It Isn't Just about Choice: The Potential of a Public Performance Report to Affect the Public Image of Hospitals

Public Reporting Of Hospital Quality Measures Has Not Led To Overall Quality Improvement: Evidence From Germany

Hospital quality has been measured and made publicly available for decades in the US and for more than a decade in Germany, as part of an effort to help those countries achieve quality improvement. The German hospital market presents a unique opportunity to examine the relationship between public reporting and quality improvement in the absence of performance-linked payment incentives in a high-income country. We considered quality indicators from several important categories of health services provided in hospitals (hip, knee, obstetrics, neonatology, heart, neck artery surgery, pressure ulcers, and pneumonia), using structured hospital quality reports from the period 2012-19. Our findings support the idea that public reporting provides a quality benchmark and prevents the provision of very low quality health care services, suggesting that imposing financial punishment on low performers is not necessary and may hinder quality improvement and aggravate health disparities. Although hospitals' intrinsic motivation and market forces play roles in improving quality, they are not sufficient to maintain the quality of high-performing hospitals. Therefore, in addition to rewarding high-performing institutions, aligning quality incentives with the intrinsic professional values of clinical care may be useful in achieving quality improvement.

Characteristics and decision making of hospital report card consumers: Lessons from an onsite-based cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Hospitals report cards (HRCs) have had little impact on the hospital choice of patients. Thus, health policy makers should learn more about HRC consumers to better understand how to present and target hospital-related quality information.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to learn more about consumers of HRCs and determine the impact of the complexity and tailoring of HRCs on the hospital choice.

METHODS

We used primary data drawn from an onsite-based survey, conducted in 2017 at Germany's premier portal, Weisse Liste (N = 635). We performed hierarchical multivariate logistic regression models to identify main predictors associated with hospital choices.

RESULTS

HRC consumers differ from the national online population and the national population in general. Eighty percent of those patients or family members, who have used a HRC before, confirmed an impact on the hospital choice. The quality of hospital choices decreased with an increasing level of complexity (p < .001); the latter was identified as a significant predictor for making good choices. However, tailoring HRCs did not have an impact on the quality of the hospital choice (p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

HRCs have a significant impact on the hospital choice among report card consumers. Health policy makers might focus on decreasing the level of complexity; this, more than tailoring report cards, may help consumers make good hospital choices.

The use of public performance reporting by general practitioners: a study of perceptions and referral behaviours

Background

Public performance reporting (PPR) of hospital data aims to improve quality of care in hospitals and to inform consumer choice. In Australia, general practitioners (GPs) are gatekeepers to secondary care with patients requiring their referral for non-emergency access. Despite their intermediary role, GPs have been generally overlooked as potential users of PPR of hospital data, with the majority of the PPR research focussing on consumers, surgeons and hospitals.

Methods

We examined the use of PPR of hospital data by GPs when referring patients to hospitals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 40 GPs, recruited via the Victorian Primary Care Practice-Based Research Network and GP teaching practices in Victoria, Australia. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

Results

We found that the majority of GPs did not use PPR when referring patients to hospitals. Instead, they relied mostly on informal sources of information such as their own or patients’ previous experiences. Barriers that prevented GPs’ use of PPR in their decision making included: lack of awareness and accessibility; perceived lack of data credibility; restrictive geographical catchments for certain hospitals; limited choices of public hospitals in regional and rural areas; and no mandatory PPR for private hospitals.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that lack of PPR awareness prevented GPs from using it in their referral practice. As gatekeepers to secondary care, GPs are in a position to guide patients in their treatment decisions and referrals using available PPR data. We suggest that there needs to be greater involvement by GPs in the development of hospital performance and quality indicators in Australia if GPs are to make greater use of them. The indicators require further development before GPs perceive them as valid, credible, and of use for informing their referral practices.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0719-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Getting Started: A Social Media Primer

Social media use has increased both in the general public and in the surgical profession. A variety of social media platforms have been used, with Twitter being one of the most common and interactive platforms. Common uses by surgeons and scientists for social media include dissemination of information, information exchange, education, research recruitment, community consultation for clinical trials, and hospital or surgeon ratings. As social media use increases, a new language as well as metrics has been developed to track impact and reach of research incorporating social media platforms. All surgeons should be encouraged to familiarize themselves with social media, regardless of whether or not they choose to actively engage in it.

