Skip to main content
Subscribe
  • Sign Up Free
  • Login
  • Subscribe
  • News
    • Current News
    • Providers
    • Insurance
    • Government
    • Finance
    • Technology
    • Safety & Quality
    • Digital Health
    • Transformation
    • ESG
    • People
    • Regional News
    • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Patients
    • Operations
    • Care Delivery
    • Payment
    • Midwest
    • Northeast
    • South
    • West
  • Opinion
    • Bold Moves
    • Breaking Bias
    • Commentaries
    • Letters
    • Vital Signs Blog
    • From the Editor
  • Events & Awards
    • Awards
    • Conferences
    • Galas
    • Virtual Briefings
    • Webinars
    • Nominate/Eligibility
    • 100 Most Influential People
    • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
    • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
    • Excellence in Governance
    • Health Care Hall of Fame
    • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
    • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
    • Top Innovators
    • Diversity in Healthcare
      • - Luminaries
      • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
      • - Leaders to Watch
    • Women in Healthcare
      • - Luminaries
      • - Top 25 Women Leaders
      • - Women to Watch
    • Digital Health Transformation Summit
    • ESG: The Implementation Imperative Summit
    • Leadership Symposium
    • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
    • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
    • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
    • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
    • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
    • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
    • - Hospital of the Future
    • - Value Based Care
    • - Hospital at Home
    • - Workplace of the Future
    • - Digital Health
    • - Future of Staffing
    • - Hospital of the Future (Fall)
  • Multimedia
    • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
    • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
    • Video Series - The Check Up
    • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
  • Data Center
    • Data Center Home
    • Hospital Financials
    • Staffing & Compensation
    • Quality & Safety
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Data Archive
    • Resource Guide: By the Numbers
    • Surveys
    • Data Points
  • Newsletters
  • MORE+
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Media Kit
    • Jobs
    • People on the Move
    • Reprints & Licensing
MENU
Breadcrumb
  1. Home
  2. Safety & Quality
June 13, 2015 01:00 AM

We're studying socio-demographic factors to make sure we get quality measures right

Dr. Helen Burstin
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Share
  • Email
  • More
    Reprints Print
    Dr. Helen Burstin is chief scientific officer for the National Quality Forum.

    How would the performance of hospitals, physicians and health systems compare if, hypothetically, they all had the same mix of patients?

    That's a question that policymakers and many in the healthcare community raised when suggesting that performance measures would be more accurate if adjusted for the socio-demographic status of the patients being treated.

    This type of risk adjustment involves a statistical approach that allows patient-related factors to be taken into account when computing scores on performance measures, thereby improving the ability to make fair and accurate conclusions about quality. Supporters of the idea point to a growing understanding throughout the healthcare community that social determinants significantly influence a person's health. We know that factors far outside the control of a doctor or hospital—patients' income, housing and education—can significantly affect patient health, healthcare and providers' performance scores.

    The stakes of inaccurately assessing quality are raised, of course, when the results are used in pay-for-performance programs. With providers increasingly being paid based on the quality of their care, some say that those caring for the disadvantaged are being unfairly penalized. If measures are not adjusted to consider a patient's socio-demographic factors, they believe, we'll continue to create disincentives to care for the poor.

    Opponents of adjusting measures for patient socio-demographic criteria, on the other hand, say it essentially sanctions delivering lower-quality care to already vulnerable patients. They worry that such adjustments could mask differences in quality and make meaningful information on social and economic disparities disappear. They say that adjusting measures in this way sets a different standard for providers who treat poorer patients and lowers expectations that they will improve.

    At the center of this conversation is the National Quality Forum—which for more than 15 years has been the gold standard in endorsing measures. Reviewing and agreeing to measures through a multi-stakeholder process is not easy, and more often than not requires a critical blend of science and consensus. That was in evidence a year ago, when the NQF changed its rules to allow measures to be adjusted for patients who are poor, homeless, illiterate or have other socio-demographic risk indicators.

    This change is significant, and it's in place for a two-year trial period. The trial was part of a compromise that the NQF brokered between providers—primarily hospitals—who said risk-adjustment was necessary for fairness, and others who worried it would disguise important gaps in quality.

    The trial period was recommended by an expert panel composed of stakeholders with a variety of experiences related to outcome measurements and disparities. The recommendation was debated and approved by the NQF's board, which has a wide range of views represented among its directors.

    Under the terms of the trial, all new measures submitted to NQF for endorsement after April 1 of this year are being assessed to determine if adjustment is appropriate. Measures endorsed prior to that date, but that are undergoing maintenance during the trial period, will also be considered fair game for adjustment.

