Health Plan Quality Research Articles

NCQA Announces Measures To Assess Health Plan Quality

NCQA Announces Measures To Assess Health Plan Quality

The public health implications of asthma.

Asthma is a very common chronic disease that occurs in all age groups and is the focus of various clinical and public health interventions. Both morbidity and mortality from asthma are significant. The number of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost due to asthma worldwide is similar to that for diabetes, liver cirrhosis and schizophrenia. Asthma management plans have, however, reduced mortality and severity in countries where they have been applied. Several barriers reduce the availability, affordability, dissemination and efficacy of optimal asthma management plans in both developed and developing countries. The workplace environment contributes significantly to the general burden of asthma. Patients with occupational asthma have higher rates of hospitalization and mortality than healthy workers. The surveillance of asthma as part of a global WHO programme is essential. The economic cost of asthma is considerable both in terms of direct medical costs (such as hospital admissions and the cost of pharmaceuticals) and indirect medical costs (such as time lost from work and premature death). Direct costs are significant in most countries. In order to reduce costs and improve quality of care, employers and health plans are exploring more precisely targeted ways of controlling rapidly rising health costs. Poor control of asthma symptoms is a major issue that can result in adverse clinical and economic outcomes. A model of asthma costs is needed to aid attempts to reduce them while permitting optimal management of the disease. This paper presents a discussion of the burden of asthma and its socioeconomic implications and proposes a model to predict the costs incurred by the disease.

The Unintended Consequences of Publicly Reporting Quality Information

Health care report cards publicly report information about physician, hospital, and health plan quality in an attempt to improve that quality. Reporting quality information publicly is presumed to motivate quality improvement through 2 main mechanisms. First, public quality information allows patients, referring physicians, and health care purchasers to preferentially select high-quality physicians. Second, public report cards may motivate physicians to compete on quality and, by providing feedback and by identifying areas for quality improvement initiatives, help physicians to do so. Despite these plausible mechanisms of quality improvement, the value of publicly reporting quality information is largely undemonstrated and public reporting may have unintended and negative consequences on health care. These unintended consequences include causing physicians to avoid sick patients in an attempt to improve their quality ranking, encouraging physicians to achieve "target rates" for health care interventions even when it may be inappropriate among some patients, and discounting patient preferences and clinical judgment. Public reporting of quality information promotes a spirit of openness that may be valuable for enhancing trust of the health professions, but its ability to improve health remains undemonstrated, and public reporting may inadvertently reduce, rather than improve, quality. Given these limitations, it may be necessary to reassess the role of public quality reporting in quality improvement.

How patients' sociodemographic characteristics affect comparisons of competing health plans in California on HEDIS(R) quality measures

To estimate effects of patient sociodemographic characteristics on differential performance within and between plans in a single market area on the HEDIS quality of care measures, widely used for purchasing and accreditation decisions in the United States. Using logistic regression, we modeled associations of age, sex, and zip-code-linked sociodemographic characteristics of health plan members with HEDIS measures of screening and preventive services. We calculated the impact of adjusting for these associations on measures of health plan performance. Twenty-two California health plans provided individual-level HEDIS data and zip codes of residence for up to 2 years. 110 541 commercially insured health plan members. Ten HEDIS quality-of-care measures. Performance on quality measures was negatively associated with percent receiving public assistance in the local area (seven out of 10 measures), percent Black (three measures), and percent Hispanic (four measures), and positively associated with percent college educated (six measures), and percent urban (three measures), controlling for plan, while associations with percent Asian were positive for three measures and negative for one (P < 0.05 for six associations, P < 0.01 for four, P < 0.001 for 17). Associations were consistent across plans and over time. Adjustment for these characteristics changed rates for most plans and measures by <5 percentage points. Adjustment for socioeconomic case mix has little impact on the measured performance of most plans in California, but substantially affects a few. The impact of case mix on indicators should be considered when making comparisons of health plan quality.

How robust are health plan quality indicators to data loss? A Monte Carlo simulation study of pediatric asthma treatment.

(1) To test the robustness of a health plan quality indicator (QI) for persistent asthma to various forms of data loss and (2) to assess the implications of the findings for other health plan quality measures. Maryland Medicaid fee-for-service (FFS) claims. Children with asthma (n = 5,804) were selected from Medicaid enrollment records and medical and pharmacy FFS claims filed between June 1996 and December 1997. A variant of a HEDIS measure for treatment of persistent asthma (the percent of asthma patients filling two or more rescue medications who also filled a controller medication) was selected to test the robustness of proportion-based QIs to loss of data. Data loss was simulated through a series of Monte Carlo experiments. Merged FFS medical and prescription claims. The asthma QI measure was highly robust to systematic and random data loss. The measure declined by less than 2 percent in the presence of up to a 35 percent data loss. Redundancy in the numerator of the QI significantly increased the robustness of the measure to data loss. A HEDIS-related QI measure for persistent asthma is robust to data loss. The findings suggest that other proportion-based quality indicators, particularly those in which plan members have multiple opportunities to meet the numerator criterion, are likely to reflect true levels of health plan quality in the face of incomplete data capture.

