Measuring, Reporting, and Rewarding Quality of Care in 5 Nations: 5 Policy Levers to Enhance Hospital Quality Accountability.
Journal
The Milbank Quarterly
ISSN-Digital
1468-0009
Type
journal article
Date Issued
2017-03-07
Author(s)
Research Team
https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/persons/8635
Abstract
Context:
Studies have documented wide quality variation among hospitals within and across countries. Increasing quality‐of‐care accountability for hospitals, especially for patients and the general public, is an important policy objective, but no study has yet systematically and comprehensively compared leading countries’ initiatives in this regard.
Methods:
Based on expert interviews and an extensive literature review, we investigate hospital quality accountability in England, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United States. The underlying framework includes 3 elements: measuring quality, reporting quality, and rewarding quality. Each element is subdivided into 2 dimensions, with measuring composed of indicator type and data source, reporting composed of degree of reporting centralization and data accessibility, and rewarding composed of extent of application and type of quality‐related payments.
Findings:
The results show a wide spectrum of approaches and progress levels. Measuring strategies are more similar across countries, while quality reporting and financial rewards are more dissimilar. Reporting of process indicators is more prevalent than reporting of outcomes. Most countries have introduced some quality‐related payment schemes, with the United States having the most comprehensive approach. Based on the cross‐country assessment, 5 policy levers to enhance quality transparency are identified and illustrated through country‐specific examples: (1) the government should take a central role in establishing standards and incentives for quality transparency and health IT system integration; (2) system centralization and decentralization need to be balanced to ensure both national comparability and local innovation; (3) health systems need to focus more on outcome transparency and less on process measures; (4) health systems need to engage providers as proponents of quality transparency; and (5) reporting should focus on hospital and condition levels to ensure comparability and enable meaningful patient choice.
Conclusions:
The findings facilitate cross‐country learning and best‐practice adoption by assessing hospital quality accountability strategies in 5 countries in a structured and comparative manner. The identified policy levers are relevant for enhancing breadth, depth, and value of quality accountability.
Studies have documented wide quality variation among hospitals within and across countries. Increasing quality‐of‐care accountability for hospitals, especially for patients and the general public, is an important policy objective, but no study has yet systematically and comprehensively compared leading countries’ initiatives in this regard.
Methods:
Based on expert interviews and an extensive literature review, we investigate hospital quality accountability in England, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United States. The underlying framework includes 3 elements: measuring quality, reporting quality, and rewarding quality. Each element is subdivided into 2 dimensions, with measuring composed of indicator type and data source, reporting composed of degree of reporting centralization and data accessibility, and rewarding composed of extent of application and type of quality‐related payments.
Findings:
The results show a wide spectrum of approaches and progress levels. Measuring strategies are more similar across countries, while quality reporting and financial rewards are more dissimilar. Reporting of process indicators is more prevalent than reporting of outcomes. Most countries have introduced some quality‐related payment schemes, with the United States having the most comprehensive approach. Based on the cross‐country assessment, 5 policy levers to enhance quality transparency are identified and illustrated through country‐specific examples: (1) the government should take a central role in establishing standards and incentives for quality transparency and health IT system integration; (2) system centralization and decentralization need to be balanced to ensure both national comparability and local innovation; (3) health systems need to focus more on outcome transparency and less on process measures; (4) health systems need to engage providers as proponents of quality transparency; and (5) reporting should focus on hospital and condition levels to ensure comparability and enable meaningful patient choice.
Conclusions:
The findings facilitate cross‐country learning and best‐practice adoption by assessing hospital quality accountability strategies in 5 countries in a structured and comparative manner. The identified policy levers are relevant for enhancing breadth, depth, and value of quality accountability.
Language
English
Keywords
health care quality assessment
quality accountability
pay-for-performance
hospital quality of care
public reporting
comparative health policy
HSG Classification
contribution to scientific community
Refereed
Yes
Volume
95
Number
1
Start page
136
End page
183
Subject(s)
Eprints ID
259569
File(s)![Thumbnail Image]()
Name
Milbank Quarterly - 2017 - PROSS - Measuring Reporting and Rewarding Quality of Care in 5 Nations 5 Policy Levers to.pdf
Size
630.64 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
ffc06bd59c7e28c4d579a96cffea7cd4