What is the top ranked hospital in your zip code based upon the Star rating using Hospital Compare?

:-Rush oak park hospital is the hospital.

Your response must demonstrate your application of the key knowledge from the 2 articles

Introduction Methods Prior research suggests that superior patient experience (also We analyzed 2014 hospital-level data from CMS Hospital termed "patient satisfaction" ) may be associated with lower Compare data set (6). Patient experience star ratings reflect utilization of health-care resources, for example, fewer refer- hospital performance on the Hospital Consumer Assessment rals to specialists and diagnostic testing (1-5). However, the of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey and relationship between patient experience and health-care are a summary score across all HCAHPS domains (7). The spending by payers is currently unclear. Defining this rela- HCAHPS domains include, for example, patient assessment tionship is very important from the payer perspective and of caregiver listening and communication, treatment with may have substantial health policy implications. The object courtesy and respect, quality of discharge instructions, and tive of this study was to test the association between patient experience and health-care spending at the hospital level using (1) the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Cooper University Health Care and Cooper Medical School of Rowan (CMS) star ratings for patient experience in US hospitals and University, Camden, NJ, USA (2) the hospital Medicare Spending per Beneficiary (MSPB) Measure. Our hypothesis was that better patient experience Corresponding Author: Stephen Trzeciak, MD, MPH, Cooper University Hospital, One Cooper in the hospital would be associated with lower health-care Plaza, Dorrance 428, Camden, NJ 08103, USA spending by the payer. Email: trzeciak-stephen@cooperhealth.edu CC 1 3 Creative Commons CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License (http:/www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further BY NC permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-usam/open-access-at-sage). 18 Journal of Patient Experience 4(1) Table I. Data for MSPB Measure, Case Mix Index, and DSH Status (as Quantified by Low Income Days), Stratified by CMS Patient Experience Star Rating." CMS Stars for Patient Experience 1-Star 2-Star 3-Star 4-Star 5-Star MSPB Measure Median (quartile range) 1.01 (0.10) 0.99 (0.09) 0.97 (0.08) 0.94 (0.09) 0.92 (0.07) Case Mix Index Median (quartile range) 1.52 (0.30) 1.52 (0.34) 1.53 (0.40) 2.04 (0.84) 2.16 (0.57) Low income days Median (quartile range) 1 1 136 (19130) 6520 (12247) 3612 (8400) 187 (1579) 77 (125) Abbreviations: CMS, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; DSH, Disproportionate Share Hospital; MSPB, Medicare Spending per Beneficiary. "Complete data for all parameters were available for 2474 Hospitals."Complete data for all parameters were available for 2474 Hospitals. whether a patient would recommend the hospital. The pri- mary outcome measure for this study was health-care spend- 1.2- ing as quantified by the MSPB Measure, which assesses price-standardized, risk-adjusted payments for services pro- vided to Medicare beneficiaries for an episode of care span- 1,1 ning from 3 days prior to an inpatient hospital admission through 30 days after discharge (8). The MSPB Measure (MSPB) MEASURE MEDICARE SPENDING PER BENEFICIARY evaluates hospitals' efficiency relative to the efficiency of 1.0 - the national median hospital, for example, MSPB Measure of 1.05 is 5% higher CMS spending than the median hospital (after risk adjustment). Thus, the MSPB Measure is a calcu- 0.9. lated efficiency metric for the entire episode of care that facilitates comparison of CMS spending efficiency across hospitals. The MSPB Measure risk adjustment methodology N = 707 1370 816 123 14 0.8 accounts for beneficiary age and severity of illness. The 2 3 MSPB Measure price-standardization methodology removes STAR RATING the effect of geographic payment differences by excluding geographic differences in regional labor costs and practice Figure I. The Medicare Spending per Beneficiary (MSPB) Measure expenses, as measured by hospital wage indexes and geo- for US hospitals stratified by the Centers for Medicare and graphic practice cost indexes. The price-standardization Medicaid Services (CMS) star rating for patient experience in the methodology also removes the effect of add-on payments hospital (1 = worst; 5 = best). The MSPB Measure evaluates hos- to teaching hospitals (eg, indirect medical education pital efficiency relative to the efficiency of the national hospital median value, for example, MSPB Measure of 1.05 is 5% higher adjustment). spending than the median hospital (after risk adjustment). The We used linear regression to test the association between numbers (N) below each box-and-whisker plot are the numbers the number of patient experience stars and the MSPB Mea- of hospitals in each star rating (total N = 3030 hospitals) sure. The model tested the effect that a 1-star rise in patient experience rating (eg, increasing from 3 to 4 stars) would experience star rating, assessing for random distribution have on MSPB. Since the star ratings for hospitals range above and