This article examines and discusses various alternatives for measuring the quality of care and services provided by preferred provider organizations (PPOs). The topic is approached from both a conceptual and a practical perspective, outlining key assumptions that underlie the desire to measure the quality of PPOs, while considering the current limitations and difficulties associated with existing PPO arrangements. Although the article does not provide normative judgments about which approach is best, it attempts to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of possible approaches in an unbiased manner. Significant attention is given to accreditation and profiling as possible methods for assessing the quality of care in PPOs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Benesch, C., D. M. Witter, A. L. Wilder, P. W. Duncan, G. P. Samsa, and D. B. Matcher. 1997. Inaccuracy of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9) in identifying the diagnosis of ischemic cerebrovascular disease. Neurology49 (3): 660-664.
2.
Brennan, T. A.1998. The role of regulation in quality improvement. The Milbank Quarterly76 (4): 709-731.
3.
Brennan, T. A., L. L. Leape, N. M. Laird, L. Hebert, A. R. Localio, A. G. Lawthers, J. P. Newhouse, P. C. Weiler, and H. H. Hiatt. 1991. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study. The New England Journal of Medicine324 (6): 370-376.
4.
Dubois R. W., and R. H. Brook. 1988. Preventable deaths: Who, how often, and why?Annals of Internal Medicine109:582-589.
5.
Enthoven, A. G.1993. The history and principles of managed competition. Health Affairs12 (5): 24-28.
6.
Goldstein, L. B.1998. Accuracy of ICD-9 coding for the identification of patients with acute ischemic stroke: Effect of modifier codes. Stroke29 (8): 1602-1604.
7.
Graber, M. L.1999. Expanding the goals of peer review to detect both practitioner and system error. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement25 (8): 396-407.
8.
Greenberg, L.2000a. Perspectives on PPO performance measurement from consumers, PPO leaders, and employers. New York: The Commonwealth Fund.
9.
Greenberg, L.. 2000b. The state of PPO performance measurement: Case study report. Washington, DC: URAC/American Accreditation HealthCare Commission.
10.
Hamer, R., and D. Anderson. 2000. PPO operations and markets [Online]. Available at http://www.hmodata.com
11.
Hannan, E. L., C. C. Stone, T. L. Biddle, and B. A. DeBuono. 1997. Public release of cardiac surgery outcomes data in New York: What do New York State cardiologists think of it?American Heart Journal134 (1): 55-61.
12.
Hayward, R. A., L. F. McMahon Jr., and A. M. Bernard. 1993. Evaluating the care of general medicine inpatients: How good is implicit review?Annals of Internal Medicine118:550-556.
13.
Health Care Financing Administration. 2000. Quality of care contractors: Peer review organizations (PROs) [Online]. Available at http://www.hcfa.gov/quality/5b.htm
14.
Hofer, T. P., S. J. Bernstein, S. DeMonner, and R. A. Hayward. 2000. Discussion between reviewers does not improve reliability of peer review of hospital quality. Medical Care38 (2): 152-161.
15.
Hofer, T. P., R. A. Hayward, S. Greenfield, E. H. Wagner, S. H. Kaplan, and W. G. Manning. 1999. The unreliability of individual physician “report cards” for assessing the costs and quality of care of a chronic disease. Journal of the American Medical Association281 (22): 2098-2105.
16.
iMcKesson Corporation. 1998. Clinical resource management system. Alpharetta, GA: iMcKesson Corporation. Information available at http://www.hboc.com
17.
InterStudy. 2000. The InterStudy PPO database: Reporting data as of December 31, 1999, version 1.0. Minneapolis, MN: Decision Resources. Information available at http://www.interstudypublications.com
18.
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. 1998. 1998-2000 comprehensive accreditation manual for health care networks. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations.
19.
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. 1999. Facts about ORYX™ and performance measurement requirements for networks and managed behavioral health care organizations. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations.
20.
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. 2000. Accreditation manual for preferred provider organizations. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations.
21.
