Health care financing review

Imprint varies: Washington, D.C., summer 1979-; Baltimore, Md.,

Suggestions for May day--National child health day 1932.

Cover title.

Critical performance measures for prepayment : community and migrant health centers.

"Prepared under contract to Bureau of Health Care Delivery and Assistance, contract no. 240-08-0501."

Centers for Independent Living : annual report.

Description based on: 1992,1997.

Minimum standards for licensed child caring institutions and maternity centers.

Cover title.

TB/HIV, the connection : what health care workers should know.

"February 1989."

Measuring the health of women in America : National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

Mode of access: Internet.

Family expenditures for medical care, five regions,

Made-up set; supplied title.

Family expenditures for personal care, gifts, selected taxes, and miscellaneous items : five regions /

Cover title.

A working manual of third party funding sources for community mental health centers /

Originally issued 1978.

Comprehensive narcotic addiction and drug abuse care and control act of 1969. Hearings, Ninety-first Congress, first and second sessions.

Hearings held Sept. 18-Nov. 3, 1969, in Washington, D.C.; Jan. 26, 1970, in Cherry Hill, N.J.

Choosing long-term care : a guide for people with Medicare /

"Publication no. CMS-02223"

Evaluation of a Post Discharge Intervention on 30-Day Re-admission and Emergency Room Use in Patients with Diabetes A Pilot Program

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2016-06

Are diagnosis specific outcome indicators based on administrative data useful in assessing quality of hospital care?

Background: Hospital performance reports based on administrative data should distinguish differences in quality of care between hospitals from case mix related variation and random error effects. A study was undertaken to determine which of 12 diagnosis-outcome indicators measured across all hospitals in one state had significant risk adjusted systematic ( or special cause) variation (SV) suggesting differences in quality of care. For those that did, we determined whether SV persists within hospital peer groups, whether indicator results correlate at the individual hospital level, and how many adverse outcomes would be avoided if all hospitals achieved indicator values equal to the best performing 20% of hospitals. Methods: All patients admitted during a 12 month period to 180 acute care hospitals in Queensland, Australia with heart failure (n = 5745), acute myocardial infarction ( AMI) ( n = 3427), or stroke ( n = 2955) were entered into the study. Outcomes comprised in-hospital deaths, long hospital stays, and 30 day readmissions. Regression models produced standardised, risk adjusted diagnosis specific outcome event ratios for each hospital. Systematic and random variation in ratio distributions for each indicator were then apportioned using hierarchical statistical models. Results: Only five of 12 (42%) diagnosis-outcome indicators showed significant SV across all hospitals ( long stays and same diagnosis readmissions for heart failure; in-hospital deaths and same diagnosis readmissions for AMI; and in-hospital deaths for stroke). Significant SV was only seen for two indicators within hospital peer groups ( same diagnosis readmissions for heart failure in tertiary hospitals and inhospital mortality for AMI in community hospitals). Only two pairs of indicators showed significant correlation. If all hospitals emulated the best performers, at least 20% of AMI and stroke deaths, heart failure long stays, and heart failure and AMI readmissions could be avoided. Conclusions: Diagnosis-outcome indicators based on administrative data require validation as markers of significant risk adjusted SV. Validated indicators allow quantification of realisable outcome benefits if all hospitals achieved best performer levels. The overall level of quality of care within single institutions cannot be inferred from the results of one or a few indicators.

Multisite, quality-improvement collaboration to optimise cardiac care in Queensland public hospitals

Objective: To evaluate changes in quality of in-hospital care of patients with either acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or congestive heart failure (CHF) admitted to hospitals participating in a multisite quality improvement collaboration. Design: Before-and-after study of changes in quality indicators measured on representative patient samples between June 2001 and January 2003. Setting: Nine public hospitals in Queensland. Study populations: Consecutive or randomly selected patients admitted to study hospitals during the baseline period (June 2001 to January 2002; n = 807 for ACS, n = 357 for CHF) and post-intervention period (July 2002 to January 2003; n = 717 for ACS, n = 220 for CHF). Intervention: Provision of comparative baseline feedback at a facilitative workshop combined with hospital-specific quality-improvement interventions supported by on-site quality officers and a central program management group. Main outcome measure: Changes in process-of-care indicators between baseline and post-intervention periods. Results: Compared with baseline, more patients with ACS in the post-intervention period received therapeutic heparin regimens (84% v 72%; P < 0.001), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (64% v 56%; P = 0.02), lipid-lowering agents (72% v 62%; P < 0.001), early use of coronary angiography (52% v 39%; P < 0.001), in-hospital cardiac counselling (65% v 43%; P < 0.001), and referral to cardiac rehabilitation (15% v 5%; P < 0.001). The numbers of patients with CHF receiving β-blockers also increased (52% v 34%; P < 0.001), with fewer patients receiving deleterious agents (13% v 23%; P = 0.04). Same-cause 30-day readmission rate decreased from 7.2% to 2.4% (P = 0.02) in patients with CHF. Conclusion: Quality-improvement interventions conducted as multisite collaborations may improve in-hospital care of acute cardiac conditions within relatively short time frames.