Hospital Quality Reporting in the United States: Does Report Card Design and Incorporation of Patient Narrative Comments Affect Hospital Choice?

OBJECTIVE

To explore the impact of hospital report card design and incorporation of patient narrative comments on consumers' choices of hospitals.

DATA SOURCES

Primary data collected from an online survey with 1,350 respondents in February, 2015.

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized 2 (narrative comments: yes, no) × 3 (design: representation of clinical performance in textual, star, numerical formats) between-subject online-based cross-sectional experiment.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

In 51 percent of all cases, respondents selected the hospital with the best clinical results. Report cards with a numerical design induced choices more focused on clinical ratings (56.0 percent chose the highest rated hospital) than those with textual information (48.1 percent) or star ratings (47.3 percent) (p < .001). Report cards without narrative comments (49.7 percent) and with narratives (51.4 percent) were not associated with significant difference in selecting top-rated clinical hospitals (p = .376). But there were significant interactions affecting choice of hospitals among exposure to narratives, formatting of clinical performance, and respondents' education.

CONCLUSIONS

Consumers have a difficult time synthesizing quality data in various formats. Hospital report cards continue to pose challenging choices, especially for those with limited education. Narrative comments in their earliest emerging forms do not seem to be altering hospital choice as much as the literature has suggested for other providers, but they may have consequential impact on the choices of certain subsets of consumers.

Do Cardiac Surgery Report Cards Reduce Mortality? Assessing the Evidence

Provider report cards feature prominently in ongoing efforts to improve patient quality. A well-known example is the cardiac surgery report-card program started in New York, which publicly compares hospital and surgeon performance. Public report cards have been associated with decreases in cardiac surgery mortality, but there is substantial disagreement over the source(s) of the improvement. This article develops a conceptual framework to explain how report-card-related responses could result in lower mortality and reviews the evidence. Existing research shows that report cards have not greatly changed referral patterns. How much providers increased their quality of care and altered their selection of patients remains unresolved, and alternative explanations have not been well studied. Future research should expand the number of states and years covered and exploit the variation in institutional features to improve our understanding of the relationship between report cards and outcomes.

Do German hospital report cards have the potential to improve the quality of care?

BACKGROUND

Hospitals report cards have been put in place within the past few years to increase the amount of publicly reported quality information in Germany.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the potential of German hospital report cards to improve quality of care.

METHODS

First, a systematic Internet search aimed at identifying available report cards was conducted. Second, cross-sectional data (August/September 2013) were analyzed with respect to awareness, comprehension, and impact of report cards by using descriptive analysis and binary multivariate logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Hospital report cards (N=62) have become broadly available. However, awareness remains low, about one third (35.6%) of all respondents (N=2027) were aware of German hospital report card. Regarding comprehensibility, in 60.7% of all experiments (N=6081), respondents selected the hospital with the lowest risk-adjusted mortality; significant differences could be determined between the report cards (p<.001) with scores ranging from 27.5% to 77.2%. Binary multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed different significant respondent-related predictors on each report card. Finally, an impact on hospital choice making was determined.

CONCLUSIONS

To increase the potential of hospital report cards, health policy makers should promote the availability of report cards. In addition, the comprehensibility of German hospital report cards cannot be regarded as satisfying and should be enhanced in the future.

Surgeons' perceptions of public reporting of hospital and individual surgeon quality

BACKGROUND

Hospital-specific and surgeon-specific public reporting of performance measures is expanding largely due to calls for transparency from the public and oversight agencies. Surgeons continue to voice concerns regarding public reporting. Surgeons' perceptions of hospital-level and individual-level public reporting have not been assessed. This study (1) evaluated surgeons' perceptions of public reporting of surgical quality; and (2) identified specific barriers to surgeons' acceptance of public reporting.

