PURPOSE: Even though pay-for-performance programs are being rapidly implemented, little is known about how patient complexity affects practice-level performance assessment in rural settings. We sought to determine the association between patient complexity and practice-level performance in the rural United States. BASIC PROCEDURES: Using baseline data from a trial aimed at improving diabetes care, we determined factors associated with a practice's proportion of patients having controlled diabetes (hemoglobin A1c<or=7%): patient socioeconomic factors, clinical factors, difficulty with self-testing of blood glucose, and difficulty with keeping appointments. We used linear regression to adjust the practice-level proportion with A1c controlled for these factors. We compared practice rankings using observed and expected performance and classified practices into hypothetical pay-for-performance categories. MAIN FINDINGS: Rural primary care practices (n=135) in 11 southeastern states provided information for 1641 patients with diabetes. For practices in the best quartile of observed control, 76.1% of patients had controlled diabetes vs 19.3% of patients in the worst quartile. After controlling for other variables, proportions of diabetes control were 10% lower in those practices whose patients had the greatest difficulty with either self testing or appointment keeping (p<.05 for both). Practice rankings based on observed and expected proportion of A1c control showed only moderate agreement in pay-for-performance categories (kappa=0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.56; p<001). PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: Basing public reporting and resource allocation on quality assessment that does not account for patient characteristics may further harm this vulnerable group of patients and physicians.
PURPOSE: Even though pay-for-performance programs are being rapidly implemented, little is known about how patient complexity affects practice-level performance assessment in rural settings. We sought to determine the association between patient complexity and practice-level performance in the rural United States. BASIC PROCEDURES: Using baseline data from a trial aimed at improving diabetes care, we determined factors associated with a practice's proportion of patients having controlled diabetes (hemoglobin A1c<or=7%): patient socioeconomic factors, clinical factors, difficulty with self-testing of blood glucose, and difficulty with keeping appointments. We used linear regression to adjust the practice-level proportion with A1c controlled for these factors. We compared practice rankings using observed and expected performance and classified practices into hypothetical pay-for-performance categories. MAIN FINDINGS: Rural primary care practices (n=135) in 11 southeastern states provided information for 1641 patients with diabetes. For practices in the best quartile of observed control, 76.1% of patients had controlled diabetes vs 19.3% of patients in the worst quartile. After controlling for other variables, proportions of diabetes control were 10% lower in those practices whose patients had the greatest difficulty with either self testing or appointment keeping (p<.05 for both). Practice rankings based on observed and expected proportion of A1c control showed only moderate agreement in pay-for-performance categories (kappa=0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.56; p<001). PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: Basing public reporting and resource allocation on quality assessment that does not account for patient characteristics may further harm this vulnerable group of patients and physicians.
Authors: Susan L Ettner; Betsy L Cadwell; Louise B Russell; Arleen Brown; Andrew J Karter; Monika Safford; Carol Mangione; Gloria Beckles; William H Herman; Theodore J Thompson Journal: Health Econ Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Julie A Schmittdiel; Connie S Uratsu; Andrew J Karter; Michele Heisler; Usha Subramanian; Carol M Mangione; Joe V Selby Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Sarah Hudson Scholle; Joachim Roski; John L Adams; Daniel L Dunn; Eve A Kerr; Donna Pillittere Dugan; Roxanne E Jensen Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Steffani R Bailey; Jean P O'Malley; Rachel Gold; John Heintzman; Sonja Likumahuwa; Jennifer E DeVoe Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Stephen A Tonks; Sohil Makwana; Amanda H Salanitro; Monika M Safford; Thomas K Houston; Jeroan J Allison; William Curry; Carlos A Estrada Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 4.333