Literature DB >> 19487595

Will hypertension performance measures used for pay-for-performance programs penalize those who care for medically complex patients?

Laura A Petersen1, Lechauncy D Woodard, Louise M Henderson, Tracy H Urech, Kenneth Pietz.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is concern that performance measures, patient ratings of their care, and pay-for-performance programs may penalize healthcare providers of patients with multiple chronic coexisting conditions. We examined the impact of coexisting conditions on the quality of care for hypertension and patient perception of overall quality of their health care. METHODS AND
RESULTS: We classified 141 609 veterans with hypertension into 4 condition groups: those with hypertension-concordant (diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease, dyslipidemia) and/or -discordant (arthritis, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) conditions or neither. We measured blood pressure control at the index visit, overall good quality of care for hypertension, including a follow-up interval, and patient ratings of satisfaction with their care. Associations between condition type and number of coexisting conditions on receipt of overall good quality of care were assessed with logistic regression. The relationship between patient assessment and objective measures of quality was assessed. Of the cohort, 49.5% had concordant-only comorbidities, 8.7% had discordant-only comorbidities, 25.9% had both, and 16.0% had none. Odds of receiving overall good quality after adjustment for age were higher for those with concordant comorbidities (odds ratio, 1.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.70 to 1.87), discordant comorbidities (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.23 to 1.41), or both (odds ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval, 2.13 to 2.38) compared with neither. Findings did not change after adjustment for illness severity and/or number of primary care and specialty care visits. Patient assessment of quality did not vary by the presence of coexisting conditions and was not related to objective ratings of quality of care.
CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to expectations, patients with greater complexity had higher odds of receiving high-quality care for hypertension. Subjective ratings of care did not vary with the presence or absence of comorbid conditions. Our findings should be reassuring to those who care for the most medically complex patients and are concerned that they will be penalized by performance measures or patient ratings of their care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19487595      PMCID: PMC2743388          DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.836544

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  40 in total

1.  A systematic review of the associations between dose regimens and medication compliance.

Authors:  A J Claxton; J Cramer; C Pierce
Journal:  Clin Ther       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.393

2.  Relationship between daily dose frequency and adherence to antihypertensive pharmacotherapy: evidence from a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michael Iskedjian; Thomas R Einarson; Linda D MacKeigan; Neil Shear; Antonio Addis; Nicole Mittmann; A Lane Ilersich
Journal:  Clin Ther       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.393

3.  Primary care: is there enough time for prevention?

Authors:  Kimberly S H Yarnall; Kathryn I Pollak; Truls Østbye; Katrina M Krause; J Lloyd Michener
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Potential pitfalls of disease-specific guidelines for patients with multiple conditions.

Authors:  Mary E Tinetti; Sidney T Bogardus; Joseph V Agostini
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-12-30       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Adverse drug reactions as cause of hospital admissions: results from the Italian Group of Pharmacoepidemiology in the Elderly (GIFA).

Authors:  Graziano Onder; Claudio Pedone; Francesco Landi; Matteo Cesari; Cecilia Della Vedova; Roberto Bernabei; Giovanni Gambassi
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 5.562

6.  Comparison of use of medications after acute myocardial infarction in the Veterans Health Administration and Medicare.

Authors:  L A Petersen; S L Normand; L L Leape; B J McNeil
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2001-12-11       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  Outcome of myocardial infarction in Veterans Health Administration patients as compared with medicare patients.

Authors:  L A Petersen; S L Normand; J Daley; B J McNeil
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-12-28       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Competing demands in the office visit: what influences mammography recommendations?

Authors:  P A Nutting; M Baier; J J Werner; G Cutter; C Conry; L Stewart
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Pract       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct

9.  The role of competing demands in the treatment provided primary care patients with major depression.

Authors:  K Rost; P Nutting; J Smith; J C Coyne; L Cooper-Patrick; L Rubenstein
Journal:  Arch Fam Med       Date:  2000-02

10.  The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report.

Authors:  Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  19 in total

Review 1.  Public release of performance data in changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, professionals or organisations.

Authors:  Nicole A B M Ketelaar; Marjan J Faber; Signe Flottorp; Liv Helen Rygh; Katherine H O Deane; Martin P Eccles
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2011-11-09

2.  Improving the performance of performance measurement.

Authors:  LeChauncy D Woodard; Laura A Petersen
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  A clinically guided approach for improving performance measurement for hypertension.

Authors:  Michael A Steinman; Sei J Lee; Carolyn A Peterson; Kathy Z Fung; Mary K Goldstein
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Diabetes care improvement in pharmacist- versus nurse-supported patient-centered medical homes.

Authors:  Lillian Min; Christine T Cigolle; Steven J Bernstein; Kathleen Ward; Tisha L Moore; Jinkyung Ha; Caroline S Blaum
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 2.229

Review 5.  Pay-for-Performance and Veteran Care in the VHA and the Community: a Systematic Review.

Authors:  Karli K Kondo; Jessica Wyse; Aaron Mendelson; Gabriella Beard; Michele Freeman; Allison Low; Devan Kansagara
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  The impact of concordant and discordant comorbidities on patient-assessed quality of diabetes care.

Authors:  Eindra Aung; Maria Donald; Joseph Coll; Jo Dower; Gail M Williams; Suhail A R Doi
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Impact of comorbidity type on measures of quality for diabetes care.

Authors:  Lechauncy D Woodard; Tracy Urech; Cassie R Landrum; Degang Wang; Laura A Petersen
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  Quality improvement initiative for rapid induction of hypertension control in primary care.

Authors:  Aanand D Naik; Elisa Rodriguez; Radha Rao; Dian Teinert; Neena S Abraham; Jagadeesh Kalavar
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2010-09

9.  The impact of cardiovascular risk-factor profiles on blood pressure control rates in adults from Canada and the United States.

Authors:  Finlay A McAlister; Cynthia Robitaille; Cathleen Gillespie; Keming Yuan; Deepa P Rao; Steven Grover; Sulan Dai; Helen Johansen; Michel Joffres; Fleetwood Loustalot; Norm Campbell
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 5.223

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.