Objective: To examine how resource use varies with care quality for managed care populations with diabetes. Design and methods: Data from 31 commercial health plans (23 health maintenance organizations and 8 preferred provider organizations) were analyzed. Resource use was calculated using medical and pharmacy claims and enrollment data for members with diabetes. A standardized pricing methodology was applied for resource use associated with inpatient, pharmacy, evaluation and management, and procedural services. Quality of care results were calculated for 4 process quality indicators of the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) comprehensive diabetes care measure set. Results: Resource use varied more between organizations than quality of care results. Pharmacy resource use was significantly associated with higher quality; inpatient, procedure and surgery, and ambulatory care visit resource use were not significantly associated. Conclusions: Quality and resource use for managed care populations with diabetes may vary considerably and be largely independent factors in health care delivery. Health plans may be able to favorably impact both factors. (Am J Med Qual 2008:23:365-374)
Rowe JWPay-for-performance and accountability: related themes in improving health care. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 145:695-699.
2.
Tandon A., Lauer JA, Evans DB, Murray CJL.Health system efficiency: concepts. In: Murray CJL and Evans DB, eds. Health System Performance Assessment. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2003. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2003/9241562455_(part4)_(chp50-60).pdf . Accessed September 9, 2007
3.
Wennberg JE, Fisher ES, Skinner JSGeography and the debate over Medicare reform. Health Affairs . Web Exclusive. http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/search?ck=nck&andorexactfulltext=and&resourcetype=1&disp_type=&author1=Wennberg&fulltext=&pubdate_year=2002&volume=&firstpage=. Accessed February 13, 2002.
4.
Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Stukel TA, Gottlieb DJ, Lucas FL, Pinder ELThe implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 1: the content, quality, and accessibility of care. Ann Intern Med.2003;138:273-287.
5.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.National diabetes fact sheet: general information and national estimates on diabetes in the United States, 2005. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2005. http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/factsheet05.htm#contents. Accessed September 9, 2007.
6.
Hogan P., Dall T., Nikolov P.American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the US in2002. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:917-932.
7.
McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J., et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2635-2645.
8.
Galvin R., Milstein A.Large employers' new strategies in health care. N Engl J Med . 2002:347:939-942.
9.
National Committee for Quality Assurance.The State of Health Care Quality, 2006: Industry Trends and Analysis. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance ; 2006. http://www.ncqa.org/Communications/SOHC2006/SOHC_2006.pdf. Accessed February 28, 2007.
10.
Thorpe KEFactors accounting for the rise in health-care spending in the United States: the role of rising disease prevalence and treatment intensity. Public Health. 2006; 120:1002-1007.
