Literature DB >> 11389318

Publicly disclosed information about the quality of health care: response of the US public.

E C Schneider1, T Lieberman.   

Abstract

Public disclosure of information about the quality of health plans, hospitals, and doctors continues to be controversial. The US experience of the past decade suggests that sophisticated quality measures and reporting systems that disclose information on quality have improved the process and outcomes of care in limited ways in some settings, but these efforts have not led to the "consumer choice" market envisaged. Important reasons for this failure include limited salience of objective measures to consumers, the complexity of the task of interpretation, and insufficient use of quality results by organised purchasers and insurers to inform contracting and pricing decisions. Nevertheless, public disclosure may motivate quality managers and providers to undertake changes that improve the delivery of care. Efforts to measure and report information about quality should remain public, but may be most effective if they are targeted to the needs of institutional and individual providers of care.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11389318      PMCID: PMC1757976          DOI: 10.1136/qhc.10.2.96

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Health Care        ISSN: 0963-8172


  57 in total

1.  Do consumer reports of health plan quality affect health plan selection?

Authors:  M Spranca; D E Kanouse; M Elliott; P F Short; D O Farley; R D Hays
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Do quality report cards play a role in HMOs' contracting practices? Evidence from New York State.

Authors:  D B Mukamel; A I Mushlin; D Weimer; J Zwanziger; T Parker; I Indridason
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Where does performance measurement go from here?

Authors:  M W Legnini; L E Rosenberg; M J Perry; N J Robertson
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2000 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.301

4.  How consumer assessments of managed care vary within and among markets.

Authors:  A M Zaslavsky; B E Landon; N D Beaulieu; P D Cleary
Journal:  Inquiry       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.730

5.  Case study: the Minneapolis Buyers Health Care Action Group.

Authors:  D Knutson
Journal:  Inquiry       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 1.730

6.  Quality of care information makes a difference: an analysis of market share and price changes after publication of the New York State Cardiac Surgery Mortality Reports.

Authors:  D B Mukamel; A I Mushlin
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Managed competition in practice: 'value purchasing' by fourteen employers.

Authors:  J Maxwell; F Briscoe; S Davidson; L Eisen; M Robbins; P Temin; C Young
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  1998 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.301

8.  The relationship between managed care insurance and use of lower-mortality hospitals for CABG surgery.

Authors:  L C Erickson; D F Torchiana; E C Schneider; J W Newburger; E L Hannan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-04-19       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Quality of medical care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries: A profile at state and national levels.

Authors:  S F Jencks; T Cuerdon; D R Burwen; B Fleming; P M Houck; A E Kussmaul; D S Nilasena; D L Ordin; D R Arday
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-10-04       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Using hospital performance data in quality improvement: the Cleveland Health Quality Choice experience.

Authors:  G E Rosenthal; P J Hammar; L E Way; S A Shipley; D Doner; B Wojtala; J Miller; D L Harper
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Improv       Date:  1998-07
View more
  20 in total

1.  Attitudes to the public release of comparative information on the quality of general practice care: qualitative study.

Authors:  Martin N Marshall; Julia Hiscock; Bonnie Sibbald
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-11-30

2.  Provider competition and health care quality: challenges and opportunities for research.

Authors:  Herbert S Wong; Peggy McNamara; Warren Greenberg
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2004-06

3.  The legacy of Bristol: public disclosure of individual surgeons' results.

Authors:  Bruce Keogh; David Spiegelhalter; Alan Bailey; James Roxburgh; Patrick Magee; Colin Hilton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-08-21

4.  Public reporting of nursing home quality of care: lessons from the United States experience for canadian policy discussion.

Authors:  Alison M Hutchinson; Kellie Draper; Anne E Sales
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2009-11

5.  Consumers' interpretation and use of comparative information on the quality of health care: the effect of presentation approaches.

Authors:  Olga C Damman; Michelle Hendriks; Jany Rademakers; Peter Spreeuwenberg; Diana M J Delnoij; Peter P Groenewegen
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-05-25       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Disclosure of surgeon experience.

Authors:  Sabha Ganai
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Development of an information source for patients and the public about general practice services: an action research study.

Authors:  Martin Marshall; Jenny Noble; Helen Davies; Heather Waterman; Kieran Walshe; Rod Sheaff; Glyn Elwyn
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Public views on healthcare performance indicators and patient choice.

Authors:  Helen Magee; Lucy-Jane Davis; Angela Coulter
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  Overview of a formal scoping review on health system report cards.

Authors:  Susan E Brien; Diane L Lorenzetti; Steven Lewis; James Kennedy; William A Ghali
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2010-01-15       Impact factor: 7.327

10.  How do healthcare consumers process and evaluate comparative healthcare information? A qualitative study using cognitive interviews.

Authors:  Olga C Damman; Michelle Hendriks; Jany Rademakers; Diana M J Delnoij; Peter P Groenewegen
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2009-11-20       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.