Consumers' interest in provider ratings grows, and improved report cards and other steps could accelerate their use

Health Affairs

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 688-696

  Findlay, Steven D ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSUMER; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERNET; SMARTPHONE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION SERVICE; MALE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PROCEDURES; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; UNITED STATES; UTILIZATION;

CONSUMER BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION SERVICES; INTERNET; MALE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRACTICE PATTERNS, PHYSICIANS'; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84964963338     PISSN: 02782715     EISSN: 15445208     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1654     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Casalino LP, Gans D, Weber R, Cea M, Tuchovsky A, Bishop TF, et al. US physician practices spend more than $15.4 billion annually to report quality measures. Health Aff (Mill-wood). 2016;35(3);401-6.
2. CMS.gov. Public reporting [Internet]. Baltimore (MD): Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; [last modified 2014 Oct 16; cited 2016 Feb 25]. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/physician-compare-initiative/Public_Reporting.html.
3. American Medical Association. Medicare physician payment reform: understanding how MACRA will impact physicians [Internet]. Chicago (IL): AMA; [cited 2016 Feb 24]. Available from: http://www.amaassn.org/ama/pub/advocacy/topics/medicare-physician-payment-reform.page.
4. Findlay S. Health Policy Brief: Medicare's new physician payment system. Health Affairs. Forthcoming in April 2016.
5. Hussey PS, Luft HS, McNamara P. Public reporting of provider performance at a crossroads in the United States: summary of current barriers and recommendations on how to move forward. Med Care Res Rev. 2014;71(5 Suppl):5S-16S.
6. 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.
7. Millenson ML, Berenson RA. The road to making patient-centered care real: policy vehicles and potholes [Internet]. Washington (DC): Urban Institute;2015 Oct [cited 2016 Feb 24]. (Research Report). Available from http://http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2000476-the-road-to-making-patient-centered-care-real.pdf.
8. American Hospital Association. Quality and patient safety [Internet]. Chicago (IL): AHA; [cited 2016 Feb 2]. Available from: http://www.aha.org/advocacy-issues/quality/index.shtml.
9. Austin M, Vogus T. What does maximum transparency look like when it comes to hospital ratings? Health Affairs Blog [blog on the Internet]. 2015 May 8 [cited 2016 Feb 24]. Available from: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2015/05/08/what-does-maximum-transparency-look-like-when-it-comes-to-hospital-ratings/.
10. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Improving public reporting websites for consumers: lessons learned from consumer testing of Aligning Forces for Quality websites [Internet]. Princeton (NJ): RWJF;2012 Apr [cited 2016 Feb 24]. Available from: http://forces4quality.org/af4q/download-document/5266/Resource-lessons_learned-improving_public_reporting_websites_for_consumers_11-024_-_fnl_revised_6.14.12.pdf.
11. Fox S. The social life of health information [Internet]. Washington (DC): Pew Research Center;2014 Jan 15 [cited 2016 Feb 24]. Available from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/15/the-social-life-of-health-information/.
12. Fox S, Duggan M. The diagnosis difference [Internet]. Washington (DC): Pew Research Center;2013 Nov 26 [cited 2016 Feb 24]. Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/11/26/the-diagnosis-difference/.
13. National Library of Medicine. MedlinePlus statistics [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): NLM; [last updated 2016 Jan 21; cited 2016 Feb 24]. Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/usestatistics.html.
14. Traffic number for September 2015 from comScore Inc., a website analytics firm.
15. Flamm M. Everyday Health closes in on WebMD's online dominance. Crain's [serial on the Internet]. 2012 Jun 10 [cited 2016 Mar 2]. Available from: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120610/SUB/306109984/everyday-health-closes-in-on-webmds-online-dominance.
16. Healthgrades [home page on the Internet]. Denver (CO): Health-grades; c 2016 [cited 2016 Feb 23]. Available from: http://www.healthgrades.com.
17. Vitals [home page on the Internet]. c 2016 [cited 2016 Feb 23]. Available from: http://www.vitals.com.
18. To access the Appendix, click on the Appendix link in the box to the right of the article online.
19. Hanauer DA, Zheng K, Singer DC, Gebremariam A, Davis MM. Public awareness, perception, and use of online physician rating sites. JAMA. 2014;311(7): 734-5.
20. Minnesota HealthScores [home page on the Internet]. Minneapolis (MN): Minnesota HealthScores; c 2014 [cited 2016 Feb 32]. Available from: http://mnhealthscores.org.
21. Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council [home page on the Internet]. Harrisburg (PA): PHC4; c 2016 [cited 2015 Feb 24]. Available from: http://www.phc4.org.
22. CalQualityCare.org [home page on the Internet]. Oakland (CA): California Health Care Foundation; c 2016 [cited 2016 Feb 23]. Available from: http://CalQualityCare.org.
23. Consumer Reports. Product reviews [Internet]. Yonkers (NY): Consumer Reports; [cited 2016 Feb 2]. Available from: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/index.htm.
24. U.S. News & World Report. Hospitals [Internet]. Washington (DC): U.S. News; c 2016 [cited 2016 Feb 23]. Available from: http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals.
25. U.S. News plans to expand its physician directory into a platform for ratings in coming years.
26. ProPublica. Surgeon scorecard [Internet]. Washington (DC): ProPublica; [cited 2016 Feb 23]. Available from: https://projects.propublica.org/surgeons/.
