Search

Critical access hospitals are a predominant source of care for many rural populations. Previous reports suggest these centers provide lower quality of care for common medical admissions. Little is known about the outcomes and costs of patients admitted for surgical procedures.To compare the surgical outcomes and associated Medicare payments at critical access hospitals vs non-critical access hospitals.Cross-sectional retrospective review of 1,631,904 Medicare beneficiary admissions to critical access hospitals (n = 828) and non-critical access hospitals (n = 3676) for 1 of 4 common types of surgical procedures-appendectomy, 3467 for critical access and 151,867 for non-critical access; cholecystectomy, 10,556 for critical access and 573,435 for non-critical access; colectomy, 10,198 for critical access and 577,680 for non-critical access; hernia repair, 4291 for critical access and 300,410 for non-critical access-between 2009 and 2013. We compared risk-adjusted outcomes using a multivariable logistical regression that adjusted for patient factors (age, sex, race, Elixhauser comorbidities), admission type (elective, urgent, emergency), and type of operation.Undergoing surgical procedures at critical access vs non-critical access hospitals.Thirty-day mortality, postoperative serious complications (eg, myocardial infarction, pneumonia, or acute renal failure and a length of stay75th percentile). Hospital costs were assessed using price-standardized Medicare payments during hospitalization.Patients (mean age, 76.5 years; 56.2% women) undergoing surgery at critical access hospitals were less likely to have chronic medical problems, and they had lower rates of heart failure (7.7% vs 10.7%, P .0001), diabetes (20.2% vs 21.7%, P .001), obesity (6.5% vs 10.6%, P .001), or multiple comorbid diseases (% of patients with ≥2 comorbidities; 60.4% vs 70.2%, P .001). After adjustment for patient factors, critical access and non-critical access hospitals had no statistically significant differences in 30-day mortality rates (5.4% vs 5.6%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-1.03; P = .28). However, critical access vs non-critical access hospitals had significantly lower rates of serious complications (6.4% vs 13.9%; OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.32-0.39; P .001). Medicare expenditures adjusted for patient factors and procedure type were lower at critical access hospitals than non-critical access hospitals ($14,450 vs $15,845; difference, -$1395, P .001).Among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing common surgical procedures, patients admitted to critical access hospitals compared with non-critical access hospitals had no significant difference in 30-day mortality rates, decreased risk-adjusted serious complication rates, and lower-adjusted Medicare expenditures, but were less medically complex.

Importance The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) provides feedback to hospitals on risk-adjusted outcomes. It is not known if participation in the program improves outcomes and reduces costs relative to nonparticipating hospitals. Objective To evaluate the association of enrollment and participation in the ACS NSQIP with outcomes and Medicare payments compared with control hospitals that did not participate in the program. Design, Setting, and Participants Quasi-experimental study using national Medicare data (2003-2012) for a total of 1 226 479 patients undergoing general and vascular surgery at 263 hospitals participating in ACS NSQIP and 526 nonparticipating hospitals. A difference-in-differences analytic approach was used to evaluate whether participation in ACS NSQIP was associated with improved outcomes and reduced Medicare payments compared with nonparticipating hospitals that were otherwise similar. Control hospitals were selected using propensity score matching (2 control hospitals for each ACS NSQIP hospital). Main Outcomes and Measures Thirty-day mortality, serious complications (eg, pneumonia, myocardial infarction, or acute renal failure and a length of stay >75th percentile), reoperation, and readmission within 30 days. Hospital costs were assessed using price-standardized Medicare payments during hospitalization and 30 days after discharge. Results After accounting for patient factors and preexisting time trends toward improved outcomes, there were no statistically significant improvements in outcomes at 1, 2, or 3 years after (vs before) enrollment in ACS NSQIP. For example, in analyses comparing outcomes at 3 years after (vs before) enrollment, there were no statistically significant differences in risk-adjusted 30-day mortality (4.3% after enrollment vs 4.5% before enrollment; relative risk [RR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.89 to 1.03]), serious complications (11.1% after enrollment vs 11.0% before enrollment; RR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.00]), reoperations (0.49% after enrollment vs 0.45% before enrollment; RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.16]), or readmissions (13.3% after enrollment vs 12.8% before enrollment; RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.03]). There were also no differences at 3 years after (vs before) enrollment in mean total Medicare payments ($40 [95% CI, −$268 to $348]), or payments for the index admission (−$11 [95% CI, −$278 to $257]), hospital readmission ($245 [95% CI, −$231 to $721]), or outliers (−$86 [95% CI, −$1666 to $1495]). Conclusions and Relevance With time, hospitals had progressively better surgical outcomes but enrollment in a national quality reporting program was not associated with the improved outcomes or lower Medicare payments among surgical patients. Feedback on outcomes alone may not be sufficient to improve surgical outcomes.

Starting in 2006, the Centers for MedicareMedicaid Services (CMS) has restricted coverage of bariatric surgery to hospitals designated as centers of excellence (COE) by 2 major professional organizations.To evaluate whether the implementation of the COE component of the national coverage decision was associated with improved bariatric surgery outcomes in Medicare patients.Retrospective, longitudinal study using 2004-2009 hospital discharge data from 12 states (n = 321,464 patients) of changes in outcomes in Medicare patients undergoing bariatric surgery (n = 6723 before and n = 15,854 after implementation of the policy). A difference-in-differences analytic approach was used to evaluate whether the national coverage decision was associated with improved outcomes in Medicare patients above and beyond existing time trends in non-Medicare patients (n = 95,558 before and n = 155,117 after implementation of the policy).Risk-adjusted rates of any complication, serious complications, and reoperation.Bariatric surgery outcomes improved during the study period in both Medicare and non-Medicare patients; however, this change was already under way prior to the CMS coverage decision. After accounting for patient factors, changes in procedure type, and preexisting time trends toward improved outcomes, there were no statistically significant improvements in outcomes after (vs before) implementation of the CMS national coverage decision for any complication (8.0% after vs 7.0% before; relative risk [RR], 1.14 [95% CI, 0.95-1.33]), serious complications (3.3% vs 3.6%, respectively; RR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.62-1.22]), and reoperation (1.0% vs 1.1%; RR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.64-1.17]). In a direct assessment comparing outcomes at hospitals designated as COEs (n = 179) vs hospitals without the COE designation (n = 519), no significant differences were found for any complication (5.5% vs 6.0%, respectively; RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.90-1.06]), serious complications (2.2% vs 2.5%; RR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.84-1.00]), and reoperation (0.83% vs 0.96%; RR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.86-1.17]).Among Medicare patients undergoing bariatric surgery, there was no significant difference in the rates of complications and reoperation before vs after the CMS policy of restricting coverage to COEs. Combined with prior studies showing no association of COE designation and outcomes, these results suggest that Medicare should reconsider this policy.