Out-of-pocket costs and diabetes preventive services: the Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD) study.

Despite the increased shifting of health care costs to consumers, little is known about the impact of financial barriers on health care utilization. This study investigated the effect of out-of-pocket expenditures on the utilization of recommended diabetes preventive services. This was a survey-based observational study (2000-2001) in 10 managed care health plans and 68 provider groups across the U.S. serving approximately 180,000 patients with diabetes. From 11,922 diabetic survey respondents, we studied the occurrence of self-reported annual dilated eye exams and diabetes health education and among insulin users, daily self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Conditional probabilities were estimated for outcomes at each level of self-reported out-of-pocket expenditure by using hierarchical logistic regression models with random intercepts. Conditional probabilities of utilization (95% CI) varied by expenditure for dilated eye exam [no cost 78% (75-82), copay 79% (75-82), and full price 70% (64-75); P < 0.0001]; diabetes health education [no cost 29% (23-36), copay 29% (23-36), and full price 19% (14-25); P < 0.0001]; and daily SMBG [no cost 75% (68-81), copay 68% (60-75), and full price 59% (49-68); P < 0.0001]. Extensive adjustment for patient factors had no discernible effect on the estimates or their significance, and cost-utilization relationships were similar across income levels and other patient characteristics. Benefit packages structured to derive greater fiscal contribution from the health plan membership result in suboptimal use of diabetes preventive services and may thus lead to poorer clinical outcomes, greater future costs, and lower health plan quality ratings.

Public Disclosure of Health Plan Quality of Care

Public Disclosure of Health Plan Quality of Care

Public Disclosure of Health Plan Quality of Care

Public Disclosure of Health Plan Quality of Care

Public Disclosure of Health Plan Quality of Care—Reply

In Reply: Ms Ignagni and Dr Pawlson criticize us for using older HEDIS data. At the time our study was submitted in June 2001, NCQA had released neither HEDIS 2001 nor 2002. Moreover, we doubt that inclusion of more recent data would substantially alter our conclusions.

Public Disclosure of Health Plan Quality of Care

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal

Prescription Data on Youth Raise Important Questions

Prescription Data on Youth Raise Important Questions

Health plan quality-of-care information is undermined by voluntary reporting

Background Most health services in the United States are delivered by managed care organizations (MCOs). Publicly available, plan-specific performance information is required to adequately assess healthcare quality provided. Using women’s health indicators, we compared performance results for MCOs and evaluated whether those MCOs that publicly report quality-of-care (QOC) results demonstrate better QOC than those plans that restrict public access to data. Methods Data from the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) for commercial MCOs in 1998 were analyzed for women’s QOC indicators. Plan-specific, regional, and national performances were analyzed and results compared to established benchmarks. Public-reporting plans were compared to plans that restrict access to QOC information. Linear regression was used to identify determinants of health plan performance including public release of information. Results Commercial MCOs had wide variations in QOC indicators and, on average, failed to attain national health goals for most women’s health indicators analyzed. Plans that restricted public access to QOC information had poorer performance than those that did not ( p<0.05). Results suggest that whether a plan publicly releases its performance information is highly associated with health plan performance even after taking into account other factors. Conclusions The voluntary aspect of reporting and the ability of health plans to restrict public access is allowing poorer performing health plans to escape public scrutiny. Variations in QOC have clinical significance and, if publicly available, would enable individuals to select high-quality healthcare products. The ability of health plans to restrict public information is not consistent with the 1973 Health Maintenance Organization Act requiring public information on health plan quality. A national strategy to ensure that QOC information is available on all healthcare systems is past due.

Dimensions of plan performance for sick and healthy members on the Consumer Assessments of Health Plans Study 2.0 survey.