METHODS

All surgeons (n=185) at 4 hospitals (university, children's, 2 community hospitals), representing all surgical specialties, received a 41-item anonymous Internet-based survey. Twenty follow-up qualitative interviews were conducted to assess surgeons' interpretation of findings.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 66% (n=122). Most surgeons supported public reporting of quality metrics at the hospital level (80%), but opposed individual reporting (53%, P<0.01). Fewer surgeons expected that individual (26%) or hospital (47%) public reporting would improve outcomes (P<0.01). Few indicated that their practice would change with hospital (11%) or individual (18%) public reporting (P=0.20). Primary concerns regarding public reporting at the hospital level included patients misinterpreting data, surgeons refusing high-risk patients, and outcome metric validity. Individual-surgeon level concerns included outcome metric validity, adequate sample sizes, and patients misinterpreting data. To make public reporting more acceptable, surgeons recommended patient education, simplified data presentation, continued risk-adjustment refinement, and internal review before public reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons expressed concerns about public reporting of quality metrics, particularly reporting of individual surgeon performance. These concerns must be addressed to gain surgeons' acceptance and to use public reporting to improve health care quality.

The relationship between commercial website ratings and traditional hospital performance measures in the USA

BACKGROUND

Our goal was to compare hospital scores from the most widely used commercial website in the USA to hospital scores from more systematic measures of patient experience and outcomes, and to assess what drives variation in the commercial website scores.

METHODS

For a national sample of US hospitals, we compared scores on Yelp.com, which aggregates website visitor ratings (1-5 stars), with traditional measures of hospital quality. We calculated correlations between hospital Yelp scores and the following: hospital percent high ratings (9 or 10, scale 0-10) on the 'Overall' item on the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey; hospital individual HCAHPS domain scores (eg, nurse communication, pain control); hospital 30-day mortality; and hospital 30-day readmission rates.

RESULTS

Of hospitals reporting HCAHPS (n=3796), 962 (25%) had scores on Yelp. Among hospitals with >5 Yelp ratings, the correlation of percent high ratings between Yelp and HCAHPS was 0.49 (p<0.001). The percent high ratings within each HCAHPS domain increased monotonically with increasing Yelp scores (p≤0.001 for all domains). Percent high ratings in Yelp and HCAHPS were statistically significantly correlated with lower mortality for myocardial infarction (MI; -0.19 for Yelp and -0.13 for HCAHPS) and pneumonia (-0.14 and -0.18), and fewer readmissions for MI (-0.17 and -0.39), heart failure (-0.31 and -0.39), and pneumonia (-0.18 and -0.27).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that rater experiences for Yelp and HCAHPS may be similar, and that consumers posting ratings on Yelp may observe aspects of care related to important patient outcomes.

Dutch healthcare reform: did it result in better patient experiences in hospitals? A comparison of the consumer quality index over time

Background

In 2006, the Dutch hospital market was reformed to create a more efficient delivery system through managed competition. To allow competition on quality, patient experiences were measured using the Consumer Quality index (CQI). We study whether public reporting and competition had an effect on the CQI between 2006 and 2009.

Methods

We analyzed 8,311 respondents covering 31 hospitals in 2006, 22,333 respondents covering 78 hospitals in 2007 and 24,246 respondents covering 94 hospitals in 2009. We describe CQI trends over the period 2006-2009. In addition we compare hospitals that varied in the level of competition they faced and hospitals that were forced to publish CQI results publicly and those that were not. We corrected for observable covariates between hospital respondents using a multi level linear regression. We used the Herfindahl Hirschman Index to indicate the level of competition.

Results

Between 2006 and 2009 hospitals showed a CQI improvement of 0.034 (p < 0.05) to 0.060 (p < 0.01) points on a scale between one and four. Hospitals that were forced to publish their scores showed a further improvement of 0.027 (p < 0.01) to 0.030 (p < 0.05). Furthermore, hospitals that faced more competition from geographically close competitors showed a more pronounced improvement of CQI-scores 0.004 to 0.05 than other hospitals (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Our results show that patients reported improved experiences measured by the CQI between 2006 and 2009. CQI levels improve at a faster rate in areas with higher levels of competition. Hospitals confronted with forced public publication of their CQI responded by enhancing the experiences of their patients.

