Valuing improvement in value-based purchasing

William B. Borden, Jan Blustein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background-Medicare will soon implement hospital value-based purchasing (VBP) using a scoring system that rewards both achievement (absolute performance) and improvement (performance increase over time). However, improvement is defined so as to give less credit to initial low performers than initial high performers. Because initial low performers are disproportionately hospitals in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, these institutions stand to lose under Medicare's VBP proposal. Methods and Results-We developed an alternative improvement scale and applied it to hospital performance throughout the United States. By using 2005 to 2008 Medicare process measures for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF), we calculated hospital scores using Medicare's proposal and our alternative. Hospital performance scores were compared across 5 locational dimensions of socioeconomic disadvantage: poverty, unemployment, physician shortage, and high school and college graduation rates. Medicare's proposed scoring system yielded higher overall scores for the most locationally advantaged hospitals for 4 of 5 dimensions in AMI and 2 of 5 dimensions for HF. By using our alternative, differences in overall scores between hospitals in the most and least advantaged areas were attenuated, with locationally advantaged hospitals having higher overall scores for 3 of 5 dimensions for AMI and 1 of 5 dimensions for HF. Conclusions-Using an alternative VBP formula that reflects the principle of "equal credit for equal improvement" resulted in a more equitable distribution of overall payment scores, which could allow hospitals in both socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged areas to succeed under VBP. (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5:163-170.).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)163-170
Number of pages8
JournalCirculation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Volume5
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2012

Fingerprint

Value-Based Purchasing
Medicare
Heart Failure
Myocardial Infarction
Vulnerable Populations
Process Assessment (Health Care)
Unemployment
Poverty
Reward

Keywords

  • Acute myocardial infarction
  • Health policy
  • Heart failure
  • Medicare
  • Pay-for-performance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Valuing improvement in value-based purchasing. / Borden, William B.; Blustein, Jan.

In: Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, Vol. 5, No. 2, 03.2012, p. 163-170.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{caf486d0c5564cfe8c0cdedebf23b7e8,
title = "Valuing improvement in value-based purchasing",
abstract = "Background-Medicare will soon implement hospital value-based purchasing (VBP) using a scoring system that rewards both achievement (absolute performance) and improvement (performance increase over time). However, improvement is defined so as to give less credit to initial low performers than initial high performers. Because initial low performers are disproportionately hospitals in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, these institutions stand to lose under Medicare's VBP proposal. Methods and Results-We developed an alternative improvement scale and applied it to hospital performance throughout the United States. By using 2005 to 2008 Medicare process measures for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF), we calculated hospital scores using Medicare's proposal and our alternative. Hospital performance scores were compared across 5 locational dimensions of socioeconomic disadvantage: poverty, unemployment, physician shortage, and high school and college graduation rates. Medicare's proposed scoring system yielded higher overall scores for the most locationally advantaged hospitals for 4 of 5 dimensions in AMI and 2 of 5 dimensions for HF. By using our alternative, differences in overall scores between hospitals in the most and least advantaged areas were attenuated, with locationally advantaged hospitals having higher overall scores for 3 of 5 dimensions for AMI and 1 of 5 dimensions for HF. Conclusions-Using an alternative VBP formula that reflects the principle of {"}equal credit for equal improvement{"} resulted in a more equitable distribution of overall payment scores, which could allow hospitals in both socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged areas to succeed under VBP. (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5:163-170.).",
keywords = "Acute myocardial infarction, Health policy, Heart failure, Medicare, Pay-for-performance",
author = "Borden, {William B.} and Jan Blustein",
year = "2012",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.111.962811",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "163--170",
journal = "Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes",
issn = "1941-7713",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Valuing improvement in value-based purchasing

AU - Borden, William B.

AU - Blustein, Jan

PY - 2012/3

Y1 - 2012/3

N2 - Background-Medicare will soon implement hospital value-based purchasing (VBP) using a scoring system that rewards both achievement (absolute performance) and improvement (performance increase over time). However, improvement is defined so as to give less credit to initial low performers than initial high performers. Because initial low performers are disproportionately hospitals in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, these institutions stand to lose under Medicare's VBP proposal. Methods and Results-We developed an alternative improvement scale and applied it to hospital performance throughout the United States. By using 2005 to 2008 Medicare process measures for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF), we calculated hospital scores using Medicare's proposal and our alternative. Hospital performance scores were compared across 5 locational dimensions of socioeconomic disadvantage: poverty, unemployment, physician shortage, and high school and college graduation rates. Medicare's proposed scoring system yielded higher overall scores for the most locationally advantaged hospitals for 4 of 5 dimensions in AMI and 2 of 5 dimensions for HF. By using our alternative, differences in overall scores between hospitals in the most and least advantaged areas were attenuated, with locationally advantaged hospitals having higher overall scores for 3 of 5 dimensions for AMI and 1 of 5 dimensions for HF. Conclusions-Using an alternative VBP formula that reflects the principle of "equal credit for equal improvement" resulted in a more equitable distribution of overall payment scores, which could allow hospitals in both socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged areas to succeed under VBP. (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5:163-170.).

AB - Background-Medicare will soon implement hospital value-based purchasing (VBP) using a scoring system that rewards both achievement (absolute performance) and improvement (performance increase over time). However, improvement is defined so as to give less credit to initial low performers than initial high performers. Because initial low performers are disproportionately hospitals in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, these institutions stand to lose under Medicare's VBP proposal. Methods and Results-We developed an alternative improvement scale and applied it to hospital performance throughout the United States. By using 2005 to 2008 Medicare process measures for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF), we calculated hospital scores using Medicare's proposal and our alternative. Hospital performance scores were compared across 5 locational dimensions of socioeconomic disadvantage: poverty, unemployment, physician shortage, and high school and college graduation rates. Medicare's proposed scoring system yielded higher overall scores for the most locationally advantaged hospitals for 4 of 5 dimensions in AMI and 2 of 5 dimensions for HF. By using our alternative, differences in overall scores between hospitals in the most and least advantaged areas were attenuated, with locationally advantaged hospitals having higher overall scores for 3 of 5 dimensions for AMI and 1 of 5 dimensions for HF. Conclusions-Using an alternative VBP formula that reflects the principle of "equal credit for equal improvement" resulted in a more equitable distribution of overall payment scores, which could allow hospitals in both socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged areas to succeed under VBP. (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5:163-170.).

KW - Acute myocardial infarction

KW - Health policy

KW - Heart failure

KW - Medicare

KW - Pay-for-performance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84860858415&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84860858415&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.111.962811

DO - 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.111.962811

M3 - Article

VL - 5

SP - 163

EP - 170

JO - Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

JF - Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

SN - 1941-7713

IS - 2

ER -