Consumer Use of Provider Quality Report Cards: The Role of Dissemination and Media Coverage.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to measure the dissemination of comparative provider quality information (CPQI) and evaluate its impact on consumers' awareness and use of CPQI. DATA SOURCES: Two-period, random-digit-dial panel survey of chronically ill consumers residing in 14 regions of the United States; summaries of CPQI dissemination activities of regional multistakeholder alliances; and the LexisNexis Academic and Access World News databases. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: Fixed effects regression to isolate the effect of CPQI producers' dissemination activities and the print media's CPQI coverage on chronically ill consumers' self-reported awareness and use of CPQI. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Direct CPQI dissemination had no overall effect on either awareness or use of CPQI. One unit increase in the media coverage of an Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) multistakeholder alliance report increased consumer awareness and use of CPQI by 1.4 percentage points (P=0.049) and 1.1 percentage points (P=0.009), respectively. Similar increases for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) CPQI and for the nonalliance, non-CMS CPQI improved CPQI use by 1.6 percentage points (P<0.001) and 0.2 percentage points (P=0.041), respectively. CONCLUSION: Even though CPQI producers' direct dissemination efforts had little impact, the small but significant consumer impacts of CPQI's limited press coverage suggests that limited use of media in the dissemination of report cards may be a significant factor behind low consumer awareness and use.

Revenue Losses to State and Federal Government From Opioid-related Employment Reductions.

OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this study was to estimate the tax revenue lost by state and federal governments as a result of adverse labor market outcomes attributable to opioid misuse. METHODS: We pair existing, plausibly causal estimates of the effect of opioid misuse on the decline in the labor force from 2000 to 2016 with a variety of data sources to compute tax revenues lost by state and federal governments using the online TAXSIM calculator. RESULTS: We find that between 2000 and 2016, opioid misuse cost state governments $11.8 billion, including $1.7 billion in lost sales tax revenue and $10.1 billion in lost income tax revenue. In addition, the federal government lost $26.0 billion in income tax revenue. CONCLUSIONS: By omitting lost tax revenue due to labor force exits, prior studies have missed an important component of opioid-related costs borne by state and federal governments. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: As more states and the federal government contemplate litigation for opioid-related damages, lost tax revenue represents an important cost that could be recouped and allocated to opioid prevention and treatment programs.

Making sense of "consumer engagement" initiatives to improve health and health care: a conceptual framework to guide policy and practice.

CONTEXT: Policymakers and practitioners continue to pursue initiatives designed to engage individuals in their health and health care despite discordant views and mixed evidence regarding the ability to cultivate greater individual engagement that improves Americans' health and well-being and helps manage health care costs. There is limited and mixed evidence regarding the value of different interventions. METHODS: Based on our involvement in evaluating various community-based consumer engagement initiatives and a targeted literature review of models of behavior change, we identified the need for a framework to classify the universe of consumer engagement initiatives toward advancing policymakers' and practitioners' knowledge of their value and fit in various contexts. We developed a framework that expanded our conceptualization of consumer engagement, building on elements of two common models, the individually focused transtheoretical model of behavior and the broader, multilevel social ecological model. Finally, we applied this framework to one community's existing consumer engagement program. FINDINGS: Consumer engagement in health and health care refers to the performance of specific behaviors ("engaged behaviors") and/or an individual's capacity and motivation to perform these behaviors ("activation"). These two dimensions are related but distinct and thus should be differentiated. The framework creates four classification schemas, by (1) targeted behavior types (self-management, health care encounter, shopping, and health behaviors) and by (2) individual, (3) group, and (4) community dimensions. Our example illustrates that the framework can systematically classify a variety of consumer engagement programs, and that this exercise and resulting characterization can provide a structured way to consider the program and how its components fit program goals both individually and collectively. CONCLUSIONS: Applying the framework could help advance the field by making policymakers and practitioners aware of the wide range of approaches, providing a structured way to organize and characterize interventions retrospectively, and helping them consider how they can meet the program's goals both individually and collectively.

Barriers to using clinical decision support in ambulatory care: Do clinics in health systems fare better?

OBJECTIVE: We quantify the use of clinical decision support (CDS) and the specific barriers reported by ambulatory clinics and examine whether CDS utilization and barriers differed based on clinics' affiliation with health systems, providing a benchmark for future empirical research and policies related to this topic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Despite much discussion at the theoretic level, the existing literature provides little empirical understanding of barriers to using CDS in ambulatory care. We analyze data from 821 clinics in 117 medical groups, based on in Minnesota Community Measurement's annual Health Information Technology Survey (2014-2016). We examine clinics' use of 7 CDS tools, along with 7 barriers in 3 areas (resource, user acceptance, and technology). Employing linear probability models, we examine factors associated with CDS barriers. RESULTS: Clinics in health systems used more CDS tools than did clinics not in systems (24 percentage points higher in automated reminders), but they also reported more barriers related to resources and user acceptance (26 percentage points higher in barriers to implementation and 33 points higher in disruptive alarms). Barriers related to workflow redesign increased in clinics affiliated with health systems (33 points higher). Rural clinics were more likely to report barriers to training. CONCLUSIONS: CDS barriers related to resources and user acceptance remained substantial. Health systems, while being effective in promoting CDS tools, may need to provide further assistance to their affiliated ambulatory clinics to overcome barriers, especially the requirement to redesign workflow. Rural clinics may need more resources for training.

A report card on provider report cards: current status of the health care transparency movement.

BACKGROUND: Public reporting of provider performance can assist consumers in their choice of providers and stimulate providers to improve quality. Reporting of quality measures is supported by advocates of health care reform across the political spectrum. OBJECTIVE: To assess the availability, credibility and applicability of existing public reports of hospital and physician quality, with comparisons across geographic areas. APPROACH: Information pertaining to 263 public reports in 21 geographic areas was collected through reviews of websites and telephone and in-person interviews, and used to construct indicators of public reporting status. Interview data collected in 14 of these areas were used to assess recent changes in reporting and their implications. PARTICIPANTS: Interviewees included staff of state and local associations, health plan representatives and leaders of local health care alliances. RESULTS: There were more reports of hospital performance (161) than of physician performance (103) in the study areas. More reports included measures derived from claims data (mean, 7.2 hospital reports and 3.3 physician reports per area) than from medical records data. Typically, reports on physician performance contained measures of chronic illness treatment constructed at the medical group level, with diabetes measures the most common (mean number per non-health plan report, 2.3). Patient experience measures were available in more hospital reports (mean number of reports, 1.2) than physician reports (mean, 0.7). Despite the availability of national hospital reports and reports sponsored by national health plans, from a consumer standpoint the status of public reporting depended greatly on where one lived and health plan membership. CONCLUSIONS: Current public reports, and especially reports of physician quality of care, have significant limitations from both consumer and provider perspectives. The present approach to reporting is being challenged by the development of new information sources for consumers, and consumer and provider demands for more current information.

Tests, surgical masks, hospital beds, and ventilators: add big data to the list of tools to fight the coronavirus that are in short supply.

Big data could help identify potential clues about the immediate (and future) impact of coronavirus disease 2019, but it is in short supply.

Are health systems redesigning how health care is delivered?

OBJECTIVE: To explore why and how health systems are engaging in care delivery redesign (CDR)-defined as the variety of tools and organizational change processes health systems use to pursue the Triple Aim. STUDY SETTING: A purposive sample of 24 health systems across 4 states as part of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Comparative Health System Performance Initiative. STUDY DESIGN: An exploratory qualitative study design to gain an "on the ground" understanding of health systems' motivations for, and approaches to, CDR, with the goals of identifying key dimensions of CDR, and gauging the depth of change that is possible based on the particular approaches to redesign care being adopted by the health systems. DATA COLLECTION: Semi-structured telephone interviews with health system executives and physician organization leaders from 24 health systems (n = 162). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identify and define 13 CDR activities and find that the health systems' efforts are varied in terms of both the combination of activities they are engaging in and the depth of innovation within each activity. Health system executives who report strong internal motivation for their CDR efforts describe more confidence in their approach to CDR than those who report strong external motivation. Health system leaders face uncertainty when implementing CDR due to a limited evidence base and because of the slower than expected pace of payment change. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to validly and reliably measure CDR activities-particularly across varying organizational contexts and markets-is currently limited but is key to better understanding CDR's impact on intended outcomes, which is important for guiding both health system decision making and policy making.

