Assessment of the Medicare Quality Improvement Organization Program
W. Rollow,T. Lied,Paul McGann,James Poyer,Lawrence LaVoie,R. Kambic,D. Bratzler,Allen Ma,E. Huff,L. Ramunno
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-145-5-200609050-00134
IF: 39.2
2006-09-05
Annals of Internal Medicine
Abstract:Recent reports have highlighted deficiencies in quality of health care in the United States (1, 2). Several reports of nationwide improvements have also been published by such organizations as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Committee for Quality Assurance, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, and the Medicare Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) Program. The extent to which these improvements are attributable to the efforts of health plans, accreditors, or QIOs is unclear, given the absence of comparison groups (311). The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency responsible for administering Medicare, Medicaid, and several other health carerelated programs, seeks to improve the quality of health care for Medicare beneficiaries through contracts with QIOs (12)state-based organizations staffed with clinicians, analysts, and others with expertise in case review and quality improvement. The 53 QIO contracts cover the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. A single organization can hold more than 1 QIO contract. Appendix Figure 1 shows the locations of QIO lead offices. Appendix Figure 1. Locations of quality improvement organizations (QIOs). The size of each QIO is represented by the size of each star. Maine and Vermont QIO coverage is directed from the New Hampshire QIO office (Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont are similar in QIO size). The most recently concluded QIO contract period, the 7th Scope of Work, began in 2002. At various points during this period, the CMS began public reporting of provider performance on quality measures for nursing homes, home health agencies, and hospitals (1315). We evaluated the effect of the QIO Program in 4 clinical settings by using performance data for 41 quality measures and explored the implications of these findings for future Program evaluations. Methods Participants For the 7th Scope of Work, the CMS expanded the QIO contract, which was previously limited to hospitals and physician offices, to include nursing homes and home health agencies. For each of the 4 settings, the CMS required QIOs to offer assistance to all interested providers in their state or jurisdiction. In the nursing home, home health agency, and physician office settings, QIOs were also required to recruit subsets of providers, known as identified participant groups (IPGs), that would receive focused assistance related to clinical quality measures. There was no IPG requirement for the hospital setting. The 53 QIOs recruited voluntary IPGs among nursing homes, home health agencies, and physician offices during the initial months of the 7th Scope of Work. The CMS used outcome measures and clinical process measures to evaluate the performance of each QIO as part of a performance-based service contract. The QIOs were evaluated on improving statewide and IPG clinical process measures and provider satisfaction with their QIO. Each QIO was required to recruit an IPG of at least 10% but no more than 15% of the nursing homes in its state or jurisdiction and at least 5% but no more than 7.5% of primary care practitioners (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physicians' assistants). For the home health setting, the minimum number of providers in the IPG was 30% of the agencies in the state; there was no maximum number. The CMS provided general guidance to the QIOs on the selection of IPG providers but did not control the selection process. The QIOs shared information among themselves about appropriate factors, such as willingness to commit resources to quality improvement and baseline performance, for which there were opportunities for improvement. In this study, we classified providers not participating in an IPG as non-IPG providers. Nursing homes and home health agencies that were participants in an IPG were required to select 1 or more quality measures to target for improvement. For these 2 settings, we subdivided providers in IPGs by measure into 2 subgroups: IPG-select and IPG-other (Appendix Figure 2). For a given measure, the IPG-select subgroup consists of IPG providers that elected to focus on that measure, and the IPG-other subgroup consists of IPG providers that selected other measures. Appendix Figure 2. Stratification of providers. Quality improvement organizations (QIOs) were required to recruit a limited number of nursing homes, home health agencies, and physician offices into identified participant groups (IPGs) for focused quality improvement interventions. Facilities not participating in the IPG for a given setting are labeled non-IPG for that setting. For a given quality measure, IPG nursing homes and home health agencies are subdivided into those focusing on a specified quality measure (IPG-select) and those not