National Performance Measures for Diabetes Mellitus Care
- 8 Downloads
When considering the trends in disease management, the focus of healthcare in the US has shifted from communicable diseases, which can most often be managed successfully, to chronic diseases, which are currently not managed very well. Chronic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, become a lifelong health problem for the individual, the family, and in the workplace. Currently, there is no vaccine to prevent diabetes and no cure for diabetes once acquired. In order to improve the quality of care for diabetes, national performance measures have been developed to provide a unified set of diabetes-specific performance and outcome measures.
The Diabetes Quality Improvement Project (DQIP) founded in 1997 through a partnership between the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the National Committee for Quality Assurance, and the American Diabetes Association, established a single, standardized set of performance measures for diabetes care quality improvement and accountability in the US, which were published in 1998. The DQIP measures are noteworthy as a model for many other chronic diseases. Indeed, the DQIP represents the first widely adopted comprehensive performance measurement standards, not just for diabetes but for any single chronic disease. This is of further significance since it was developed by a coalition of public and private entities in the US.
In order to prevent long-term complications from diabetes, there needs to be a physician-coordinated treatment plan involving a team approach to the problem. When such a physician-coordinated treatment plan is developed in conformance with the comprehensive performance measures, the prospects for a greater impact on diabetes might be enhanced.
Overall, national performance measures for diabetes care have been widely adopted into health plan quality initiatives and have resulted in increased efforts to promote preventative screening and testing. Better compliance has lead to more stringent glucose control and helped to educate the public on the utility of the glycosylated hemoglobin level test for finding those at risk for microvascular and neuropathic complications. While more Americans with diabetes are receiving the recommended standards of care as a result of the implementation of national performance measures, diabetes management remains suboptimal but achievable.
The authors concluded from this review that national performance measures have provided health plans and providers with objective tools to measure quality; however, these measures now need to move to prevention standards and initiatives. Policy development for diabetes care must continue to move from managing chronic illness to preventative screening of pre-diabetes through to identification and modification of lifestyle risk factors.
KeywordsHealth Plan HbA1c Level American Diabetes Association Diabetes Care National Quality Forum
The authors gratefully acknowledge the careful review, insightful comments, and suggestions of reviewers on an earlier version of this review.
The authors also wish to acknowledge the bibliographical and editorial contributions of Ms Jill Royston, WSU Health Policy and Administration Department Program Assistant and the bibliographical development and refinement work by Mr Dan Simonson, Washington State University Graduate Student in the Health Policy and Administration Department. The authors received no funding for this manuscript and do not have any conflicts of interest to the content of this review.
- 1.The National Quality Forum. National voluntary consensus standards for adult diabetes care: a consensus report. Washington, DC: National Forum for Health Care Quality Measurement and Reporting, 2002Google Scholar
- 3.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Diabetes: disabling, deadly, and on the rise 2002. Atlanta (GA): National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2002Google Scholar
- 4.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Making a difference: the business community takes on diabetes. Atlanta (GA): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; 1999. Report no.: NDPD pub #33Google Scholar
- 5.National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA). Diabetes quality improvement project initial measure set (final version) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ncqa.org/DPRP/dqip2.htm [Accessed 2003 May 19]
- 8.Selecky C. Integrating technology and interventions in the management of diabetes, practical disease management. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 2001; 9 Suppl. 1: 39–52Google Scholar
- 11.McLaughlin S. The diabetes quality improvement project. Diabetes Spectrum 2000; 13(1): 5–11Google Scholar
- 12.The American Medical Association, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, and the National Committee for Quality Assurance. Desirable attributes of performance measures: physician consortium for performance improvement: a consensus document from AMA, JCAHO, and NCQA [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ama-assn.org/amal/pub/upload/mm/370/attributes.pdf [Accessed 2003 May 27]
- 13.The American Medical Association, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, and the National Committee for Quality Assurance. Principles for performance measurement in health care: physician consortium for performance improvement: a consensus statement from AMA, JCAHO, and NCQA [online]. Available from URL: http://ama-assn.org/amal/pub/upload/mm/370/principlesperfmeas.pdf [Accessed 2003 May 27]
- 14.The American Medical Association (AMA) website. Available from URL: http://www.ama-assn.org.amal/pub/upload/mm/370/diabetes.pdf [Accessed 2003 May 27]
- 15.American Diabetes Association. Clinical practice recommendations 1999. Diabetes Care 1999; 22 Suppl. 1: S1–114Google Scholar
- 17.The National Committee for Quality Assurance news release. AMA, JCAHO, and NCQA release common measures for diabetes care [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ncqa.org/communications/news.htm [Accessed 2003 May 27]
- 18.The National Quality Forum press release. National consensus standards endorsed for monitoring the quality of care for diabetes [online]. Available from URL: http://www.qualityforum.org/prdiabetes10-01-02FINAL.pdf [Accessed 2003 May 27]
- 19.The US Office of Management and Budget website [online]. Available form URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb [Accessed 2003 May 27]
- 20.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Promising practices in chronic disease prevention and control 2003: a public health framework for action. Atlanta (GA): Department of Health and Human Services, 2003Google Scholar
- 23.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC Fact Book 2000–2001. Atlanta (GA): Division of Health Interview Statistics, 2000 SepGoogle Scholar
- 26.Late M. Literacy status among major predictors of healthiness [letter]. The Nation’s Health 2003 Jun/JulGoogle Scholar
- 32.NCQA. Making a difference: recognizing and rewarding excellence. Washington, DC: NCQA, 2002Google Scholar
- 33.Friis R, Sellers T. Epidemiology for public health practice. 3rd ed. Sudbury (MA): Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2004Google Scholar
- 34.Ross A, Wenzel F, Mitlyng J. Leadership for the future: core competencies in healthcare (2002). Chicago (IL): Health Administration Press, 2002Google Scholar
- 38.Fleming B, Clauser S, Jencks S. The Diabetes Quality Improvement Project: it’s not just for health plans anymore. Group Pract J 2000; 49(4): 26–9Google Scholar
- 39.Levetan C. Mastering diabetes at Medicare. Clinical Diabetes 2000; 18(2): 74–9Google Scholar
- 40.NCQA. Promoting quality through DPRP recognition. Diabetes physician recognition program 2003. Washington, DC: NCQA, 2003Google Scholar
- 42.North Idaho Health Network [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nihn.net/physicians. [Accessed 2004 Aug 3]
- 43.Lovelace Health Plan website [online]. Available from URL: http://www.love-lacehealthplan.com/index.html. [Accessed 2004 Aug 3]
- 45.NCQA. The state of health care quality 2002. Industry trends and analysis. Washington, DC: NCQA, 2002Google Scholar
- 49.Sidorov J, Shull R, Tomcavage J, et al. Does diabetes management save money and improve outcomes? A report of simultaneous short-term savings and quality improvement associated with a health maintenance organization-sponsored disease management program among patients fulfilling health employer data and information set criteria. Diabetes Care 2002; 25: 684–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar