Richard Corcoran
May 30th, 2008, 01:27 PM
We all know that all health care is not created or delivered equally. We know too that the quality, safety, and outcomes of health care (as well as the cost) vary widely across providers. We also know that at one end of the variation curve some health care may not be necessary, is unsafe, of low quality, produces bad results, and costs too much.
As consumers of health care, we surely would like to be able to identify and avoid using providers practicing at the undesirable left end of the curve and only use providers practicing at a higher level, toward the curve’s right end. If we consumers did this, the theory goes, providers would be scrambling to improve, move higher on the curve, make health care better and safer, and create a “virtuous improvement cycle”.
Is there any evidence that this is happening now or could happen in the future? Do we consumers have enough of the right kind of quality information to know which providers to choose and which to avoid? What information do we need? How do we get our information? How do we use the information we get?
Robert Wood Johnson’s Synthesis Project has just released a report that begins to answer some of these questions. The report – Choosing a health care provider: The role of quality information – concludes by stating “….while consumers value both provider quality and provider quality information, only a minority of consumers is aware of and uses quality information to inform provider choice.” Some of the key findings:
Virtually all publicly reported quality information is for hospitals and health plans, not individual physicians or groups. Most information is disseminated almost exclusively through the Internet.
Knowledge of publicly available quality information is not widespread. Awareness is higher among consumers who are more educated and in good health.
Even among consumers who are aware of the information, use of publicly reported quality information is low.
Lack of relevance, not lack of interest or understanding, is the biggest reason consumers do not use publicly reported information.You can access the full 25-page report here (http://recp.rm05.net/ctt?kn=11&m=1079116&r=NjU5MTM2NzA5MwS2&b=0&j=MTA4NjAxNzY0S0&mt=1) or the 4-page policy brief here (http://recp.rm05.net/ctt?kn=14&m=1079116&r=NjU5MTM2NzA5MwS2&b=0&j=MTA4NjAxNzY0S0&mt=1). Definitely worth a look.
As consumers of health care, we surely would like to be able to identify and avoid using providers practicing at the undesirable left end of the curve and only use providers practicing at a higher level, toward the curve’s right end. If we consumers did this, the theory goes, providers would be scrambling to improve, move higher on the curve, make health care better and safer, and create a “virtuous improvement cycle”.
Is there any evidence that this is happening now or could happen in the future? Do we consumers have enough of the right kind of quality information to know which providers to choose and which to avoid? What information do we need? How do we get our information? How do we use the information we get?
Robert Wood Johnson’s Synthesis Project has just released a report that begins to answer some of these questions. The report – Choosing a health care provider: The role of quality information – concludes by stating “….while consumers value both provider quality and provider quality information, only a minority of consumers is aware of and uses quality information to inform provider choice.” Some of the key findings:
Virtually all publicly reported quality information is for hospitals and health plans, not individual physicians or groups. Most information is disseminated almost exclusively through the Internet.
Knowledge of publicly available quality information is not widespread. Awareness is higher among consumers who are more educated and in good health.
Even among consumers who are aware of the information, use of publicly reported quality information is low.
Lack of relevance, not lack of interest or understanding, is the biggest reason consumers do not use publicly reported information.You can access the full 25-page report here (http://recp.rm05.net/ctt?kn=11&m=1079116&r=NjU5MTM2NzA5MwS2&b=0&j=MTA4NjAxNzY0S0&mt=1) or the 4-page policy brief here (http://recp.rm05.net/ctt?kn=14&m=1079116&r=NjU5MTM2NzA5MwS2&b=0&j=MTA4NjAxNzY0S0&mt=1). Definitely worth a look.