Lessons from Reporting National Performance Measures in a Regional Setting: Washington State Community Cancer Care Report.

Abstract

105 Background: While many quality metrics are generated and reported at a national level, regionally reported metrics may be more meaningful to stakeholders and more amenable to locally-generated interventions aimed at improving quality. We present the lessons learned from adapting national performance reporting standards to our regional setting. Methods: We linked 2014-2016 Washington State cancer registry records with Medicare and commercial insurance claims, capturing about 70% of the state’s cancer patients. A consortium of payers, oncology providers, and patients selected metrics from national initiatives (QOPI, MACRA, OCM, and the Choosing Wisely Campaign). We then searched the National Quality Forum and the National Quality Measures Clearinghouse for published specifications on those metrics. If none were available or there was a lack of consensus, we constructed algorithms with clinical and technical expert review. We calculated clinic-level risk standardized rates (RSRs) using hierarchical regression modeling to adjust for variation in clinic size and constructed quality composites. Results: We generated 13 quality metrics for 36,900 cancer patients cared for at 27 clinics. Our adaptation of national performance measures and implications include: 1) Many treatment process measures had too few numbers to individually report annually requiring us to group quality metrics and cancer types, and report over a three year period. 2) Although we were able to include tumor characteristics (e.g. AJCC stage) from registry records, risk adjustment was challenged by limitations in the number of risk adjustors due to the smaller number of patients. 3) After applying the hierarchical models, risk adjustment had minimal effect on clinic rankings. 4) The small number of clinics and limited range of clinic RSRs were more accurately captured by a quality composite that reflected clinic level differences to the regional average rather than national quintile groupings. Conclusions: Refinement of national metrics is necessary for public reporting in a regional setting. Further methodological development is critical for robust reporting and applications to value based purchasing.