Advancing Public Reporting Through A New 'Aggregator' To Standardize Data Collection On Providers' Cost And Quality

Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.97). 03/2012; 31(3):619-26. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1162
Source: PubMed


Advocates for consumer-friendly public reporting on the performance of health care providers anticipate that, at some point, well-vetted and standardized measures will be widely available to help patients choose clinicians who provide the best care. However, achieving that goal would require assembling standardized data from many sources. Such an effort would raise concerns, including privacy considerations about having a single massive data repository; questions of how such an effort would be funded; and potential misuse of the data. This paper proposes creating a public-private data aggregator that would receive patient and provider data from payers that are deidentified in such a way as to remain useful for consumer-reporting and research purposes. The aggregator could be funded through fees charged to commercial users. Meanwhile, registered researchers putting their methods and findings in the public domain could access the data aggregator for free.

Full-text preview

Available from:
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Public report cards with quality and cost information on physicians, physician groups, and hospital providers have proliferated in recent years. However, many of these report cards are difficult for consumers to interpret and have had little impact on the provider choices consumers are making. To gain a more focused understanding of why these reports cards have not been more successful and what improvements could be made, we interviewed experts and surveyed registrants at the March 2011 AHRQ National Summit on Public Reporting for Consumers in Health Care. We found broad agreement that public reporting has been disconnected from consumer decisions about providers because of weaknesses in report card content, design, and accessibility. Policy makers have an opportunity to change the landscape of public reporting by taking advantage of advances in measurement, data collection, and information technology to deliver a more consumer-centered report card. Overcoming the constraint of limited public funding, and achieving the acceptance of providers, is critical to realizing future success.
    Preview · Article · Mar 2012 · Health Affairs

  • No preview · Article · Oct 2013 · Gastrointestinal endoscopy
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To assess what is known about the relationship between patient experience measures and incentives designed to improve care, and to identify how public policy and medical practices can promote patient-valued outcomes in health systems with strong financial incentives. Data sources/study setting: Existing literature (gray and peer-reviewed) on measuring patient experience and patient-reported outcomes, identified from Medline and Cochrane databases; evaluations of pay-for-performance programs in the United States, Europe, and the Commonwealth countries. Study design/data collection: We analyzed (1) studies of pay-for-performance, to identify those including metrics for patient experience, and (2) studies of patient experience and of patient-reported outcomes to identify evidence of influence on clinical practice, whether through public reporting or private reporting to clinicians. Principal findings: First, we identify four forms of "patient-reported information" (PRI), each with distinctive roles shaping clinical practice: (1) patient-reported outcomes measuring self-assessed physical and mental well-being, (2) surveys of patient experience with clinicians and staff, (3) narrative accounts describing encounters with clinicians in patients' own words, and (4) complaints/grievances signaling patients' distress when treatment or outcomes fall short of expectations. Because these forms vary in crucial ways, each must be distinctively measured, deployed, and linked with financial incentives. Second, although the literature linking incentives to patients experience is limited, implementing pay-for-performance systems appears to threaten certain patient-valued aspects of health care. But incentives can be made compatible with the outcomes patients value if: (a) a sufficient portion of incentives is tied to patient-reported outcomes and experiences, (b) incentivized forms of PRI are complemented by other forms of patient feedback, and (c) health care organizations assist clinicians to interpret and respond to PRI. Finally, we identify roles for the public and private sectors in financing PRI and orchestrating an appropriate balance among its four forms. Conclusions: Unless public policies are attentive to patients' perspectives, stronger financial incentives for clinicians can threaten aspects of care that patients most value. Certain policy parameters are already clear, but additional research is required to clarify how best to collect patient narratives in varied settings, how to report narratives to consumers in conjunction with quantified metrics, and how to promote a "culture of learning" at the practice level that incorporates patient feedback.
    No preview · Article · Nov 2015 · Health Services Research