Does state-mandated reporting work? The case of surgical site infection in CABG patients

ABSTRACT

This paper is the first empirical study to explore the relationship between the state-mandated reporting of surgical site infections (SSIs) and changes in infection rates, length of stay and costs among coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients. This paper uses generalized difference-in-difference (DID) methods to analyze patient discharge data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from January 2004 to December 2011 merged with state-level data on mandatory reporting status. After controlling patient and hospital characteristics, and state and year fixed effects, we do not find empirical evidence that state-mandated reporting leads to lower odds of SSIs in CABG procedure. Although it is associated with shorter length of stay and lower costs, the effect is not significant. These results suggest that merely requiring hospitals to report outcomes may not lead to significant changes at least in the case of SSIs among CABG patients.

KEYWORDS:

• Surgical site infections (SSIs)
• state-mandated reporting
• the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS)
• difference-in-difference (DID) methods
• quasi-experimental design

JEL CLASSIFICATION:

• I18
• I10

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.