The quality of health plan care may differ for members in good and poor health. To determine whether reports from sick and healthy members reflect distinct aspects of plan performance. Mean health plan scores were analyzed on the 1998 and 1999 Medicare Managed Care (MMC) Consumer Assessments of Health Plans (CAHPS) surveys, treating responses from sick and healthy members as separate plan measures. Alternative definitions of health were compared and the one that defined groups with the most distinct experiences was selected. Using factor analysis, composites of report items defined for these groups were identified. Mean ratings were regressed on these composites. Two hundred ninety thousand seven hundred thirty-nine Medicare managed care beneficiaries from 381 health plan-reporting units. MMC-CAHPS survey responses, including four overall ratings and 30 specific report items. A question about general health status best defined subgroups with distinct experiences. Report items grouped into eight factors: care for healthy members, care for sick members, finding and communicating with a doctor for sick members, plan customer service, plan-provided medical services and equipment, vaccinations, prescriptions, and smoking cessation advice. Ratings by each subgroup were generally most strongly predicted by reports on care for the same subgroup and by customer service and plan-provided services (for ratings of plan) and access to doctors. Reports from sick and healthy members measure distinct dimensions of health plan quality, especially in the domain of patient care. Distinguishing these dimensions might help in informing consumers and targeting quality improvement efforts.

Differences in Health Care Quality for Children and Adults Under Managed Care: Justification for Separate Quality Assessments?

To assess reported results of health care quality for children and adults in managed systems of care and to determine if variations exist between reported quality results for adults and children within the same plan. We utilized Consumer Assessment of Health Plan Survey results reported from 424 managed care plans to the National Committee for Quality Assurance in 1999. Responses from 218 530 adults (515 per plan, 424 plans) and 55 081 parents of children 0-12 years of age (304 per plan, 181 plans) were available. Restricting analyses to the 178 plans reporting both adult and child results, we performed matched-pairs analyses to test the hypothesis that child results would be the same as their adult counterparts within the same plan. Regression methods were employed to test for potential demographic differences explaining observed differences. Within the same plan, reported results for care provided by specialists and primary care physicians to adults and children in the same plan revealed marked variation, including rating of doctor (Spearman correlation coefficient, r(S) =.504) and rating of specialist (r(S) =.326). Conversely, assessments of activities related directly to health plan activities showed little variation, including rating of health plan (r(S) =.850) and claims processing (r(S) =.857). Differences in demographic characteristics between adults and child survey respondents do not appear to explain observed variations. Separate quality of care assessments for adults and children within the same managed care system identify significant differences in reported quality. Having health plan quality information about adult care does not serve as a proxy for needed information on children, particularly the care related to primary care and specialist providers. Areas of health plan assessment common to both adults and children (eg, claims processing) could be replaced with more targeted assessments of importance to parents and purchasers (eg, children with chronic conditions).

National Committee on Quality Assurance health-plan accreditation: predictors, correlates of performance, and market impact.

Accreditation of health care organizations has traditionally been considered a building block of quality assurance. However, the differences between accredited and nonaccredited health plans and the impact of accreditation on plan enrollment are not well understood. To determine the characteristics of plans that have submitted to accreditation review, the performance of accredited plans on quality indicators and the impact of accreditation on enrollment. The databases containing 1996 data on health plans' National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA) accreditation status, organizational characteristics, Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) scores, and patient-reported quality and satisfaction scores were linked to compare accredited health plans to nonaccredited plans. We also combined longitudinal data sets (1993-1998) on accreditation and health plan enrollment. Mean performance of accredited and nonaccredited plans on HEDIS measures and patient-reported measures of quality; health plan enrollment changes. Accredited plans have higher HEDIS scores but similar or lower performance on patient-reported measures of health plan quality and satisfaction. Furthermore, a substantial number of the plans in the bottom decile of quality performance were accredited suggesting that accreditation does not ensure high quality care. Receipt of accreditation has been associated with increased enrollment in the early years of the accreditation program; however, plans denied NCQA accreditation do not appear to suffer enrollment losses. NCQA accreditation is positively associated with some measures of quality but does not assure a minimal level of performance. Efforts now underway to incorporate plan performance on HEDIS into criteria for accreditation seem warranted.

National quality monitoring of Medicare health plans: the relationship between enrollees' reports and the quality of clinical care.

The clinical quality of health plans varies. The associations between different measures of health plan quality are incompletely understood. To assess the relationships between enrollee reports on the quality of health plans as measured by the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS 2.0) survey and the clinical quality of care measured by the Medicare Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS). Observational cohort study. National sample of 233 Medicare health plans that reported data using the CAHPS 2.0 survey and Medicare HEDIS during 1998. Five composite measures and four ratings derived from the CAHPS survey and six measures of clinical quality from Medicare HEDIS. Two composite measures ("getting needed care" and "health plan information and customer service") were significantly associated with most of the HEDIS clinical quality measures. The proportion of enrollees having a personal doctor was also significantly associated with rates of mammography, eye exams for diabetics, beta-blocker use after myocardial infarction, and follow-up after mental health hospitalization. Enrollees' ratings of health plan care were less consistently associated with HEDIS performance. In multivariable analyses, the measure of health plan communication ("health plan information and customer service") was the most consistent predictor of HEDIS performance. The pattern of associations we observed among some of the measures suggests that the CAHPS survey and HEDIS are complementary quality monitoring strategies. Our results suggest that health plans that provide better access and customer service also provide better clinical care.