below 0 for all star categories and assessing the from 1 (worst) to 5 (best), an inverse association (ie, negative slopes for each star interval. We used a P value of <.05 to slope identifies an association between better experience represent statistical significance. we used sas version and lower spending. included hospital case mix index institute cary north carolina for analysis. in the regression model further adjust complex- all of data this study are public domain ity care at level. also dis- do not include patient-level identifiers therefore proportionate share status dsh quartile met criteria exemption from review by institutional order analysis board cooper university health care. socioeconomic patient population. reflects proportion underserved patients population with highest repre- results senting most patients. tested linear- hospitals were included. table displays assumption plotting raw summary values modeltrzeciak et til linear medicare spending per beneficiaryr measure as dependent variable. variable parameter estimate standard error value p cms star rating i4 chi abbreviations: cml. index: cms. centers medicaid services: dsh. disproportionate hospital: mspb. beneficiary. : effect that a l-star rise increasing stars would have on since ratings range inverse negative identies complete available hospitals. f was r square model. i-star associated decrease translates lowest rating. increase adjusting cmi .0001 found measured mspb ij.014 over testing linearity residuals randomly distributed above below categories slopes each interval similar except intervals which signicant. thus valid. discussion us hospitalsas rat- ingswas independently health-care episode beneciaries. impor- tantly analyzed actual payer rather than relying estimates costs proxy adjusted complexity based knowledge metho- dology. first period prior admission only represents total nationally so phase therapy is unlikely be substantial driver observed association. second it possible thatat least some extentthe asso- ciation reflecting discretionary use resources hospital. providers who diligent about providing excellent may similarly dili- gent excellence aspects including efficiency stewardship resources. superior reduce expectations andfor referrals specialists con- sistently provide less reliant although payments inpatient stay fixed amount according diagnosis-related group assignment includes under part b physicians could reect example excessive consultations procedures professional fees interpretation diagnostic tests. addition can cases unu- sually costly finally given hcahps experiencehealth-care relationship. primary outcome overall calculated metric days following discharge compare set does contain separate calculations component parts our did pre- cisely identify what specific elements or phases epi- sode responsible nonetheless able consider potential drivers u ated readmissions expe- rience inspire confidence adherence treatment plan both makes readmission likely. research has demonstrated requir- ing more likely give poor they received during importantly utilization journal ofpan j length postacute facilities such skilled nursing facility outcomes rate their favorably. require snf opposed home far expensive unfavorably. assess- ment functional improvement patient-reported suggest perspective necessarily critical discriminate if survey actually prom pure patient- reported because proms prems valuable context value-based purchasing paying important quality mediate extent. assesses vital processes ..n. ._...4___. _.._1..__._.i ...... _t ._... payers commercial insurance different results. however largest services united states submit generalizable. along these lines acknowledge every hospi- tal generally considered representative sample community. recognize any nonexperimental design causation. how- ever offer multiple reasons why causal relationship plausible. leveraged large administrative database significance where sig- nificance level individual relatively small size sizes major differences _.._1..._ ._.1._.. _._..i:__1 _ ...._ _._.._. i...__ .._....1_4:..._ indicator numerous studies high-quality efficient low-quality perspective. despite inability pinpoint spe- cific driving believe signal aligning aim programsto improve while reducing ofcare. other limitations. acknowl- edge preliminary nature report. support rationale thher hypothesis conrming hypothesis. compelling underscore agenda impact warranted. hos- pital analyses. always aggregated requirements collection reporting mandate retain anonymity responses there no unique identiers linkage data. few but function how difficult achieve methodology. possibility unmeasured founders here. notable account deductibles copayments. addition. conclusion analyzing hospital-level after adjustment socio- economic inclusion measures purchasing. future test determine specic necessary. declaration conicting interests author- declared conflicts interest respect authorship publication article. funding author nancial ship references i. doyle c lennox l bell d. systematic evidence links clinical safety effectiveness. bmj open. ell-015m. doi:10.1l36.- bmjopen-zijiz-dojstd. epstein rm franks shields cg meldrum sc. miller kn. campbell tl er a1. patientcentered communication diag nostic testing. ann farn med.>