Cargando…

Dual eligible patients are not the same: How social risk may impact quality measurement's ability to reduce inequities

BACKGROUND: CMS recently decided to produce private “healthcare disparities reports” that include dual eligibility (DE) as the sole stratifying variable used to assess pneumonia readmission disparities. RESEARCH DESIGN: We measure the relationship between DE status and readmissions, both with and wi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alberti, Philip M., Baker, Matthew C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7505368/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32957371
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000022245
_version_ 1783584796301066240
author Alberti, Philip M.
Baker, Matthew C.
author_facet Alberti, Philip M.
Baker, Matthew C.
author_sort Alberti, Philip M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: CMS recently decided to produce private “healthcare disparities reports” that include dual eligibility (DE) as the sole stratifying variable used to assess pneumonia readmission disparities. RESEARCH DESIGN: We measure the relationship between DE status and readmissions, both with and without conceptually relevant social risk factors, including air pollution, severe housing problems, and food insecurity, using data from county- and hospital-level readmission rates, DE status, and social risk factors. RESULTS: At the county level, the relationship between DE status and readmissions is partially confounded by at least three social risk factors. DE populations vary widely across hospitals, creating unequal between-hospital comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Because of differences in the DE population, between-hospital comparisons could be misleading using a methodology that stratifies by DE only. We suggest viable alternatives to sole-factor stratification to properly account for social risk factors and better isolate quality differences that might yield readmission rate inequities. IMPLICATIONS: CMS's healthcare disparities reports provided to hospitals are limited by relying exclusively on DE proportion as the measure of social risk, undercutting the power of quality measurement and its related incentives to close or minimize healthcare inequities.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7505368
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75053682020-09-24 Dual eligible patients are not the same: How social risk may impact quality measurement's ability to reduce inequities Alberti, Philip M. Baker, Matthew C. Medicine (Baltimore) 6600 BACKGROUND: CMS recently decided to produce private “healthcare disparities reports” that include dual eligibility (DE) as the sole stratifying variable used to assess pneumonia readmission disparities. RESEARCH DESIGN: We measure the relationship between DE status and readmissions, both with and without conceptually relevant social risk factors, including air pollution, severe housing problems, and food insecurity, using data from county- and hospital-level readmission rates, DE status, and social risk factors. RESULTS: At the county level, the relationship between DE status and readmissions is partially confounded by at least three social risk factors. DE populations vary widely across hospitals, creating unequal between-hospital comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Because of differences in the DE population, between-hospital comparisons could be misleading using a methodology that stratifies by DE only. We suggest viable alternatives to sole-factor stratification to properly account for social risk factors and better isolate quality differences that might yield readmission rate inequities. IMPLICATIONS: CMS's healthcare disparities reports provided to hospitals are limited by relying exclusively on DE proportion as the measure of social risk, undercutting the power of quality measurement and its related incentives to close or minimize healthcare inequities. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2020-09-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7505368/ /pubmed/32957371 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000022245 Text en Copyright © 2020 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC), where it is permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)
spellingShingle 6600
Alberti, Philip M.
Baker, Matthew C.
Dual eligible patients are not the same: How social risk may impact quality measurement's ability to reduce inequities
title Dual eligible patients are not the same: How social risk may impact quality measurement's ability to reduce inequities
title_full Dual eligible patients are not the same: How social risk may impact quality measurement's ability to reduce inequities
title_fullStr Dual eligible patients are not the same: How social risk may impact quality measurement's ability to reduce inequities
title_full_unstemmed Dual eligible patients are not the same: How social risk may impact quality measurement's ability to reduce inequities
title_short Dual eligible patients are not the same: How social risk may impact quality measurement's ability to reduce inequities
title_sort dual eligible patients are not the same: how social risk may impact quality measurement's ability to reduce inequities
topic 6600
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7505368/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32957371
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000022245
work_keys_str_mv AT albertiphilipm dualeligiblepatientsarenotthesamehowsocialriskmayimpactqualitymeasurementsabilitytoreduceinequities
AT bakermatthewc dualeligiblepatientsarenotthesamehowsocialriskmayimpactqualitymeasurementsabilitytoreduceinequities