S French1, S Choden1, Gabriela Schmajuk2,3,4. 1. Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of California, 4150 Clement St, Rm 111R, San Francisco, CA, 94121, USA. 2. Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of California, 4150 Clement St, Rm 111R, San Francisco, CA, 94121, USA. Gabriela.Schmajuk@ucsf.edu. 3. Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. Gabriela.Schmajuk@ucsf.edu. 4. Rheumatology Section, Medical Service, San Francisco VA Hospital, San Francisco, CA, USA. Gabriela.Schmajuk@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aims of this review are to summarize current performance for osteoporosis quality measures used by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) for pay-for-performance programs and to describe recent quality improvement strategies around these measures. RECENT FINDINGS: Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information (HEDIS) quality measures for the managed care population indicate gradual improvement in osteoporosis screening, osteoporosis identification and treatment following fragility fracture, and documentation of fall risk assessment and plan of care between 2006 and 2016. However, population-based studies suggest achievement for these process measures is lower where reporting is not mandated. Performance gaps remain, particularly for post-fracture care. Elderly patients with increased comorbidity are especially vulnerable to fractures, yet underperformance is documented in this population. Gender and racial disparities also exist. As has been shown for other areas of health care, education alone has a limited role as a quality improvement intervention. Multifactorial and systems-based interventions seem to be most successful in leading to measurable change for osteoporosis care and fall prevention. Despite increasing recognition of evidence-based quality measures for osteoporosis and incentives to improve upon performance for these measures, persistent gaps in care exist that will require further investigation into sustainable and value-adding quality improvement interventions.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aims of this review are to summarize current performance for osteoporosis quality measures used by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) for pay-for-performance programs and to describe recent quality improvement strategies around these measures. RECENT FINDINGS: Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information (HEDIS) quality measures for the managed care population indicate gradual improvement in osteoporosis screening, osteoporosis identification and treatment following fragility fracture, and documentation of fall risk assessment and plan of care between 2006 and 2016. However, population-based studies suggest achievement for these process measures is lower where reporting is not mandated. Performance gaps remain, particularly for post-fracture care. Elderly patients with increased comorbidity are especially vulnerable to fractures, yet underperformance is documented in this population. Gender and racial disparities also exist. As has been shown for other areas of health care, education alone has a limited role as a quality improvement intervention. Multifactorial and systems-based interventions seem to be most successful in leading to measurable change for osteoporosis care and fall prevention. Despite increasing recognition of evidence-based quality measures for osteoporosis and incentives to improve upon performance for these measures, persistent gaps in care exist that will require further investigation into sustainable and value-adding quality improvement interventions.
Authors: Vivienne J Zhu; Tina D Walker; Robert W Warren; Peggy B Jenny; Stephane Meystre; Leslie A Lenert Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-04-16
Authors: Daniel H Solomon; Maura D Iversen; Jerry Avorn; Timothy Gleeson; M Alan Brookhart; Amanda R Patrick; Laura Rekedal; William H Shrank; Joyce Lii; Elena Losina; Jeffrey N Katz Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-02-27
Authors: Russel Burge; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Daniel H Solomon; John B Wong; Alison King; Anna Tosteson Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: K Ganda; M Puech; J S Chen; R Speerin; J Bleasel; J R Center; J A Eisman; L March; M J Seibel Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2012-07-25 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Geoffrey J Hoffman; Jinkyung Ha; Neil B Alexander; Kenneth M Langa; Mary Tinetti; Lillian C Min Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Helen A Snooks; Rebecca Anthony; Robin Chatters; Jeremy Dale; Rachael Fothergill; Sarah Gaze; Mary Halter; Ioan Humphreys; Marina Koniotou; Phillipa Logan; Ronan Lyons; Suzanne Mason; Jon Nicholl; Julie Peconi; Ceri Phillips; Judith Phillips; Alison Porter; A Niroshan Siriwardena; Graham Smith; Alun Toghill; Mushtaq Wani; Alan Watkins; Richard Whitfield; Lynsey Wilson; Ian T Russell Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Louise Forsetlund; Arild Bjørndal; Arash Rashidian; Gro Jamtvedt; Mary Ann O'Brien; Fredric Wolf; Dave Davis; Jan Odgaard-Jensen; Andrew D Oxman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-04-15
Authors: K Akesson; D Marsh; P J Mitchell; A R McLellan; J Stenmark; D D Pierroz; C Kyer; C Cooper Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: K E Åkesson; K Ganda; C Deignan; M K Oates; A Volpert; K Brooks; D Lee; D R Dirschl; A J Singer Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 5.071