OBJECTIVE: Some argue that health plans have minimal impacts on quality of care and that quality data collection should focus only on physician organizations. We investigate the relative impact of physician organizations and health plans on quality measures.

DESIGN: Statistical analysis of data on 9 Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures from 6 health plans and 159 provider organizations. We use regression analyses to examine the amount of variation in HEDIS measures accounted for by variation across provider organizations, and whether accounting for health plans explains additional variation. We also examine whether accounting for provider organizations explains away variation in HEDIS scores across health plans.

SETTING: Six health plans and 159 contracted provider groups in California.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Nine HEDIS scores.

RESULTS: For all nine measures studied, variation across provider organizations explains much of the HEDIS score variation. But, after accounting for variation across providers, variation across plans statistically significantly explains additional variation. We also find statistically significant differences across health plans in HEDIS rates that are not substantially affected when we control for the provider organization that cared for the patient.

CONCLUSIONS: On their face, these results suggest that plans can influence quality independent of the selection of physician organizations with which they contract, in contrast to hypotheses that plans are 'too far' from patients to have an influence. Continued attention to collecting plan-level data is warranted. Further work should address other possible sources of variations in HEDIS scores, such as variability in plan administrative databases.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Concern about patient safety has promoted efforts to improve safety climate. A better understanding of how patient safety climate differs among distinct work areas and disciplines in hospitals would facilitate the design and implementation of interventions.

OBJECTIVES:

To understand workers' perceptions of safety climate and ways in which climate varies among hospitals and by work area and discipline.

RESEARCH DESIGN:

We administered the Patient Safety Climate in Healthcare Organizations survey in 2004-2005 to personnel in a stratified random sample of 92 US hospitals.

SUBJECTS:

We sampled 100% of senior managers and physicians and 10% of all other workers. We received 18,361 completed surveys (52% response).

MEASURES:

The survey measured safety climate perceptions and worker and job characteristics of hospital personnel. We calculated and compared the percent of responses inconsistent with a climate of safety among hospitals, work areas, and disciplines.

RESULTS:

Overall, 17% of responses were inconsistent with a safety climate. Patient safety climate differed by hospital and among and within work areas and disciplines. Emergency department personnel perceived worse safety climate and personnel in nonclinical areas perceived better safety climate than workers in other areas. Nurses were more negative than physicians regarding their work unit's support and recognition of safety efforts, and physicians showed marginally more fear of shame than nurses. For other dimensions of safety climate, physician-nurse differences depended on their work area.

CONCLUSIONS:

Differences among and within hospitals suggest that strategies for improving safety climate and patient safety should be tailored for work areas and disciplines.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

Concerns about the safety and efficacy of over-the-counter cold medications have led to a recent US Food and Drug Administration public health advisory against their use in children <2 years of age. Our goal was to examine caregiver understanding of the age indication of over-the-counter cold medication labels and identify factors, associated with caregiver understanding.

METHODS:

Caregivers of infant children (< or =1 year old) were recruited from clinics at 3 institutions. Questions were administered regarding the use of 4 previously common "infant" over-the-counter cold and cough medicines labeled to consult a physician if used in children <2 years of age. Literacy and numeracy skills were assessed with validated instruments.

RESULTS:

A total of 182 caregivers were recruited; 87% were the infants' mothers. Mean education level was 12.5 years, and 99% had adequate literacy skills, but only 17% had >9th-grade numeracy skills. When examining the front of the product label, 86% of the time parents thought these products were appropriate for use in children <2 years of age. More than 50% of the time, parents stated they would give these over-the-counter products to a 13-month-old child with cold symptoms. Common factors that influenced parental decisions included label saying "infant," graphics (eg, infants, teddy bears, droppers), and dosing directions. Caregivers were influenced by the dosing directions only 47% of the time. Caregivers with lower numeracy skills were more likely to provide inappropriate reasons for giving an over-the-counter medication.

CONCLUSIONS:

Misunderstanding of over-the-counter cold products is common and could result in harm if medications are given inappropriately. Label language and graphics seem to influence inappropriate interpretation of over-the-counter product age indications. Poorer parental numeracy skills may increase the misinterpretation of these products. Opportunities exist for the Food and Drug Administration and manufacturers to revise existing labels to improve parental comprehension and enhance child safety.

Background: Despite trials of mammography and widespread use, optimal screening policy is controversial.

Objective: To evaluate U.S. breast cancer screening strategies.

Design: 6 models using common data elements.

Data Sources: National data on age-specific incidence, competing mortality, mammography characteristics, and treatment effects.

Target Population: A contemporary population cohort.

Time Horizon: Lifetime.

Perspective: Societal.

Interventions: 20 screening strategies with varying initiation and cessation ages applied annually or biennially.

Outcome Measures: Number of mammograms, reduction in deaths from breast cancer or life-years gained (vs. no screening), false-positive results, unnecessary biopsies, and overdiagnosis.

Results of Base-Case Analysis: The 6 models produced consistent rankings of screening strategies. Screening biennially maintained an average of 81% (range across strategies and models, 67% to 99%) of the benefit of annual screening with almost half the number of false-positive results. Screening biennially from ages 50 to 69 years achieved a median 16.5% (range, 15% to 23%) reduction in breast cancer deaths versus no screening. Initiating biennial screening at age 40 years (vs. 50 years) reduced mortality by an additional 3% (range, 1% to 6%), consumed more resources, and yielded more false-positive results. Biennial screening after age 69 years yielded some additional mortality reduction in all models, but overdiagnosis increased most substantially at older ages.

Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Varying test sensitivity or treatment patterns did not change conclusions.

Limitation: Results do not include morbidity from false-positive results, patient knowledge of earlier diagnosis, or unnecessary treatment.

Conclusion: Biennial screening achieves most of the benefit of annual screening with less harm. Decisions about the best strategy depend on program and individual objectives and the weight placed on benefits, harms, and resource considerations.

BACKGROUND: Safety climate refers to shared perceptions of what an organization is like with regard to safety, whereas safety culture refers to employees' fundamental ideology and orientation and explains why safety is pursued in the manner exhibited within a particular organization. Although research has sought to identify opportunities for improving safety outcomes by studying patterns of variation in safety climate, few empirical studies have examined the impact of organizational characteristics such as culture on hospital safety climate.

PURPOSE: This study explored how aspects of general organizational culture relate to hospital patient safety climate.

METHODOLOGY: In a stratified sample of 92 U.S. hospitals, we sampled 100% of senior managers and physicians and 10% of other hospital workers. The Patient Safety Climate in Healthcare Organizations and the Zammuto and Krakower organizational culture surveys measured safety climate and group, entrepreneurial, hierarchical, and production orientation of hospitals' culture, respectively. We administered safety climate surveys to 18,361 personnel and organizational culture surveys to a 5,894 random subsample between March 2004 and May 2005. Secondary data came from the 2004 American Hospital Association Annual Hospital Survey and Dun & Bradstreet. Hierarchical linear regressions assessed relationships between organizational culture and safety climate measures.

FINDINGS: Aspects of general organizational culture were strongly related to safety climate. A higher level of group culture correlated with a higher level of safety climate, but more hierarchical culture was associated with lower safety climate. Aspects of organizational culture accounted for more than threefold improvement in measures of model fit compared with models with controls alone. A mix of culture types, emphasizing group culture, seemed optimal for safety climate.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Safety climate and organizational culture are positively related. Results support strategies that promote group orientation and reduced hierarchy, including use of multidisciplinary team training, continuous quality improvement tools, and human resource practices and policies.

Background: An increasing number of people suffer from chronic illness. Processes exist to provide better chronic illness care and yet for the most part, they are not used.

Objective: To examine the change in use of commonly recommended chronic illness care management processes (CMPs) in large medical groups between 2000 and 2006 and the factors associated with the change.

Design and Measures: Cohort analysis of data from a national telephone survey in year 2000 and again in 2006. Participants provided information on their organizations' ownership, size, use of defined chronic illness CMPs, financial incentives, quality improvement involvement, profitability, and use of electronic medical records.

Setting: Medical groups and independent practice associations of 20 physicians or more (N = 369) that treat patients with asthma, congestive heart failure, depression, and diabetes, and that responded to the survey in 2000 and 2006.

Results: Use of CMP increased from 6.25 to 7.67 (of a total of 17; P ≤ 0.001), that is, by 23%, between 2000 and 2006. Increases were greatest for those practices receiving financial rewards for quality; those participating in quality improvement activities; and those practices that were profitable. Most of the increase was in use of registries and in patient self-management support services.

Conclusions: There is significant opportunity for improving chronic illness care even in larger physician organizations. Public policies that promote financial rewards for improving quality and that encourage quality improvement initiatives are likely to be associated with improved chronic illness care.

The current focus of the health reform debate is rightfully beginning to shift to the need to transform the delivery system to contain the long run growth in costs. Although much of the debate still focuses on the role of a public plan, this ignores the need for fundamental change. None of the options on the table will transform the delivery system. If passed, the best the current proposals could do is to expand enrollment and perhaps contain federal costs, but on its own the public plan will be unable to make the delivery system more efficient.

To control health care costs, I propose a publicly chartered major risk pool, or MRP, that
will allow plans to pool risk, thereby eliminating the need for wasteful underwriting and
selective marketing costs. Participation in the MRP by both providers and insurers is
voluntary. It can be combined with any public option in an exchange implemented at the
federal or state level; it can even work without a public option. After a brief transition
period, the MRP requires no federal funds and will not be “on budget.” By allowing private plans to play a role in a transformed insurance and delivery system, the MRP can be politically attractive to a broader constituency than any of the current proposals.

The MRP addresses a key component of comprehensive health reform: restructuring the
delivery system. It is not a simple reinsurance pool that reimburses health plans for high costclaims. Instead, it creates a reformed payment system for both inpatient care and outpatient chronic care that will encourage efficiency and quality. The MRP will cover inpatient and similar short but expensive episodes, as well as chronic illness management. Its new payment approaches will achieve the efficiency goals promised by proposals for hospital medical staff-focused Accountable Care Organizations, but in an organizationally more plausible manner. Hospitals and physicians who focus on inpatient care and voluntarily form Care Delivery Teams will receive bundled episode-based payments, but the MRP will pay providers regardless of whether they belong to a Care Delivery Team, although at less attractive rates. Providers in these teams can use their bargaining power to charge the primary insurers more than the MRP pays. The MRP’s payments for monthly chronic illness management will give health plans and primary care physicians the incentives, flexibility, and information to more effectively compensate clinicians for the care they deliver and coordinate. By being publicly chartered, but independent of Congress, and by allowing options for all players, the MRP will be able to sidestep the ability of special interests to block change.