Abstract:Hospitals in the US are increasingly subject to government regulations intended to improve the quality of care for patients with sepsis. Examples include the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sepsis management bundle program (SEP-1) 1 as well as state-level mandates such as those in New York. 2 These programs exist for good reason. Sepsis is among the most costly and deadly conditions for hospitalized patients, and only a minority of patients with sepsis receive guideline-adherent care. In theory, government regulations like these would incentivize hospital-level quality improvement efforts leading to improved performance and increased survival for patients with sepsis. Unfortunately, these programs don't always work as intended. For instance, the first iteration of SEP-1 did not lead to improved outcomes for sepsis patients. 1 There are likely a few reasons for this failure. At the time, SEP-1 was limited to public reporting of quality data, which is known to be a relatively weak policy option. SEP-1 also focused only on process-based quality measures, which are not tightly linked to mortality in most patients. 3 In contrast to SEP-1, the New York State program was much more intensive. It included a broader range of performance measures—both process and outcome—and it went beyond public reporting to mandate use of hospital-wide sepsis education and protocolized resuscitation. 4 Perhaps for this reason, the New York state sepsis program was more successful than SEP-1, with evidence suggesting that it led to lower mortality in New York hospitals. 2 Although intensive programs like New York State's appear to succeed, they come with a substantial downside—they are extremely costly to implement. To effect change, hospitals must employ a wide array of resource-intensive tools, including staff education, electronic health record alerts, clinical decision support, and internal audit and feedback. 5 These investments are outside the reach of many hospitals, particularly safety-net hospitals, which provide care for traditionally underserved and minoritized patients. Safety-net hospitals play a critical role in the US health care system by serving patents that would otherwise lack access to high-quality acute care. Yet safety-net hospitals are under intense financial pressures, reducing their ability to invest in mandated quality improvement activities like those related to sepsis. 6 These pressures are leading to widening health disparities. In New York State, for example, more performance gains under the sepsis regulations were seen by White patients than Black patients. 7 Sepsis quality measurement, as well-intended as it may be, is fraying the safety net. The subtle ways in which existing sepsis quality measurement disadvantage safety-net hospitals are further highlighted in a recent study by Law et al 8 in JAMA Network Open . Law and colleagues focused on 1 sepsis quality measure in particular: risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality. In-hospital mortality is a convenient quality measure because it's easy to assess. Unlike time-anchored measures like 30-day mortality, it does not require following the patient beyond their hospitalization or linking hospital data to other data sources like the Social Security death index. Using a Medicare dataset that contains both in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality, the authors were able to compare these 2 measures in both safety-net and non–safety-net hospitals. As expected, 30-day mortality was substantially higher than in-hospital mortality in the Law et al study. 8 In sepsis, like in other clinical domains, hospitals can shift the mortality-burden by discharging patients sicker and quicker to postacute facilities. Yet the differences between in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality were much greater in safety-net hospitals compared with non–safety-net hospitals. That is, safety-net hospitals were adept at shifting the mortality burden to other sites, relative to other hospitals. These differences were not just due to payer mix, since all patients in this study had the same insurer (fee-for-service Medicare). Instead, as elegantly shown by the study authors, these differences were due to differential access to end-of-life services, such as palliative care consultation and hospice. Discharge to hospice was significantly lower in safety-net hospitals compared with other hospitals, meaning that although patients in safety-net hospitals were dying at the same rates as patients in other hospitals, they were more likely to die in the hospital, without access to specialized palliative care. These findings are not altogether surprising. As Law et al 8 note in their discussion, many past studies demonstrate that in-hospital mortality is a biased quality measure. Past studies also document disparit -Abstract Truncated-

Abstract 9851: Mortality and Post-Discharge Acute Care Utilization for Cardiovascular Conditions at US Safety-Net and Non-Safety-Net Hospitals

In-Hospital vs 30-Day Sepsis Mortality at US Safety-Net and Non–Safety-Net Hospitals

Association of Diagnosis Coding With Differences in Risk-Adjusted Short-term Mortality Between Critical Access and Non-Critical Access Hospitals

Neighborhood Socioeconomic Disadvantage and 30-Day Outcomes for Common Cardiovascular Conditions

Trends and Disparities in Ambulatory Follow-Up After Cardiovascular Hospitalizations : A Retrospective Cohort Study

Readmissions performance and penalty experience of safety-net hospitals under Medicare’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program

Trends in Mortality After Incident Hospitalization for Heart Failure Among Medicare Beneficiaries

Association of Neighborhood-Level Marginalization With Health Care Use and Clinical Outcomes Following Hospital Discharge in Patients Who Underwent Coronary Catheterization for Acute Myocardial Infarction in a Single-Payer Health Care System

Relationship Between In-Hospital Adverse Events and Hospital Performance on 30-Day All-cause Mortality and Readmission for Patients With Heart Failure

Abstract 12617: Predictors of Mortality in African Americans Requiring Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for Cardiogenic Shock Following Acute Myocardial Infarction

Variation in and Hospital Characteristics Associated With the Value of Care for Medicare Beneficiaries With Acute Myocardial Infarction, Heart Failure, and Pneumonia

Cardiac Arrest Mortality and Disposition Patterns in United States Emergency Departments

Sepsis Quality Measurement and the Fraying of the Safety Net

Trends in 30-Day Readmission Rates for Medicare and Non-Medicare Patients in the Era of the Affordable Care Act

Racial Disparities in Hospitalization Among Patients Who Receive a Diagnosis of Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Emergency Department

Safety-Net Hospital Status Is Associated With Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Outcomes at an Urban Academic Medical Center

Association of Insurance Type with Inpatient Surgical 30-day Readmissions, Emergency Department Visits/Observation Stays, and Costs

Economic Disparities in Utilization and Outcomes of Structural Heart Disease Interventions in the United States

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Management and Outcomes of Cardiac Arrest Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction

Characteristics of High-Performing Hospitals in Cardiogenic Shock Following Acute Myocardial Infarction

Interhospital Differences in the Use of Critical Care Therapies in Coronary Intensive Care Units and Its Association with In-Hospital Mortality: Insights from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network