You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 299 No. 18, May 14, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Original Contribution
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related letters
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Medical Practice
 •Caring for the Uninsured and Underinsured
 •Medical Practice, Other
 •Quality of Care
 •Quality of Care, Other
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati
What's this?

Comparison of Change in Quality of Care Between Safety-Net and Non–Safety-Net Hospitals

Rachel M. Werner, MD, PhD; L. Elizabeth Goldman, MD, MCR; R. Adams Dudley, MD, MBA

JAMA. 2008;299(18):2180-2187.

Context  Safety-net hospitals (ie, those that predominantly treat poor and underserved patients) often have lower quality of care than non–safety-net hospitals. While public reporting and pay for performance have the potential to improve quality of care at poorly performing hospitals, safety-net hospitals may be unable to invest in quality improvement. As such, some have expressed concern that these incentives have the potential to worsen existing disparities among hospitals.

Objective  To examine trends in disparities of quality of care between hospitals with high and low percentages of Medicaid patients.

Design and Setting  Longitudinal study of the relationship between hospital performance and percentage Medicaid coverage from 2004 to 2006, using publicly available data on hospital performance. A simulation model was used to estimate payments at hospitals with high and low percentages of Medicaid patients.

Main Outcome Measures  Changes in hospital performance between 2004 and 2006, estimating whether disparities in hospital quality between hospitals with high and low percentages of Medicaid patients have changed.

Results  Of the 4464 participating hospitals, 3665 (82%) were included in the final analysis. Hospitals with high percentages of Medicaid patients had worse performance in 2004 and had significantly smaller improvement over time than those with low percentages of Medicaid patients. Hospitals with low percentages of Medicaid patients improved composite acute myocardial infarction performance by 3.8 percentage points vs 2.3 percentage points for those with high percentages, an absolute difference of 1.5 (P = .03). This resulted in a relative difference in performance gains of 39%. Larger performance gains at hospitals with low percentages of Medicaid patients were also seen for heart failure (difference of 1.4 percentage points, P = 0.04) and pneumonia (difference of 1.3 percentage points, P <.001). Over time, hospitals with high percentages of Medicaid patients had a lower probability of achieving high-performance status. In a simulation model, these hospitals were more likely to incur financial penalties due to low performance and were less likely to receive bonuses.

Conclusions  Safety-net hospitals tended to have smaller gains in quality performance measures over 3 years and were less likely to be high-performing over time than non–safety-net hospitals. An incentive system based on these measures has the potential to increase disparities among hospitals.


Author Affiliations: Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Dr Werner); Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (Dr Werner); and Department of Medicine (Drs Goldman and Dudley) and Institute for Health Policy Studies (Dr Dudley), University of California, San Francisco.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati     What's this?

RELATED LETTERS

Comparisons of Safety-Net and Non–Safety-Net Hospitals
Alan D. Aviles
JAMA. 2008;300(14):1650-1651.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparisons of Safety-Net and Non–Safety-Net Hospitals
Gene Marie O’Connell
JAMA. 2008;300(14):1651.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparisons of Safety-Net and Non–Safety-Net Hospitals
Jeffrey L. Williams
JAMA. 2008;300(14):1651-1652.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Characteristics and Outcomes of America's Lowest-Performing Hospitals: An Analysis of Acute Myocardial Infarction Hospital Care in the United States
Popescu et al.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2009;2:221-227.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Differences in Control of Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes by Race, Ethnicity, and Education: U.S. Trends From 1999 to 2006 and Effects of Medicare Coverage
McWilliams et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2009;150:505-515.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Pay for Performance in Primary Care in England and California: Comparison of Unintended Consequences
McDonald and Roland
Ann Fam Med 2009;7:121-127.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparisons of Safety-Net and Non-Safety-Net Hospitals
O'Connell
JAMA 2008;300:1651-1651.
FULL TEXT  

Comparisons of Safety-Net and Non-Safety-Net Hospitals
Aviles
JAMA 2008;300:1650-1651.
FULL TEXT  

Comparisons of Safety-Net and Non-Safety-Net Hospitals
Williams
JAMA 2008;300:1651-1652.
FULL TEXT  

Improving Care and Outcomes of Uninsured Persons with Chronic Disease ... Now
Chin
ANN INTERN MED 2008;149:206-208.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2008 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.