Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Oct 10;308(14):1460-8.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.12922.

Association of public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention with utilization and outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries with acute myocardial infarction

Karen E Joynt  1 , Daniel M Blumenthal, E John Orav, Frederic S Resnic, Ashish K Jha
Affiliations

Association of public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention with utilization and outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries with acute myocardial infarction

Karen E Joynt et al. JAMA. .

Abstract

Context: Public reporting of patient outcomes is an important tool to improve quality of care, but some observers worry that such efforts will lead clinicians to avoid high-risk patients.

Objective: To determine whether public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with lower rates of PCI for patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) or with higher mortality rates in this population.

Design, setting, and patients: Retrospective observational study conducted using data from fee-for-service Medicare patients (49,660 from reporting states and 48,142 from nonreporting states) admitted with acute MI to US acute care hospitals between 2002 and 2010. Logistic regression was used to compare PCI and mortality rates between reporting states (New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania) and regional nonreporting states (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland, and Delaware). Changes in PCI rates over time in Massachusetts compared with nonreporting states were also examined.

Main outcome measures: Risk-adjusted PCI and mortality rates.

Results: In 2010, patients with acute MI were less likely to receive PCI in public reporting states than in nonreporting states (unadjusted rates, 37.7% vs 42.7%, respectively; risk-adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.71-0.93]; P = .003). Differences were greatest among the 6708 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (61.8% vs 68.0%; OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.59-0.89]; P = .002) and the 2194 patients with cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest (41.5% vs 46.7%; OR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.64-0.98]; P = .03). There were no differences in overall mortality among patients with acute MI in reporting vs nonreporting states. In Massachusetts, odds of PCI for acute MI were comparable with odds in nonreporting states prior to public reporting (40.6% vs 41.8%; OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.71-1.41]). However, after implementation of public reporting, odds of undergoing PCI in Massachusetts decreased compared with nonreporting states (41.1% vs 45.6%; OR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.47-1.38]; P = .03 for difference in differences). Differences were most pronounced for the 6081 patients with cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest (prereporting: 44.2% vs 36.6%; OR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.85-2.32]; postreporting: 43.9% vs 44.8%; OR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.38-2.22]; P = .03 for difference in differences).

Conclusions: Among Medicare beneficiaries with acute MI, the use of PCI was lower for patients treated in 3 states with public reporting of PCI outcomes compared with patients treated in 7 regional control states without public reporting. However, there was no difference in overall acute MI mortality between states with and without public reporting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Joynt, Dr. Blumenthal, Dr. Orav, Dr. Resnic, and Dr. Jha have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Change in PCI Rates for Acute MI After Public Reporting, Massachusetts versus Non-Reporting States MI=myocardial infarction; PCI=percutaneous coronary intervention
Figure 2
Figure 2
Change in CABG Rates for Acute MI After Public Reporting, Massachusetts versus Non-Reporting States CABG=coronary artery bypass grafting; MI=myocardial infarction
Figure 3
Figure 3
Change in PCI or CABG Rates for Acute MI After Public Reporting, Massachusetts versus Non-Reporting States CABG=coronary artery bypass grafting; MI=myocardial infarction; PCI=percutaneous coronary intervention
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Narins CR, Dozier AM, Ling FS, Zareba W. The influence of public reporting of outcome data on medical decision making by physicians. Arch Intern Med. 2005 Jan 10;165(1):83–87. - PubMed
    1. Burack JH, Impellizzeri P, Homel P, Cunningham JN., Jr Public reporting of surgical mortality: a survey of New York State cardiothoracic surgeons. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999 Oct;68(4):1195–1200. discussion 1201–1192. - PubMed
    1. Apolito RA, Greenberg MA, Menegus MA, et al. Impact of the New York State Cardiac Surgery and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Reporting System on the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Am Heart J Feb. 2008;155(2):267–273. - PubMed
    1. Resnic FS, Welt FG. The public health hazards of risk avoidance associated with public reporting of risk-adjusted outcomes in coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Mar 10;53(10):825–830. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Werner RM, Asch DA. The unintended consequences of publicly reporting quality information. Jama. 2005 Mar 9;293(10):1239–1244. - PubMed

Publication types