Understanding how health systems facilitate primary care redesign.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how health systems are facilitating primary care redesign (PCR), examine the PCR initiatives taking place within systems, and identify barriers to this work. STUDY SETTING: A purposive sample of 24 health systems in 4 states. STUDY DESIGN: Data were systematically reviewed to identify how system leaders define and implement initiatives to redesign primary care delivery and identify challenges. Researchers applied codes which were based on the theoretical PCR literature and created new codes to capture emerging themes. Investigators analyzed coded data then produced and applied a thematic analysis to examine how health systems facilitate PCR. DATA COLLECTION: Semi-structured telephone interviews with 162 system executives and physician organization leaders from 24 systems. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Leaders at all 24 health systems described initiatives to redesign the delivery of primary care, but many were in the early stages. Respondents described the use of centralized health system resources to facilitate PCR initiatives, such as regionalized care coordinators, and integrated electronic health records. Team-based care, population management, and care coordination were the most commonly described initiatives to transform primary care delivery. Respondents most often cited improving efficiency and enhancing clinician job satisfaction, as motivating factors for team-based care. Changes in payment and risk assumption as well as community needs were commonly cited motivators for population health management and care coordination. Return on investment and the slower than anticipated rate in moving from fee-for-service to value-based payment were noted by multiple respondents as challenges health systems face in redesigning primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Given their expanding role in health care and the potential to leverage resources, health systems are promising entities to promote the advancement of PCR. Systems demonstrate interest and engagement in this work but face significant challenges in getting to scale until payment models are in alignment with these efforts.

The importance of understanding and measuring health system structural, functional, and clinical integration.

OBJECTIVE: We explore if there are ways to characterize health systems-not already revealed by secondary data-that could provide new insights into differences in health system performance. We sought to collect rich qualitative data to reveal whether and to what extent health systems vary in important ways across dimensions of structural, functional, and clinical integration. DATA SOURCES: Interviews with 162 c-suite executives of 24 health systems in four states conducted through "virtual" site visits between 2017 and 2019. STUDY DESIGN: Exploratory study using thematic comparative analysis to describe factors that may lead to high performance. DATA COLLECTION: We used maximum variation sampling to achieve diversity in size and performance. We conducted, transcribed, coded, and analyzed in-depth, semi-structured interviews with system executives, covering such topics as market context, health system origin, organizational structure, governance features, and relationship of health system to affiliated hospitals and POs. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Health systems vary widely in size and ownership type, complexity of organization and governance arrangements, and ability to take on risk. Structural, functional, and clinical integration vary across systems, with considerable activity around centralizing business functions, aligning financial incentives with physicians, establishing enterprise-wide EHR, and moving toward single signatory contracting. Executives describe clinical integration as more difficult to achieve, but essential. Studies that treat "health system" as a binary variable may be inappropriately aggregating for analysis health systems of very different types, at different degrees of maturity, and at different stages of structural, functional, and clinical integration. As a result, a "signal" indicating performance may be distorted by the "noise." CONCLUSIONS: Developing ways to account for the complex structures of today's health systems can enhance future efforts to study systems as complex organizations, to assess their performance, and to better understand the effects of payment innovation, care redesign, and other reforms.

Landscape of Health Systems in the United States.

Despite the prevalence of vertical integration, data and research focused on identifying and describing health systems are sparse. Until recently, we lacked an enumeration of health systems and an understanding of how systems vary by key structural attributes. To fill this gap, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed the Compendium of U.S. Health Systems, a data resource to support research on comparative health system performance. In this article, we describe the methods used to create the Compendium and present a picture of vertical integration in the United States. We identified 626 health systems in 2016, which accounted for 70% of nonfederal general acute care hospitals. These systems varied by key structural attributes, including size, ownership, and geographic presence. The Compendium can be used to study the characteristics of the U.S. health care system and address policy issues related to provider organizations.

Why Do So Few Consumers Use Health Care Quality Report Cards? A Framework for Understanding the Limited Consumer Impact of Comparative Quality Information.

