Measuring The Report Card: The Validity Of Pay-For-Performance Metrics In Orthopedic Surgery
Author(s) -
Timothy Bhattacharyya,
Andrew A. Freiberg,
Priyesh Mehta,
Jeffrey N. Katz,
Timothy G. Ferris
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
health affairs
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.837
H-Index - 178
eISSN - 2694-233X
pISSN - 0278-2715
DOI - 10.1377/hlthaff.28.2.526
Subject(s) - pay for performance , medicine , ranking (information retrieval) , report card , orthopedic surgery , measure (data warehouse) , predictive validity , quality (philosophy) , physical therapy , health care , psychology , surgery , clinical psychology , data mining , computer science , pedagogy , economics , economic growth , philosophy , epistemology , machine learning
To assess the validity of performance measures used in a nationwide pay-for-performance (P4P) project on hip and knee replacement, we analyzed hospital performance data from a Medicare P4P initiative and compared them to publicly available outcomes data. Overall, the ability to measure hospital quality was poor. A hospital's ranking on the composite score was primarily determined by process measures. A higher composite quality score was not associated with lower rates of complications or mortality. The current Medicare P4P quality measure has limited validity because of poor discrimination, lack of measure balance, and lack of correlation with important clinical outcomes.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom