Quality and Cost of Care by Hospital Teaching Status: What Are the Differences?

Frank A Sloan
{"title":"Quality and Cost of Care by Hospital Teaching Status: What Are the Differences?","authors":"Frank A Sloan","doi":"10.1111/1468-0009.12502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Policy Points In two respects, quality of care tends to be higher at major teaching hospitals: process of care and long-term survival of cancer patients following initial diagnosis. There is also evidence that short-term (30-day) mortality is lower on average at such hospitals, although the quality of evidence is somewhat lower. Quality of care is mulitdimensional. Empirical evidence by teaching status on dimensions other than survival is mixed. Higher Medicare payments for care provided by major teaching hospitals are partially offset by lower payments to nonhospital providers. Nevertheless, the payment differences between major teaching and nonteaching hospitals for hospital stays, especially for complex cases, potentially increase prices other insurers pay for hospital care.</p><p><strong>Context: </strong>The relative performance of teaching hospitals has been discussed for decades. For private and public insurers with provider networks, an issue is whether having a major teaching hospital in the network is a \"must.\" For traditional fee-for-service Medicare, there is an issue of adequacy of payment of hospitals with various attributes, including graduate medical education (GME) provision. Much empirical evidence on relative quality and cost has been published. This paper aims to (1) evaluate empirical evidence on relative quality and cost of teaching hospitals and (2) assess what the findings indicate for public and private insurer policy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Complementary approaches were used to select studies for review. (1) Relevant studies highly cited in Web of Science were selected. (2) This search led to studies cited by these studies as well as studies that cited these studies. (3) Several literature reviews were helpful in locating pertinent studies. Some policy-oriented papers were found in Google under topics to which the policy applied. (4) Several papers were added based on suggestions of reviewers.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Quality of care as measured in process of care studies and in longitudinal studies of long-term survival of cancer patients tends to be higher at major teaching hospitals. Evidence on survival at 30 days post admission for common conditions and procedures also tends to favor such hospitals. Findings on other dimensions of relative quality are mixed. Hospitals with a substantial commitment to graduate medical education, major teaching hospitals, are about 10% to 20% more costly than nonteaching hospitals. Private insurers pay a differential to major teaching hospitals at this range's lower end. Inclusive of subsidies, Medicare pays major teaching hospitals substantially more than 20% extra, especially for complex surgical procedures.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on the evidence on quality, there is reason for patients to be willing to pay more for inclusion of major teaching hospitals in private insurer networks at least for some services. Medicare payment for GME has long been a controversial policy issue. The actual indirect cost of GME is likely to be far less than the amount Medicare is currently paying hospitals.</p>","PeriodicalId":501846,"journal":{"name":"The Milbank Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":"273-327"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1468-0009.12502","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Milbank Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12502","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Policy Points In two respects, quality of care tends to be higher at major teaching hospitals: process of care and long-term survival of cancer patients following initial diagnosis. There is also evidence that short-term (30-day) mortality is lower on average at such hospitals, although the quality of evidence is somewhat lower. Quality of care is mulitdimensional. Empirical evidence by teaching status on dimensions other than survival is mixed. Higher Medicare payments for care provided by major teaching hospitals are partially offset by lower payments to nonhospital providers. Nevertheless, the payment differences between major teaching and nonteaching hospitals for hospital stays, especially for complex cases, potentially increase prices other insurers pay for hospital care.

Context: The relative performance of teaching hospitals has been discussed for decades. For private and public insurers with provider networks, an issue is whether having a major teaching hospital in the network is a "must." For traditional fee-for-service Medicare, there is an issue of adequacy of payment of hospitals with various attributes, including graduate medical education (GME) provision. Much empirical evidence on relative quality and cost has been published. This paper aims to (1) evaluate empirical evidence on relative quality and cost of teaching hospitals and (2) assess what the findings indicate for public and private insurer policy.

Methods: Complementary approaches were used to select studies for review. (1) Relevant studies highly cited in Web of Science were selected. (2) This search led to studies cited by these studies as well as studies that cited these studies. (3) Several literature reviews were helpful in locating pertinent studies. Some policy-oriented papers were found in Google under topics to which the policy applied. (4) Several papers were added based on suggestions of reviewers.

Findings: Quality of care as measured in process of care studies and in longitudinal studies of long-term survival of cancer patients tends to be higher at major teaching hospitals. Evidence on survival at 30 days post admission for common conditions and procedures also tends to favor such hospitals. Findings on other dimensions of relative quality are mixed. Hospitals with a substantial commitment to graduate medical education, major teaching hospitals, are about 10% to 20% more costly than nonteaching hospitals. Private insurers pay a differential to major teaching hospitals at this range's lower end. Inclusive of subsidies, Medicare pays major teaching hospitals substantially more than 20% extra, especially for complex surgical procedures.

Conclusions: Based on the evidence on quality, there is reason for patients to be willing to pay more for inclusion of major teaching hospitals in private insurer networks at least for some services. Medicare payment for GME has long been a controversial policy issue. The actual indirect cost of GME is likely to be far less than the amount Medicare is currently paying hospitals.

医院教学状况对护理质量和成本的影响:有何差异?
在两个方面,主要教学医院的护理质量往往更高:护理过程和癌症患者在初步诊断后的长期生存。也有证据表明,这些医院的短期(30天)死亡率平均较低,尽管证据的质量略低。护理质量是多方面的。除了生存之外,教学状况在其他方面的经验证据好坏参半。由主要教学医院提供的医疗保健的较高医疗保险支付部分被向非医院提供者支付的较低支付所抵消。然而,主要教学医院和非教学医院的住院费用差异,特别是复杂病例的住院费用差异,可能会增加其他保险公司为住院护理支付的费用。背景:教学医院的相对绩效已经被讨论了几十年。对于拥有供应商网络的私营和公共保险公司来说,一个问题是在网络中是否“必须”拥有一家大型教学医院。对于传统的按服务收费的医疗保险,存在着向具有各种属性的医院(包括提供研究生医学教育)支付充足费用的问题。许多关于相对质量和成本的经验证据已经发表。本文旨在(1)评估教学医院相对质量和成本的实证证据;(2)评估研究结果对公立和私营保险公司政策的启示。方法:采用互补方法选择研究进行综述。(1)选取Web of Science中被引频次较高的相关研究。(2)这项搜索产生了被这些研究引用的研究以及引用这些研究的研究。几篇文献综述有助于找到相关的研究。在谷歌中,在政策适用的主题下找到了一些政策导向的论文。(4)根据审稿人的建议,增加了几篇论文。研究结果:在护理过程研究和癌症患者长期生存的纵向研究中,主要教学医院的护理质量往往更高。入院后30天生存率的证据也倾向于这类医院。其他相对质量方面的调查结果好坏参半。有大量研究生医学教育的医院,主要的教学医院,比非教学医院的费用高10%到20%。私人保险公司在这个范围的低端向大型教学医院支付差额。包括补贴在内,医疗保险支付给大型教学医院的费用远远超过20%,尤其是复杂的外科手术。结论:基于质量方面的证据,患者有理由愿意为大型教学医院至少在某些服务上纳入私营保险公司网络而支付更多的费用。长期以来,医疗保险对中小企业的支付一直是一个有争议的政策问题。GME的实际间接成本可能远远低于医疗保险目前支付给医院的金额。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信