The authors of the study examined data on more than 2.4 million patient admissions to U.S. hospitals between 2008 and 2013, noting mortality rates before and after the HVBP program and comparing the differences between participating and nonparticipating hospitals. The data focused on admissions for three incentivized conditions: heart attack, heart failure and pneumonia. Ultimately, the study revealed:
1. The mortality rates for the three incentivized conditions in HVBP-participating hospitals declined by 0.13 percent for each quarter during the preintervention period and 0.03 percent for each quarter during the post-intervention period.
2. In nonparticipating hospitals, mortality rates declined at by 0.14 percent during each quarter of the preintervention period and 0.01 percent during each quarter of the post-intervention period.
3. The difference in the mortality trends between the two groups was not statistically significant.
4. The HVBP program was not associated with better outcomes in any hospital subgroups studied, including hospitals that were categorized as “poor performers” when the study began.
“Evidence that HVBP has led to lower mortality rates is lacking,” the authors concluded. “Nations considering similar pay for performance programs may want to consider alternative models to achieve improved patient outcomes.”
More articles on patient mortality:
CDC: Hepatitis C most deadly infectious disease in America
Patients in low-income countries have greater risk of dying after emergency surgery
5 steps Huntsville Hospital took to combat sepsis mortality