Katon, W., C. M. Rutter, E. Lin, G. Simon, M. Von Korff, T. Bush, E. Walker, and E. Luman. 2000. Are there detectable differences in quality of care or outcome of depression across primary care providers?Medical Care38 (6): 552-561.
22.
Kerr, E. A., B. S. Mittman, R. D. Hays, A. L. Siu, B. Leake, and R. H. Brook. 1995. Managed care capitation in California: How do physicians with financial risk control their own utilization?Annals of Internal Medicine123 (7): 500-504.
23.
Kleinman, L.2001. Conceptual and technical issues regarding the use of HEDIS and HEDIS-like measures in preferred provider organizations. Medical Care Research & Review58 (Supp 1): 37-57.
24.
National Committee for Quality Assurance. 2000. 2000 standards and surveyor guidelines for the accreditation of PPO plans. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance.
25.
New York State Department of Health. 2001. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery in New York State, 1996-1998 [Online]. Available at: http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/consumer/heart/homehear.htm
26.
Nickerson, C., and R. W. Rutledge. 1999. A methodology for choosing a physician profiling system: The case of first option health plan. Journal of Health Care Finance26 (2): 5-13.
27.
Office of Inspector General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1999a. The external review of hospital quality: A call for greater accountability. Document OEI-01-97-00050. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
28.
Office of Inspector General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1999b. The external review of hospital quality: holding the reviewers accountable. Document OEI-01-97-00053. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
29.
Office of Inspector General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1999c. The external review of hospital quality: The role of accreditation. Document OEI-01-97-00051. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
30.
Office of Inspector General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2000. The external review of hospital quality: State initiatives. Document OEI-01-97-00054. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
31.
Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council. 1998. Pennsylvania’s guide to coronary artery bypass graft surgery, 1994-995 [Online]. Available at: http://www.phc4.org/reports/cabg9495/default.htm
32.
Rubin, H. R., W. H. Rogers, K. L. Kahn, L. V. Rubenstein, and R. H. Brook. 1992. Watching the doctor-watchers. How well do peer review organization methods detect hospital care quality problems?Journal of the American Medical Association267:2349-2354.
33.
Scanlon, D. P., and M. Chernew. 2000. Managed care and performance measurement: Implications for insurance markets. North American Actuarial Journal4 (2): 128-138.
34.
Scanlon, D. P., C. Darby, E. Rolph, and H. E. Doty. 2001. The role of performance measures for improving quality in managed care organizations. Health Services Research36 (3): 619-641.
35.
Scanlon, D. P., E. Rolph, C. Darby, and H. E. Doty. 2000. Are managed care plans organizing for quality?Medical Care Research and Review57 (suppl. 2): 9-32.
36.
Schneider, E. C., and A. M. Epstein. 1996. Influence of cardiac-surgery performance reports on referral practices and access to care. New England Journal of Medicine335 (4): 251-256.
37.
Smith, D., and D. P. Scanlon. 2001. Commentary. Medical Care Research and Review58 (suppl. 1): 16-33.
38.
Stolar, M. W.1995. Clinical management of the NIDDM Patient. Diabetes Care18 (5): 701-707.
39.
URAC/American Accreditation HealthCare Commission. 1999. Accreditation & application manual. Health networks v. 3.1. Washington, DC: URAC.
40.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1999. Physician performance: Report cards under development but challenges remain. Document GAO/HEHS-99-178. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
41.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 2000. National practitioner data bank: Major improvements are needed to enhance data bank’s reliability. Document GAO-01-130. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
42.
Wang, P.S., A. Walker, M. Tsuang, E. J. Orav, R. Levin, and J. Avorn. 2000. Strategies for improving comorbidity measures based on Medicare and Medicaid claims data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology53 (6): 571-578.
43.
Weiner, J. P., S. T. Parente, D. W. Garnick, J. Fowles, A. G. Lawthers, and H. Palmer. 1995. A claims-based profile of care provided to Medicare patients with diabetes. Journal of the American Medical Association273 (19): 1503-1508.
