Literature DB >> 12243635

Relationship between low quality-of-care scores and HMOs' subsequent public disclosure of quality-of-care scores.

Danny McCormick1, David U Himmelstein, Steffie Woolhandler, Sidney M Wolfe, David H Bor.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Public disclosure of quality data on health maintenance organizations (HMOs) might improve public accountability, inform consumer decision making, and promote quality improvement. But, because disclosure is voluntary, some HMOs could subvert these objectives by refusing to release unfavorable data.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between HMO quality of care and withdrawal from public disclosure of quality-of-care data the subsequent year. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Retrospective cohort study of administrative and quality-of-care data on HMOs from the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) annual Quality Compass databases for 1997, 1998, and 1999, including Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality scores. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: One-year rates of HMO withdrawal from public disclosure of HEDIS scores for plans in the highest and lowest tertiles of HEDIS scores, adjusted for method of data collection and plan model type.
RESULTS: Of the 329 HMOs that publicly disclosed HEDIS scores in 1997, 161 plans (49%) withdrew from public disclosure in 1998. Of the 292 HMOs that disclosed their scores in 1998 (including 130 newly participating plans), 67 plans (23%) withdrew from public disclosure in 1999. Plans whose scores ranked in the lowest-quality tertile were much more likely than plans ranking in the highest-quality tertile to withdraw from public disclosure in 1998 (odds ratio [OR], 3.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-7.0) and 1999 (OR, 5.7; 95% CI, 2.7-17.7).
CONCLUSION: Compared with HMOs receiving higher quality-of-care scores, lower-scoring plans are more likely to stop disclosing their quality data. Voluntary reporting of quality data by HMOs is ineffective; selective nondisclosure undermines both informed consumer decision making and public accountability.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12243635     DOI: 10.1001/jama.288.12.1484

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  13 in total

1.  Effect of pay-for-performance incentives on quality of care in small practices with electronic health records: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Naomi S Bardach; Jason J Wang; Samantha F De Leon; Sarah C Shih; W John Boscardin; L Elizabeth Goldman; R Adams Dudley
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Is there any ideal of 'high quality care' opposing 'low quality care'? A deconstructionist reading.

Authors:  Stephen Buetow; Peter Adams
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2006-06

3.  The CABG surgery volume-outcome relationship: temporal trends and selection effects in California, 1998-2004.

Authors:  James P Marcin; Zhongmin Li; Richard L Kravitz; Jian J Dai; David M Rocke; Patrick S Romano
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Performance measurement in healthcare: part II--state of the science findings by stage of the performance measurement process.

Authors:  Carol E Adair; Elizabeth Simpson; Ann L Casebeer; Judith M Birdsell; Katharine A Hayden; Steven Lewis
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2006-07

5.  Does hospital performance on process measures directly measure high quality care or is it a marker of unmeasured care?

Authors:  Rachel M Werner; Eric T Bradlow; David A Asch
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-12-20       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Persistence of HMO performance measures.

Authors:  Shailender Swaminathan; Michael Chernew; Dennis P Scanlon
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-09-08       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  The impact of health plan delivery system organization on clinical quality and patient satisfaction.

Authors:  Robin R Gillies; Kate Eresian Chenok; Stephen M Shortell; Gregory Pawlson; Julian J Wimbush
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Relationship between accreditation scores and the public disclosure of accreditation reports: a cross sectional study.

Authors:  H Ito; H Sugawara
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2005-04

9.  The health disparities cancer collaborative: a case study of practice registry measurement in a quality improvement collaborative.

Authors:  David A Haggstrom; Steven B Clauser; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2010-06-04       Impact factor: 7.327

Review 10.  How safe is the safety paradigm?

Authors:  O A Arah; N S Klazinga
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2004-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.