Show simple item record

Evaluating national trends in outcomes after implementation of a star rating system: Results from dialysis facility compare

dc.contributor.authorSalerno, Stephen
dc.contributor.authorDahlerus, Claudia
dc.contributor.authorMessana, Joseph
dc.contributor.authorWisniewski, Karen
dc.contributor.authorTong, Lan
dc.contributor.authorHirth, Richard A.
dc.contributor.authorAffholter, Jordan
dc.contributor.authorGremel, Garrett
dc.contributor.authorWu, YiFan
dc.contributor.authorZhu, Ji
dc.contributor.authorRoach, Jesse
dc.contributor.authorBalovlenkov RN, Elena
dc.contributor.authorAndress, Joel
dc.contributor.authorLi, Yi
dc.date.accessioned2021-02-04T21:48:46Z
dc.date.available2022-03-04 16:48:44en
dc.date.available2021-02-04T21:48:46Z
dc.date.issued2021-02
dc.identifier.citationSalerno, Stephen; Dahlerus, Claudia; Messana, Joseph; Wisniewski, Karen; Tong, Lan; Hirth, Richard A.; Affholter, Jordan; Gremel, Garrett; Wu, YiFan; Zhu, Ji; Roach, Jesse; Balovlenkov RN, Elena; Andress, Joel; Li, Yi (2021). "Evaluating national trends in outcomes after implementation of a star rating system: Results from dialysis facility compare." Health Services Research (1): 123-131.
dc.identifier.issn0017-9124
dc.identifier.issn1475-6773
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/166162
dc.description.abstractObjectiveTo examine which factors are driving improvement in the Dialysis Facility Compare (DFC) star ratings and to test whether nonclinical facility characteristics are associated with observed longitudinal changes in the star ratings.Data SourcesData were collected from eligible patients in over 6,000 Medicare‐certified dialysis facilities from three annual star rating and individual measure updates, publicly released on DFC in October 2015, October 2016, and April 2018.Study DesignChanges in the star rating and individual quality measures were investigated across three public data releases. Year‐to‐year changes in the star ratings were linked to facility characteristics, adjusting for baseline differences in quality measure performance.Data CollectionData from publicly reported quality measures, including standardized mortality, hospitalization, and transfusion ratios, dialysis adequacy, type of vascular access for dialysis, and management of mineral and bone disease, were extracted from annual DFC data releases.Principal FindingsThe proportion of four‐ and five‐star facilities increased from 30.0% to 53.4% between October 2015 and April 2018. Quality improvement was driven by the domain of care containing the dialysis adequacy and hypercalcemia measures. Additionally, independently owned facilities and facilities belonging to smaller dialysis organizations had significantly lower odds of year‐to‐year improvement than facilities belonging to either of the two large dialysis organizations (Odds Ratio [OR]: 0.736, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.631‐0.856 and OR: 0.797, 95% CI: 0.723‐0.879, respectively).ConclusionsThe percentage of four‐ and five‐star facilities has increased markedly over a three‐year time period. These changes were driven by improvement in the specific quality measures that may be most directly under the control of the dialysis facility.
dc.publisherMathematica Policy Research
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.subject.otherpublic reporting
dc.subject.otherquality measures
dc.subject.otherstar ratings
dc.subject.otherdialysis
dc.subject.othermedicare
dc.titleEvaluating national trends in outcomes after implementation of a star rating system: Results from dialysis facility compare
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Health
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/166162/1/hesr13600.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/166162/2/hesr13600-sup-0001-AuthorMatrix.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/166162/3/hesr13600_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/1475-6773.13600
dc.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.7302/85
dc.identifier.sourceHealth Services Research
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGrabowski DC, Town RJ. Does information matter? Competition, quality, and the impact of nursing home report cards. Health Serv Res. 2011; 46 ( 6pt1 ): 1698 – 1719.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFrederick PR, Maxey NL, Clauser SB, Sugarman JR. Developing dialysis facility‐specific performance measures for public reporting. Health Care Financ Rev. 2002; 23 ( 4 ): 37 – 50.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHealth Care Transparency: Actions Needed to Improve Cost and Quality Information for Consumers. In: Office USGA, ed. Vol GAO‐15‐11. Washington DC: October 2014.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGerteis M, Thomas C, Blatt L, et al. Quality Reporting on Medicare’s Compare Sites: Lessons Learned from Consumer Research, 2001–2014. Princeton: Mathematica Policy Research; 2015.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceUniversity of Michigan Kidney Epidemiology and Cost Center. Technical Notes on the Updated Dialysis Facility Compare Star Rating Methodology. 2016. https://dialysisdata.org/sites/default/files/content/Methodology/UpdatedDFCStarRatingMethodology.pdf. Accessed August 24, 2018.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRatcliffe MR. Creating metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. Measuring Rural Diversity. 2006; 3 ( 1 ): 1 – 13. Accessed August 24, 2018