focusing on the specified measure (IPG-other). *Low-volume nursing homes and home health agencies and nonprimary care physicians were not eligible for the IPG for contractual reasons. QIO Interventions We collected information on the intensity of QIO assistance for nursing homes but not the other provider settings so that we could classify the non-IPG and IPG providers according to 4 levels of QIO intervention (high, medium, low, and none). The highest level of activity involved on-site visits or planned multicontact educational interventions in a group setting to the provider by QIO staff; low-level activity was often limited to sending written or electronic material to the nursing home. Overall, there was a strong relationship between participant status and level of QIO intervention. Only 32.5% of the non-IPG facilities received a high level of QIO intervention, whereas 97.3% of the IPG facilities received this level of intervention. We did not collect information on non-QIO quality improvement programs in which non-IPG providers may have participated during the 7th Scope of Work. At the statewide level, QIOs promoted quality improvement in the 4 settings through such activities as partnerships with provider organizations, work with business and consumer groups, regional educational meetings, and direct QIO communication with providers (10, 16, 17). Development and dissemination of information on best practices and improvement tools gave providers resources that were useful in improvement work (6, 7, 1826). With the IPG providers, QIOs conducted more focused activities. Quality Measures Quality measures selected by the IPGs were driven by different factors in each setting, including contractual direction and limitations, baseline performance, and method of improvement. Data are reported on 5 nursing home measures, 11 home health agency measures, 21 hospital measures, and 4 outpatient measures. One measure (infection) was not reported because it was measured in more than 1 way, and another measure (delirium) was not reported because very few providers specifically worked to improve performance in this area. The Appendix provides details on the selection and reporting of measures by setting. Data Sources We used data from nursing homes and home health agencies that were reported to CMS through the systems required for Medicare payment: the Minimum Data Set (27) and the Outcomes Assessment and Information Set (28). Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing homes are required to conduct Minimum Data Set assessments of all residents on admission and at mandated intervals. The Outcomes Assessment and Information Set provides a comprehensive assessment of adult home care patients; like the Minimum Data Set assessment, its use is required on admission and at mandated intervals. The hospital data were abstracted by clinical data abstraction contractors, who provide data support to the CMS. As in the 6th Scope of Work evaluation (8), we used random samples of 125 inpatient records per state per quarter for Medicare patients with a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia or who had undergone surgery. Sample cases were weighted according to their probability of selection in the national quarterly sample. We analyzed CMS National Claims History data to determine assignment, based on majority of care, of Medicare beneficiary to practitioner for the physician office setting. Information on assignment of beneficiary to practitioner and performance on physician office quality measures was compiled quarterly. For nursing homes, home health agencies, hospitals, and physician offices, we report only baseline and remeasurement data, because of space limitations and because the CMS evaluated QIO performance on the basis of improvement from baseline to remeasurement. The baseline and remeasurement periods were separated by about 2 years for nursing homes, home health agencies, and hospitals and by 3 years for physician offices. For nursing homes, we used the second quarter of 2002 as the baseline period and the second quarter of 2004 as the remeasurement period. For home health, 1 May 2001 to 30 April 2002 was the baseline period and 1 February 2004 to 31 January 2005 was the remeasurement period. For the hospital setting, the first quarter of 2002 was the baseline period and the fourth quarter of 2004 was the remeasurement period. For the physician office setting, the baseline and remeasurement periods varied depending on the QIO contract cycle. The selection of baseline and remeasurement periods varied by setting because of contractual reasons and data set limitations. Statistical Analysis For the nursing home setting, QIO contracts and publicly reported data required a minimum denominator of 30 for the chronic care measures and 20 for the acute care measures to create stable rates (qualifying providers). Approximately 13000 of 16000 nursing facilities, or about 80%, were included for each long-stay measure. The 1 short-stay measure, pain, had approximately 3100 qualifying providers. For nursing homes, the percentage of providers with excluded data b