Article

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

Full-text

Available from: Dennis Scanlon, Sep 11, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
108 Views
  • Source
    [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
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We address three questions related to public reports of diabetes quality. First, does clinic quality evolve over time? Second, does the quality of reporting clinics converge to a common standard? Third, how persistent are provider quality rankings across time? Since current methods of public reporting rely on historic data, measures of clinic quality are most informative if relative clinic performance is persistent across time. We use data from the Minnesota Community Measurement spanning 2007-2012. We employ seemingly-unrelated regression to measure quality improvement conditional upon cohort effects and changes in quality metrics. Basic autoregressive models are used to measure quality persistence. There were striking differences in initial quality across cohorts of clinics and early-reporting cohorts maintained higher quality in all years. This suggests that consumers can infer, on average, that non-reporting clinics have poorer quality than reporting clinics. Average quality, however, improves slowly in all cohorts and quality dispersion declines over time both within and across cohorts. Relative clinic quality is highly persistent year-to-year, suggesting that publicly-reported measures can inform consumers in choice of clinics, even though they represent measured quality for a previous time period. Finally, definition changes in measures can make it difficult to draw appropriate inferences from longitudinal public reports data.
    03/2015; 15(1):127-138. DOI:10.1007/s10754-015-9167-z