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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
National Committee for Quality Assurance. HEDIS 2002, Volume 2: Technical Specifications. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance; 2002.
Beaulieu ND. Quality information and consumer health plant choices. J Health Econ. 2002;21:43–63.
Berenson RA. Beyond competition. Health Aff. 1997;16(3):171–180.
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.
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.
Berenson RA. Bringing collaboration into the market paradigm. Health Aff. 1998;17(6): 128–137.
Blumenthal D. The effects of market reforms on doctors and their patients. Health Aff. 1996;15(2):170–184.
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.
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.
Brodsky KL, Barons RJ. A best practices strategy to improve quality in Medicaid managed care plans. J Urban Health. 2000;77:592–602.
The Medstat Group. Available at: www.medstat.com. Date accessed: February 28, 2002.
Schoenbaum SC, Coltin KL. Competition on quality in managed care. Int J Qual Health Care. 1998;10:421–426.
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.
Sorokin R. Alternative explanations for poor report card performance. Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3:25–30.
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.
Robinson JC, Casalino LP. The growth of medical groups paid through capitation in California. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1684–1687.
References
Deming WE. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study; 1986.
References
Newhouse JP. Why Is There a Quality Chasm? Health Aff. 2002;21(4):13–25.
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.
Sennett C. The evolution of NCQA accreditation. Healthplan. 1999;40(2):19–23.
National Committee for Quality Assurance. NCQA State of Managed Care Report 2001. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance, 2001.
Pawlson LG, O'Kane ME. Professionalism, regulation, and the market: impact on accountability for quality of care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2002;21:200–207.
References
Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.
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.
National Committee for Quality Assurance. 2001 the State of Managed Care Quality Report. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance; 2001.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/79.4.617