Few ‘high-quality’ healthcare markets exist

Only a handful of healthcare markets have been given high star ratings by CMS across four different sectors, according to a study published in The BMJ, suggesting either high-quality care at one facility isn’t “dependent on or improves” quality in another or the ratings themselves are flawed.

The study was led by Jose Figueroa, MD, MPH, Harvard Medical School instructor and associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He and his coauthors examined the star rating data from four CMS compare websites for hospitals, dialysis centers, nursing homes and home health agencies, calculating the mean star ratings across 304 Hospital Referral Ratings (HRRs) with a total of almost 34,000 facilities. HRRs were then ranked into terciles by mean star rating.

Of those 304 regions, only 6 (2 percent of HRRs) had all four of the healthcare sectors examined in the top tercile. 38 (12.5 percent) had three sectors in the top tercile, 71 (23.4 percent) had two sectors in top tercile and 111 (36.5 percent) had one sector in the top tercile. 78 regions (25.7 percent) had no sector ranked in the top tercile. Figueroa and his coauthors said this was similar to estimates of “what we might expect by chance alone.”

One possible explanation for these results is the star ratings themselves, which have been criticized by hospital groups and others as being a misleading measure of quality. Another could be the ratings don’t adequately adjust for socioeconomic status of the patient population. The authors did find significant demographic differences between HRRs with three or four top-ranked sectors and those with zero. Those with top-ranked sectors had higher median incomes ($59,989 vs. $50,395 in HRRs with zero top-ranked sectors), a smaller population living below the white population and more white residents, along with a lower level of Medicare spending per beneficiary ($8,556 per patient vs. $9,744 per patient in HRRs with zero top-ranked sectors).

“It suggests that measures should more adequately adjust for socioeconomic determinants of health,” Figueroa and his coauthors wrote.

Those criticisms may explain the poor concordance of high-quality facilities in a market detailed by the study. What little evidence they did find of what makes for a high-quality market across the four sectors—namely, being wealthier and having a larger white population—suggested some broader approach may be needed.

“Policies that promote accountability for quality across sectors (e.g. bundled payments and shared quality metrics) may be needed to systematically improve quality across sectors,” the study concluded.

""
John Gregory, Senior Writer

John joined TriMed in 2016, focusing on healthcare policy and regulation. After graduating from Columbia College Chicago, he worked at FM News Chicago and Rivet News Radio, and worked on the state government and politics beat for the Illinois Radio Network. Outside of work, you may find him adding to his never-ending graphic novel collection.

Around the web

Compensation for heart specialists continues to climb. What does this say about cardiology as a whole? Could private equity's rising influence bring about change? We spoke to MedAxiom CEO Jerry Blackwell, MD, MBA, a veteran cardiologist himself, to learn more.

The American College of Cardiology has shared its perspective on new CMS payment policies, highlighting revenue concerns while providing key details for cardiologists and other cardiology professionals. 

As debate simmers over how best to regulate AI, experts continue to offer guidance on where to start, how to proceed and what to emphasize. A new resource models its recommendations on what its authors call the “SETO Loop.”