Literature DB >> 17335354

Should mitigating comorbidities be considered in assessing healthcare plan performance in achieving optimal glycemic control?

Leonard M Pogach1, Anjali Tiwari, Miriam Maney, Mangala Rajan, Donald R Miller, David Aron.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Whether a public reporting measure for glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) of less than 7% should apply to all persons with diabetes mellitus is a matter of ongoing controversy.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of excluding persons with major medical or mental health conditions on assessment of healthcare system performance in achieving an A1C level of less than 7%. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Retrospective longitudinal administrative data analysis from 144 Veterans Health Administration medical centers.
SUBJECTS: Veterans with diabetes mellitus younger than 65 years who were users of Veterans Health Administration healthcare in fiscal years 1999 and 2000. MAJOR OUTCOME VARIABLES: The proportions, 5-year mortality, and glycemic control of individuals with and without major comorbid conditions, as well as changes in league table rankings of facilities achieving an A1C threshold of less than 7% with and without the inclusion of seriously ill individuals.
RESULTS: There were 220 922 subjects identified from 144 facilities. We identified 75 296 individuals (mean +/- SD facility range of excluded individuals, 33.3% +/- 5.3%) with conditions that would decrease the benefits or increase risks of glycemic control. The 5-year unadjusted mortality was 36.0% in 48 001 subjects (21.7%) excluded for major medical or neurological conditions, 14.9% in 17 515 subjects (7.9%) excluded for major mental health conditions, and 16.5% in 9780 subjects (4.4%) excluded for 2 or more other serious comorbid medical or psychological conditions, compared with 8.8% in the remaining subjects. A comparison of industry league table rankings indicated that 20% of the best and worse facilities changed 1 decile when ranking using exclusion criteria.
CONCLUSION: One in 3 veterans has comorbid conditions that would increase the risks or decrease the benefits of intensive glycemic control. We propose that a public reporting measure for A1C of less than 7% be subjected to exclusion criteria rather than be applied to all persons with diabetes mellitus.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17335354

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Manag Care        ISSN: 1088-0224            Impact factor:   2.229


  16 in total

1.  Improving the quality of medical care: the normativity of evidence-based performance standards.

Authors:  Sandra J Tanenbaum
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2012-08

Review 2.  Quality indicators and performance measures in diabetes care.

Authors:  David C Aron
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 4.810

3.  Choosing targets for glycaemia, blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in elderly individuals with diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Susan R Kirsh; David C Aron
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2011-12-01       Impact factor: 3.923

4.  Screening, treatment, and control of hypertension in US private physician offices, 2003-2004.

Authors:  Jun Ma; Randall S Stafford
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2008-03-17       Impact factor: 10.190

5.  Longitudinal approaches to evaluate health care quality and outcomes: the Veterans Health Administration diabetes epidemiology cohorts.

Authors:  Donald R Miller; Leonard Pogach
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2008-01

Review 6.  Quality of care for patients with multiple chronic conditions: the role of comorbidity interrelatedness.

Authors:  Donna M Zulman; Steven M Asch; Susana B Martins; Eve A Kerr; Brian B Hoffman; Mary K Goldstein
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Treatment intensification and risk factor control: toward more clinically relevant quality measures.

Authors:  Joseph V Selby; Connie S Uratsu; Bruce Fireman; Julie A Schmittdiel; Tiffany Peng; Nicolas Rodondi; Andrew J Karter; Eve A Kerr
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  A pilot qualitative study to explore stakeholder opinions regarding prescribing quality indicators.

Authors:  Liana Martirosyan; Joekie Markhorst; Petra Denig; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp; Jozé Braspenning
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-07-07       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Hidden complexities in assessment of glycemic outcomes: are quality rankings aligned with treatment?

Authors:  Leonard M Pogach; Mangala Rajan; Miriam Maney; Chin-Lin Tseng; David C Aron
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2010-07-09       Impact factor: 19.112

10.  Performance of comorbidity, risk adjustment, and functional status measures in expenditure prediction for patients with diabetes.

Authors:  Matthew L Maciejewski; Chuan-Fen Liu; Stephan D Fihn
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2008-10-22       Impact factor: 17.152

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.