Looking Beyond the Hospital to Reduce Acute Myocardial Infarction: Progress and Potential | Acute Coronary Syndromes | JAMA Network
[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 2,778
Citations 0
Editorial
June 2016

Looking Beyond the Hospital to Reduce Acute Myocardial Infarction: Progress and Potential

Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 2Section of Cardiology, Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver
  • 3Department of Medicine (Cardiology), University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora
JAMA Cardiol. 2016;1(3):251-253. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2016.0544

A large and growing body of evidence suggests that poverty is linked with lower life expectancy and, in particular, with higher mortality rates due to cardiovascular disease (CVD).1,2 The causes are likely multifactorial: rates of cardiovascular risk factors tend to be higher in lower-income populations, opportunities to engage in healthier lifestyle behaviors are fewer, and access to high-quality cardiac health care is more limited.3,4 Recognition of these issues has led to a variety of efforts in prevention, access to care, and quality of care to improve cardiovascular health, especially among populations such as the poor, who are at the highest risk for cardiovascular events and their attendant morbidity and mortality.

In this issue of JAMA Cardiology, Spatz et al5 provide encouraging information that these policies have had an impressive effect. In particular, they demonstrate that, over the past 15 years, rates of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) hospitalization and mortality in the Medicare population have decreased significantly and across all income groups. These impressive gains are tempered, however, by the finding that lower-income populations continue to have significantly higher AMI rates than their higher-income counterparts. For individuals who sustained an AMI, there were no significant differences in mortality rates by income at any point in the study period. These findings, although perhaps unexpected at first glance, can provide important insights into our successes in reducing the burden of AMI and its associated mortality and where our attention might next need to focus.

The finding that mortality rates after AMI hospitalization declined during the study period confirms prior work6 and extends this observation across income groups. This finding suggests that efforts to standardize and improve quality of care for AMI, both during the acute hospitalization for the event and after hospitalization, have had their intended effect. Furthermore, as some have posited should happen with quality improvement efforts,7 it is likely that the increased standardization associated with performance measurement, reporting, and reward has led to a reduction in overall variability of care and its associated disparities in outcomes, such as those seen in lower-income populations.8

The fact that AMI hospitalization rates, although also declining over time, continue to demonstrate disparities between low- and high-income counties, with rates of AMI hospitalization in this study approximately 20% higher in low-income counties, is a concern. This finding, which has been previously reported at the neighborhood level,9 suggests that, to reduce disparities in cardiovascular outcomes, we may need to look “upstream” in the care continuum and outside the health care delivery system to 2 additional areas: clinical prevention efforts in the outpatient setting, particularly in primary prevention, and social determinants of health.

As a field, we know much less about quality of care in the outpatient setting than in the inpatient setting, in part because measuring quality in the outpatient setting presents many unique challenges. Initial data available about the quality of outpatient care in cardiovascular disease suggest that practice is much more variable in outpatient encounters than in AMI hospital care. For example, national median rates of performance for inpatient AMI quality measures in Medicare, such as aspirin and statin use, are now 96% to 99%, with fewer than 10% of hospitals nationwide below 90% compliance on any of these measures.10 In contrast, rates of use of guideline-based therapies for secondary prevention of AMI in the outpatient setting are both lower and more variable, with median performance near 75% and most practices below 90% compliance.11 Performance in primary AMI prevention is even worse, both in terms of medical treatment and lifestyle metrics.12,13

There are several ongoing and emerging national efforts aimed at imbuing our outpatient care delivery with the same high level of quality that has been achieved in the inpatient setting. On the quality improvement side, new efforts, such as the American College of Cardiology’s Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence (PINNACLE) program, now allow monitoring and quality improvement activities to take place within the construct of an electronic health record–integrated system.14 Similarly, the Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Million Hearts initiative is focusing on optimizing the use of aspirin, control of blood pressure and cholesterol levels, and smoking cessation to reduce cardiovascular mortality.15 Health policy innovations, such as the Million Hearts payment model by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation, represents a major and novel effort to pay for performance in primary prevention.16 Unfortunately, these important efforts reach only a small proportion of US residents, and participation in such initiatives tends to underrepresent practices that serve poor populations. We also know that low-income individuals and racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to receive low-quality ambulatory care,17 suggesting that these programs might have their greatest need in such settings. Thus, these programs may have little chance of reducing disparities unless their reach is strategically widened.

