[24]  P. Romano,et al.  Do Well-Publicized Risk-Adjusted Outcomes Reports Affect Hospital Volume? , 2004, Medical care.

[25]  A M Epstein,et al.  Use of public performance reports: a survey of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. , 1998, JAMA.

[26]  A M Epstein,et al.  Influence of cardiac-surgery performance reports on referral practices and access to care. A survey of cardiovascular specialists. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  Judith H Hibbard,et al.  Does publicizing hospital performance stimulate quality improvement efforts? , 2003, Health affairs.