Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 504

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Relationship Between Medicare’s Hospital Compare Performance Measures and Mortality Rates

Werner, Rachel M., Bradlow, Eric T.·2006·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: In response to concerns about the quality of care in US hospitals, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services began measuring hospital performance and reporting this performance on their Web site, Hospital Compare. It is unknown whether these process performance measures are related to hospital-level outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether quality measured with the process measures used in Hospital Compare are correlated with and predictive of hospitals' risk-adjusted mortality rates. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional study of hospital care between January 1 and December 31, 2004, for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia at acute care hospitals in the United States included on the Hospital Compare Web site. Ten process performance measures included in Hospital Compare were compared with hospital risk-adjusted mortality rates, which were measured using Medicare Part A claims data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Condition-specific inpatient, 30-day, and 1-year risk-adjusted mortality rates. RESULTS: A total of 3657 acute care hospitals were included in the study based on their performance as reported in Hospital Compare. Across all acute myocardial infarction performance measures, the absolute reduction in risk-adjusted mortality rates between hospitals performing in the 25th percentile vs those performing in the 75th percentile was 0.005 for inpatient mortality, 0.006 for 30-day mortality, and 0.012 for 1-year mortality (P<.001 for each comparison). For the heart failure performance measures, the absolute mortality reduction was smaller, ranging from 0.001 for inpatient mortality (P = .03) to 0.002 for 1-year mortality (P = .08). For the pneumonia performance measures, the absolute reduction in mortality ranged from 0.001 for 30-day mortality (P = .05) to 0.005 for inpatient mortality (P<.001). Differences in mortality rates for hospitals performing in the 75th percentile on all measures within a condition vs those performing lower than the 25th percentile on all reported measures for acute myocardial infarction ranged between 0.008 (P = .06) and 0.018 (P = .008). For pneumonia, the effects ranged between 0.003 (P = .09) and 0.014 (P<.001); for heart failure, the effects ranged between -0.013 (P = .06) and -0.038 (P = .45). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital performance measures predict small differences in hospital risk-adjusted mortality rates. Efforts should be made to develop performance measures that are tightly linked to patient outcomes.

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.296.22.2694

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 504

Metadata

Authors
Werner, R. M., & Bradlow, E. T.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2006-12-13
Volume
296
Issue
22
Pages
2694
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2111438720
Cited by
504
References
7
FWCI
93.13
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: Relationship Between Medicare’s Hospital Compare Performance Measures and Mortality Rates. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.296.22.2694
The paper
Werner, R. M., & Bradlow, E. T. (2006). Relationship Between Medicare’s Hospital Compare Performance Measures and Mortality Rates. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.22.2694

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.