In addition to reducing disparities in outpatient medical care, there is a need to address the social determinants of health that lead to higher AMI rates. In this arena, important changes are also happening in quality improvement and policy, although there remains much to be done. For example, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation18 recently announced the launch of its Accountable Health Community model, a $157 million investment in paying communities to coordinate care around social determinants of health for Medicare beneficiaries. The Healthy People 2020 initiative,19 coordinated by the Health and Human Services Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, focuses on social determinants of health, such as economic stability, education, the built environment, and community context, that impact the lifestyle factors that contribute to AMI rates.

The findings of Spatz et al5 have some limitations that suggest important areas for future research. For example, the population in this study, by definition, had to be hospitalized for treatment of their AMI. Prior work20 has shown that deaths associated with cardiovascular disease that occur before hospitalization are common and disproportionately occur in low-income neighborhoods; accordingly, it is possible that ascertainment bias significantly influenced the results of the study conducted by Spatz and colleagues. It is also unknown how many of the index AMI events were first or recurrent events; understanding these rates could help in directing improvement efforts toward primary or secondary prevention care. The choice of county as the unit of analysis means that more granular information about the quality of the medical care that the studied patients received is unknown; it is possible that the sorting of patients to hospitals and outpatient practices of different quality conceals some of the underlying relationship between poverty and mortality. Counties are also large and heterogeneous, so important within-county differences in poverty might still be associated with mortality rates.21 Furthermore, the low-income counties had many fewer residents than the high-income counties, suggesting that the low-income counties might be significantly more rural; rurality has been associated22 with adverse health outcomes and worse longevity and therefore could be an important confounding factor. Further work to help understand the geographic characteristics of these low-income areas is an important next step. Another potential limitation of this study is its reliance on claims data. Differences in coding intensity or coding patterns between high-income and low-income counties over time may also have influenced the results. In addition, because the claims were drawn from the Medicare population, it will be important to understand whether similar trends are occurring among younger populations, especially since these patients stand to benefit the most from primary prevention efforts. Finally, quality improvement efforts, both in health care and social determinants of health, are organized at a variety of levels: hospitals, clinics, workplaces, cities, states, and nationally. Understanding the underlying rates and causes of disparities in outcomes at all of these levels, in addition to the county level, will be important to optimally guide improvement efforts.

Although improvements in mortality and admission rates for AMI seen over the past decade should give us great pride, our work is not done. Focusing our efforts on areas such as the quality of ambulatory care in primary and secondary prevention of AMI, as well as giving greater attention to the social determinants of health, may hold immense promise in addressing significant and persistent disparities in health and health outcomes for the nation’s most vulnerable populations.

Back to top
Article Information

Corresponding Author: Thomas M. Maddox, MD, MSc, Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Mailstop 1118, 1055 Clermont St, Denver, CO 80220 (tmaddox@alumni.rice.edu).

Published Online: May 11, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2016.0544.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported.

