Alyna T. Chien

Disparities in Unmet Need for Care Coordination: The National Survey of Children’s Health

OBJECTIVE: To determine (1) the proportion of parents who report a need for and receipt of effective care coordination for their child, (2) whether unmet care coordination needs differ by children with special health care needs (CSHCN) status and sociodemographic characteristics, and (3) whether having a personal provider or family-centered care mitigates disparities. METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional analysis of the 2007 National Survey for Children’s Health, a nationally representative survey of 91 642 parents. Outcome measures were parent report of need for and lack of effective care coordination. We also examined the effect of parent report of having a personal provider and family-centered care. We conducted weighted bivariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Forty-one percent of parents reported that their child needed care coordination. Among those who needed care coordination, 31% did not receive effective coordination. CSHCN (41%) were more likely than children without special health care needs (26%; P < .001) to have unmet care coordination needs. Latino (40%) and black (37%) children were more likely to have unmet needs than white (27%; P < .001) children. These patterns remained in multivariate analysis. Having a personal provider decreased the odds of having unmet need for care coordination but did not attenuate disparities. Receiving family-centered care mitigated disparities associated with race/ethnicity but not with health status or health insurance. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable proportion of parents reported their child needed more care coordination than they received. This was especially true for parents of CSHCN and parents of black and Latino children. Interventions that enhance family-centered care might particularly contribute to reducing racial/ethnic disparities.

Race, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status in Research on Child Health

An extensive literature documents the existence of pervasive and persistent child health, development, and health care disparities by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES). Disparities experienced during childhood can result in a wide variety of health and health care outcomes, including adult morbidity and mortality, indicating that it is crucial to examine the influence of disparities across the life course. Studies often collect data on the race, ethnicity, and SES of research participants to be used as covariates or explanatory factors. In the past, these variables have often been assumed to exert their effects through individual or genetically determined biologic mechanisms. However, it is now widely accepted that these variables have important social dimensions that influence health. SES, a multidimensional construct, interacts with and confounds analyses of race and ethnicity. Because SES, race, and ethnicity are often difficult to measure accurately, leading to the potential for misattribution of causality, thoughtful consideration should be given to appropriate measurement, analysis, and interpretation of such factors. Scientists who study child and adolescent health and development should understand the multiple measures used to assess race, ethnicity, and SES, including their validity and shortcomings and potential confounding of race and ethnicity with SES. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that research on eliminating health and health care disparities related to race, ethnicity, and SES be a priority. Data on race, ethnicity, and SES should be collected in research on child health to improve their definitions and increase understanding of how these factors and their complex interrelationships affect child health. Furthermore, the AAP believes that researchers should consider both biological and social mechanisms of action of race, ethnicity, and SES as they relate to the aims and hypothesis of the specific area of investigation. It is important to measure these variables, but it is not sufficient to use these variables alone as explanatory for differences in disease, morbidity, and outcomes without attention to the social and biologic influences they have on health throughout the life course. The AAP recommends more research, both in the United States and internationally, on measures of race, ethnicity, and SES and how these complex constructs affect health care and health outcomes throughout the life course.

Medicare's Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier — Will the Tectonic Shift Create Waves?

Medicares new Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier will financially reward physicians who provide high-quality, low-cost health care. Will this tectonic shift in physician payment set off a new wave of efforts to improve quality and cost performance?

Do Physician Organizations Located in Lower Socioeconomic Status Areas Score Lower on Pay-for-Performance Measures?

