Search results

Report cards, performance evaluations, and quality assessments continue to penetrate the lexicon of the healthcare sector. The value of report cards is typically couched as enhancing consumerism among patients, increasing accountability among healthcare providers, and more broadly increasing the transparency of healthcare information. This paper discusses the potential benefits and pitfalls of these performance assessments.

This paper briefly reviews empirical evidence regarding the impact of report cards for healthcare providers and synthesizes the role and limitations of these performance measures into distinct evaluation criteria. The rapid proliferation of report cards for healthcare providers suggests a growing need to develop mechanisms and tools to evaluate their impact. The risks associated with utilizing report cards for provider oversight include the deleterious impact on vulnerable populations and a failure to accurately measure quality of care. The capacity to create report cards should not be the sole criterion to develop and utilize report cards to evaluate healthcare providers. Rather, careful consideration of the benefits and risks should accompany the implementation and utilization of report cards into regulatory processes. This report proposes an evaluation checklist by which to assess the role of report cards in a given healthcare context.

Public reports of provider-specific patient outcomes aim to help consumers select suppliers of medical services. Yet, in an environment of rapidly changing medical technology and increasingly heterogeneous patient populations, and because they necessarily reflect the experience of other patients who received care in the past, such reports may be of limited value in helping patients forecast the probability of an adverse outcome for each provider they are considering. I propose that providers underwrite insurance policies that promptly pay patients a predetermined sum after an adverse outcome. Patients can use such outcome warranties to infer quality differences among providers easily and reliably. In addition, outcome warranties efficiently reward both providers and patients for reducing the risk of adverse outcomes and thereby improve the safety and affordability of health care. As such, outcome warranties help advance four important goals of health care management: reduction of financial risk, recruitment and retention of physicians, remediation of adverse outcomes, and raising the provider's reputation.

Purpose – The numbers of health care transparency initiatives are increasing. Despite the growing availability of quality data, there seems to be a shortage of evidence about the effects and effectiveness of such initiatives. The aim of this systematic review is to document the effects of transparency, defined as the public release of quality performance data, on hospital care outcomes.

Design/methodology/approach – Through a review of the literature, we chose 46 keywords to use in our searches and focused on empirical studies published in English between 2010 and 2015. The use of combinations of these keywords in searches of four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) generated 13,849 publications. The removal of duplicates and exclusion of studies that were not empirical or not relevant to transparency and quality resulted in 39 studies to be reviewed.

Findings – Our review of the literature confirmed the growth of health care transparency efforts, led by the United States, and found mixed results regarding the effects of transparency on hospital care outcomes. For example, mortality, the most frequently researched performance measure (n = 15), exhibited this mixed pattern by having studies showing a reduction (n = 4), increase (n = 1), mixed findings (n = 4), and no significant relationship (n = 6) as a result of public release. We also found a limited number of articles related to unintended consequences of public reporting. When compared with earlier systematic reviews, there seems to be a trend in the reduction of unintended consequences. Therefore, we recommend exploration of this potential trend in future studies empirically.

Practical Implications – The research findings summarized in this systematic review can be used to understand the results of existing transparency efforts and to develop future transparency initiatives that may better enhance hospital quality performance.

Originality/value – This is the latest and most comprehensive systematic review summarizing the effects of transparency of quality metrics on hospital care outcomes.

The purpose of this chapter is to communicate an innovative approach for public transit agencies to best balance ever growing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit ridership and decreasing budgets.

A variety of best practices from Medical Transportation Management, Inc. (MTM)’s current paratransit brokerage operations and historical nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) operations are discussed, along with recommendations from nationally recognized organizations.

The paratransit brokerage model can help public transit agencies contain paratransit service costs and remove community barriers for passengers through the use of nondedicated vehicle fleets.

This chapter offers practical solutions to public transit agencies interested in exploring new paratransit management methods.

Consumer‐driven health care (CDHC) has been proposed to reduce the USA health care costs through greater free market economic exposure. The purpose of this paper is to review the USA health care system, insurance plans, and CDHC plan elements and assumptions regarding patients, service providers, and insurers, in order to identify research and social marketing needs of CDHC.

The paper is an assessment of literature from academic and practitioner communities.

Social marketing programs can contribute to preparing consumers and practitioners for CDHC. However, the degree to which CDHC can reduce health care costs is uncertain. More research is needed comparing CDHC plans with traditional plans and comparing CDHC enrollees with enrollees in other types of plans to determine the true benefits and costs of CDHC and to identify consumers' information needs. Research is needed into how to gather and provide understandable health care provider quality and cost‐effectiveness information, and into how current insurers can help consumers make effective CDHC decisions. Research is needed as to how CDHC is perceived by consumers, providers, and insurers, and the use of CDHC reimbursement accounts and their effect on behavior and costs. Research is also needed into which decisions can be made by consumers without specialized professional knowledge. Provider research is needed into outcome risk adjustments, how practitioners view CDHC, how willing practitioners are to participate in a more open‐free market, and how CDHC may affect professional practices.