To help or hinder: Which is more important in explaining a physician's willingness to recommend a health plan?

To examine how specific health plan practices contribute to physicians' willingness to recommend a health plan to a patient, and whether the relative importance of plan practices is viewed differently when patients are seriously ill. The Physician's Evaluation of Health Plans Project has surveyed 1,757 generalist physicians in 16 health plans in 5 areas nationwide. Each physician reported on one plan. Three multi-item scales assessed physicians' perceptions of health plan activities that facilitated or impeded high-quality care in the plans and the clinical capabilities of plan physicians. Regression analyses were used to explore relations between facilitators, barriers, and clinical capabilities, and two global physician judgments (the physician's willingness to recommend a plan and their judgment that a plan provided lower quality for sicker patients). A physician's willingness to recommend a health plan is more highly related to what plans do to facilitate care than to the barriers created by plans in managing care. However, barriers to care were substantially more important when evaluating health plan quality for sicker patients. From the physician's perspective, the relative importance of plan strategies to manage care is different for typical patients and patients who are more seriously ill. Efforts to collect information on health plan quality should separately evaluate care for sicker patients, in addition to evaluating the overall performance of the health plan.

Assessing health system provision of adolescent preventive services: the Young Adult Health Care Survey.

Adolescents often do not receive recommended preventive counseling and screening services. Few measures are available to assess health care system performance in this area. Develop a reliable, valid, and feasible method for measuring adherence to consensus guidelines for adolescent preventive counseling and screening services. The 45-item Young Adult Health Care Survey (YAHCS) was tested with a diverse group of commercially and publicly insured adolescents enrolled in managed care organizations (n = 4,060). Psychometric, bivariate, and multivariate analyses were conducted to assess the reliability, validity, and patterns of variation in the preventive care measurement scales derived from the YAHCS. YAHCS measurement scales demonstrated strong construct validity (mean factor loading = 0.64) and reliability (mean Cronbach's alpha = 0.77). Average preventive counseling and screening scores ranged from 18.2% for discussing risky behavior topics to 50.4% for discussing diet, weight, and exercise topics. Adolescent demographic, health care use, and payer factors explained a small amount of variation across adolescent scores on YACHS scales (mean R2 = 0.086). Females and older teens were more likely to report private time with providers and counseling and screening on topics related to sex. Overall, the odds of receiving preventive counseling and screening for adolescents who reported having private time with providers, engaging in risky behaviors, or both were higher than for adolescents who did not meet privately or report risky behaviors (private visit OR, 3.60; 95% CI, 2.91-4.47; risky behaviors OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.62-2.52). The YAHCS provides a feasible, reliable, and valid method for assessing adherence to adolescent preventive services guidelines. It differentiates among varied aspects of preventive care provided to adolescents and is promising as a potential measure of health plan and provider quality. Improved performance on the YAHCS would indicate progress toward the achievement of Healthy People 2010 goals.

Consumer reports in health care: do they make a difference?

The public release of health care-quality data into more formalized consumer health report cards is intended to educate consumers, improve quality of care, and increase competition in the marketplace The purpose of this review is to evaluate the evidence on the impact of consumer report cards on the behavior of consumers, providers, and purchasers. Studies were selected by conducting database searches in Medline and Healthstar to identify papers published since 1995 in peer-review journals pertaining to consumer report cards on health care. The evidence indicates that consumer report cards do not make a difference in decision making, improvement of quality, or competition. The research to date suggests that perhaps we need to rethink the entire endeavor of consumer report cards. Consumers desire information that is provider specific and may be more likely to use information on rates of errors and adverse outcomes. Purchasers may be in a better position to understand and use information about health plan quality to select high-quality plans to offer consumers and to design premium contributions to steer consumers, through price, to the highest-quality plans.

Measuring the physician perspective on quality of care in health plans.

Physicians provide one source of information about the quality of care in health plans, but concerns exist that physicians cannot distinguish quality from financial considerations or other underlying attitudes. We examined whether physicians can (a) distinguish different domains of health plan quality and (b) distinguish health plan quality from their underlying attitudes. We analyzed data on 419 generalist physicians from four health plans. Three scales assessed physicians' perceptions of facilitators and barriers to high-quality care in the plans and the clinical capabilities of plan physicians. Structural equation modeling indicated that physicians could distinguish domains of health plan quality. Physicians could also distinguish plan quality from their attitudes toward the plan, but plan quality was more highly correlated with general managed care attitudes than expected. These data suggest that physicians can provide information about health plan quality, but it will be important to validate these measures against patient outcomes.