This special issue of Medical Care Research and Review features articles developed for a national conference on performance measurement in preferred provider organizations (PPOs). The conference, “PPO Performance Measurement: Agenda for the Future,” was held March 15-16, 2001, in Washington, D.C. It brought together various stake-holders—industry representatives, consumers, purchasers, and regulators—to discuss the state of PPO performance reporting and develop a strategy for future directions. These articles provided the background for an informed dialogue. The American Accreditation HealthCare Commission (URAC), the Consumer Coalition for Quality HealthCare, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, and the National Committee for Quality Assurance cosponsored the conference with a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to URAC.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 1997Consumer Assessments of Health Plans Study 1.0. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
2.
American Association of Health Plans. 2000. Guide to accreditation 1999-2000. Washington, DC: American Association of Health Plans.
3.
Chernew, M., and D. P. Scanlon. 1998. Health plan report cards and insurance choice. Inquiry35 (1): 9-22.
4.
Employee Benefits Research Institute. 2000. Employment-based health care benefits and self-funded employment-based plans: An overview. Washington, DC: Employee Benefits Research Institute.
5.
Gabel, J., K. Hunt, and K. Hurst. 1998, 15 September. When employers chose health plans: Do NCQA accreditation and HEDIS data count? [Online] New York: The Common-wealth Fund. Available: www.cmwf.org
6.
Greenberg, L.2000a. Perspectives on PPO performance measurement from consumers, PPO leaders and employers [Online]. New York: The Commonwealth Fund. Available: www.cmwf.org
7.
Greenberg, L.. 2000b. The state of PPO performance reporting: Case study report. Washington, DC: American Accreditation HealthCare Commission.
8.
Greenrose, K., and G. Carneal. 2000. Rise to prominence: The PPO story. Washington, DC: American Association of Preferred Provider Organizations/American Accreditation HealthCare Commission.
9.
Hibbard, J. H., J. J. Jewett, M. W. Legnini, and M. Tusler. 1997. Choosing a health plan: Do large employers use the data?Health Affairs16 (6): 172-180.
Jencks, S. F., T. Cuerdon, B. R. Burwen, B. Fleming, P. M. Houck, A. E. Kussmaul, D. S. Nilasena, D. L. Ordin, and D. R. Arday. 2000. Quality of medical care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries: A profile at state and national levels. Journal of the American Medical Association284 (13): 1670-1676.
12.
Kaiser Family Foundation/Agency For Healthcare Research and Quality. 2000. National survey on Americans as health care consumers: An update on the role of quality information [Online]. Available: www.kff.org
13.
Kohn, L. T., J. M. Corrigan, and M. S. Donaldson, eds. 2000. To err is human. Building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
14.
Lubalin, J. S., and L. Harris-Kojetin. 1999. What do consumers want and need to know in making health care choices. Medical Care Research and Review56 (suppl. 1): 67-102.
15.
Marshall, M. N., P. G. Shekelle, S. Leatherman, and R. Brook. 2000. The public release of performance data: What do we expect to gain? A review of the evidence. Journal of the American Medical Association83 (14): 1866-1874.
16.
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. 1999. Study on quality standards for health plans and providers mandated by the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999. Washington, DC: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
17.
National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine. 2001. Crossing the quality chasm. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
18.
National Committee for Quality Assurance. 1998. HEDIS’99 technical specifications. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance.
19.
Office of Personnel Management. 2001. FEHB program carrier letter 2001-09, call letter for contract year 2002.
20.
Scanlon, D. P., Michael Chernew, Hilary E. Doty, and Dean G. Smith. 2001. Options for assessing PPO quality: A strategic discussion of accreditation, provider profiling, and peer review as accountability strategies. Medical Care Research and Review58 (suppl. 1): 70-101.
21.
Scanlon, D. P., and T. J. Hendrix. 1998. Health plan accreditation: NCQA, JCAHO, or both?Managed Care Quarterly6 (4): 52-61.
22.
Schauffler, H. H., and S. McMenamin. 2001. Assessing PPO performance on prevention and population health. Medical Care Research and Review58 (suppl. 1): 113-137.
23.
Schneider, E., V. Riehl, S. Courte-Wienecke, D. Eddy, and C. Sennett. 1999. Enhancing performance measurement: NCQA’s road map for a health information framework. Journal of the American Medical Association282 (12): 1184-1189.
24.
Smith, D. G., and D. Scanlon. 2001. Covered lives in PPOs. Medical Care Research and Review58 (suppl. 1): 16-33.
25.
William M. Mercer. 1999. Mercer/Foster Higgins national survey of employer-sponsored health programs. New York: William M. Mercer.
