Skip to main content
Log in

Performance Measurement of Disease Management Programs

Examination of Recent Guidelines

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
Disease Management & Health Outcomes

Abstract

After the establishment of an industry trade association and accreditation, standardizing performance measurement is the third critical milestone in the maturation of the disease management (DM) industry. The publication of Standard Outcome Metrics and Evaluation Methodology for Disease Management Programs by American Healthways, a leading DM vendor, in 2003 is the first credible effort at achieving this milestone. This report is the product of collaboration between American Healthways and Johns Hopkins Outcomes Verification Program, along with a conference of almost 150 physicians and other healthcare professionals. It proposes 64 measures across five disease states, seven financial and utilization measures and survey standards for member and provider satisfaction.

This paper presents a framework for developing and evaluating performance measurement standards based on four components or aspects: purpose, perspective, process and products (‘four Ps’). Purpose refers to the reasons and uses for the measurement. Perspective refers to who will use the measures and what the unit of analysis is. Process is how the standards are developed and chosen and includes the use of explicit criteria for selecting measures and standards, representative participation by all constituencies, the use of subject matter experts as consultants, and transparency. Products are the measures and their descriptions and specifications.

With respect to the ‘four Ps’ framework, the American Healthways and Johns Hopkins paper includes a stated purpose, but is unclear with respect to who the intended users would be. Its perspective is primarily of physicians with lesser consideration given to public, DM purchaser and DM program manager stakeholders. The process by which the measures were selected and defined is not described, nor are the roles of the conference participants. No criteria for selecting measures are provided. The product is a reasonably comprehensive set of process and outcome indicators for the five disease states. No rationales for selecting these measures are provided, however, and the methodologies are not always well defined.

There are many models of performance measurement standards and measures available. The performance measurement standards established by the National Committee for Quality Assurance and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations are used as reference programs. These programs have done better at fulfilling the attributes offered in the framework, recognizing that they have developed through well-funded efforts over many years.

The American Healthways and Johns Hopkins paper is a significant accomplishment and an important step in the establishment of measurement standards for DM. Further work needs to be done to achieve standards that will be useful and acceptable across the industry and among all constituents. A broader-based and broader-funded effort with more formalized or well-documented measure selection is needed, as well as testing, validation and dissemination of measures not commonly used in DM settings.

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.

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Multiplying by 12 000 converts the ‘per eligible month’ rate to a ‘per 1000 members per year’ rate (12 000 eligible months per 1000 member years).

  2. Technology in which participants interact with computerized telephone systems to answer questions and communicate needs and opinions.

  3. A project that essentially implements the Agenda for Change by integrating oucomes and performance measurement with hospital accreditation.

References

  1. Definition of Disease Management. Washington, DC: Disease Management Association of America [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dmaa.org/definition.html [Accessed 2004 June 2]

  2. American Healthways Inc., Johns Hopkins. Standard outcome metrics and evaluation methodology for disease management programs. Nashville (TN): American Healthways Inc., 2003 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.americanhealthcorp.com/Pdf/SMoutcomes_FINAL.pdf [Accessed 2003 Dec 22]

    Google Scholar 

  3. Standards for Disease Management. Nashville (TN): American Healthways Inc, 1999 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.americanhealthcorp.com/Pdf/StdBk210c.pdf [Accessed 2004 June 2]

  4. Health divisions establish outcomes verification program. The Gazette Online, Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University [online]. Available from URL: http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2001/jul0901/09health.html [Accessed 2003 Dec 22]

  5. Donabedian A. The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment. Ann Arbor (MI): Health Administration Press, 1980

    Google Scholar 

  6. Donabedian A. The end results of health care: Ernest Codman’s contribution to quality assessment and beyond. Milbank Q 1989; 67(2): 233–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. AHRQ quality indicators. Washington, DC: Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality [online]. Available from URL: http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/ [Accessed 2003 Dec 22]

  8. National Quality Measures Clearinghouse. Washington, DC: Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality [online]. Available from URL: http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/ [Accessed 2003 Dec 22]

  9. National Quality Forum. Washington, DC: National Quality Forum [online]. Available from URL: http://www.qualityforum.org [Accessed 2003 Dec 22]

  10. FAACT — Foundation for Accountability. Portland (OR): Foundation for Accountability [online]. Available from URL: http://www.facct.org/facct/site/facct/facct/home [Accessed 2003 Dec 22]

  11. Department of Health. NHS performance indicators: a consultation. London: Department of Health [online]. Available from URL: http://www.doh.gov.uk/piconsultation/index.htm [Accessed 2003 Dec 22]

  12. Or Z. Improving the performance of health care systems: from measures to action (a review of experiences in four OECD countries). Labor market and social policy occasional paper 57. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-ooperation and Development (OECD), 2002 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/58/1847865.pdf [Accessed 2003 Dec 22]

  13. National Committee for Quality Assurance. Desirable attributes of HEDIS® measures. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ncqa.org/Communications/Publications/Overviewncqa.pdf [Accessed 2004 June 2]

  14. Performance measurement in healthcare. Oakbrook Terrace (IL): Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations [online]. Available from URL: http://www.jcaho.org/pms/index.htm [Accessed 2003 Dec 22]

  15. Performance measurement for disease-specific care certification. Oakbrook Terrace (IL): Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations [online]. Available from URL: http://www.jcaho.org/dscc/performance+measures/index.htm [Accessed 2003 Dec 22]

  16. National Committee for Quality Assurance. Desirable attributes of HEDIS® measures. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ncqa.org/Programs/HEDIS/desirable%20attibutes.html [Accessed 2003 Jun 23]

  17. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Attributes of core performance measures and associated evaluation criteria. Oakbrook Terrace (IL): Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations [online]. Available from URL: http://www.jcaho.org/pms/core+measures/attributes+of+core+performance+measures.htm [Accessed 2003 Dec 22]

  18. American Healthways Inc. Johns Hopkins and American Healthways announce publication of standard outcomes metrics and evaluation methodology for disease management programs (press release). 2003 Feb 18 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.americanhealthcorp.com/PressReleases/PR_021803.asp [Accessed 2003 Dec 22]

  19. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Joint Commission forms clinical advisory panels to identify hospital core measure sets. Oakbrook Terrace (IL): Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations [online]. Available from URL: http://www.jcaho.org/pms/core+measures/advisory+panel+to+identify+core+measure+sets.htm [Accessed 2003 Dec 22]

  20. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Performance measurement: Advisory Council on performance measurement. Oakbrook Terrace (IL): JCAHO [online]. Available from URL: http://www.jcaho.org/pms/reference+materials/acpm.htm [Accessed 2003 Jul 1]

  21. National Committee for Quality Assurance. HEDIS 2002 Volume 2: technical specifications information. Washington, DC: NCQA, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  22. Measuring health plans’ disease management programs: disease management effectiveness project. San Francisco (CA): Pacific Business Group on Health [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pbgh.org/programs/dmep/default.asp [Accessed 2003 Jun 23]

  23. Nerenz D, Zajac B. Ray Woodham visiting fellowship program project summary report: indicators of performance for vertically integrated health systems. Chicago (IL): American Hospital Association, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  24. Skolnick AA. JCAHO, NCQA, and AMAP establish council to coordinate health care performance measurement. JAMA 1998; 279: 1769–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Wilson T, MacDowell M. Framework for assessing causality in disease management programs: principles. Dis Manag 2003 Fall; 6: 143–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gruen JM, Patel M, Nash D, et al. Guidelines for measurement of disease management return on investment [keynote address]. Eighth Annual Disease Management Congress; 2003 Sep 29–Oct 1; San Diego

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Neither the author nor his employer accepted any outside funding for this work. AirLogix, Inc. is a disease management company and as such is a competitor of American Healthways, the publisher of the work being reviewed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barry M. Zajac.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zajac, B.M. Performance Measurement of Disease Management Programs. Dis-Manage-Health-Outcomes 12, 211–220 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200412040-00001

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200412040-00001

Keywords

Navigation