Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Improving the process through which health plans and providers exchange performance-related mammography data

  • Various Topics
  • Published:
Journal of Urban Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ability of health plans to bring about quality improvement is limited by the fact that physician networks are highly differentiated, with physician groups praticipating in many plans and plans contracting with many physician groups. The primary purpose of our study was to investigate the problems in the current system of quality monitoring by managed-care organizations (MCOs) at a large integrated health care delivery system (Montefiore Medical Center) and to develop ways of addressing these problems through collaboration among MCOs. The project began by mapping the current system for collecting, reporting, and using performance data to improve performance, using breast cancer screening as an example. We found that neither health plans nor providers were satisfied with the current system. From the perspective of the health plans, the current quality monitoring was costly and, more important, was not yielding appreciable increases in screening rates. From the providers' perspective, multiple health plan requests for chart pulls and other data collection activities cost them substantial amounts of time and money and generated multiple mailings of educational materials and reports, but rarely supplied meaningful information about their performance. From the perspective of the hospital, the current procedure of reporting from MCO to provider or center bypassed the institution's own quality monitoring and management structure and thus limited the institution's ability to assist in quality improvement. This study clearly showed the importance of collaboration among plans at a given provider site. Specifically, it pointed to the need for provider-oriented reporting of data, rather than plan-oriented reporting, to give physicians numbers that they believe. It also showed the need to engage the institution's own quality-management system to assist in bringing about improvements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. National Committee for Quality Assurance. HEDIS 2002, Volume 1: Narrative—What's In It and Why It Matters. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  2. National Committee for Quality Assurance. HEDIS 2002, Volume 2: Technical Specifications. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Beaulieu ND. Quality information and consumer health plant choices. J Health Econ. 2002;21:43–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Berenson RA. Beyond competition. Health Aff. 1997;16(3):171–180.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Roohan PJ, Gesten F, Pasley B, Schettine AM. The quality performance matrix: New York State's model for targeting quality improvement in managed care plans. Qual Manage Health Care. 2002;10(2):39–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Beauregard TR, Winston KR. Value-based formulas for purchasing. Employers shift to quality to evaluate and manage their health plans. Managed Care Qual. 1997;5:51–56.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Berenson RA. Bringing collaboration into the market paradigm. Health Aff. 1998;17(6): 128–137.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Blumenthal D. The effects of market reforms on doctors and their patients. Health Aff. 1996;15(2):170–184.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fairbrother G, Friedman S, Butts GC, Cukor J, Tassi A. Problems with quality monitoring for Medicaid managed care: perceptions of institutional and private providers in New York City. J Urban Health. 2000;77:573–591.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Billings J. Managed care in a managed care world. Paper presented at: United Hospital Fund Meeting on Medicaid Managed Care; July 13, 1999;New York, NY.

  11. Brodsky KL, Barons RJ. A best practices strategy to improve quality in Medicaid managed care plans. J Urban Health. 2000;77:592–602.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. The Medstat Group. Available at: www.medstat.com. Date accessed: February 28, 2002.

  13. Schoenbaum SC, Coltin KL. Competition on quality in managed care. Int J Qual Health Care. 1998;10:421–426.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. New York State Department of Health. 1998 Quality Assurance Reporting Requirements: a Report on Managed Care Performance. Albany, NY: New York State Department of Health; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sorokin R. Alternative explanations for poor report card performance. Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3:25–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Scanlon DP, Rolph E, Darby C, Doty HE. Are managed care plans organizing for quality? Med Care Res Rev. 2000;57(suppl 2):9–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Robinson JC, Casalino LP. The growth of medical groups paid through capitation in California. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1684–1687.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Deming WE. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

References

  1. Newhouse JP. Why Is There a Quality Chasm? Health Aff. 2002;21(4):13–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ellwood PM, Enthoven AC, Etheredge L. The Jackson Hole initiatives for a twenty-first century American health care system. Health Econ. 1992;1(3):149–168.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sennett C. The evolution of NCQA accreditation. Healthplan. 1999;40(2):19–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. National Committee for Quality Assurance. NCQA State of Managed Care Report 2001. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Pawlson LG, O'Kane ME. Professionalism, regulation, and the market: impact on accountability for quality of care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2002;21:200–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  2. New York State Department of Health. 2001 New York State Managed Care Plan Performance: a Report on the 2000 Quality Assurance Reporting Requirements. Albany, NY: New York State Department of Health; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  3. National Committee for Quality Assurance. 2001 the State of Managed Care Quality Report. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerry Fairbrother PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fairbrother, G., Luciano, J. & Park, H.L. Improving the process through which health plans and providers exchange performance-related mammography data. J Urban Health 79, 617–637 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/79.4.617

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/79.4.617

Keywords

Navigation