CONTEXT: The quality of health care and the financial costs affected by receiving care represent two fundamental dimensions for judging health care performance. No existing conceptual framework appears to have described how quality influences costs. METHODS: We developed the Quality-Cost Framework, drawing from the work of Donabedian, the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, reports by the Institute of Medicine, and other sources. FINDINGS: The Quality-Cost Framework describes how health-related quality of care (aspects of quality that influence health status) affects health care and other costs. Structure influences process, which, in turn, affects proximate and ultimate outcomes. Within structure, subdomains include general structural characteristics, circumstance-specific (e.g., disease-specific) structural characteristics, and quality-improvement systems. Process subdomains include appropriateness of care and medical errors. Proximate outcomes consist of disease progression, disease complications, and care complications. Each of the preceding subdomains influences health care costs. For example, quality improvement systems often create costs associated with monitoring and feedback. Providing appropriate care frequently requires additional physician visits and medications. Care complications may result in costly hospitalizations or procedures. Ultimate outcomes include functional status as well as length and quality of life; the economic value of these outcomes can be measured in terms of health utility or health-status-related costs. We illustrate our framework using examples related to glycemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus or the appropriateness of care for low back pain. CONCLUSIONS: The Quality-Cost Framework describes the mechanisms by which health-related quality of care affects health care and health status-related costs. Additional work will need to validate the framework by applying it to multiple clinical conditions. Applicability could be assessed by using the framework to classify the measures of quality and cost reported in published studies. Usefulness could be demonstrated by employing the framework to identify design flaws in published cost analyses, such as omitting the costs attributable to a relevant subdomain of quality.
CONTEXT: The quality of health care and the financial costs affected by receiving care represent two fundamental dimensions for judging health care performance. No existing conceptual framework appears to have described how quality influences costs. METHODS: We developed the Quality-Cost Framework, drawing from the work of Donabedian, the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, reports by the Institute of Medicine, and other sources. FINDINGS: The Quality-Cost Framework describes how health-related quality of care (aspects of quality that influence health status) affects health care and other costs. Structure influences process, which, in turn, affects proximate and ultimate outcomes. Within structure, subdomains include general structural characteristics, circumstance-specific (e.g., disease-specific) structural characteristics, and quality-improvement systems. Process subdomains include appropriateness of care and medical errors. Proximate outcomes consist of disease progression, disease complications, and care complications. Each of the preceding subdomains influences health care costs. For example, quality improvement systems often create costs associated with monitoring and feedback. Providing appropriate care frequently requires additional physician visits and medications. Care complications may result in costly hospitalizations or procedures. Ultimate outcomes include functional status as well as length and quality of life; the economic value of these outcomes can be measured in terms of health utility or health-status-related costs. We illustrate our framework using examples related to glycemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus or the appropriateness of care for low back pain. CONCLUSIONS: The Quality-Cost Framework describes the mechanisms by which health-related quality of care affects health care and health status-related costs. Additional work will need to validate the framework by applying it to multiple clinical conditions. Applicability could be assessed by using the framework to classify the measures of quality and cost reported in published studies. Usefulness could be demonstrated by employing the framework to identify design flaws in published cost analyses, such as omitting the costs attributable to a relevant subdomain of quality.
Authors: Janessa M Graves; Deborah Fulton-Kehoe; Diane P Martin; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Gary M Franklin Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2012-09-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: José M Quintana; Antonio Escobar; Inmaculada Arostegui; Amaia Bilbao; Jesús Azkarate; J Ignacio Goenaga; Juan C Arenaza Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006-01-23
Authors: Russell L Rothman; Stephanie A So; John Shin; Robert M Malone; Betsy Bryant; Darren A Dewalt; Michael P Pignone; Robert S Dittus Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: E J Thomas; D M Studdert; H R Burstin; E J Orav; T Zeena; E J Williams; K M Howard; P C Weiler; T A Brennan Journal: Med Care Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Sara G McCleskey; Lili Shek; Jonathan Grein; Hiroshi Gotanda; Laura Anderson; Paul G Shekelle; Emmett Keeler; Sally Morton; Teryl K Nuckols Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 7.418
Authors: Pedro Gabriel Melo de Barros; John Li; Christine Tremblay; Mariana Yumi Okada; Henry Sznejder; Valter Furlan; Rafael Vasconcellos Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: Teryl K Nuckols; Emmett Keeler; Sally C Morton; Laura Anderson; Brian Doyle; Marika Booth; Roberta Shanman; Jonathan Grein; Paul Shekelle Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Teryl K Nuckols; Emmett Keeler; Laura J Anderson; Jonas Green; Sally C Morton; Brian J Doyle; Kanaka Shetty; Aziza Arifkhanova; Marika Booth; Roberta Shanman; Paul Shekelle Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Jessica Duis; Pieter J van Wattum; Ann Scheimann; Parisa Salehi; Elly Brokamp; Laura Fairbrother; Anna Childers; Althea Robinson Shelton; Nathan C Bingham; Ashley H Shoemaker; Jennifer L Miller Journal: Mol Genet Genomic Med Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 2.183