Search

ObjectiveThe interdependence of hospitals is underappreciated in patient outcomes studies. We used a network science approach to foreground this interdependence. Specifically, within two large state-based interhospital networks, we examined the relationship of a hospital's network position with in-hospital mortality and length of stay.MethodsWe constructed interhospital network graphs using data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey for Florida (2014) and California (2011). The exposure of interest was hospital centrality, defined as weighted degree (sum of all ties to a given hospital from other hospitals). The outcomes were in-hospital mortality and length of stay with sub-analyses for four acute medical conditions: pneumonia, heart failure, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction. We compared outcomes for each quartile of hospital centrality relative to the most central quartile (Q4), independent of patient- and hospital-level characteristics, in this retrospective cross-sectional study.ResultsThe inpatient cohorts had 1,246,169 patients in Florida and 1,415,728 in California. Compared to Florida's central hospitals which had an overall mortality 1.60%, peripheral hospitals had higher in-hospital mortality (1.97%, adjusted OR (95%CI): Q1 1.61 (1.37, 1.89), pConclusionsThe position of hospitals within an inter-hospital network is associated with patient outcomes. Specifically, hospitals located in the peripheral or central positions may be most vulnerable to diminished quality outcomes due to the network. Results should be replicated with deeper clinical data.

IMPORTANCE:Medicare beneficiaries with high medical needs can benefit from Advance Care Planning (ACP). Medicare reimburses clinical providers for ACP discussions, but it is unknown whether high-need beneficiaries are receiving this service. OBJECTIVE:To compare rates of billed ACP discussions among a cohort of high-need Medicare beneficiaries with the non-high-needs Medicare population. DESIGN:Retrospective analysis of Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) claims in 2017 comparing high-need beneficiaries (seriously ill, frail, ESRD, and disabled) with non-high need beneficiaries. SETTING:Nationally representative FFS Medicare 20% sample. PARTICIPANTS:Medicare beneficiaries were assigned to one of the following classifications: seriously ill (65+), frail (65+), seriously ill & frail (65+); non-high need (65+); end stage renal disease (ESRD) or disabled (