References
1.
Bucholz  EM, Ma  S, Normand  SL, Krumholz  HM.  Race, socioeconomic status, and life expectancy after acute myocardial infarction.  Circulation. 2015;132(14):1338-1346.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Singh  GK, Siahpush  M.  Widening socioeconomic inequalities in US life expectancy, 1980-2000.  Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35(4):969-979.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Segal  M, Rollins  E, Hodges  K, Roozeboom  M.  Medicare-Medicaid eligible beneficiaries and potentially avoidable hospitalizations.  Medicare Medicaid Res Rev. 2014;4(1):mmrr.004.01.b01.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Clark  AM, DesMeules  M, Luo  W, Duncan  AS, Wielgosz  A.  Socioeconomic status and cardiovascular disease: risks and implications for care.  Nat Rev Cardiol. 2009;6(11):712-722.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Spatz  ES, Beckman  AL, Wang  Y, Desai  NR, Krumholz  HM.  Geographic variation in trends and disparities in acute myocardial infarction hospitalization and mortality by income levels, 1999-2013 [published online May 11, 2016].  JAMA Cardiol. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2016.0382.Google Scholar
6.
Krumholz  HM, Wang  Y, Chen  J,  et al.  Reduction in acute myocardial infarction mortality in the United States: risk-standardized mortality rates from 1995-2006.  JAMA. 2009;302(7):767-773.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Sequist  TD, Adams  A, Zhang  F, Ross-Degnan  D, Ayanian  JZ.  Effect of quality improvement on racial disparities in diabetes care.  Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(6):675-681.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Jha  AK, Orav  EJ, Epstein  AM.  The effect of financial incentives on hospitals that serve poor patients.  Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(5):299-306.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Pollack  CE, Slaughter  ME, Griffin  BA, Dubowitz  T, Bird  CE.  Neighborhood socioeconomic status and coronary heart disease risk prediction in a nationally representative sample.  Public Health. 2012;126(10):827-835.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Nuti  SV, Wang  Y, Masoudi  FA,  et al.  Improvements in the distribution of hospital performance for the care of patients with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia, 2006-2011.  Med Care. 2015;53(6):485-491.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Maddox  TM, Chan  PS, Spertus  JA,  et al.  Variations in coronary artery disease secondary prevention prescriptions among outpatient cardiology practices: insights from the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry).  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(6):539-546.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Yang  Q, Cogswell  ME, Flanders  WD,  et al.  Trends in cardiovascular health metrics and associations with all-cause and CVD mortality among US adults.  JAMA. 2012;307(12):1273-1283.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Maddox  TM, Ho  PM, Roe  M, Dai  D, Tsai  TT, Rumsfeld  JS.  Utilization of secondary prevention therapies in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease identified during cardiac catheterization: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Cath-PCI Registry.  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010;3(6):632-641.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Chan  PS, Oetgen  WJ, Buchanan  D,  et al.  Cardiac performance measure compliance in outpatients: the American College of Cardiology and National Cardiovascular Data Registry’s PINNACLE (Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence) program.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(1):8-14.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Benjamin  RM.  The million hearts™ initiative: progress in preventing heart attacks and strokes.  Public Health Rep. 2012;127(6):558-560.PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Sanghavi  DM, Conway  PH.  Paying for prevention: a novel test of Medicare value-based payment for cardiovascular risk reduction.  JAMA. 2015;314(2):123-124.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Bach  PB, Pham  HH, Schrag  D, Tate  RC, Hargraves  JL.  Primary care physicians who treat blacks and whites.  N Engl J Med. 2004;351(6):575-584.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Alley  DE, Asomugha  CN, Conway  PH, Sanghavi  DM.  Accountable health communities—addressing social needs through Medicare and Medicaid.  N Engl J Med. 2016;374(1):8-11.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2020: social determinants of health. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/social-determinants-of-health. Updated March 28, 2016. Accessed December 29, 2015.
20.
Foraker  RE, Rose  KM, Kucharska-Newton  AM, Ni  H, Suchindran  CM, Whitsel  EA.  Variation in rates of fatal coronary heart disease by neighborhood socioeconomic status: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Surveillance (1992-2002).  Ann Epidemiol. 2011;21(8):580-588.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Tonne  C, Schwartz  J, Mittleman  M, Melly  S, Suh  H, Goldberg  R.  Long-term survival after acute myocardial infarction is lower in more deprived neighborhoods.  Circulation. 2005;111(23):3063-3070.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Singh  GK, Siahpush  M.  Widening rural-urban disparities in life expectancy, US, 1969-2009.  Am J Prev Med. 2014;46(2):e19-e29.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
×