Comparison of administrative-only versus administrative plus chart review data for reporting HEDIS hybrid measures

American Journal of Managed Care

Volumn 13, Issue 10, 2007, Pages 553-558

  Pawlson, L Gregory ^a,c   Scholle, Sarah Hudson ^a   Powers, Anne ^b  

^a NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE   (United States)

^b AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS   (United States)

^c NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; HEALTH PLAN EMPLOYER DATA AND INFORMATION SET; INFORMATION SYSTEM; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS, EMPLOYEE; HUMANS; INSURANCE CLAIM REVIEW; MANAGED CARE PROGRAMS; MANAGEMENT AUDIT; MEDICAL AUDIT; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 35348957881     PISSN: 10880224     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
2. Rosenthal MB, Dudley RA. Pay-for-performance. JAMA 2007;297:740-744.
3. Epstein AM. Pay-for-performance at the tipping point. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:515-517.
4. The White House. Executive order: promoting quality and efficient health care in federal government administered or sponsored health care programs [news release]. August 22, 2006. Available at: http:/www.whitehouse.gov/news/ releases/2006/08/20060822-2.html. Accessed April 30, 2007.
5. US Department of Health & Human Services. Value-driven health care home [news release]. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/transparency. Accessed April 30, 2007.
6. Iezzoni LI. Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:666-674.
7. Newschaffer CJ, Bush TL, Penberthy LT. Comorbidity measurement in elderly female breast cancer patients with administrative and medical records data. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:725-733.
8. Steinwachs DM, Stuart MR, Scholle S, Starfield B, Fox MH, Weiner JP. A comparison of ambulatory Medicaid claims to medical records: a reliability assessment. Am J Med Qual. 1998;13:63-69.
9. Parkinson MD. Clinical performance review for diabetic care comparing medical record versus claims and administrative data. Am J Manag Care. 2002;8:607-608.
10. Keating NL, Landrum MB, Landon BE, Ayanian JZ, Borbas C, Guadagnoli E. Measuring the quality of diabetes care using administrative data: is there bias? Health Serv Res. 2003;38:1529-1545.
11. Baker DW, Persell SD, Thompson JA, et al. Automated review of electronic health records to assess quality of care for outpatients with heart failure. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:270-277.
12. Kerr EA, Smith DM, Hogan MM, et al. Comparing clinical automated, medical record, and hybrid data sources for diabetes quality measures. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2002;28:555-565.
13. Kramer TL, Owen RR, Cannon D, et al. How well do automated performance measures assess guideline implementation for new-onset depression in the Veterans Health Administration? Jt Comm J Qual Saf. 2003;29:479-489.
14. National Committee for Quality Assurance. The State of Health Care Quality 2006. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance; 2006. Available at: http://www.ncqa.org/communications/sohc2006/sohc_2006.pdf. Accessed September 11, 2007.
15. National Committee for Quality Assurance. America's best health plans 2006. Available at: http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/best-health- insurance/topplans.htm. Accessed July 31, 2007.
16. National Committee for Quality Assurance. HEDIS Volume 2, Technical Specifications. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance; 2006.