← Back to Insights
December 4, 2018
Authors
David Burda
Topics
Consumerism Outcomes Policy
Channels
Blogs

Want Better Cardiac Outcomes? Just Follow the Money

The line between financial incentives and clinical outcomes just got a little straighter. A new study says money may have erased the difference in readmission rates between the top heart hospitals and other hospitals that perform the same cardiac procedures.

The study, by researchers from Harvard Medical School, appeared in JAMA Cardiology.

The researchers looked at the results of Medicare patients treated by the top 50 hospitals for cardiology and heart surgery identified by U.S. News and World Report in its 2018-2019 Best Hospitals ranking. The researchers defined outcomes as 30-day mortality rate, 30-day readmission rate and patient satisfaction scores. And they looked at those outcomes over the past four years for three medical conditions: heart attack, heart failure and heart bypass surgery.

Then, the researchers compared those outcomes from the 50 hospitals for the three medical conditions with the outcomes of patients treated by 3,500 non-ranked hospitals over the same period.

Top-ranked hospitals had lower mortality rates than non-ranked hospitals:

  • 11.9 percent versus 13.2 percent for heart attacks
  • 9.5 percent versus 11.9 percent for heart failure
  • 2.3 percent versus 3.3 percent for heart bypass surgery

But the top-ranked hospitals had higher readmission rates than non-ranked hospitals:

  • 16.7 percent versus 16.5 percent for heart attacks
  • 21 percent versus 19.2 percent for heart failure
  • 14.1 percent versus 13.7 percent for bypass surgery

The overall patient satisfaction score was higher at top-ranked hospitals: 3.9 (out of 5.0) stars compared with 3.3 stars for non-ranked hospitals.

So how could the best heart hospitals be better at one thing—mortality rates—and worse on another—readmission rates? The assumption would be the best heart hospitals are the best at everything.

The researchers suggested that the answer is money. The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program started by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2012 penalizes hospitals that have higher-than-expected 30-day readmission rates. The program incented all hospitals—good, bad or otherwise—to reduce their readmission rates. And that leveled the outcomes between top-ranked and non-ranked hospitals when it comes to cardiac outcomes.

“Our finding that top-ranked hospitals have lower mortality rates than non-ranked hospitals but have generally similar readmission rates might reflect these incentives,” the researchers said.

And come to think of it, payers financially incent hospitals to improve their patient satisfaction scores, too. That could explain the difference in that outcome measure between top-ranked and non-ranked.

Healthcare is a business like any other business. A hospital like any business will respond to financial incentive to improve its performance. That’s why market-based reforms are the path to healthcare’s future. Maybe someone should incent hospitals to reduce their cardiac mortality rates?

To learn more about how to make hospital rankings more meaningful to patients, read “DIY Hospital Ratings: Do Your Stars Align for What’s Most Important to Patients?” on 4sightHealth.com.

Author

David Burda is a columnist for 4sight Health and news editor of 4sight Friday, our weekly newsletter. Follow Burda on Twitter @DavidRBurda and on LinkedIn. Read his bio here.

About the Author

David Burda

David Burda began covering healthcare in 1983 and hasn’t stopped since. Dave writes this monthly column “Burda on Healthcare,” contributes weekly blog posts, manages our weekly newsletter 4sight Friday, and hosts our weekly Roundup podcast. Dave believes that healthcare is a business like any other business, and customers — patients — are king. If you do what’s right for patients, good business results will follow.

Dave’s personnel experiences with the healthcare system both as a patient and family caregiver have shaped his point of view. It’s also been shaped by covering the industry for 40 years as a reporter and editor. He worked at Modern Healthcare for 25 years, the last 11 as editor.

Prior to Modern Healthcare, he did stints at the American Medical Record Association (now AHIMA) and the American Hospital Association. After Modern Healthcare, he wrote a monthly column for Twin Cities Business explaining healthcare trends to a business audience, and he developed and executed content marketing plans for leading healthcare corporations as the editorial director for healthcare strategies at MSP Communications.

When he’s not reading and writing about healthcare, Dave spends his time riding the trails of DuPage County, IL, on his bike, tending his vegetable garden and daydreaming about being a lobster fisherman in Maine. He lives in Wheaton, IL, with his lovely wife of 40 years and his three children, none of whom want to be journalists or lobster fishermen.

Recent Posts

Outcomes
Stop Weeping for Physician Practices
4sight Health published a blog post last month in which I said it was disingenuous of physicians to… Read More
By April 17, 2024
Economics
GoFundMe Helps Some Pay for Healthcare, but it’s an Awful Solution
During the chaotic runup to the 2020 elections, President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill Ruth… Read More
By April 16, 2024
Economics
Podcast: Will This HHS Proposal Refill Empty Pill Bottles? 4/11/24
HHS and the White House have a plan to mitigate the chronic shortages of prescription drugs. Will it… Read More
By April 11, 2024