    There are other pathways for evaluating whether performance measures already endorsed should be reviewed for adjustment, including requests related to evidence of unintended consequences.

    Some measures—including ones related to readmissions, as well as cost and resource use—are already being mandatorily reviewed as a condition of endorsement. If adjustment is determined to be appropriate in any of these cases, the NQF will endorse a measure with and without socio-demographic adjustment, as well as stratification for full transparency. We want the measurement process to be as flexible as possible for providers while also serving the best interests of patients.

    After two years, we will evaluate the success of the trial and solicit feedback from stakeholders on its impact.

    The National Quality Forum is, above all, a forum—so we take seriously our charge to listen to a full range of perspectives. Finding answers to difficult measurement-science issues such as risk adjustment, attribution and comparability will help us use outcomes when they are most needed to meet the needs of the healthcare delivery system. We believe the trial period enables us to move forward in a thoughtful way while producing data we can all learn from.

    Letter
    to the
    Editor

    Send us a letter

    Have an opinion about this story? Click here to submit a Letter to the Editor, and we may publish it in print.

    Recommended for You
    Cleveland-clinic-for web_i.jpg
    Increase in hospital police forces brings criticisms, warnings
    home-infusion
    Rise in home infusion therapy leads to questions on safety, cost
    Most Popular
    1
    More healthcare organizations at risk of credit default, Moody's says
    2
    Centene fills out senior executive team with new president, COO
    3
    SCAN, CareOregon plan to merge into the HealthRight Group
    4
    Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan unveils big push that lets physicians take on risk, reap rewards
    5
    Bright Health weighs reverse stock split as delisting looms
    Sponsored Content
    Get Newsletters

    Sign up for enewsletters and alerts to receive breaking news and in-depth coverage of healthcare events and trends, as they happen, right to your inbox.

    Subscribe Today
    MH Magazine Cover

    MH magazine offers content that sheds light on healthcare leaders’ complex choices and touch points—from strategy, governance, leadership development and finance to operations, clinical care, and marketing.

    Subscribe
    Connect with Us
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • RSS

    Our Mission

    Modern Healthcare empowers industry leaders to succeed by providing unbiased reporting of the news, insights, analysis and data.

    Contact Us

    (877) 812-1581

    Email us

     

    Resources
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise with Us
    • Ad Choices Ad Choices
    • Sitemap
    Editorial Dept
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Code of Ethics
    • Awards
    • About Us
    Legal
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Privacy Request
    Modern Healthcare
    Copyright © 1996-2023. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • News
      • Current News
      • Providers
      • Insurance
      • Government
      • Finance
      • Technology
      • Safety & Quality
      • Digital Health
      • Transformation
        • Patients
        • Operations
        • Care Delivery
        • Payment
      • ESG
      • People
      • Regional News
        • Midwest
        • Northeast
        • South
        • West
      • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Opinion
      • Bold Moves
      • Breaking Bias
      • Commentaries
      • Letters
      • Vital Signs Blog
      • From the Editor
    • Events & Awards
      • Awards
        • Nominate/Eligibility
        • 100 Most Influential People
        • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
        • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
        • Excellence in Governance
        • Health Care Hall of Fame
        • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
        • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
        • Top Innovators
        • Diversity in Healthcare
          • - Luminaries
          • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
          • - Leaders to Watch
        • Women in Healthcare
          • - Luminaries
          • - Top 25 Women Leaders
          • - Women to Watch
      • Conferences
        • Digital Health Transformation Summit
        • ESG: The Implementation Imperative Summit
        • Leadership Symposium
        • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
        • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
      • Galas
        • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
        • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
        • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
        • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
      • Virtual Briefings
        • - Hospital of the Future
        • - Value Based Care
        • - Hospital at Home
        • - Workplace of the Future
        • - Digital Health
        • - Future of Staffing
        • - Hospital of the Future (Fall)
      • Webinars
    • Multimedia
      • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
      • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
      • Video Series - The Check Up
      • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
    • Data Center
      • Data Center Home
      • Hospital Financials
      • Staffing & Compensation
      • Quality & Safety
      • Mergers & Acquisitions
      • Data Archive
      • Resource Guide: By the Numbers
      • Surveys
      • Data Points
    • Newsletters
    • MORE+
      • Contact Us
      • Advertise
      • Media Kit
      • Jobs
      • People on the Move
      • Reprints & Licensing