Effect of CAHPS performance information on health plan choices by Iowa Medicaid beneficiaries. Effects of CAHPS health plan performance information on plan choices by New Jersey Medicaid beneficiaries. Effectiveness of public report cards for improving the quality of cardiac care: the EFFECT study: a randomized trial. Do well-publicized risk-adjusted outcomes reports affect hospital volume?
This evaluation tested if Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) information on plan performance affected health plan choices by new beneficiaries in Iowa Medicaid. New cases entering Medicaid in selected counties during February through May 2000 were assigned randomly to experimental or control groups. The control group received standard Medicaid enrollment materials, and the experimental group received these materials plus a CAHPS report. We found that CAHPS information did not affect health plan choices by Iowa Medicaid beneficiaries, similar to previously reported findings for New Jersey Medicaid. However, it did affect plan choice in an earlier laboratory experiment. The value of this information may be limited to a subset of receptive consumers who actively study information received, even then only when (1) ratings of available plans differ greatly, (2) ratings differ from prior beliefs about plan quality, and (3) reports are easy to understand. To assess the effects of CAHPS health plan performance information on plan choices and decision processes by New Jersey Medicaid beneficiaries.
                The study sample was a statewide sample of all new Medicaid cases that chose Medicaid health plans during April 1998. The study used state data on health maintenance organization (HMO) enrollments and survey data for a subset of these cases.
                An experimental design was used, with new Medicaid cases randomly assigned to experimental or control groups. The experimental group received a CAHPS report along with the standard enrollment materials, and the control group did not.
                The HMO enrollment data were obtained from the state in June 1998, and evaluation survey data were collected from July to October 1998.
                No effects of CAHPS information on HMO choices were found for the total sample. Further examination revealed that only about half the Medicaid cases said they received and read the plan report and there was an HMO with dominant Medicaid market share but low CAHPS performance scores. The subset of cases who read the report and did not choose this dominant HMO chose HMOs with higher CAHPS scores, on average, than did those in an equivalent control group.
                Health plan performance information can influence plan choices by Medicaid beneficiaries, but will do so only if they actually read it. These findings suggest a need for enhancing dissemination of the information as well as further education to encourage informed choices. Publicly released report cards on hospital performance are increasingly common, but whether they are an effective method for improving quality of care remains uncertain.
                To evaluate whether the public release of data on cardiac quality indicators effectively stimulates hospitals to undertake quality improvement activities that improve health care processes and patient outcomes.
                Population-based cluster randomized trial (Enhanced Feedback for Effective Cardiac Treatment [EFFECT]) of 86 hospital corporations in Ontario, Canada, with patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or congestive heart failure (CHF).
                Participating hospital corporations were randomized to early (January 2004) or delayed (September 2005) feedback of a public report card on their baseline performance (between April 1999 and March 2001) on a set of 12 process-of-care indicators for AMI and 6 for CHF. Follow-up performance data (between April 2004 and March 2005) also were collected.
                The coprimary outcomes were composite AMI and CHF indicators based on 12 AMI and 6 CHF process-of-care indicators. Secondary outcomes were the individual process-of-care indicators, a hospital report card impact survey, and all-cause AMI and CHF mortality.
                The publication of the early feedback hospital report card did not result in a significant systemwide improvement in the early feedback group in either the composite AMI process-of-care indicator (absolute change, 1.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.2% to 5.1%; P = .43) or the composite CHF process-of-care indicator (absolute change, 0.6%; 95% CI, -4.5% to 5.7%; P = .81). During the follow-up period, the mean 30-day AMI mortality rates were 2.5% lower (95% CI, 0.1% to 4.9%; P = .045) in the early feedback group compared with the delayed feedback group. The hospital mortality rates for CHF were not significantly different.
                Public release of hospital-specific quality indicators did not significantly improve composite process-of-care indicators for AMI or CHF.
                http://clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00187460. Report cards on hospital performance are common but have uncertain impact.
                The objective of this study was to determine whether hospitals recognized as performance outliers experience volume changes after publication of a report card. Secondary objectives were to test whether favorable outliers attract more patients with related conditions, or from outside their catchment areas; and whether disadvantaged groups are less responsive to report cards.
                We used a time-series analysis using linear and autoregressive models.
                We studied patients admitted to nonfederal hospitals designated as outliers in reports on coronary bypass surgery (CABG) mortality in New York, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) mortality in California, and postdiskectomy complications in California.
                We studied observed versus expected hospital volume for topic and related conditions and procedures, by month/quarter after a report card, with and without stratification by age, race/ethnicity, insurance, and catchment area. Potential confounders included statewide prevalence, prereport hospital volume and market share, and unrelated volume.
                In California, low-mortality and high-mortality outliers did not experience changes in AMI volume after adjusting for autocorrelation. Low-complication outliers for lumbar diskectomy experienced slightly increased volume in autoregressive models. No other cohorts demonstrated consistent trends. In New York, low-mortality outliers experienced significantly increased CABG volume in the first month after publication, whereas high-mortality outliers experienced decreased volume in the second month. The strongest effects were among white patients and those with HMO coverage in California, and among white or other patients and those with Medicare in New York.
                Volume effects were modest, transient, and largely limited to white Medicare patients in New York.