Public release of performance data in changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, professionals or organisations

BACKGROUND

It is becoming increasingly common to release information about the performance of hospitals, health professionals or providers, and healthcare organisations into the public domain. However, we do not know how this information is used and to what extent such reporting leads to quality improvement by changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, providers and purchasers, or to what extent the performance of professionals and providers can be affected.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of the public release of performance data in changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, professionals and organisations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Trials Register, MEDLINE Ovid (from 1966), EMBASE Ovid (from 1979), CINAHL, PsycINFO Ovid (from 1806) and DARE up to 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised or quasi-randomised trials, interrupted time series and controlled before-after studies of the effects of publicly releasing data regarding any aspect of the performance of healthcare organisations or individuals. The papers had to report at least one main outcome related to selecting or changing care. Other outcome measures were awareness, attitude, views and knowledge of performance data and costs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies for eligibility and extracted data. For each study, we extracted data about the target groups (healthcare consumers, healthcare providers and healthcare purchasers), performance data, main outcomes (choice of healthcare provider and improvement by means of changes in care) and other outcomes (awareness, attitude, views, knowledge of performance data and costs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies containing more than 35,000 consumers, and 1560 hospitals. Three studies were conducted in the USA and examined consumer behaviour after the public release of performance data. Two studies found no effect of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems information on health plan choice in a Medicaid population. One interrupted time series study found a small positive effect of the publishing of data on patient volumes for coronary bypass surgery and low-complication outliers for lumbar discectomy, but these effects did not persist longer than two months after each public release. No effects on patient volumes for acute myocardial infarction were found.One cluster-randomised controlled trial, conducted in Canada, studied improvement changes in care after the public release of performance data for patients with acute myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure. No effects for the composite process-of-care indicators for either condition were found, but there were some improvements in the individual process-of-care indicators. There was an effect on the mortality rates for acute myocardial infarction. More quality improvement activities were initiated in response to the publicly-released report cards. No secondary outcomes were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The small body of evidence available provides no consistent evidence that the public release of performance data changes consumer behaviour or improves care. Evidence that the public release of performance data may have an impact on the behaviour of healthcare professionals or organisations is lacking.

Consumers' interpretation and use of comparative information on the quality of health care: the effect of presentation approaches

BACKGROUND

Public reports about health-care quality have not been effectively used by consumers thus far. A possible explanation is inadequate presentation of the information.

OBJECTIVE

To assess which presentation features contribute to consumers' correct interpretation and effective use of comparative health-care quality information and to examine the influence of consumer characteristics.

DESIGN

Fictitious Consumer Quality Index (CQI) data on home care quality were used to construct experimental presentation formats of comparative information. These formats were selected using conjoint analysis methodology. We used multilevel regression analysis to investigate the effects of presenting bar charts and star ratings, ordering of the data, type of stars, number of stars and inclusion of a global rating.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Data were collected during 2 weeks of online questioning of 438 members of an online access panel.

RESULTS

Both presentation features and consumer characteristics (age and education) significantly affected consumers' responses. Formats using combinations of bar charts and stars, three stars, an alphabetical ordering of providers and no inclusion of a global rating supported consumers. The effects of the presentation features differed across the outcome variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparative information on the quality of home care is complex for consumers. Although our findings derive from an experimental situation, they provide several suggestions for optimizing the information on the Internet. More research is needed to further unravel the effects of presentation formats on consumer decision making in health care.

Patient's need for choice and information across the interface between primary and secondary care: a survey

OBJECTIVE

Hospitals in The Netherlands have recently made certain performance data public, allowing patients to choose the location of their care. The objective of this study is to assess (a) patient preferences and experiences concerning the transition between primary and secondary health care, (b) patients' needs for choice and information and how these are influenced by personal and morbidity factors.

METHODS

Two different types of questionnaires were used. The first questionnaire concerns the importance that patients attach to the care provided. The second questionnaire concerns the actual experiences of the patient with the care provided. For the selection of patients, we used the databases of the registration networks of the Departments of General Practice of the Universities of Groningen and Leiden. The questionnaires were returned by 513 patients (Importance 69%) and 1404 patients (Experience 65%).

