Advertisement

Public Reporting of Institution and Provider-Level Outcomes

  • Frederick L. Greene
Chapter

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Public reporting Cancer outcomes Pay for performance Cancer survival data Cancer benchmarks 

References

  1. 1.
    Cancer Program Standards. Ensuring patient-centered care. Chicago: American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer; 2015.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Luce JM, Bindman AB, Lee PR. A brief history of health care quality assessment and improvement in the United States. West J Med. 1994;160:263–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albright HW, Moreno M, Feeley TW, Walters R, Samuels M, et al. The implications of the 2010 patient protection and affordable care act and the health care and education reconciliation act on cancer care delivery. Cancer. 2011;117(8):1564–74. Epub 2010 Nov 8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. 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.
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Elkin EB, Bach PB. Cancer’s next frontier: addressing high and increasing costs. JAMA. 2010;303:1086–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spinks TE, Walters R, Feeley TW, et al. Improving cancer care through public reporting of meaningful quality measures. Health Aff. 2011;30:664–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. 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. 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. 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
  15. 15.
    National Quality Forum. Consensus development projects [Internet]. Washington, DC: NQF; 2011. http://qualityforum.org/Projects.aspx. [cited 2011 Mar 21].Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    National Quality Forum. NQF endorsed standards [Internet]. Washington, DC: NQF; 2010. http://www.qualityforum.org/Measures_List.aspx. [cited 2010 Dec 10].Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oliver A, Greenberg CC. Measuring outcomes in oncology treatment: the importance of patient-centered outcomes. Surg Clin North Am. 2009;89:17–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. 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
  20. 20.
    Ryan AM, Nallamothu BK, Dimick JB. Medicare’s public reporting initiative on hospital quality had modest or no impact on mortality from three key conditions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(3):585–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaiser Family Foundation. 2008 Update on consumers’ views of patient safety and quality information. Washington, DC: Kaiser Family Foundation; 2008.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sinaiko AD, Eastman D, Rosenthal MB. How report cards on physicians, physician groups, and hospitals can have greater impact on consumer choices. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(3):602–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hibbard JH, Greene J, Sofaer S, Firminger K, Hirsh J. An experiment shows that a well-designed report on costs and quality can help consumers choose high- value health care. Health Aff. 2012;31(3):560–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Luft HS. Advancing public reporting through a new ‘aggregator’ to standardize data collection on providers’ cost and quality. Health Aff. 2012;31(3):619–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    STS News. Society of Thoracic Surgeons (pub). 2011;16:1–7.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Society of Thoracic Surgeons. www.sts.org.
  27. 27.
    American College of Surgeons. National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Program Overview. https://acsnsqip.org/main/about_overview.asp.
  28. 28.
    Winchester DP, Stewart AK, Phillips JL, Ward EE. The National cancer data base: past, present, and future. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:4–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sarfati D, Koczwara B, Jackson C. The impact of comorbidity on cancer and its treatment. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:337–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Piccirillo JF, Tierney RM, Costas I, et al. Prognostic importance of comorbidity in a hospital-based cancer registry. JAMA. 2004;291:2441–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    James J. Health policy brief. 2012. www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs.
  32. 32.
    Institute of Medicine. For the public’s health: the role of measurement in action and accountability. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Burwell SM. Setting value-based payment goals—HHS efforts to improve US health care. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:897–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cancer Data ServicesLevine Cancer InstituteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations