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
Comparative Study
. 2020 May 1;3(5):e204798.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.4798.

Comparison of Consumer Rankings With Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Five-Star Rankings of Nursing Homes

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of Consumer Rankings With Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Five-Star Rankings of Nursing Homes

Dana B Mukamel et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Five-Star measure for nursing homes is designed with input from expert panels about the importance of multiple quality indicators. Consumers may assign different values to these indicators, creating different 5-star ratings.

Objective: To compare nursing homes' rankings based on the CMS Five-Star measure with rankings based on consumers' judgment about the importance of the same quality indicators.

Design, setting, and participants: In this quality improvement study, CMS Five-Star data were linked with a measure calculated from CMS quality indicators and consumer values obtained from a national survey. Data covered the last quarter of 2016 and the first three quarters of 2017. The study included 10 676 nursing homes, comprising 69.8% of those with reported Five-Star measures. The national survey included adults, either nursing home residents or their family members who reported being familiar with the quality of care their relative received. Data analysis was performed from January 2019 to February 2020.

Main outcomes and measures: The contingent valuation method was administered via the survey to obtain consumers' relative values of the quality indicators, and statistical analyses were used to create the contingent valuation measure. Agreement in nursing home rankings was assessed using the Five-Star measure, which is based on weights developed by expert panels, compared with rankings based on the contingent valuation measure.

Results: Among 10 676 study nursing homes with a mean (SD) of 119.4 (59.4) beds, 7845 (73.5%) were for profit, 6424 (61.8%) were part of a chain, and 8009 (75.0%) were urban. The 4310 survey respondents (mean [SD] age, 39.9 [15.6] years; 1143 [26.5%] men; 3448 [80%] white) included mostly family members (3879 participants [90.0%]). The Pearson correlation coefficient (0.65) and weighted κ statistics (0.48) indicated only moderate agreement between ranking of nursing homes' performance by the 2 measures and disagreement on ranking for approximately one-half of the nursing homes.

Conclusions and relevance: Current nursing home report cards might not reflect consumers' values and the relative importance consumers place on each of the quality indicators that compose the overall Five-Star measure. Quality report cards might be more relevant to consumers by augmenting the Five-Star measure with a measure reflecting consumers' preferences. It is unknown whether these conclusions are generalizable to other report cards, such as Hospital and Home Health Compare, without conducting similar studies for these report cards.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Drs Mukamel and Saliba are members of the CMS Technical Expert Panel for the Nursing Home Five-Star Quality Rating System. All authors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Mukamel DB, Weimer DL, Mushlin AI. Interpreting market share changes as evidence for effectiveness of quality report cards. Med Care. 2007;45(12):1227-1232. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31812f56bb - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hibbard JH, Slovic P, Jewett JJ. Informing consumer decisions in health care: implications from decision-making research. Milbank Q. 1997;75(3):395-414. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.00061 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rosenthal GE. Weak associations between hospital mortality rates for individual diagnoses: implications for profiling hospital quality. Am J Public Health. 1997;87(3):429-433. doi:10.2105/AJPH.87.3.429 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gandhi TK, Francis EC, Puopolo AL, Burstin HR, Haas JS, Brennan TA. Inconsistent report cards: assessing the comparability of various measures of the quality of ambulatory care. Med Care. 2002;40(2):155-165. doi:10.1097/00005650-200202000-00010 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Werner RM, Bradlow ET. Relationship between Medicare’s hospital compare performance measures and mortality rates. JAMA. 2006;296(22):2694-2702. doi:10.1001/jama.296.22.2694 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types