Public reporting and the evolution of diabetes quality

  • Jeffrey S. McCulloughEmail author
  • Daniel J. Crespin
  • Jean M. Abraham
  • Jon B. Christianson
  • Michael Finch
Short Paper


We address three questions related to public reports of diabetes quality. First, does clinic quality evolve over time? Second, does the quality of reporting clinics converge to a common standard? Third, how persistent are provider quality rankings across time? Since current methods of public reporting rely on historic data, measures of clinic quality are most informative if relative clinic performance is persistent across time. We use data from the Minnesota Community Measurement spanning 2007–2012. We employ seemingly-unrelated regression to measure quality improvement conditional upon cohort effects and changes in quality metrics. Basic autoregressive models are used to measure quality persistence. There were striking differences in initial quality across cohorts of clinics and early-reporting cohorts maintained higher quality in all years. This suggests that consumers can infer, on average, that non-reporting clinics have poorer quality than reporting clinics. Average quality, however, improves slowly in all cohorts and quality dispersion declines over time both within and across cohorts. Relative clinic quality is highly persistent year-to-year, suggesting that publicly-reported measures can inform consumers in choice of clinics, even though they represent measured quality for a previous time period. Finally, definition changes in measures can make it difficult to draw appropriate inferences from longitudinal public reports data.


Public reporting Quality measurement Diabetes  Longitudinal analysis 

JEL Classification

I11 I18 C22 



We gratefully acknowledge the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for funding this research through the Aligning Forces for Quality Evaluation Project. We also thank Minnesota Community Measurement for the use of their data and comments regarding our research.


  1. Christianson, J. B., Volmar, K., Alexander, J., & Scanlon, D. P. (2010). A report card on provider report cards: Current status of the health care transparency movement. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25(11), 1235–1241.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. De Brantes, F., Bailey, E., DiLorenzo, J., & Moses, M. (2013). State report card on transparency of physician quality information. Issue Brief. Health Care Incentives (HCI) Improvement Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Dranove, D., Kessler, D., McClellan, M., & Satterthwaite, M. (2003). Is more information better? The effects of report cards on cardiovascular providers and consumers. Journal of Political Economy, 111(3), 555–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Higgins, A., Veselovsky, G., & McKnown, L. (2013). Provider performance measures in private and public programs: Achieving meaningful alignment with flexibility to innovate. Health Affairs, 32(8), 1453–1461.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Jin, G. Z. (2005). Competition and disclosure incentives: An empirical study of HMOs. The RAND Journal of Economics, 36(1), 93–112.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Jung, K. (2010). Incentives for voluntary disclosure of quality information in HMO markets. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 77(1), 183–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Minnesota Community Measurement. (2009). Minnesota HealthScoresSM. Retrieved February 10, 2009, from
  8. O’Connor, P., Bodkin, N., Fradkin, J., Glasgow, R., Greenfield, S., et al. (2011). Consensus report: Diabetes performance measures: Current status and future directions. Clinical Diabetes, 29(3), 102–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Panzer, R., Gitomer, R., Greene, W., Webster, P., Landry, K., & Riccobono, C. (2013). Increasing demands for quality measurement. Journal of the American Medical Association, 310(18), 1971–1980.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Roski, J., & Kim, K. (2010). Current efforts of regional and national performance measurement initiatives around the United States. American Journal of Medical Quality, 25(4), 249–254.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Wang, J., Hockenberry, J., Chou, S., & Yang, M. (2011). Do bad report cards have consequences? Impacts of publicly reported provider quality information on the CABG market in Pennsylvania. Journal of Health Economics, 30(2), 392–407.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Wholey, D. R., Christianson, J. B., Sanchez, S. M., Feldman, R., & Peterson. M. (1992). The voluntary dissemination of performance information by health care organizations. In R. M. Scheffler & L. F. Rossiter (Eds.), Advances in health economics and health services research (Vol. 13, pp. 1–26).Google Scholar
  13. Young, G. (2012). Multistakeholder regional collaboratives have been key drivers of public reporting, but now face challenges. Health Affairs, 31(3), 578–584.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey S. McCullough
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniel J. Crespin
    • 1
  • Jean M. Abraham
    • 1
  • Jon B. Christianson
    • 1
  • Michael Finch
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Health Policy and Management, School of Public HealthUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Finch & KingMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations