Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 408

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Risks of Risk Adjustment

lezzoni, Lisa I.·1997·JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association

Abstract

Context. —Risk adjustment is essential before comparing patient outcomes across hospitals. Hospital report cards around the country use different risk adjustment methods. Objectives. —To examine the history and current practices of risk adjusting hospital death rates and consider the implications for using risk-adjusted mortality comparisons to assess quality. Data Sources and Study Selection. —This article examines severity measures used in states and regions to produce comparisons of risk-adjusted hospital death rates. Detailed results are presented from a study comparing current commercial severity measures using a single database. It included adults admitted for acute myocardial infarction (n=11 880), coronary artery bypass graft surgery (n=7765), pneumonia (n=18016), and stroke (n=9407). Logistic regressions within each condition predicted in-hospital death using severity scores. Odds ratios for in-hospital death were compared across pairs of severity measures. For each hospital, z scores compared actual and expected death rates. Results. —The severity measure called Disease Staging had the highest c statistic (which measures how well a severity measure discriminates between patients who lived and those who died) for acute myocardial infarction, 0.86; the measure called All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups had the highest for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, 0.83; and the measure, MedisGroups, had the highest for pneumonia, 0.85 and stroke, 0.87. Different severity measures predicted different probabilities of death for many patients. Severity measures frequently disagreed about which hospitals had particularly low or high z scores. Agreement in identifying low- and high-mortality hospitals between severity-adjusted and unadjusted death rates was often better than agreement between severity measures. Conclusions. —Severity does not explain differences in death rates across hospitals. Different severity measures frequently produce different impressions about relative hospital performance. Severity-adjusted mortality rates alone are unlikely to isolate quality differences across hospitals.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1997.03550190064046

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 408

Metadata

Authors
lezzoni, L. I.
Venue
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Published
1997-11-19
Volume
278
Issue
19
Pages
1600
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2150145013
Cited by
408
References
1
FWCI
49.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Risks of Risk Adjustment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.1997.03550190064046
The paper
lezzoni, L. I. (1997). The Risks of Risk Adjustment. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03550190064046

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.