The present and future of quality measures and public reporting in neurosurgery.

Quality measurement and public reporting are intended to facilitate targeted outcome improvement, practice-based learning, shared decision making, and effective resource utilization. However, regulatory implementation has created a complex network of reporting requirements for physicians and medical practices. These include Medicare's Physician Quality Reporting System, Electronic Health Records Meaningful Use, and Value-Based Payment Modifier programs. The common denominator of all these initiatives is that to avoid penalties, physicians must meet "generic" quality standards that, in the case of neurosurgery and many other specialties, are not pertinent to everyday clinical practice and hold specialists accountable for care decisions outside of their direct control. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has recently authorized alternative quality reporting mechanisms for the Physician Quality Reporting System, which allow registries to become subspecialty-reporting mechanisms under the Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) program. These programs further give subspecialties latitude to develop measures of health care quality that are relevant to the care provided. As such, these programs amplify the power of clinical registries by allowing more accurate assessment of practice patterns, patient experiences, and overall health care value. Neurosurgery has been at the forefront of these developments, leveraging the experience of the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database to create one of the first specialty-specific QCDRs. Recent legislative reform has continued to change this landscape and has fueled optimism that registries (including QCDRs) and other specialty-driven quality measures will be a prominent feature of federal and private sector quality improvement initiatives. These physician- and patient-driven methods will allow neurosurgery to underscore the value of interventions, contribute to the development of sustainable health care solutions, and actively participate in meaningful quality initiatives for the benefit of the patients served.

The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database Qualified Clinical Data Registry: 2015 measure specifications and rationale.

Meaningful quality measurement and public reporting have the potential to facilitate targeted outcome improvement, practice-based learning, shared decision making, and effective resource utilization. Recent developments in national quality reporting programs, such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) reporting option, have enhanced the ability of specialty groups to develop relevant quality measures of the care they deliver. QCDRs will complete the collection and submission of Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) quality measures data on behalf of individual eligible professionals. The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N(2)QOD) offers 21 non-PQRS measures, initially focused on spine procedures, which are the first specialty-specific measures for neurosurgery. Securing QCDR status for N(2)QOD is a tremendously important accomplishment for our specialty. This program will ensure that data collected through our registries and used for PQRS is meaningful for neurosurgeons, related spine care practitioners, their patients, and other stakeholders. The 2015 N(2)QOD QCDR is further evidence of neurosurgery's commitment to substantively advancing the health care quality paradigm. The following manuscript outlines the measures now approved for use in the 2015 N(2)QOD QCDR. Measure specifications (measure type and descriptions, related measures, if any, as well as relevant National Quality Strategy domain[s]) along with rationale are provided for each measure.

Neurosurgical practice and health care reform: moving toward quality-based health care delivery.

In an effort to rein in spending and improve patient outcomes, the US government and the private sector have adopted a number of policies over the last decade that hold health care professionals increasingly accountable for the cost and quality of the care they provide. A major driver of these efforts is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA or Pub.L. 111-148), which aims to change the US health care system from one that rewards quantity to one that rewards better value through the use of performance measurement. However, for this strategy to succeed in raising the bar on quality and efficiency, it will require the development of more standardized and accurate methods of data collection and further streamlined federal regulations that encourage enhanced patient-centered care instead of creating additional burdens that interfere with the physician-patient relationship.

Regulatory considerations for prospective patient care registries: lessons learned from the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database.

Clinical registries have emerged in the current resource-restricted environment of modern medicine as useful and logical mechanisms for providing health care stakeholders with high-quality data related to the safety, effectiveness, and value of specific interventions. Temporal and qualitative requirements for data acquisition in the context of clinical registries have rapidly expanded as clinicians and other stakeholders increasingly recognize the central importance of this information to the intelligent transformation of health care processes. Despite the potential of more robust clinical data collection efforts to advance the science of care, certain aspects of these newer systems, particularly the prospective, longitudinal acquisition of clinical data and direct patient contact, represent areas of structural overlap between emerging quality improvement efforts and traditional models of human subjects research. This overlap has profound implications for the design and implementation of modern clinical registries. In this paper, the authors describe the evolution of clinical registries as important tools for advancing the science of practice, and review the existing federal regulations that apply to these systems.

Racial and ethnic disparities in health care: a position paper of the American College of Physicians.

Disparities clearly exist in the health care of racial and ethnic minorities. This position paper of the American College of Physicians (ACP) provides ample evidence illustrating that minorities do not always receive the same quality of health care, do not have the same access to health care, are less represented in the health professions, and have poorer overall health status than nonminorities. The ACP finds this to be a major problem in our nation's health system that must be addressed. The ACP is dedicated to working toward eliminating all disparities in health care. This position paper sets forth specific positions for reducing these disparities and will be the foundation for public policy advocacy by ACP for eliminating racial and ethnic disparities in health care.

The relationship between national health care policies and quality improvement in neurosurgery.

Although federal programs aimed at improving the overall value of health care are well intentioned, most remain fundamentally flawed in terms of their metrics, their methodologies, and the pace at which they are being implemented. Without a serious reevaluation of these strategies, these programs will, at best, have limited effectiveness, and, at worst, lead to critical deteriorations in patient quality, safety, and access to care.

Setting the equation: establishing value in spine care.

STUDY DESIGN: Topic review. OBJECTIVE: Describe value measurement in spine care and discuss the motivation for, methods for, and limitations of such measurement. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal disorders are common and are an important cause of pain and disability. Numerous complementary and competing treatment strategies are used to treat spinal disorders, and the costs of these treatments is substantial and continue to rise despite clear evidence of improved health status as a result of these expenditures. METHODS: The authors present the economic and legislative imperatives forcing the assessment of value in spine care. The definition of value in health care and methods to measure value specifically in spine care are presented. Limitations to the utility of value judgments and caveats to their use are presented. RESULTS: Examples of value calculations in spine care are presented and critiqued. Methods to improve and broaden the measurement of value across spine care are suggested, and the role of prospective registries in measuring value is discussed. CONCLUSION: Value can be measured in spine care through the use of appropriate economic measures and patient-reported outcomes measures. Value must be interpreted in light of the perspective of the assessor, the duration of the assessment period, the degree of appropriate risk stratification, and the relative value of treatment alternatives.

State legislative activities related to elimination of health disparities.

How have state legislatures acted to address racial and ethnic disparities in health care? This article examines trends over time in state legislation related to disparities in care and access, proposed legislation during one biennial session, and contemporary legislative attitudes and awareness of the issue. The mix of strategies adopted across the states reflects the differing ways that states understand gaps in minority health and changing strategies over time. Historically, California, Florida, and Louisiana (all states with substantial minority populations) have been the most active in dealing with minority health issues through statutes. In the eighteen months of the 2001-2002 legislative session that we studied, the most common bills called for studies of disparities and appropriations for identifiable minority health initiatives. Measures that successfully cleared the legislature include measures related to cultural competence and minority health awareness month. Finally, the article discusses issues and limitations in using legislative action to measure the level of state policy activity with regard to health disparities. To ground the description of trends in disparity legislation, the authors integrated comments by state legislators with a discussion of problems in interpreting legislative activity.