ABSTRACTBACKGROUNDPhysician organizations (POs)—independent practice associations and medical groups—located in lower socioeconomic status (SES) areas may score poorly in pay-for-performance (P4P) programs.OBJECTIVETo examine the association between PO location and P4P performance.DESIGNCross-sectional study; Integrated Healthcare Association’s (IHA’s) P4P Program, the largest non-governmental, multi-payer program for POs in the U.S.PARTICIPANTS160 POs participating in 2009.MAIN MEASURESWe measured PO SES using established methods that involved geo-coding 11,718 practice sites within 160 POs to their respective census tracts and weighting tract-specific SES according to the number of primary care physicians at each site. P4P performance was defined by IHA’s program and was a composite mainly representing clinical quality, but also including measures of patient experience, information technology and registry use.KEY RESULTSThe area-based PO SES measure ranged from −11 to +11 (mean 0, SD 5), and the IHA P4P performance score ranged from 23 to 86 (mean 69, SD 15). In bivariate analysis, there was a significant positive relationship between PO SES and P4P performance (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, a one standard deviation increase in PO SES was associated with a 44% increase (relative risk 1.44, 95%CI, 1.22-1.71) in the likelihood of a PO being ranked in the top two quintiles of performance (p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSPhysician organizations’ performance scores in a major P4P program vary by the SES of the areas in which their practice sites are located. P4P programs that do not account for this are likely to pay higher bonuses to POs in higher SES areas, thus increasing the resource gap between these POs and POs in lower SES areas, which may increase disparities in the care they provide.

Small numbers limit the use of the inpatient pediatric quality indicators for hospital comparison.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to determine the percentage of hospitals with adequate sample size to meaningfully compare performance by using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) pediatric quality indicators (PDIs), which measure pediatric inpatient adverse events such as decubitus ulcer rate and infections due to medical care, have been nationally endorsed, and are currently publicly reported in at least 2 states. METHODS We performed a cross-sectional analysis of California hospital discharges from 2005-2007 for patients aged <18 years. For 9 hospital-level PDIs, after excluding discharges with PDIs indicated as present on admission, we determined for each PDI the volume of eligible pediatric patients for each measure at each hospital, the statewide mean rate, and the percentage of hospitals with adequate volume to identify an adverse event rate twice the statewide mean. RESULTS Unadjusted California-wide event rates for PDIs during the study period (N = 2 333 556 discharges) were 0.2 to 38 per 1000 discharges. Event rates for specific measures were, for example, 0.2 per 1000 (iatrogenic pneumothorax in non-neonates), 19 per 1000 (postoperative sepsis), and 38 per 1000 (pediatric heart surgery mortality), requiring patient volumes of 49 869, 419, and 201 to detect an event rate twice the statewide average; 0%, 6.6%, and 25%, respectively, of California hospitals had this pediatric volume. CONCLUSION Using these AHRQ-developed, nationally endorsed measures of the quality of inpatient pediatric care, one would not be able to identify many hospitals with performance 2 times worse than the statewide average due to extremely low event rates and inadequate pediatric hospital volume.

A pediatric-focused review of the performance incentive literature.

Purpose of review This article seeks to provide a pediatric-focused review of the performance incentive literature. The article will begin with an overview of the performance incentive literature within and outside of healthcare. The review will then detail the pediatric-specific literature, reflect on the breadth and focus of this literature compared with that for adult programs in medicine and school/teacher accountability efforts, and identify three concerning knowledge gaps. Recent findings The pediatric performance incentive literature is small, totaling five empirical studies. This literature indicates that performance incentives alone have not been effective at improving incentivized aspects of pediatric healthcare. Only one study evaluates whether pediatric performance incentives improve healthcare for children with significant health conditions. No studies investigate whether this strategy yields negative unintended consequences for children and adolescents or how risk adjustment can augment pediatric performance incentive efforts or attenuate unintended effects. Summary If approached to participate in or inform performance incentive efforts, pediatricians should appreciate the limitations of the existing empirical literature and ask proponents about their plans for monitoring and/or guarding against potentially negative unintended consequences. Numerous stakeholders are optimistic that this strategy will improve healthcare quality, but the empirical evidence suggests that skepticism is appropriate.

Promoting Education, Mentorship, and Support for Pediatric Research

Pediatricians play a key role in advancing child health research to best attain and improve the physical, mental, and social health and well-being of all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults. Child health presents unique issues that require investigators who specialize in pediatric research. In addition, the scope of the pediatric research enterprise is transdisciplinary and includes the full spectrum of basic science, translational, community-based, health services, and child health policy research. Although most pediatricians do not directly engage in research, knowledge of research methodologies and approaches promotes critical evaluation of scientific literature, the practice of evidence-based medicine, and advocacy for evidence-based child health policy. This statement includes specific recommendations to promote further research education and support at all levels of pediatric training, from premedical to continuing medical education, as well as recommendations to increase support and mentorship for research activities. Pediatric research is crucial to the American Academy of Pediatrics’ goal of improving the health of all children. The American Academy of Pediatrics continues to promote and encourage efforts to facilitate the creation of new knowledge and ways to reduce barriers experienced by trainees, practitioners, and academic faculty pursuing research.

Two-Year Impact of the Alternative Quality Contract on Pediatric Health Care Quality and Spending

OBJECTIVE: To examine the 2-year effect of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts’ global budget arrangement, the Alternative Quality Contract (AQC), on pediatric quality and spending for children with special health care needs (CSHCN) and non-CSHCN. METHODS: Using a difference-in-differences approach, we compared quality and spending trends for 126 975 unique 0- to 21-year-olds receiving care from AQC groups with 415 331 propensity-matched patients receiving care from non-AQC groups; 23% of enrollees were CSHCN. We compared quality and spending pre (2006–2008) and post (2009–2010) AQC implementation, adjusting analyses for age, gender, health risk score, and secular trends. Pediatric outcome measures included 4 preventive and 2 acute care measures tied to pay-for-performance (P4P), 3 asthma and 2 attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder quality measures not tied to P4P, and average total annual medical spending. RESULTS: During the first 2 years of the AQC, pediatric care quality tied to P4P increased by +1.8% for CSHCN (P < .001) and +1.2% for non-CSHCN (P < .001) for AQC versus non-AQC groups; quality measures not tied to P4P showed no significant changes. Average total annual medical spending was ∼5 times greater for CSHCN than non-CSHCN; there was no significant impact of the AQC on spending trends for children. CONCLUSIONS: During the first 2 years of the contract, the AQC had a small but significant positive effect on pediatric preventive care quality tied to P4P; this effect was greater for CSHCN than non-CSHCN. However, it did not significantly influence (positively or negatively) CSHCN measures not tied to P4P or affect per capita spending for either group.

Community Health Center Quality Improvement: A Systematic Review and Future Directions for Research

Background: Leaders and policymakers need an accurate appraisal of the federally qualified community health center (CHC) quality improvement (QI) literature to make informed decisions for the CHC program. Objectives: This paper aims to (1) summarize the content and findings of CHC QI studies to date, (2) systematically rate the quality of those studies, and (3) outline 10 important areas for future CHC QI research. Methods: We searched medical and nonmedical databases to identify QI studies in CHC settings. We systematically reviewed identified studies for the features of their QI interventions and for the methodological quality of their evaluations. We combined results from the review with input from the CHC community to generate an agenda for future CHC QI research. Results: Eighteen studies were identified and reviewed. Interventions mainly targeted chronic conditions and screening practices and used 1 to 11 of 14 different QI tactics; evaluations comprised 14 observational and 4 randomized study designs. CHC QI interventions have been effective in improving processes of care for diabetes and cancer screening in the short term; their effectiveness in the long term and regarding outcomes of care have not been demonstrated. Conclusions: QI interventions in CHC setting are promising, but future interventions and evaluations should answer critical basic questions about QI, including the following: What are the best models of QI? How can QI improvements be effectively implemented and sustained? What are the global effects of QI (positive and negative)? How can QI be made financially viable and sensible from both the CHC and societal perspectives?

Hospital Executives' Perspectives on Pay-for-Performance and Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Care

With increasing attention paid to reducing racial/ethnic disparities in care and the growth of pay-for-performance programs, policy makers and payers are considering the use of such incentive mechanisms to target disparities reduction. This article describes the results of qualitative interviews with hospital executives to assess the potential impact that such programs would have on hospitals and their minority patients. The authors find that executives have significant concerns regarding funding mechanisms and implementation costs, financial risks for safety net hospitals, and resource constraints, as well as how such programs can be used to create incentives to care for minority patients. The findings suggest that payers should be hesitant to use pay-for-performance as a mechanism for reducing disparities until a wide variety of concerns about the design of such programs can be addressed.