The Need for Accurate Risk-Adjusted Measures of Outcome in Surgery

OBJECTIVE: The authors review the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council reports on coronary artery surgery and compare this reporting structure to others, including the Society for Thoracic Surgeons database, currently used by their own program. The authors review the growing likelihood of a need for outcome measures for all of the surgical subspecialties. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND DATA: Pressure from consumers and insurers will require surgical specialties to be graded by objective outcome measures. Practitioners must be prepared and become involved in the process. METHODS: The authors reviewed the data, which grades all of Pennsylvania's hospitals at which coronary artery bypass is performed. Apparently, the major risk factors commonly employed in most other risk adjustment schemes for cardiac surgery have been deleted, and the practitioners might be judged unfairly. The Pennsylvania system appears to be insurance driven to reward low-cost providers who operate on patients with the lowest risk. RESULTS: Review of data suggests that the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council's annual publication, A Consumer's Guide for Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery, misrepresents fair risk adjustment in favor of lower-risk patients, thereby encouraging better score cards for those institutions with patients who are less ill. Data regarding charges for the procedure have not been risk adjusted or related to a regional economic index. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons must prepare to better understand relevant models that evaluate outcome. Cardiothoracic surgery is one of the first specialties to feel the pressures of mandated evaluations, and the lessons learned in Pennsylvania should be applicable to other states and their practitioners.