Abstract. Background: In December 2000, Medicare eliminated time limitations in immunosuppressant coverage after kidney transplant for beneficiaries age 65 and those who were disabled. This change did not apply to younger non-disabled beneficiaries who qualified for Medicare only because of their end-stage renal disease (ESRD). We sought to examine access to waitlisting for kidney transplantation in a cohort spanning this policy change. Methods. This was a retrospective cohort analysis of 241,150 Medicare beneficiaries in the United States Renal Data System who initiated chronic dialysis between 1/1/96 and 11/30/03. We fit interrupted time series Cox proportional hazard models to compare access to kidney transplant waitlist within 12months of initiating chronic dialysis by age/disability status, accounting for secular trends. Results: Beneficiaries age <65 who were not disabled were less likely to be waitlisted after the policy change (hazard ratio (HR) for the later vs. earlier period, 0.93, p=0.002), after adjusting for sociodemographic factors, co-morbid conditions, income, and ESRD network. There was no evidence of secular trend in this group (HR per year, 1.00, p=0.989). Likelihood of being waitlisted among those age 65 or disabled increased steadily throughout the study period (HR per year, 1.04, p<0.001), but was not clearly affected by the policy change (HR for the immediate effect of policy change, 0.93, p=0.135). Conclusions: The most recent extension in Medicare immunosuppressant coverage appears to have had little impact on the already increasing access to waitlisting among 65/ disabled beneficiaries eligible for the benefit but may have decreased access for younger, non-disabled beneficiaries who were not. The potential ramifications of policies on candidacy appeal for access to kidney transplantation should be considered. © 2012Grubbs et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. © 2012 Grubbs et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

© 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. BACKGROUND:: Hospital report cards and financial incentives linked to performance require clinical data that are reliable, appropriate, timely, and cost-effective to process. Pay-for-performance plans are transitioning to automated electronic health record (EHR) data as an efficient method to generate data needed for these programs. OBJECTIVE:: To determine how well data from automated processing of structured fields in the electronic health record (AP-EHR) reflect data from manual chart review and the impact of these data on performance rewards. RESEARCH DESIGN:: Cross-sectional analysis of performance measures used in a cluster randomized trial assessing the impact of financial incentives on guideline-recommended care for hypertension. SUBJECTS:: A total of 2840 patients with hypertension assigned to participating physicians at 12 Veterans Affairs hospital-based outpatient clinics. Fifty-two physicians and 33 primary care personnel received incentive payments. MEASURES:: Overall, positive and negative agreement indices and Cohen’s kappa were calculated for assessments of guideline-recommended antihypertensive medication use, blood pressure (BP) control, and appropriate response to uncontrolled BP. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to assess how similar participants’ calculated earnings were between the data sources. RESULTS:: By manual chart review data, 72.3% of patients were considered to have received guideline-recommended antihypertensive medications compared with 65.0% by AP-EHR review (κ=0.51). Manual review indicated 69.5% of patients had controlled BP compared with 66.8% by AP-EHR review (κ=0.87). Compared with 52.2% of patients per the manual review, 39.8% received an appropriate response by AP-EHR review (κ=0.28). Participants’ incentive payments calculated using the 2 methods were highly correlated (r≥0.98). Using the AP-EHR data to calculate earnings, participants’ payment changes ranged from a decrease of $91.00 (−30.3%) to an increase of $18.20 (+7.4%) for medication use (interquartile range, −14.4% to 0%) and a decrease of $100.10 (−31.4%) to an increase of $36.40 (+15.4%) for BP control or appropriate response to uncontrolled BP (interquartile range, −11.9% to −6.1%). CONCLUSIONS:: Pay-for-performance plans that use only EHR data should carefully consider the measures and the structure of the EHR before data collection and financial incentive disbursement. For this study, we feel that a 10% difference in the total amount of incentive earnings disbursed based on AP-EHR data compared with manual review is acceptable given the time and resources required to abstract data from medical records.