Washington State Community Cancer Care Report: Implications for value-based purchasing.

Abstract

104 Background: As quality reports are released for regions and individual clinics, an important question is whether those reports can be used for value based purchasing, particularly for community oncology clinics. We evaluated the reliability of select quality measures and estimated the likelihood that a clinic’s performance would be incorrectly categorized (misclassified) in the top quartile. Methods: We linked 2014-2016 cancer registry records for patients with enrollment and claims from Medicare and two major commercial insurers in Washington State. We calculated risk standardized rates (RSRs) for ED and hospital use during treatment and 3 quality measures for end of life care. Reliability (0-1 scale: 0-unreliabile, > 0.7 good reliability, 1 perfectly reliable) was calculated as signal/(signal + statistical noise) from hierarchical logistic regression modeling for each metric. Misclassification was characterized as the probability of false negative and false positive assignment of clinics to the top quartile of performers in the region. We generated results for 3 and 1 year performance periods. Results: Over the 3 year period, the hospitalization metrics included 7,373 patients, 25 clinics; end of life metrics included 8,165 patients; 24 clinics. Conclusions: Although these metrics had fairly high levels of reliability, approximately one-third of clinics could be incorrectly identified as a top quartile performer. Use of these metrics in value based purchasing should account for potential misclassification to minimize unintended consequences.[Table: see text]