Clinical Quality Measures: A Challenge for-and to-Family Physicians

INTRODUCTION

Improving design, selection and implementation of appropriate clinical quality measures can reduce harms and costs of health care and improve the quality and experience of care delivery. These measures have not been evaluated for appropriateness for use in performance measurement in a systematic, reproducible, and widely accepted manner.

METHODS

We defined 10 criteria for evaluation of measure appropriateness in 4 domains: Patient-centeredness of outcomes, specification of population measured and measure detail, reliable evidence that benefits likely outweigh harms, and independence from significant confounders. We applied these criteria to 24 measures under consideration for statewide use in Massachusetts in public and private incentive-based programs. We appraised each measure as Appropriate or Not Appropriate for such use.

RESULTS

We rated 15 measures as Appropriate (62.5%). Three measures (12.5%) were considered Appropriate only if applied at a system level but not for patient-provider assessment and 6 measures (25%) were rated Not Appropriate. Reasons for designation as "Not Appropriate" included benefits not clearly outweighing harms, lack of preservation of patient autonomy, inappropriate specification of population and measure detail, confounding by locus of control, and confounding by social determinants of health.

CONCLUSIONS

Using this consensus-driven, 10-criteria methodology we were able to evaluate appropriateness of clinical quality measures. This methodology may improve measure design and inform selection of the most appropriate measures for use in quality measurement, financial incentives, and reporting.

Primary Care Physicians' Conceptualization of Quality in Medicare's Merit-Based Incentive Payment System

BACKGROUND

While administrators of pay-for-performance may have good intentions, physicians may be reluctant to participate for various reasons, including poor program alignment with realities of clinical practice. In this study, we sought to characterize how primary care physicians (PCPs) participating in Medicare's Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) conceptualize the quality of health care to help inform future measurement strategies that physicians would understand and appreciate.

METHODS

We performed semi-structured qualitative interviews with a nationwide sample of 20 PCPs in MIPS. We asked PCPs how they would characterize quality and what distinguished exceptional, good, and poor quality. Interviews were transcribed and 2 coders independently read transcripts, allowing data to emerge from the interviews and developing theories about the data. The coders met intermittently to discuss findings, harmonize the coding scheme, develop a final list of themes and subthemes, and aggregate a list of representative quotations.

RESULTS

Participants described quality as consisting of 2 components: (1) evidence-based care that is safe, which included health maintenance and chronic disease control, accurate diagnoses, and guideline adherence, and (2) patient-centered care, which included spending enough time with patients, responding to patient concerns, and establishing long-term relationships founded on trust.

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs consider patient-centered care necessary for the provision of exceptional quality. Program administrators for quality measurement and pay-for-performance programs should explore new ways to reward PCPs for providing outstanding patient-centered care. Future research should be undertaken to determine whether patient-centered activities such as forging long-term, favorable patient-physician relationships, are associated with improved health outcomes.

Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act in Small to Medium-Sized Primary Care Practices

BACKGROUND

Despite major efforts to transition to a new physician payment system under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA), little is known about how well practices are prepared. This study aimed to understand how small and medium-sized primary care practices in the Heart of Virginia Healthcare (https://www.vahealthinnovation.org/hvh/) perceive their quality incentives under MACRA.

METHODS

This study analyzed data from 16 focus-groups (70 participants), which yielded a range of physician, advanced practice clinician, office manager, and staff perspectives. Focus-groups were audio-recorded and transcribed, then imported into NVivo for coding and analysis of themes. A multidisciplinary research team reviewed the transcripts to maximize coding insights and to improve validity.

RESULTS

The main findings from the focus-groups are: 1) MACRA awareness is relatively higher in independent practices, 2) steps taken toward MACRA differ by practice ownership, and 3) practices have mixed perceptions about the expected impact of MACRA. Two additional themes emerged from data: 1) practices that joined accountable care organizations are taking proactive approaches to MACRA, and 2) independent practices face ongoing challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights a dilemma in which independent practices are proactively attempting to prepare for MACRA's requirements, yet they continue to have major challenges. Practices are under extreme pressure to comply with reimbursement regulations, which may force some practices joining a health system or merging with another practice or completely closing the practices. Policy makers should assess the unintended consequences of payment reform policies on independent practices and provide support in transitioning to a new payment system.

Measuring and Improving Quality in the US: Where Are We Today?

In the 50 years since the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) was established, the United States has gone from a shared perspective that high-quality care was being routinely delivered to becoming aware of the significant and pervasive problems with quality. Efforts to stimulate improved quality have included public reporting, pay for performance, and value-based purchasing. In addition, maintenance of certification, systematic reviews of research, practice guidelines, electronic health records, and quality improvement programs have offered support for different dimensions of quality. Despite these programs and infrastructure, there is little evidence that quality has improved systematically in the United States. There are areas in which quality is better but many other areas in which quality has remained the same or even worsened. The focus on financial incentives as a primary tool for motivating improvement may not be productive and there is little evidence from research that quality varies with payment or incentives. Quality is a systems issue and requires system solutions. The ABFM has had a long commitment to assessing quality and has an opportunity to lead the way in reimagining quality measurement and assessment.

