Person: Calderwood, Michael S.
Email Address
AA Acceptance Date
Birth Date
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Job Title
Last Name
First Name
Name
Search Results
Publication Impact of Medicare's Payment Policy on Mediastinitis Following Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery in US Hospitals
(Cambridge University Press (CUP), 2014) Calderwood, Michael S.; Kleinman, Kenneth Paul; Soumerai, Stephen; Jin, Robert; Gay, Charlene; Piatt, Richard; Kassler, William; Goldmann, Donald; Jha, Ashish; Lee, GraceThe Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented a policy in October 2008 to eliminate additional Medicare payment for mediastinitis following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. To evaluate the impact of this policy on mediastinitis rates, using Medicare claims and National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) prospective surveillance data. We used an interrupted time series design to compare mediastinitis rates before and after the policy, adjusted for secular trends. Billing rates came from Medicare inpatient claims following 638,761 CABG procedures in 1,234 US hospitals (January 2006-September 2010). Prospective surveillance rates came from 151 NHSN hospitals in 29 states performing 94,739 CABG procedures (January 2007-September 2010). Logistic regression mixed-effects models estimated trends for mediastinitis rates. We found a sudden drop in coding for index admission mediastinitis at the time of policy implementation (odds ratio, 0.36 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.23-0.57]) and a decreasing trend in coding for index admission mediastinitis in the postintervention period compared with the preintervention period (ratio of slopes, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.74-0.95]). However, we saw no impact of the policy on infection rates as measured using NHSN data. Our results were not affected by changes in patient risk over time, heterogeneity in hospital demographics, or timing of hospital participation in NHSN. The CMS policy of withholding additional Medicare payment for mediastinitis on the basis of claims-based evidence of infection was associated with changes in coding for infections but not with changes in actual infection rates during the first 2 years after policy implementation.
Publication Impact of Medicare’s Hospital-Acquired Condition Policy on Infections in Safety Net and Non–Safety Net Hospitals
(Cambridge University Press (CUP), 2015) Vaz, Louise Elaine; Kleinman, Kenneth Paul; Kawai, Alison Tse; Jin, Robert; Kassler, William J.; Grant, Patricia S.; Rett, Melisa D.; Goldmann, Donald; Calderwood, Michael S.; Soumerai, Stephen; Lee, GracePolicymakers may wish to align healthcare payment and quality of care while minimizing unintended consequences, particularly for safety net hospitals. To determine whether the 2008 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital-Acquired Conditions policy had a differential impact on targeted healthcare-associated infection rates in safety net compared with non–safety net hospitals. Interrupted time-series design. Nonfederal acute care hospitals that reported central line–associated bloodstream infection and ventilator-associated pneumonia rates to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Safety Network from July 1, 2007, through December 31, 2013. We did not observe changes in the slope of targeted infection rates in the postpolicy period compared with the prepolicy period for either safety net (postpolicy vs prepolicy ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.84–1.09]) or non–safety net (0.99 [0.90–1.10]) hospitals. Controlling for prepolicy secular trends, we did not detect differences in an immediate change at the time of the policy between safety net and non–safety net hospitals (P for 2-way interaction, .87). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital-Acquired Conditions policy did not have an impact, either positive or negative, on already declining rates of central line–associated bloodstream infection in safety net or non–safety net hospitals. Continued evaluations of the broad impact of payment policies on safety net hospitals will remain important as the use of financial incentives and penalties continues to expand in the United States.