Despite growing investment in producing and releasing comparative provider quality information (CQI), consumer use of CQI has remained poor. We offer a framework to interpret and synthesize the existing literature's diverse approaches to explaining the CQI's low appeal for consumers. Our framework cautions CQI stakeholders against forming unrealistic expectations of pervasive consumer use and suggests that they focus their efforts more narrowly on consumers who may find CQI more salient for choosing providers. We review the consumer impact of stakeholder efforts to apply the burgeoning knowledge of consumers' cognitive limitations to the design and dissemination of the new generation of report cards; we conclude that while it is too limited to draw firm conclusions, early evidence suggests consumers are responding to the novel design and dissemination strategies. We find that consumers continue to have difficulty accessing reliable report cards, while the media remains underused in the dissemination of report cards.

Opioid misuse, labor market outcomes, and means-tested public expenditures: a conceptual framework.

As the opioid epidemic has drawn increased attention, many researchers are attempting to estimate the financial burden of opioid misuse. These estimates have become particularly relevant as state and local governments have begun to take legal action against pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors, and others who are identified as being potentially responsible for the worsening epidemic. An important category of costs includes those related to the effect of opioid misuse on labor market outcomes and productivity. Most published estimates of opioid-attributable productivity losses estimate the financial burden borne by society, failing to distinguish between costs internalized by individuals and those that spill over to third parties, such as state and federal governments. This article provides an overview and a conceptual framework for 2 types of labor market-related costs borne by state and federal governments that typically have not been incorporated into existing estimates, which may represent important categories of expenditures. Because detailed estimates of lost tax revenue are available elsewhere, this article focuses largely on whether, and how, to incorporate opioid-related expenses incurred by means-tested government programs into more general estimates of the economic harm created by the opioid epidemic.

Hospital responses to the leapfrog group in local markets.

The Leapfrog (LF) initiative, directed at improving patient safety in hospitals, may be the most ambitious, coordinated attempt to date on the part of large employers to shape the delivery of health care in America. This article assesses the role of market conditions and other factors in influencing hospital responses to LF activities at the community level. Community characteristics were found to be important in explaining hospital participation in a LF safety standards survey at the study sites. However, characteristics of the individual hospitals, and of the LF goals themselves, were more important in explaining the relatively limited progress by hospitals across all sites in achieving those goals over a 5-year period.

Creating Unidimensional Global Measures of Physician Practice Quality Based on Health Insurance Claims Data.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the extent to which commonly used claims-based process quality indicators can be used to create an internally valid global composite measure of physician practice quality. DATA SOURCES: Health insurance claims data (October 2007-May 2010) from 134 physician practices in Seattle, WA. STUDY DESIGN: We use confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis to develop theory- and empirically driven internally valid composite measures based on 19 quality indicators. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Health insurance claims data from nine insurance companies and self-funded employers were collected and aggregated by third-party organization. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our results did not support a single global measure using the entire set of quality indicators. We did identify an acceptable multidimensional model (RMSEA = 0.059; CFI = 0.934; TLI = 0.910). The four dimensions in our data were diabetes, depression, preventive care, and generic drug prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that commonly used process indicators can be used to create a small set of useful composite measures. However, the lack of an internally valid single unidimensional global measure has important implications for policy approaches meant to improve quality by rewarding "high-quality physicians."

Is Anyone Paying Attention to Physician Report Cards? The Impact of Increased Availability on Consumers' Awareness and Use of Physician Quality Information.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the release of health care report cards focused on physician practice quality measures leads to changes in consumers' awareness and use of this information. PRIMARY DATA SOURCES: Data from two rounds of a survey of the chronically ill adult population conducted in 14 regions across the United States, combined with longitudinal information from a public reporting tracking database. Both data were collected as part of the evaluation for Aligning Forces for Quality, a nationwide quality improvement initiative funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. STUDY DESIGN: Using a longitudinal design and an individual-level fixed effects modeling approach, we estimated the impact of community public reporting efforts, measured by the availability and applicability of physician quality reports, on consumers' awareness and use of physician quality information (PQI). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The baseline level of awareness was 12.6 percent in our study sample, drawn from the general population of chronically ill adults. Among those who were not aware of PQI at the baseline, when PQI became available in their communities for the first time, along with quality measures that are applicable to their specific chronic conditions, the likelihood of PQI awareness increased by 3.8 percentage points. For the same group, we also find similar increases in the uses of PQI linked to newly available physician report cards, although the magnitudes are smaller, between 2 and 3 percentage points. CONCLUSIONS: Specific contents of physician report cards can be an important factor in consumers' awareness and use of PQI. Policies to improve awareness and use of PQI may consider how to customize quality report cards and target specific groups of consumers in dissemination.

