Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Quality Cancer Care pp 13–27Cite as

Public Reporting of Institution and Provider-Level Outcomes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 627 Accesses

Abstract

The public reporting of cancer outcomes, especially stage-specific survival from individual practitioners and institutions, is an inevitable strategy that might be used to reduce variation in cancer care and provide data for cost reduction and physician and hospital reimbursement. Examples of public reporting for some cancer-related information already exist. Although survival data has had limited public reporting, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons has developed an organizational strategy for reporting lung cancer outcomes from its membership. While the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer is positioning its accredited institutions for effective public reporting, the barriers to understanding and interpreting the reported information must be alleviated. Interpretation of incorrect data and absence of appropriate risk adjustment and comorbidity information would skew any meaningful analysis of publically reported data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Cancer Program Standards. Ensuring patient-centered care. Chicago: American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Luce JM, Bindman AB, Lee PR. A brief history of health care quality assessment and improvement in the United States. West J Med. 1994;160:263–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Albright HW, Moreno M, Feeley TW, Walters R, Samuels M, et al. The implications of the 2010 patient protection and affordable care act and the health care and education reconciliation act on cancer care delivery. Cancer. 2011;117(8):1564–74. Epub 2010 Nov 8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McGlynn EA. Identifying, categorizing, and evaluating health care efficiency measures: final report. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008; (Report No.: 08-0030; Contract No.: 282-00-0005-21).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Form 7.1: Call for TEP for cancer hospital measures [Internet]. Baltimore, MD: CMS. http://www.cms.gov/MMS/Downloads/MMSCallTEPforPPS.zi.

  6. www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov.

  7. www.medicare.gov.

  8. Elkin EB, Bach PB. Cancer’s next frontier: addressing high and increasing costs. JAMA. 2010;303:1086–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:7–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Spinks TE, Walters R, Feeley TW, et al. Improving cancer care through public reporting of meaningful quality measures. Health Aff. 2011;30:664–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. United States Institute of Medicine. Committee on quality of health care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Institute of Medicine. Delivering high-quality cancer care: charting a new course for a system in crisis. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  13. National Quality Forum. National voluntary consensus standards for quality of cancer care [Internet]. Washington, DC: NQF; 2009. http://www.qualityforum.org/Publications/2009/05/National_Voluntary_Consensus_Standards_ for_Quality_of_Cancer_Care.aspx. [cited 2010 Dec 10]

    Google Scholar 

  14. National Quality Forum. Towards a comprehensive cancer measure set: value-based episodes of care [Internet]. Washington, DC: NQF; 2008. http://www.qualityforum.org/Projects/c-d/Cancer_Measure_Set_Value-Based_Episodes_of_Care/Cancer_workshop_summary.aspx.

    Google Scholar 

  15. National Quality Forum. Consensus development projects [Internet]. Washington, DC: NQF; 2011. http://qualityforum.org/Projects.aspx. [cited 2011 Mar 21].

    Google Scholar 

  16. National Quality Forum. NQF endorsed standards [Internet]. Washington, DC: NQF; 2010. http://www.qualityforum.org/Measures_List.aspx. [cited 2010 Dec 10].

    Google Scholar 

  17. Oliver A, Greenberg CC. Measuring outcomes in oncology treatment: the importance of patient-centered outcomes. Surg Clin North Am. 2009;89:17–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Call for quality of care measures for PPS-exempt cancer hospitals [Internet]. Baltimore, MD: CMS; http://www.cms.gov/MMS/Downloads/MMSCallforMeasuresPPS.zip.

  19. Bardach NS, Hibbard JH, Dudley RA. Users of public reports of hospital quality: who what why and how? Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ryan AM, Nallamothu BK, Dimick JB. Medicare’s public reporting initiative on hospital quality had modest or no impact on mortality from three key conditions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(3):585–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2008 Update on consumers’ views of patient safety and quality information. Washington, DC: Kaiser Family Foundation; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sinaiko AD, Eastman D, Rosenthal MB. How report cards on physicians, physician groups, and hospitals can have greater impact on consumer choices. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(3):602–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hibbard JH, Greene J, Sofaer S, Firminger K, Hirsh J. An experiment shows that a well-designed report on costs and quality can help consumers choose high- value health care. Health Aff. 2012;31(3):560–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Luft HS. Advancing public reporting through a new ‘aggregator’ to standardize data collection on providers’ cost and quality. Health Aff. 2012;31(3):619–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. STS News. Society of Thoracic Surgeons (pub). 2011;16:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Society of Thoracic Surgeons. www.sts.org.

  27. American College of Surgeons. National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Program Overview. https://acsnsqip.org/main/about_overview.asp.

  28. Winchester DP, Stewart AK, Phillips JL, Ward EE. The National cancer data base: past, present, and future. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:4–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sarfati D, Koczwara B, Jackson C. The impact of comorbidity on cancer and its treatment. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:337–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Piccirillo JF, Tierney RM, Costas I, et al. Prognostic importance of comorbidity in a hospital-based cancer registry. JAMA. 2004;291:2441–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. James J. Health policy brief. 2012. www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs.

  32. Institute of Medicine. For the public’s health: the role of measurement in action and accountability. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Burwell SM. Setting value-based payment goals—HHS efforts to improve US health care. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:897–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cancer Data Services, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Frederick L. Greene

Authors
  1. Frederick L. Greene
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frederick L. Greene .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Cape Cod Healthcare, Falmouth, Massachusetts, USA

    Peter Hopewood

  2. University of South Dakota Sanford School of Medicine, Vermillion, South Dakota, USA

    Mary J. Milroy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Greene, F.L. (2018). Public Reporting of Institution and Provider-Level Outcomes. In: Hopewood, P., Milroy, M. (eds) Quality Cancer Care . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78649-0_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78649-0_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78648-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78649-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation