The business case for quality: estimating lives saved and harms avoided in a value-based purchasing model.

Ever-increasing concern about the cost and burden of quality measurement and reporting raises the question: How much do patients benefit from provider arrangements that incentivize performance improvements? We used national performance data to estimate the benefits in terms of lives saved and harms avoided if US health plans improved performance on 2 widely used quality measures: blood pressure control and colorectal cancer screening. We modeled potential results both in California Marketplace plans, where a value-based purchasing initiative incentivizes improvement, and for the US population across 4 market segments (Medicare, Medicaid, Marketplace, commercial). The results indicate that if the lower-performing health plans improve to 66th percentile benchmark scores, it would decrease annual hypertension and colorectal cancer deaths by approximately 7% and 2%, respectively. These analyses highlight the value of assessing performance accountability initiatives for their potential lives saved and harms avoided, as well as their costs and efforts.

Distinguishing Clinical From Statistical Significances in Contemporary Comparative Effectiveness Research.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of clinical significance reporting in contemporary comparative effectiveness research (CER). BACKGROUND: In CER, a statistically significant difference between study groups may or may not be clinically significant. Misinterpreting statistically significant results could lead to inappropriate recommendations that increase health care costs and treatment toxicity. METHODS: CER studies from 2022 issues of the Annals of Surgery , Journal of the American Medical Association , Journal of Clinical Oncology , Journal of Surgical Research , and Journal of the American College of Surgeons were systematically reviewed by 2 different investigators. The primary outcome of interest was whether the authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in the "Methods." RESULTS: Of 307 reviewed studies, 162 were clinical trials and 145 were observational studies. Authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in 26 studies (8.5%). Clinical significance was defined using clinically validated standards in 25 studies and subjectively in 1 study. Seven studies (2.3%) recommended a change in clinical decision-making, all with primary outcomes achieving statistical significance. Five (71.4%) of these studies did not have clinical significance defined in their methods. In randomized controlled trials with statistically significant results, sample size was inversely correlated with effect size ( r = -0.30, P = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary CER, most authors do not specify what they consider to be a clinically significant difference in study outcome. Most studies recommending a change in clinical decision-making did so based on statistical significance alone, and clinical significance was usually defined with clinically validated standards.

Global Budgets and Technology-Intensive Medical Services.

BACKGROUND: In 2009-2010, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts entered into global payment contracts (the Alternative Quality contract, AQC) with 11 provider organizations. We evaluated the impact of the AQC on spending and utilization of several categories of medical technologies, including one considered high value (colonoscopies) and three that include services that may be overused in some situations (cardiovascular, imaging, and orthopedic services). METHODS: Approximately 420,000 unique enrollees in 2009 and 180,000 in 2010 were linked to primary care physicians whose organizations joined the AQC. Using three years of pre-intervention data and a large control group, we analyzed changes in utilization and spending associated with the AQC with a propensity-weighted difference-in-differences approach adjusting for enrollee demographics, health status, secular trends, and cost-sharing. RESULTS: In the 2009 AQC cohort, total volume of colonoscopies increased 5.2 percent (p=0.04) in the first two years of the contract relative to control. The contract was associated with varied changes in volume for cardiovascular and imaging services, but total spending on cardiovascular services in the first two years decreased by 7.4% (p=0.02) while total spending on imaging services decreased by 6.1% (p<0.001) relative to control. In addition to lower utilization of higher-priced services, these decreases were also attributable to shifting care to lower-priced providers. No effect was found in orthopedics. CONCLUSIONS: As one example of a large-scale global payment initiative, the AQC was associated with higher use of colonoscopies. Among several categories of services whose value may be controversial, the contract generally shifted volume to lower-priced facilities or services.

Associations between structural capabilities of primary care practices and performance on selected quality measures.