Market and plan characteristics related to HMO quality and improvement.

Existing research on health plan performance examines whether variation in plans' scores is related to enrollee and health plan traits, primarily using cross-sectional research designs. This study extends that literature by incorporating data on market characteristics using a longitudinal framework. We estimate multivariate growth models that relate plan performance on standard measures to market and HMO characteristics using an unbalanced panel of data for 1998 to 2002. We find that HMO competition is not associated with better performance or greater rates of improvement in performance on the HEDIS chronic care measures. HMO penetration, on the other hand, is positively associated with HEDIS performance in several of the chronic care process-and-outcomes measures but not with a greater rate of improvement through time. Our analysis indicates that a significant percentage of the unexplained variation in quality improvement is because of permanent, unobserved plan-level characteristics that future research should strive to identify.

Competition in health insurance markets: limitations of current measures for policy analysis.

Health care reform proposals often rely on increased competition in health insurance markets to drive improved performance in health care costs, access, and quality. We examine a range of data issues related to the measures of health insurance competition used in empirical studies published from 1994-2004. The literature relies exclusively on market structure and penetration variables to measure competition. While these measures are correlated, the degree of correlation is modest, suggesting that choice of measure could influence empirical results. Moreover, certain measurement issues such as the lack of data on PPO enrollment, the treatment of small firms, and omitted market characteristics also could affect the conclusions in empirical studies. Importantly, other types of measures related to competition (e.g., the availability of information on price and outcomes, degree of entry barriers, etc.) are important from both a theoretical and policy perspective, but their impact on market outcomes has not been widely studied.

The role of disease management in pay-for-performance programs for improving the care of chronically ill patients.

To date, pay-for-performance programs targeting the care of persons with chronic conditions have primarily been directed at physicians and provide an alternative to health plan-sponsored chronic disease management (DM) programs. Both approaches require similar infrastructure, and each has its own advantages and disadvantages for program implementation. Pay-for-performance programs use incentives based on patient outcomes; however, an alternative system might incorporate measures of structure and process. Using a conceptual framework, the authors explore the variation in 50 diabetes DM programs using data from the 2002 National Business Coalition on Health's eValue8 Request for Information (RFI). The authors raise issues relevant to the assignment of accountability for patient outcomes to either health plans or physicians. They analyze the association between RFI scores measuring structures and processes, and HEDIS diabetes intermediate outcome measures. Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of using the RFI scores as an alternative metric for pay-for-performance programs are discussed.

Reporting provider performance: what can be learned from the experience of multi-stakeholder community coalitions?

OBJECTIVES: This analysis assessed the evolution of public reporting of provider performance in Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) alliances, contrasted alliances that stopped reporting with those that plan to continue, and drew insights from alliance public reporting efforts for the national transparency movement. METHODS: Combined with document review, qualitative research methods were used to analyze interview data collected, over a nearly 10-year period, from the 16 participating alliances. RESULTS: AF4Q alliances made their greatest contributions to provider transparency in reporting ambulatory quality and patient experience measures. However, reporting ambulatory cost/efficiency/utilization measures was more challenging for alliances. Alliances contributed the least with respect to measures of inpatient performance. Six alliances ceased reporting at the end of the AF4Q program because of their inability to develop stable funding sources and overcome stakeholder skepticism about the value of public reporting. Insights provided by alliance leaders included the need to: focus on provider, rather than consumer, responses to public reports as the most likely avenue for improving quality; address the challenge of funding the reporting infrastructure from the beginning; explore collaborations with other entities to increase public reporting efficiency; and develop a strategy for responding to efforts at the national level to increase the availability of information on provider performance. CONCLUSION: The AF4Q initiative demonstrated that a wide variety of voluntary stakeholder coalitions could develop public reports with financial and technical support. However, the contents of these reports varied considerably, reflecting differences in local environments and alliance strategies. The challenges faced by alliances to maintain their reporting efforts were substantial, and not all alliances chose to report. Nevertheless, there are potential roles for alliances going forward in contributing to the national transparency movement.