MHA 598 Week 4 Quality and Outcomes as Brand Proof Example

Show Your Work: Using Star Ratings, Outcome Data and Honest Claims as the Proof Behind a Health System's Brand

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

MHA/598: Using Results to Build Brand in the Health Sector

Week 4 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The health system, its ratings, outcome data and reporting plan are composites written for a model paper; national figures and research findings come from the sources cited.

The marketing director of the composite Knoxville health system brought the executive team a proposal: billboards across East Tennessee announcing that the system's flagship hospital had earned four stars in the federal hospital rating. The vice president of strategy asked two questions. What were the other two hospitals' ratings? And what would a patient reading the billboard actually learn? This paper examines how quality and outcomes can serve as honest proof of a brand.

The Brand Promise Requires Proof

The system's brand promise included a commitment to show patients its results. That promise could be kept only if results were presented honestly, including those that were not flattering.

What the Star Ratings Show

Federal hospital data provide context for any rating. In data published in July 2026, 3,174 of 5,419 listed hospitals had an overall star rating: 384, or 12.1%, had five stars; 946, or 29.8%, four; 985, or 31.0%, three; 661, or 20.8%, two; and 198, or 6.2%, one. Another 2,245 hospitals had no rating, often because they reported too few measures (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2026).

The System's Ratings

The flagship hospital had four stars. The second hospital had three. The rural hospital had no overall rating because it reported too few measures. A billboard featuring only the flagship's rating would imply more than the system could support.

Why Results Matter to Patients

Publishing results is not only ethical but strategic. As noted in the first week, economists tracking hospitals over many years saw patients drift toward the better performers, a pattern clearest where people had several hospitals within reach (Chandra et al., 2016). Over time, patients and referring physicians notice performance.

How Health Care Advertising Misleads

Health care advertising has a history of overpromising. A study of advertising by 17 top academic medical centers found that most ads aimed at attracting patients used emotional appeals or institutional prestige, that none of the ads promoting single interventions quantified their benefits and only one mentioned potential harms, and that none of the centers applied the kind of review used for research advertising (Larson et al., 2005). An advertisement that promises hope without numbers asks patients to trust the advertiser rather than the evidence.

The System's Results in Detail

The vice president's team reviewed outcome data by hospital. The flagship's cardiac surgery mortality and readmissions were better than national rates. Its cancer program met national benchmarks. Its emergency waits were longer than state averages. The second hospital's infection rates were average, and its patient experience scores below average. The rural hospital performed well on falls and pressure injuries but reported few other measures to the federal program.

A Public Quality Report

Instead of billboards, the vice president recommended a public quality report on the system's website, updated twice a year, with each hospital's star rating, key outcomes, patient experience scores and access times, each compared with national or state benchmarks and explained in plain language. The report includes weaker results and what the system is doing about them.

Rules for Claims

The system adopted five rules for any quality claim in advertising or materials. The claim must be specific. It must be supported by current, published data with the period stated. It must not imply results are guaranteed for any individual. It must not compare with competitors unless using the same public data and period. And it must be reviewed by the chief quality officer before release.

Applying the Rules to the Billboard

Under the rules, a billboard saying the flagship hospital earned four stars in the federal rating as of a stated date would be allowed, if it also pointed readers to the full quality report. A billboard implying the whole system was rated four stars would not.

Legal Limits

Federal and state laws prohibit deceptive advertising, and health care claims receive attention from regulators because patients rely on them for serious decisions. The legal department reviews any comparative claim.

Publishing to Improve

The report's purpose is not only to inform patients but to drive improvement. Publishing emergency wait times created pressure to shorten them, and the second hospital's patient experience scores became a board priority once they were public.

Explaining Measures in Plain Language

Star ratings and risk-adjusted mortality mean little to most readers. Each measure in the report carries a one-sentence explanation: what it measures, why it matters to a patient and whether higher or lower is better. A patient advisory group tested drafts and flagged terms such as failure to rescue and standardized infection ratio, which were rewritten or explained.

What Patients Wanted to Know

The patient advisory group was asked which results mattered most to them. They chose emergency wait times, infection rates, whether patients would recommend the hospital and outcomes for common surgeries. Few cared about awards. The report was organized around their priorities rather than the measures the system performed best on.

When Results Decline

The system committed in advance to publish results even when they worsen. If a measure declines, the report states it plainly with a short explanation of the cause and the response. Deciding this before bad news arrives prevents the temptation to delay or omit it.

Aligning Marketing and Quality

The marketing and quality departments had rarely worked together. Under the new approach, the chief quality officer and marketing director meet monthly to review claims, plan communications about improvements and ensure every campaign links to the public report.

Physicians and Staff as Audiences

Clinicians are among the most important readers. Referring physicians in the region use outcome data to choose where to send patients, and staff take pride in published strengths and see where improvement is needed.

Referring Physicians Respond

Within six months of the first report, the cardiac surgery program received referrals from two practices that had previously sent patients to Nashville. Their physicians said the published outcomes, with national comparisons, gave them confidence to refer closer to home. Results persuaded where advertising had not.

The Rural Hospital's Place in the Report

The rural hospital lacked an overall rating, which could look like a gap. The report explains why small hospitals often report too few measures for a rating and presents the measures it does report, including strong falls and pressure injury results, so rural patients see an honest picture of their local hospital.

Measuring the Report's Effect

The system will track visits to the quality report, referrals by service line, patient trust survey results and market share for services where results are strongest.

Conclusion

A four-star billboard was tempting but would have told patients little and implied more than the system could support. National star rating data, research linking quality to market share and evidence of how health care advertising misleads supported a different approach: a public quality report including weaker results, clear rules for claims and a commitment to improve what is published. Results prove a brand only when they are shown honestly.

References

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2026). Hospital general information [Data set]. Provider Data Catalog. https://data.cms.gov/provider-data/dataset/xubh-q36u

Chandra, A., Finkelstein, A., Sacarny, A., & Syverson, C. (2016). Health care exceptionalism? Performance and allocation in the US health care sector. American Economic Review, 106(8), 2110-2144. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20151080

Larson, R. J., Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., & Welch, H. G. (2005). Advertising by academic medical centers. Archives of Internal Medicine, 165(6), 645-651. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.165.6.645