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKind AJ, Buckingham WR. Making neighborhood‐disadvantage metrics accessible—the neighborhood atlas. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378 ( 26 ): 2456.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZeger SL, Liang KY. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics. 1986; 42 ( 1 ): 121 – 130.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHeagerty PJ, Zeger SL. Marginal regression models for clustered ordinal measurements. J Am Stat Assoc. 1996; 91 ( 435 ): 1024 – 1036.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSAS Institute. SAS SJC. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. 9.4 [Computer Program]; 2013.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWeiner DE. Assessing quality care in kidney disease: the double‐edged sword versus the Gordian knot. Semin Dial. 2020; 33 ( 1 ): 10 – 17.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGupta N, Wish JB. Do current quality measures truly reflect the quality of dialysis? Semin Dial. 2018; 31 ( 4 ): 406 – 414.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePerraillon MC, Brauner DJ, Konetzka RT. nursing home response to nursing home compare: the provider perspective. Med Care Res Rev. 2019; 76 ( 4 ): 425 – 443.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSzczech LA, Klassen PS, Chua B, et al. Associations between CMS’s Clinical Performance Measures project benchmarks, profit structure, and mortality in dialysis units. Kidney Int. 2006; 69 ( 11 ): 2094 – 2100.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZhang Y. The association between dialysis facility quality and facility characteristics, neighborhood demographics, and region. Am J Med Qual. 2016; 31 ( 4 ): 358 – 363.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFoley RN, Fan Q, Liu J, et al. Comparative mortality of hemodialysis patients at for‐profit and not‐for‐profit dialysis facilities in the United States, 1998 to 2003: a retrospective analysis. BMC Nephrol. 2008; 9: 6.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFuller DS, Robinson BM. Facility practice variation to help understand the effects of public policy: insights from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017; 12 ( 1 ): 190 – 199.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePozniak A, Pearson J. The dialysis facility compare five‐star rating system at 2 years. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018; 13 ( 3 ): 474 – 476.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNissenson AR. Improving outcomes for ESRD patients: shifting the quality paradigm. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014; 9 ( 2 ): 430 – 434.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilliams A, Straker JK, Applebaum R. The nursing home five star rating: how does it compare to resident and family views of care? Gerontologist. 2016; 56 ( 2 ): 234 – 242.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKonetzka RT, Grabowski DC, Perraillon MC, Werner RM. Nursing home 5‐star rating system exacerbates disparities in quality, by payer source. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015; 34 ( 5 ): 819 – 827.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKonetzka RT, Perraillon MC. Use of nursing home compare website appears limited by lack of awareness and initial mistrust of the data. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016; 35 ( 4 ): 706 – 713.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRyskina KL, Konetzka RT, Werner RM. Association between 5‐star nursing home report card ratings and potentially preventable hospitalizations. Inquiry. 2018; 55: 46958018787323.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrauner D, Werner RM, Shippee TP, Cursio J, Sharma H, Konetzka RT. Does nursing home compare reflect patient safety in nursing homes? Health Aff (Millwood). 2018; 37 ( 11 ): 1770 – 1778.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWang DE, Tsugawa Y, Figueroa JF, Jha AK. Association between the centers for medicare and medicaid services hospital star rating and patient outcomes. JAMA Intern Med. 2016; 176 ( 6 ): 848 – 850.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFigueroa J, Feyman Y, Blumenthal D, Jha A. Do the stars align? Distribution of high‐quality ratings of healthcare sectors across US markets. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018; 27 ( 4 ): 287 – 292.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSaran R, Robinson B, Abbott KC, et al. US renal data system 2016 annual data report: epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2017; 69 ( 3 ): A7 – A8.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStephens JM, Brotherton S, Dunning SC, et al. Geographic disparities in patient travel for dialysis in the United States. J Rural Health. 2013; 29 ( 4 ): 339 – 348.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMoist LM, Bragg‐Gresham JL, Pisoni RL, et al. Travel time to dialysis as a predictor of health‐related quality of life, adherence, and mortality: the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Am J Kidney Dis. 2008; 51 ( 4 ): 641 – 650.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChanouzas D, Ng KP, Fallouh B, Baharani J. What influences patient choice of treatment modality at the pre‐dialysis stage? Nephrol Dialysis Transplant. 2012; 27 ( 4 ): 1542 – 1547.
dc.working.doi10.7302/85en
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.