The centers for medicare and medicaid services hospital ratings: Pitfalls of grading on a single curve

Jeanette W. Chung*, Allison R. Dahlke, Cynthia Barnard, John O. Delancey, Ryan P. Merkow, Karl Y. Bilimoria

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The star rating system for hospitals of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) pools all hospitals together and awards each institution one to five stars for quality, despite variation across hospitals in the numbers and types of measures they report. Thus, hospitals essentially are being evaluated differently, which affects the validity of quality comparisons. We considered the number and types of measures reported and the size of measure denominators to represent different forms of a “test,” and we used data from the December 2017 star ratings to show that hospitals took one of three general “test forms.” Hospitals taking the most extensive test form reported an average of forty-three measures, while those taking the least extensive test reported an average of twenty-two measures. These test forms were differentially associated with star ratings and hospital characteristics. Our results caution against pooling all hospitals together when assigning star ratings, and they demonstrate a feasible approach to segmenting hospitals into peer groups for evaluation by stakeholders such as CMS.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1523-1529
Number of pages7
JournalHealth Affairs
Volume38
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2019

Fingerprint

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (U.S.)
Peer Group

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this

@article{43613a76bca243058d09812ceec4bd53,
title = "The centers for medicare and medicaid services hospital ratings: Pitfalls of grading on a single curve",
abstract = "The star rating system for hospitals of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) pools all hospitals together and awards each institution one to five stars for quality, despite variation across hospitals in the numbers and types of measures they report. Thus, hospitals essentially are being evaluated differently, which affects the validity of quality comparisons. We considered the number and types of measures reported and the size of measure denominators to represent different forms of a “test,” and we used data from the December 2017 star ratings to show that hospitals took one of three general “test forms.” Hospitals taking the most extensive test form reported an average of forty-three measures, while those taking the least extensive test reported an average of twenty-two measures. These test forms were differentially associated with star ratings and hospital characteristics. Our results caution against pooling all hospitals together when assigning star ratings, and they demonstrate a feasible approach to segmenting hospitals into peer groups for evaluation by stakeholders such as CMS.",
author = "Chung, {Jeanette W.} and Dahlke, {Allison R.} and Cynthia Barnard and Delancey, {John O.} and Merkow, {Ryan P.} and Bilimoria, {Karl Y.}",
year = "2019",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05345",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "1523--1529",
journal = "Health affairs (Project Hope)",
issn = "0278-2715",
publisher = "Project Hope",
number = "9",

}

The centers for medicare and medicaid services hospital ratings : Pitfalls of grading on a single curve. / Chung, Jeanette W.; Dahlke, Allison R.; Barnard, Cynthia; Delancey, John O.; Merkow, Ryan P.; Bilimoria, Karl Y.

In: Health Affairs, Vol. 38, No. 9, 09.2019, p. 1523-1529.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The centers for medicare and medicaid services hospital ratings

T2 - Pitfalls of grading on a single curve

AU - Chung, Jeanette W.

AU - Dahlke, Allison R.

AU - Barnard, Cynthia

AU - Delancey, John O.

AU - Merkow, Ryan P.

AU - Bilimoria, Karl Y.

PY - 2019/9

Y1 - 2019/9

N2 - The star rating system for hospitals of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) pools all hospitals together and awards each institution one to five stars for quality, despite variation across hospitals in the numbers and types of measures they report. Thus, hospitals essentially are being evaluated differently, which affects the validity of quality comparisons. We considered the number and types of measures reported and the size of measure denominators to represent different forms of a “test,” and we used data from the December 2017 star ratings to show that hospitals took one of three general “test forms.” Hospitals taking the most extensive test form reported an average of forty-three measures, while those taking the least extensive test reported an average of twenty-two measures. These test forms were differentially associated with star ratings and hospital characteristics. Our results caution against pooling all hospitals together when assigning star ratings, and they demonstrate a feasible approach to segmenting hospitals into peer groups for evaluation by stakeholders such as CMS.

AB - The star rating system for hospitals of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) pools all hospitals together and awards each institution one to five stars for quality, despite variation across hospitals in the numbers and types of measures they report. Thus, hospitals essentially are being evaluated differently, which affects the validity of quality comparisons. We considered the number and types of measures reported and the size of measure denominators to represent different forms of a “test,” and we used data from the December 2017 star ratings to show that hospitals took one of three general “test forms.” Hospitals taking the most extensive test form reported an average of forty-three measures, while those taking the least extensive test reported an average of twenty-two measures. These test forms were differentially associated with star ratings and hospital characteristics. Our results caution against pooling all hospitals together when assigning star ratings, and they demonstrate a feasible approach to segmenting hospitals into peer groups for evaluation by stakeholders such as CMS.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071781298&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071781298&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05345

DO - 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05345

M3 - Article

C2 - 31479370

AN - SCOPUS:85071781298

VL - 38

SP - 1523

EP - 1529

JO - Health affairs (Project Hope)

JF - Health affairs (Project Hope)

SN - 0278-2715

IS - 9

ER -