The Declining Presence of Family Physicians in Hospital-Based Care

Despite training to provide care across the continuum of health delivery settings, the proportion of family physicians (FPs) reporting inpatient care has decreased by 26% between 2013 and 2017, leaving approximately 1 in 4 of FPs practicing hospital medicine in 2017. Policy makers, payers, and leaders in medical education should closely track the impact of these trends, given previous evidence associating better cost and utilization outcomes with broader scope of practice.

Most Hospitals Received Annual Penalties For Excess Readmissions, But Some Fared Better Than Others

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) initiated by the Affordable Care Act levies financial penalties against hospitals with excess thirty-day Medicare readmissions. We sought to understand the penalty burden over the program's first five years, focusing on characteristics of hospitals that received penalties during all five years, how penalties changed over time, and the relationship between baseline and subsequent performance. More than half of participating hospitals were penalized by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in all five years of the program. From fiscal years 2013 to 2017, the growth in average penalties was modest, doubling from 0.29 percent to 0.60 percent, despite increasing opportunities for penalization. The penalty burden was greater in hospitals that were urban, major teaching, large, or for-profit and that treated larger shares of Medicare or socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. Surprisingly, hospitals treating greater proportions of medically complex Medicare patients had a lower cumulative penalty burden compared to those treating fewer proportions of these patients. Lastly, we found that hospitals with high baseline penalties in the first year continued to receive significantly higher penalties in subsequent years. For many hospitals, the HRRP leads to persistent penalization and limited capacity to reduce penalty burden. Alternative structures might avoid persistent penalization, while still motivating reductions in hospital readmissions.

A Randomized Trial of High-Value Change Using Practice Facilitation

PURPOSE

To understand how focused versus general practice facilitation can impact goal setting, action planning, and team performance in primary care transformation.

BACKGROUND

Practice transformation in primary care is a crucial part of health reform, but can fatigue teams, leading to variable results. Practice facilitation may reduce primary care fatigue to help teams reach challenging transformation goals, but may require a more focused approach than previous studies suggest.

METHODS

We performed a 12-month cluster randomized trial, during which 8 primary care clinics received practice facilitation. Four practices in the intervention arm received targeted facilitation to focus quality improvement (QI) goals on high-value elements (HVEs) intended to reduce cost and utilization, whereas 4 control practices received generalized QI facilitation. We investigated the impact of the targeted versus generalized approach on goal selection, action item selection and achievement, HVE attainment, and collaborative practice, using quantitative and qualitative methods.

RESULTS

Intervention clinics selected an average of 7 goals and 29 action items, compared with 8 goals and 40 action items among controls. Eighty-three percent of intervention goals were related to HVEs, compared with 27% of goals among controls. Intervention clinics selected 101 HVE goals and met 68%, while controls selected 41 and met 61%. Analysis of pre-post practice surveys indicated greater improvement among intervention across 4 of 8 domains of collaborative practice.

CONCLUSION

Targeted facilitation may be more effective than a generalized approach to support practices in reaching high-value change goals, as well as fostering improvement of team focus on goals, roles and responsibilities.

["I do the right thing only against payment": A critique of pay for performance in psychiatry]

This paper takes a critical look at pay for performance (P4P) as a model for introducing new incentives in psychiatry. This model is to be seen as a tool of commercialism, and such a restructuring of psychiatry represents a wide-reaching political maneuver which actively introduces economical parameters into the field and will have a great impact on psychiatry. P4P starts with the false premise that medicine has to be structured like industry. This premise is false because psychiatry has to do with relationships to patients, and not with the production of a product. Therefore, it is essential to reflect critically upon the premises and consequences of P4P for psychiatry. Only this critical reflection can help psychiatry to keep its identity as a humane service for suffering people.

Pay for Performance in Chronic Liver Disease

With the advent of the Affordable Care Act, pay-for-performance programs have become widespread in the United States and are here to stay. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services started its pay-for-performance program, the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative, in 2007, and made it a permanent system, the Physician Quality Reporting System, in 2011. Although it started off as a pay-for-performance initiative, in which physicians and other health care professionals were rewarded for satisfactorily reporting on selected quality measures, it now has evolved into a penalty-based program. The Physician Quality Reporting System includes measures that target hepatitis C virus infection. It is important for gastroenterologists to be aware of these measures and the submission process to avoid penalties or other difficulties with reimbursement. This review describes the current measures in chronic liver disease, rates of submission, as well as the submission process and associated challenges.

Incentives for better performance in health care

Incentives for better performance in health care have several modes and methods. They are designed to motivate and encourage people to perform well and improve their outcomes. They may include monetary or non-monetary incentives and may be applied to consumers, individual providers or institutions. One such model is the Pay-for-Performance system. In this system, beneficiaries are compared with one another based on a set of performance indicators and those that achieve a high level of performance are rewarded financially. This system is meant to recognise and primarily to reward high performers. Its goal is to encourage beneficiaries to strive for better performance. This system has been applied in several countries and for several recipients and settings. Early indications show that this system has had mixed effects on performance.