Reporting provider performance

what can be learned from the experience of multi-stakeholder community coalitions?

Jon B. Christianson, Bethany W. Shaw, Jessica Greene, Dennis Patrick Scanlon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This analysis assessed the evolution of public reporting of provider performance in Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) alliances, contrasted alliances that stopped reporting with those that plan to continue, and drew insights from alliance public reporting efforts for the national transparency movement.

METHODS: Combined with document review, qualitative research methods were used to analyze interview data collected, over a nearly 10-year period, from the 16 participating alliances.

RESULTS: AF4Q alliances made their greatest contributions to provider transparency in reporting ambulatory quality and patient experience measures. However, reporting ambulatory cost/efficiency/utilization measures was more challenging for alliances. Alliances contributed the least with respect to measures of inpatient performance. Six alliances ceased reporting at the end of the AF4Q program because of their inability to develop stable funding sources and overcome stakeholder skepticism about the value of public reporting. Insights provided by alliance leaders included the need to: focus on provider, rather than consumer, responses to public reports as the most likely avenue for improving quality; address the challenge of funding the reporting infrastructure from the beginning; explore collaborations with other entities to increase public reporting efficiency; and develop a strategy for responding to efforts at the national level to increase the availability of information on provider performance.

CONCLUSION: The AF4Q initiative demonstrated that a wide variety of voluntary stakeholder coalitions could develop public reports with financial and technical support. However, the contents of these reports varied considerably, reflecting differences in local environments and alliance strategies. The challenges faced by alliances to maintain their reporting efforts were substantial, and not all alliances chose to report. Nevertheless, there are potential roles for alliances going forward in contributing to the national transparency movement.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)s382-s392
JournalThe American journal of managed care
Volume22
Issue number12
StatePublished - Aug 1 2016

Fingerprint

Financial Support
Qualitative Research
Inpatients
Interviews
Costs and Cost Analysis

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Health Policy

Cite this

@article{e054062b132843968af884a0f1b47358,
title = "Reporting provider performance: what can be learned from the experience of multi-stakeholder community coalitions?",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: This analysis assessed the evolution of public reporting of provider performance in Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) alliances, contrasted alliances that stopped reporting with those that plan to continue, and drew insights from alliance public reporting efforts for the national transparency movement.METHODS: Combined with document review, qualitative research methods were used to analyze interview data collected, over a nearly 10-year period, from the 16 participating alliances.RESULTS: AF4Q alliances made their greatest contributions to provider transparency in reporting ambulatory quality and patient experience measures. However, reporting ambulatory cost/efficiency/utilization measures was more challenging for alliances. Alliances contributed the least with respect to measures of inpatient performance. Six alliances ceased reporting at the end of the AF4Q program because of their inability to develop stable funding sources and overcome stakeholder skepticism about the value of public reporting. Insights provided by alliance leaders included the need to: focus on provider, rather than consumer, responses to public reports as the most likely avenue for improving quality; address the challenge of funding the reporting infrastructure from the beginning; explore collaborations with other entities to increase public reporting efficiency; and develop a strategy for responding to efforts at the national level to increase the availability of information on provider performance.CONCLUSION: The AF4Q initiative demonstrated that a wide variety of voluntary stakeholder coalitions could develop public reports with financial and technical support. However, the contents of these reports varied considerably, reflecting differences in local environments and alliance strategies. The challenges faced by alliances to maintain their reporting efforts were substantial, and not all alliances chose to report. Nevertheless, there are potential roles for alliances going forward in contributing to the national transparency movement.",
author = "Christianson, {Jon B.} and Shaw, {Bethany W.} and Jessica Greene and Scanlon, {Dennis Patrick}",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "s382--s392",
journal = "American Journal of Managed Care",
issn = "1088-0224",
publisher = "Ascend Media",
number = "12",

}

Reporting provider performance : what can be learned from the experience of multi-stakeholder community coalitions? / Christianson, Jon B.; Shaw, Bethany W.; Greene, Jessica; Scanlon, Dennis Patrick.

In: The American journal of managed care, Vol. 22, No. 12, 01.08.2016, p. s382-s392.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reporting provider performance

T2 - what can be learned from the experience of multi-stakeholder community coalitions?

AU - Christianson, Jon B.

AU - Shaw, Bethany W.

AU - Greene, Jessica

AU - Scanlon, Dennis Patrick

PY - 2016/8/1

Y1 - 2016/8/1

N2 - OBJECTIVES: This analysis assessed the evolution of public reporting of provider performance in Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) alliances, contrasted alliances that stopped reporting with those that plan to continue, and drew insights from alliance public reporting efforts for the national transparency movement.METHODS: Combined with document review, qualitative research methods were used to analyze interview data collected, over a nearly 10-year period, from the 16 participating alliances.RESULTS: AF4Q alliances made their greatest contributions to provider transparency in reporting ambulatory quality and patient experience measures. However, reporting ambulatory cost/efficiency/utilization measures was more challenging for alliances. Alliances contributed the least with respect to measures of inpatient performance. Six alliances ceased reporting at the end of the AF4Q program because of their inability to develop stable funding sources and overcome stakeholder skepticism about the value of public reporting. Insights provided by alliance leaders included the need to: focus on provider, rather than consumer, responses to public reports as the most likely avenue for improving quality; address the challenge of funding the reporting infrastructure from the beginning; explore collaborations with other entities to increase public reporting efficiency; and develop a strategy for responding to efforts at the national level to increase the availability of information on provider performance.CONCLUSION: The AF4Q initiative demonstrated that a wide variety of voluntary stakeholder coalitions could develop public reports with financial and technical support. However, the contents of these reports varied considerably, reflecting differences in local environments and alliance strategies. The challenges faced by alliances to maintain their reporting efforts were substantial, and not all alliances chose to report. Nevertheless, there are potential roles for alliances going forward in contributing to the national transparency movement.

AB - OBJECTIVES: This analysis assessed the evolution of public reporting of provider performance in Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) alliances, contrasted alliances that stopped reporting with those that plan to continue, and drew insights from alliance public reporting efforts for the national transparency movement.METHODS: Combined with document review, qualitative research methods were used to analyze interview data collected, over a nearly 10-year period, from the 16 participating alliances.RESULTS: AF4Q alliances made their greatest contributions to provider transparency in reporting ambulatory quality and patient experience measures. However, reporting ambulatory cost/efficiency/utilization measures was more challenging for alliances. Alliances contributed the least with respect to measures of inpatient performance. Six alliances ceased reporting at the end of the AF4Q program because of their inability to develop stable funding sources and overcome stakeholder skepticism about the value of public reporting. Insights provided by alliance leaders included the need to: focus on provider, rather than consumer, responses to public reports as the most likely avenue for improving quality; address the challenge of funding the reporting infrastructure from the beginning; explore collaborations with other entities to increase public reporting efficiency; and develop a strategy for responding to efforts at the national level to increase the availability of information on provider performance.CONCLUSION: The AF4Q initiative demonstrated that a wide variety of voluntary stakeholder coalitions could develop public reports with financial and technical support. However, the contents of these reports varied considerably, reflecting differences in local environments and alliance strategies. The challenges faced by alliances to maintain their reporting efforts were substantial, and not all alliances chose to report. Nevertheless, there are potential roles for alliances going forward in contributing to the national transparency movement.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041264202&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041264202&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - s382-s392

JO - American Journal of Managed Care

JF - American Journal of Managed Care

SN - 1088-0224

IS - 12

ER -