RESULTS

Many patients prefer the GP advising them regarding which hospital or specialist they should be referred to: a quarter of the patients preferred that the GP decided for them. Patients with a curable condition and patients aged between 25 and 65, highly educated and with stable personal characteristics as measured by a purposive scale, more often wished to use information from internet or newspapers to make a decision. The amount of information that was needed on illness or treatment varied greatly. Young people, older people, and those with less stable personal characteristics more often desired only practical information.

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of making performance data of different health care institutions public, only a limited number of patients want to use this information on a limited number of health problems.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Care providers should take differences into account concerning patients' need for information on their illness.

Appraising the quality of care in surgery

There is currently no validated measurement system available for quality of care assessment in surgery despite all of the inherent benefits of such an approach. A structured quality framework needs to be developed and incorporate measures that are truly reflective of several important dimensions of care within the entire treatment episode. Presently this has been only partially addressed. These measures of quality can be categorized into clinical pathway measures (structure of care, process of care, outcome of care, and economic measures of care) and patient-reported measures (patient-reported treatment outcomes, health-related quality of life measures, and patient satisfaction). Combining these measures to create an overall composite quality score can be made feasible only if it is supported by the use of robust statistical methodology. It is important to use appropriate display of performance data to facilitate provider engagement in quality improvement initiatives. This article was designed to present such a structured approach of a quality framework, which is required to appraise the quality of care in surgery to enhance future quality improvement programmes.

Dutch healthcare reform: did it result in performance improvement of health plans? A comparison of consumer experiences over time

BACKGROUND

Many countries have introduced elements of managed competition in their healthcare system with the aim to accomplish more efficient and demand-driven health care. Simultaneously, generating and reporting of comparative healthcare information has become an important quality-improvement instrument. We examined whether the introduction of managed competition in the Dutch healthcare system along with public reporting of quality information was associated with performance improvement in health plans.

METHODS

Experiences of consumers with their health plan were measured in four consecutive years (2005-2008) using the CQI(R) health plan instrument 'Experiences with Healthcare and Health Insurer'. Data were available of 13,819 respondents (response = 45%) of 30 health plans in 2005, of 8,266 respondents (response = 39%) of 32 health plans in 2006, of 8,088 respondents (response = 34%) of 32 health plans in 2007, and of 7,183 respondents (response = 31%) of 32 health plans in 2008. We performed multilevel regression analyses with three levels: respondent, health plan and year of measurement. Per year and per quality aspect, we estimated health plan means while adjusting for consumers' age, education and self-reported health status. We tested for linear and quadratic time effects using chi-squares.

RESULTS

The overall performance of health plans increased significantly from 2005 to 2008 on four quality aspects. For three other aspects, we found that the overall performance first declined and then increased from 2006 to 2008, but the performance in 2008 was not better than in 2005. The overall performance of health plans did not improve more often for quality aspects that were identified as important areas of improvement in the first year of measurement. On six out of seven aspects, the performance of health plans that scored below average in 2005 increased more than the performance of health plans that scored average and/or above average in that year.

CONCLUSION

We found mixed results concerning the effects of managed competition on the performance of health plans. To determine whether managed competition in the healthcare system leads to quality improvement in health plans, it is important to examine whether and for what reasons health plans initiate improvement efforts.

Hitting and missing targets by ambulance services for emergency calls: effects of different systems of performance measurement within the UK

Following devolution, differences developed between UK countries in systems of measuring performance against a common target that ambulance services ought to respond to 75% of calls for what may be immediately life threatening emergencies (category A calls) within 8 minutes. Only in England was this target integral to a ranking system of 'star rating', which inflicted reputational damage on services that failed to hit targets, and only in England has this target been met. In other countries, the target has been missed by such large margins that services would have been publicly reported as failing, if they had been covered by the English system of star ratings. The paper argues that this case-study adds to evidence from comparisons of different systems of hospital performance measurement that, to have an effect, these systems need to be designed to inflict reputational damage on those that have performed poorly; and it explores implications of this hypothesis. The paper also asks questions about the adequacy of systems of performance measurement of ambulance services in UK countries.

