4.6 Article

Rates of False Flagging Due to Statistical Artifact in CMS Evaluations of Transplant Programs: Results of a Stochastic Simulation

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 13, Issue 8, Pages 2044-2051

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/ajt.12325

Keywords

Center for Medicare; Medicaid Services; multiple outcomes; policy; transplant outcomes

Funding

  1. Health Resources and Services Administration [234-2005-37011C]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The recent CMS conditions of participation are based on risk-adjusted models produced by the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR). The accuracy of these models in identifying poor-performing centers is unknown. In this stochastic simulation study, 1-year mortality outcomes were simulated in virtual transplant centers, and used to flag centers according to the methods used byCMS, evaluating nine overlapping 2.5-year periods of simulated data. In a simulation where all centers had the same underlying risk, 10.2% were falsely flagged at least once during the 4.5 years of simulated evaluations. The probability of false-positive flagging was lowest in low-volume centers (2.5%) and highest in high-volume centers (16.2%). In another simulation where 5% of centers were assigned twofold risk (poor-performing centers''), only 32% of poorperforming centers were correctly flagged. In a final simulation where each center was assigned a unique mortality risk, 94% of flagged centers had greater-thanmedian risk, but only 32% of flagged centers were among the 5% with highest risk. Even after disregarding known covariate limitations to the risk adjustment models, statistical noise alone leads to spurious flagging of many adequately-performing transplant centers, yet the methods used by CMS fail to flag most centers with true elevated risk.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available