Insights gained from this paper can contribute to social marketing program designs needed for practitioner and consumer acceptance and effective use of CDHC.

There is a widespread push by government and private payers to make the prices of health care services more transparent to consumers. The main goal is to promote more effective consumer shopping; secondary goals include promoting provider competition and reducing pricing variation. There are several headwinds opposing these efforts. One problem is that there may be several valid reasons for why price variations persist. Another is that provider (and other health care) markets are not very competitive, and sometimes widespread information about prices may make them even less so. A third is that price discrimination may be economically efficient. Any analysis of price transparency must take the specific market setting into account. This chapter analyzes markets characterized by monopolistic, oligopolistic, and competitive conditions to determine when and under what economic and managerial circumstances price transparency will be useful.

Developing a performance measure and reporting the results to support decision making at an individual level has yielded poor results in many health systems. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the factors associated with the dissemination of performance information that generate and support continuous improvement in health organizations.

A systematic data collection strategy that includes empirical and theoretical research published from 1980 to 2010, both qualitative and quantitative, was performed on Web of Science, Current Contents, EMBASE and MEDLINE. A narrative synthesis method was used to iteratively detail explicative processes that underlie the intervention. A classification and synthesis framework was developed, drawing on knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) literature. The sample consisted of 114 articles, including seven systematic or exhaustive reviews.

Results showed that dissemination in itself is not enough to produce improvement initiatives. Successful dissemination depends on various factors, which influence the way collective actors react to performance information such as the clarity of objectives, the relationships between stakeholders, the system's governance and the available incentives.

This review was limited to the process of knowledge dissemination in health systems and its utilization by users at the health organization level. Issues related to improvement initiatives deserve more attention.

Knowledge dissemination goes beyond better communication and should be considered as carefully as the measurement of performance. Choices pertaining to intervention should be continuously prompted by the concern to support organizational action.

While considerable attention was paid to the public reporting of performance information, this review sheds some light on a more promising avenue for changes and improvements, notably in public health systems.

Purpose – To develop a framework for studying financial incentive program implementation mechanisms, the means by which physician practices and physicians translate incentive program goals into their specific office setting. Understanding how new financial incentives fit with the structure of physician practices and individual providers’ work may shed some insight on the variable effects of physician incentives documented in numerous reviews and meta-analyses.

Design/Methodology/Approach – Reviewing select articles on pay-for-performance evaluations to identify and characterize the presence of implementation mechanisms for designing, communicating, implementing, and maintaining financial incentive programs as well as recognizing participants’ success and effects on patient care.

Findings – Although uncommonly included in evaluations, evidence from 26 articles reveals financial incentive program sponsors and participants utilized a variety of strategies to facilitate communication about program goals and intentions, to provide feedback about participants’ progress, and to assist practices in providing recommended services. Despite diversity in programs’ geographic locations, clinical targets, scope, and market context, sponsors and participants deployed common strategies. While these methods largely pertained to communication between program sponsors and participants and the provision of information about performance through reports and registries, they also included other activities such as efforts to engage patients and ways to change staff roles.

Limitations – This review covers a limited body of research to develop a conceptual framework for future research; it did not exhaustively search for new articles and cannot definitively link particular implementation mechanisms to outcomes.

Practical Implications – Our results underscore the effects implementation mechanisms may have on how practices incorporate new programs into existing systems of care which implicates both the potential rewards from small changes as well as the resources which may be required to obtain buy-in and support.

Originality/Value – We identify gaps in previous research regarding actual changes occurring in physician practices in response to physician incentive programs. We offer suggestions for future evaluation by proposing a framework for understanding implementation. Our model will assist future scholars in translating site-specific experiences with incentive programs into more broadly relevant guidance for practices by facilitating comparisons across seemingly disparate programs.

Physician profiling is the comparison of physician practice patterns to determine the existence and effects of significant differences in outcomes. To optimize care quality, these comparisons can be used to influence provider behavior through awareness when outcomes are poor or do not warrant provider expenditures. To maximize the value of such a technique, the underlying bases for comparison and the uses of derived data must be understood. Several factors must be considered or controlled for when determining comparable providers. Additionally, the worth or significance of findings must also be understood. This paper seeks to provide information in these two areas for the benefit of those responsible for managing care at all levels.