Abstract:The article examines whether subjective performance assessments from health system executives match objective performance assessments and qualitatively explores ways to achieve high performance. We interviewed 138 C-suite executives of 24 health systems in California, Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin between 2017 and 2019. We used maximum variation sampling to select health systems to achieve diversity in performance on objective measures of clinical performance. Our interviews focused on executives' perceptions of their own health system's performance and factors they thought generally contributed to high performance. In our analysis, we grouped health systems based on objective performance levels (high, medium, and low) used in sampling, compared objective performance ratings with executives' subjective performance assessments, and used thematic analysis to identify reasons for subjective assessment of health system performance and levers of high performance in general. There was poor agreement between objective and subjective performance assessments (kappa = 0.082). Subjective assessments were higher than objective assessments and captured more factors than are typically considered in performance accountability and value-based payment initiatives. Executives whose views were inconsistent with objective performance assessments did not cite clinical care quality per se as the basis for their assessment, focusing instead on market competition, financial performance, and high customer satisfaction and loyalty. Executives who cited clinical quality metrics as the basis of their assessment offered subjective ratings consistent with objective ratings. Executives identified organizational culture, organizational governance, and staff engagement as levers for achieving high performance. Future research should explore the benefits and drawbacks of considering subjective performance assessments in value-based payment initiatives.

Performance Assessment and League Tables: Comparing Like with Like

Less Information, More Comparison, and Better Performance: Evidence from a Field Experiment

ANALYSING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT IN PUBLIC SERVICES: HOW USEFUL IS THE CONCEPT OF A PERFORMANCE REGIME?

Providing educational accountability for Local Authorities based upon sampling pupils within schools: moving away from simplistic school league tables

Knowing Your Place: Social Performance Feedback in Good Times and Bad Times

Performance differences for in-class and online administration of low-stakes research-based assessments

Assessing the Comparability of School Scores Across Test Forms That Are Not Parallel

A comparison of value-added models for school accountability

Participation and performance on paper- and computer-based low-stakes assessments

Best vs. All: Equity and Accuracy of Standardized Test Score Reporting

Invidious Comparisons: Ranking and Selection as Compound Decisions

Competing for Resources: the impact of social disadvantage and other factors on English secondary schools’ financial performance

Emerging Perspectives on Measuring and Classifying Institutional Performance

Ability-performance relationships in education and employment settings: critical tests of the more-is-better and the good-enough hypotheses

Alignment Between Objective and Subjective Assessments of Health System Performance: Findings From a Mixed-Methods Study

Can leagues mitigate the demoralisation effect of rank feedback? A randomized controlled trial

Should we adjust for pupil background in school value-added models? A study of Progress 8 and school accountability in England

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Performance Assessments: A Case Study of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination

External Constraints on Local Service Standards: The Case of Comprehensive Performance Assessment in English Local Government

Higher-Order Asymptotics and Its Application to Testing the Equality of the Examinee Ability Over Two Sets of Items

Assessments in Education