Public Reporting of Institution and Provider-Level Outcomes
The public reporting of cancer outcomes, especially stage-specific survival from individual practitioners and institutions, is an inevitable strategy that might be used to reduce variation in cancer care and provide data for cost reduction and physician and hospital reimbursement. Examples of public reporting for some cancer-related information already exist. Although survival data has had limited public reporting, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons has developed an organizational strategy for reporting lung cancer outcomes from its membership. While the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer is positioning its accredited institutions for effective public reporting, the barriers to understanding and interpreting the reported information must be alleviated. Interpretation of incorrect data and absence of appropriate risk adjustment and comorbidity information would skew any meaningful analysis of publically reported data.
KeywordsPublic reporting Cancer outcomes Pay for performance Cancer survival data Cancer benchmarks
- 1.Cancer Program Standards. Ensuring patient-centered care. Chicago: American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer; 2015.Google Scholar
- 4.McGlynn EA. Identifying, categorizing, and evaluating health care efficiency measures: final report. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008; (Report No.: 08-0030; Contract No.: 282-00-0005-21).Google Scholar
- 5.Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Form 7.1: Call for TEP for cancer hospital measures [Internet]. Baltimore, MD: CMS. http://www.cms.gov/MMS/Downloads/MMSCallTEPforPPS.zi.
- 11.United States Institute of Medicine. Committee on quality of health care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.Google Scholar
- 12.Institute of Medicine. Delivering high-quality cancer care: charting a new course for a system in crisis. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2013.Google Scholar
- 13.National Quality Forum. National voluntary consensus standards for quality of cancer care [Internet]. Washington, DC: NQF; 2009. http://www.qualityforum.org/Publications/2009/05/National_Voluntary_Consensus_Standards_ for_Quality_of_Cancer_Care.aspx. [cited 2010 Dec 10]Google Scholar
- 14.National Quality Forum. Towards a comprehensive cancer measure set: value-based episodes of care [Internet]. Washington, DC: NQF; 2008. http://www.qualityforum.org/Projects/c-d/Cancer_Measure_Set_Value-Based_Episodes_of_Care/Cancer_workshop_summary.aspx.Google Scholar
- 18.Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Call for quality of care measures for PPS-exempt cancer hospitals [Internet]. Baltimore, MD: CMS; http://www.cms.gov/MMS/Downloads/MMSCallforMeasuresPPS.zip.
- 19.Bardach NS, Hibbard JH, Dudley RA. Users of public reports of hospital quality: who what why and how? Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011.Google Scholar
- 21.Kaiser Family Foundation. 2008 Update on consumers’ views of patient safety and quality information. Washington, DC: Kaiser Family Foundation; 2008.Google Scholar
- 25.STS News. Society of Thoracic Surgeons (pub). 2011;16:1–7.Google Scholar
- 26.Society of Thoracic Surgeons. www.sts.org.
- 27.American College of Surgeons. National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Program Overview. https://acsnsqip.org/main/about_overview.asp.
- 31.James J. Health policy brief. 2012. www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs.
- 32.Institute of Medicine. For the public’s health: the role of measurement in action and accountability. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar