Margaret E. O'Kane

Now that the hard part — forging quality-measurement systems for HMOs and point-of-service plans — has been done, the next step is to adapt these programs to the rest of the health care industry.

Margaret E. O'Kane

Twenty years ago, when fee-for-service practice was dominant, medicine was unlike any business. There was no oversight to assure customers that service was of high quality. Today, this has changed. More employers demand proof that they're getting value for their health care dollars. Even patients want the ability to judge the quality of their care in much the same way they would consider the quality of any major product before buying it.

To its credit, the managed health care industry has, at least in part, embraced this trend; half of all HMOs have earned NCQA accreditation, and about 90 percent collect HEDIS data. We're proud of having succeeded at making a large share of HMOs take ownership of the quality of care and service they deliver.

But there is more work to be done. Accountability must become the norm for the entire health care industry. That means adapting our current measuring tools — accreditation and HEDIS — to PPOs and medical groups.

We should not expect wholesale changes overnight. It will take time to fine-tune oversight efforts, such as our new PPO-specific consumer survey, before they are adopted by more than a few leading PPOs. PPO accreditation, which will be pilot-tested next July, likely will also attract only a handful of leading PPOs at first, much as our HMO accreditation program did when introduced in 1991. But the effort will be worth it. PPOs cover 89 million Americans, and we need to know the same things about them that we know about HMOs and point-of-service plans.

Physicians who actually deliver care should be held accountable in the same way HMOs are. It may not be the same kind of information used to evaluate HMO quality, but nonetheless, this kind of information is the best way to hold medical groups accountable for quality.

It can be done

Some suggest that measuring medical-group quality of care will be much more difficult than measuring health plan quality. Truth be told, I don't see it as complex. There are barriers, but basically we're talking about evaluating two things: clinical systems and the functions they perform. We've shown that's possible and that it can pay dividends in terms of improved care. The reason 80 percent of people in managed care now get beta blockers after a heart attack instead of 62 percent, as was true three years ago, is due to HEDIS.

We already evaluate functions relevant to medical groups in our health plan standards: Are credible practice guidelines in place? What patient education programs exist? What outreach and follow-up systems are there? The devil is in the details, as we have learned through the development of health plan accreditation standards and of HEDIS. Adapting this to medical groups will present challenges, but we're up to the task.

Quality measurement has turned out to be both more challenging and more straightforward than I expected. Challenging, because you need to question your assumptions constantly as you go forward — "Do we really need to have plans report every HEDIS measure every year?" and so on. But on the other hand, the concept is fairly simple: Measure something, work to improve it, and it will get better. It's a simple formula, but it has had a profound effect on health care in this country.

Margaret E. O'Kane is president of the National Committee for Quality Assurance. NCQA accredits HMOs and manages the evolution of HEDIS.

Articles in the Looking Forward Series:

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.