A Report Card on Provider Report Cards: Current Status of the Health Care Transparency Movement

Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware Street SE, MMC 729, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 11/2010; 25(11):1235-41. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-010-1438-2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Public reporting of provider performance can assist consumers in their choice of providers and stimulate providers to improve quality. Reporting of quality measures is supported by advocates of health care reform across the political spectrum.
To assess the availability, credibility and applicability of existing public reports of hospital and physician quality, with comparisons across geographic areas.
Information pertaining to 263 public reports in 21 geographic areas was collected through reviews of websites and telephone and in-person interviews, and used to construct indicators of public reporting status. Interview data collected in 14 of these areas were used to assess recent changes in reporting and their implications.
Interviewees included staff of state and local associations, health plan representatives and leaders of local health care alliances.
There were more reports of hospital performance (161) than of physician performance (103) in the study areas. More reports included measures derived from claims data (mean, 7.2 hospital reports and 3.3 physician reports per area) than from medical records data. Typically, reports on physician performance contained measures of chronic illness treatment constructed at the medical group level, with diabetes measures the most common (mean number per non-health plan report, 2.3). Patient experience measures were available in more hospital reports (mean number of reports, 1.2) than physician reports (mean, 0.7). Despite the availability of national hospital reports and reports sponsored by national health plans, from a consumer standpoint the status of public reporting depended greatly on where one lived and health plan membership.
Current public reports, and especially reports of physician quality of care, have significant limitations from both consumer and provider perspectives. The present approach to reporting is being challenged by the development of new information sources for consumers, and consumer and provider demands for more current information.

Download full-text


Available from: Dennis Scanlon, Sep 11, 2014
12 Reads
  • Source
    • "Health care providers were among the first to recognize this problem and as a result, they formed JCAHO in 1951 2 as a way to standardize and improve the quality of hospital care. The demand for quality information did not end with JCAHO or other federally mandated programs but instead is being addressed by a wide range of initiatives [13]. HospitalCompare is the most notable hospital quality disclosure program. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although quality information has been collected by governmental and private agencies for over three decades, public access to this information has typically been cumbersome. Recently, an initiative was launched in California in which hospitals can volunteer to provide a series of quality indicators on a user-friendly website. We investigate the factors associated with choosing to participate in this public disclosure initiative and find that hospitals participating in CHART exhibited higher quality and better financial performance than those that do not participate.
  • Source
    • "Despite physicians' central role in health care delivery, consumers have limited access to systematic physician quality information (Jha and Epstein, 2006; Harris and Buntin, 2008; Christianson et al., 2010). Traditionally, consumers relied on word-ofmouth references from friends and family when choosing physicians. "
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Advances in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are published routinely in medical journals. Some treatments are sufficiently helpful that their conclusions are incorporated into clinical guidelines. However, such publications and proclamations may go unheeded among practitioners. Underuse, overuse, and misuse of clinical therapeutics, diagnostics, and routine medical processes are sufficiently prevalent among IBD practitioners that movements are afoot to determine the best methods for achieving a minimal uniformity of effective care. Such explorations are part of an effort to improve the quality of care. In this article, we review the background that has led to a push toward quality improvements in medicine in general, in gastroenterology in general, and within IBD specifically.
    Current Gastroenterology Reports 11/2010; 13(1):87-94. DOI:10.1007/s11894-010-0155-7
Show more