27. Friedberg MW, Pronovost PJ, Shahian DM, Safran DG, Bilimoria KY, Elliott MN, et al. A methodological critique of the ProPublica surgeon scorecard [Internet]. Santa Monica (CA): RAND;2015 [cited 2016 Feb 24]. (Perspective). Available from: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE170/RAND_PE170.pdf.
28. Rosenbaum L. Scoring no goal-further adventures in transparency. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(15): 1385-8.
29. Consumers' Checkbook [home page on the Internet]. Washington (DC): Consumers' Checkbook; c 2016 [cited 2016 Feb 23]. Available from: http://www.checkbook.org.
30. Damberg CL, McNamara P, editors. Supplemental issue: informing the next generation of public reporting for consumers. Med Care Res Rev. 2014;71(5 Suppl). The supplement contains six articles on public reporting.
31. Government Accountability Office. Health care transparency: actions needed to improve cost and quality information for consumers [Internet]. Washington (DC): GAO;2014 Oct [cited 2016 Feb 24]. (Report No. GAO-15-11). Available from: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666572.pdf
32. L&M Policy Research, Mathematica Policy Research. Quality reporting on Medicare's Compare sites: lessons learned from consumer research, 2001-2013 [Internet]. Washington (DC): L&M Policy Research;2014 Sep [cited 2016 Feb 24]. Available from: http://www.lmpolicyresearch.com/documents/MedicareCompareSitesQualityReportingandLessonsLearned.pdf.
33. Yegian JM, Dardess P, Shannon M, Carman KL. Engaged patients will need comparative physician-level quality data and information about their out-of-pocket costs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(2): 328-37.
34. Young GJ. Multistakeholder regional collaboratives have been key drivers of public reporting, but now face challenges. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(3): 578-84.
35. Totten AM, Wagner J, Tiwari A, O'Haire C, Griffin J, Walker M. Public reporting as a quality improvement strategy: closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality;2012 Jul [cited 2016 Feb 24]. (AHRQ Publication No. 12-E011-EF). Available from: https://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/343/1199/EvidReport208_CQGPublicReporting_FinalReport_20120724.pdf.
36. Bardach NS, Hibbard JH, Dudley RA. Users of public reports of hospital quality: who, what, why, and how? An aggregate analysis of 16 online public reporting web sites and users' and experts' suggestions for improvement [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality;2011 Dec [cited 2016 Feb 24]. (AHRQ Publication No. 12-0016-EF). Available from: http://archive.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/quality-resources/value/pubreportusers/pubreportusers.pdf.
37. Hibbard JH, Greene J, Daniel D. What is quality anyway? Performance reports that clearly communicate to consumers the meaning of quality of care. Med Care Res Rev. 2010;67(3): 275-93.
38. Hibbard JH, Sofaer S. Best practices in public reporting no. 1: how to effectively present health care performance data to consumers [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; [last reviewed 2010 May; cited 2016 Feb 24]. (AHRQ Publication No. 10-0082-EF). Available from: http://archive.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/quality-resources/tools/pubrptguide1/pubrptguide1.html.
39. Bailey E, de Brantes F. State report card on transparency of physician quality information [Internet]. Newtown (CT): Health Care Incentives Improvement Institute;2015 Nov [cited 2016 Feb 24]. Available from: http://www.hci3.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/11/TransparSCORECARD_REPORT_CARD_HC115026_11.16.15.pdf.
40. Informed Patient Institute [home page on the Internet]. Annapolis (MD): IPI; [cited 2016 Feb 24]. Available from: http://www.informedpatientinstitute.org.
41. DiJulio B, Firth J, Brodie M. Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: April 2015 [Internet]. Menlo Park (CA): Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation;2015 Apr 21 [cited 2016 Feb 24]. Available from: http://kff.org/health-costs/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-april-2015/.
42. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Consumer decision points of health care information [Internet]. Princeton (NJ): RWJF;2010 Jul [cited 2016 Feb 24]. Available from: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2010/rwjf69380.
43. Shaller D, Dodson T, Ricketts J, Li S, Yount N. 2014 CAHPS clinical and group survey database;2014 chart-book: what patients say about their health care providers and medical practices [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality;2015 Jun [cited 2016 Feb 24]. (AHRQ Publication No. 15-CAHPS002-EF). Available from: https://www.cahpsdatabase.ahrq.gov/Files/2014CAHPSClinicianGroup.htm.
44. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. CAHPS: TalkingQuality [Internet]. Rockville (MD): AHRQ; [cited 2016 Feb 23]. Available from: https://cahps.ahrq.gov/consumer-reporting/talkingquality/.
45. Lenz J, Burke A, Onstad K (National Committee for Quality Assurance, Washington, DC). Value judgment: helping health care consumers use quality and cost information [Internet]. Oakland (CA): California Health Care Foundation;2012 Dec [cited 2016 Feb 24]. Available from: http://www.chcf.org/publications/2012/12/value-judgment.
46. 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 (Millwood). 2012;31(3): 560-8.
47. Rothberg MB, Morsi E, Benjamin EM, Pekow PS, Lindenauer PK. Choosing the best hospital: the limitations of public quality reporting. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(6) 1680-7.
48. Austin JM, Jha AK, Romano PS, Singer SJ, Vogus TJ, Wachter RM, et al. National hospital ratings systems share few common scores and may generate confusion instead of clarity. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(3): 423-30.