BACKGROUND: Recent proposals to reform primary care have encouraged physician practices to adopt such structural capabilities as performance feedback and electronic health records. Whether practices with these capabilities have higher performance on measures of primary care quality is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To measure associations between structural capabilities of primary care practices and performance on commonly used quality measures. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS: 412 primary care practices. MEASUREMENTS: During 2007, 1 physician from each participating primary care practice (median size, 4 physicians) was surveyed about structural capabilities of the practice (responses representing 308 practices were obtained). Data on practice structural capabilities were linked to multipayer performance data on 13 Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) process measures in 4 clinical areas: screening, diabetes, depression, and overuse. RESULTS: Frequently used multifunctional electronic health records were associated with higher performance on 5 HEDIS measures (3 in screening and 2 in diabetes), with statistically significant differences in performance ranging from 3.1 to 7.6 percentage points. Frequent meetings to discuss quality were associated with higher performance on 3 measures of diabetes care (differences ranging from 2.3 to 3.1 percentage points). Physician awareness of patient experience ratings was associated with higher performance on screening for breast cancer and cervical cancer (1.9 and 2.2 percentage points, respectively). No other structural capabilities were associated with performance on more than 1 measure. No capabilities were associated with performance on depression care or overuse. LIMITATION: Structural capabilities of primary care practices were assessed by physician survey. CONCLUSION: Among the investigated structural capabilities of primary care practices, electronic health records were associated with higher performance across multiple HEDIS measures. Overall, the modest magnitude and limited number of associations between structural capabilities and clinical performance suggest the importance of continuing to measure the processes and outcomes of care for patients. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Commonwealth Fund.

Statewide evaluation of measuring physician delivery of self-management support in chronic disease care.

BACKGROUND: Self-management support is an important component of improving chronic care delivery. OBJECTIVE: To validate a new measure of self-management support and to characterize performance, including comparisons across chronic conditions. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: We incorporated a new question module for self-management support within an existing annual statewide patient survey process in 2007. MEASUREMENTS: The survey identified 80,597 patients with a chronic illness on whom the new measure could be evaluated and compared with patients' experiences on four existing measures (quality of clinical interactions, coordination of care, organizational access, and office staff). We calculated Spearman correlation coefficients for self-management support scores for individual chronic conditions within each medical group. We fit multivariable logistic regression models to identify predictors of more favorable performance on self-management support. RESULTS: Composite scores of patient care experiences, including quality of clinical interactions (89.2), coordination of care (77.6), organizational access (76.3), and office staff (85.8) were higher than for the self-management support composite score (69.9). Self-management support scores were highest for patients with cancer (73.0) and lowest for patients with hypertension (67.5). The minimum sample size required for medical groups to provide a reliable estimate of self-management support was 199. There was no consistent correlation between self-management support scores for individual chronic conditions within medical groups. Increased involvement of additional members of the healthcare team was associated with higher self-management support scores across all chronic conditions. CONCLUSION: Measurement of self-management support is feasible and can identify gaps in care not currently included in standard measures of patient care experiences.

Strategies for coping in a complex world: adherence behavior among older adults with chronic illness.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of medicines increase nonadherence. Little is known about how older adults manage multiple medicines for multiple illnesses. OBJECTIVES: To explore how older adults with multiple illnesses make choices about medicines. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews with older adults taking several medications. Accounts of respondents' medicine-taking behavior were collected. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty community-dwelling seniors with health insurance, in Eastern Massachusetts, aged 67-90, (4-12 medicines, 3-9 comorbidities). APPROACH: Qualitative analysis using constant comparison to explain real choices made about medicines in the past ("historical") and hypothetical ("future") choices. RESULTS: Respondents reported both past ("historical") choices and hypothetical ("future") choices between medicines. Although people discussed effectiveness and future risk of the disease when prompted to prioritize their medicines (future choices), key factors leading to nonadherence (historical choices) were costs and side effects. Specific choices were generally dominated by 1 factor, and respondents rarely reported making explicit trade-offs between different factors. Factors affecting 1 choice were not necessarily the same as those affecting another choice in the same person. There was no evidence of "adherent" personalities. CONCLUSION: Prescribing a new medicine, a change in provider or copayment can provoke new choices about both new and existing medications in older adults with multiple morbidities.