Physicians' Views on Public Reporting of Hospital Quality Data

This article describes physicians' responses to patient questions and physicians' views about public reports on hospital quality. Interviews with 56 office-based physicians in seven states/regions used hypothetical scenarios of patients questioning referrals based on public reports of hospital quality. Responses were analyzed using an iterative coding process to develop categories and themes from data. Four themes describe physicians' responses to patients: (a) rely on existing physician—patient relationships, (b) acknowledge and consider patient perspectives, (c) take actions to follow up on patient concerns, and (d) provide patients' perspectives on quality reports. Three themes summarize responses to hospital quality reports: perceived lack of methodological rigor, content considerations in reports, and attitudes/experience regarding reports. Findings suggest that physicians take seriously patients' questions about hospital-quality reports and consider changing referral recommendations based on their concerns and/or preferences. Results underscore the importance of efforts by report developers and physician outreach/education to address physicians' methodological concerns.

Consumer use of publicly released hospital performance information: assessment of the National Hospital Evaluation Program in Korea

OBJECTIVE

To assess the extent of consumer use of publicly released hospital performance information by the National Health Evaluation Program (HEP) in Korea.

DESIGN

A questionnaire survey with 385 outpatients visiting four general hospitals in Seoul.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The consumer use of performance information was assessed by the consumers' intention to: (1) recommend hospitals with good performance reports, according to HEP, to their relatives; (2) switch to other hospitals with a better performance and (3) keep the performance report for future use.

RESULTS

Overall, 52-75% of the respondents expressed their intention to use the hospital performance information. Logistic regression analysis results showed that people would use the performance information if they considered HEP to be effective in improving the quality of health care and the performance reports to be trustworthy and useful in choosing hospitals.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence that consumers in a health care system with few restrictions for provider choice, such as in Korea, have a high potential to utilize the provider performance information in their decision making. If public use of the performance information becomes common, policy makers should acknowledge the critical value of the quality of the performance report in order to avoid misleading consumers.

When things go wrong: the impact of being a statistical outlier in publicly reported coronary artery bypass graft surgery mortality data

The public reporting of hospital quality and safety data is a growing phenomenon. Yet there are few reports of the effects of publicly reported data on individual organizations, particularly when the data show worse than expected performance. In this article, our hospital's response to having a mortality rate from coronary artery bypass graft surgery that was significantly higher than other programs in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is reported. The data caused suspension of elective cardiac surgery at the institution, and an independent review of the program was undertaken. The effects of the suspension and publication of mortality data on quality and patient safety, the residency training program in cardiothoracic surgery, and the financial performance of the hospital are described. Several lessons were learned that may be of value to other health care organizations that experience a public crisis in clinical quality.

Public reporting and pay-for-performance: safety-net hospital executives' concerns and policy suggestions

Safety-net hospitals (SNHs) may gain little financial benefit from the rapidly spreading adoption of public reporting and pay-for-performance, but may feel compelled to participate (and bear the costs of data collection) to meet public expectations of transparency and accountability. To better understand the concerns that SNH administrators have regarding public reporting and pay-for-performance, we interviewed 37 executives at randomly selected California SNHs. The main concerns noted by SNH executives were that human and financial resource constraints made it difficult for SNHs to accurately measure their performance. Additionally, some executives felt that market-driven public reporting and pay-for-performance may focus on clinical areas and incentive structures that may not be high-priority clinical areas for SNHs. Executives at SNHs suggested several policy responses to these concerns-such as offering training programs for SNH data collectors-that could be relatively inexpensive and might improve the cost-benefit ratio of public reporting and pay-for-performance programs.

PUBLIC REPORTING OF PROVIDER PERFORMANCE: Can Its Impact Be Made Greater?

Public reporting of provider performance is becoming increasingly commonplace. In this chapter, we first review studies of prior public reports (or report cards) that show real but small impact on provider attempts to improve quality, on consumers' impressions of providers, and even on consumer selection of providers. Among other factors, two potential explanations for the low level of impact are that, in most early reports, the large majority of providers have been labeled "average" and consumers may have had difficulty understanding the statistical assessments. In response, some current report card producers are using or considering a variety of methods to increase the number of distinctions among providers and the ease of comprehension of the labels used. Therefore, we also consider the advantages and disadvantages of several novel approaches to analyzing and reporting provider performance.