Developing a dashboard to help measure and achieve the triple aim: a population-based cohort study

BMC Health Services Research

Lyn M Sibley¹  Hsien-Yeang Seow² 

[1]Primary Care and Population Health Division, Institute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Bldg G1-06, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada

[2]Cancer Care Ontario Research Chair in Health Services Research, Department of Oncology, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, 699 Concession St, 4th Fl, Rm 4-229, Hamilton L8V 5C2, Ontario, Canada

关键词: Canada;    Risk adjustment;    Healthcare quality assurance;    Quality improvement;    Healthcare quality indicators;   

Others  :  1126626
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6963-14-363

 received in 2014-01-30, accepted in 2014-08-11,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Health system planners aim to pursue the three goals of Triple Aim: 1) reduce health care costs; 2) improve population health; and 3) improve the care experience. Moreover, they also need measures that can reliably predict future health care needs in order to manage effectively the health system performance. Yet few measures exist to assess Triple Aim and predict future needs at a health system level. The purpose of this study is to explore the novel application of a case-mix adjustment method in order to measure and help improve the Triple Aim of health system performance.

Methods

We applied a case-mix adjustment method to a population-based analysis to assess its usefulness as a measure of health system performance and Triple Aim. The study design was a retrospective, cohort study of adults from Ontario, Canada using administrative databases: individuals were assigned a predicted illness burden score using a case-mix adjustment system from diagnoses and health utilization data in 2008, and then followed forward to assess the actual health care utilization and costs in the following year (2009). We applied the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Group (ACG) Case-Mix System to categorize individuals into 60 levels of healthcare need, called ACGs. The outcomes were: 1) Number of individuals per ACG; 2) Total system costs per ACG; and 3) Mean cost per person per ACG, which together formed a health system “dashboard”.

Results

We identified 11.4 million adults. 16.1% were aged 65 or older, 3.2 million (28%) did not use health care services that year, and 45,000 (0.4%) were in the highest acuity ACG category using 12 times more than an average adult. The sickest 1%, 5% and 15% of the population use about 10%, 30% and 50% of total health system costs respectively. The dashboard measures 2 dimensions of Triple Aim: 1) reduced costs: when total system costs per ACG or when average costs per person is reduced; and 2) improved population health: when more people move into healthier rather than sicker ACGs. It can help to achieve the third aim, improved care experience, when ACG utilization predictions are reported to providers to proactively develop care plans.

Conclusions

The dashboard, developed via case-mix methods, measures 2 of the Triple Aim goals and can help health system planners better manage their health delivery systems.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Seow and Sibley; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Fig. 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Berwick DM, James B, Coye MJ: Connections between quality measurement and improvement. Med Care 2003, 41:I30-I38.
• [2]Martin L, Nelson E, Lloyd R, Nolan T: Whole system measures. Massachusetts: Institute for Healthcare Improvement. IHH Innovation Series White Paper; 2007. Ref Type: Report
• [3]Leape LL, Kabcenell AI, Gandhi TK, Carver P, Nolan TW, Berwick DM: Reducing adverse drug events: lessons from a breakthrough series collaborative. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2000, 26:321-331.
• [4]Wilson T, Berwick DM, Cleary PD: What do collaborative improvement projects do? Experience from seven countries. Jt Comm J Qual Saf 2003, 29:85-93.
• [5]Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J: The triple aim: care, health, and cost. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008, 27:759-769.
• [6]Performance measurement for health system improvement: Experiences, challenges, and Prospects. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
• [7]Arah OA, Klazinga NS, Delnoij DM, ten Asbroek AH, Custers T: Conceptual frameworks for health systems performance: a quest for effectiveness, quality, and improvement. Int J Qual Health Care 2003, 15:377-398.
• [8]Brien SE, Dixon E, Ghali WA: Measuring and reporting on quality in health care: a framework and road map for improving care. J Surg Oncol 2009, 99:462-466.
• [9]Etches V, Frank J, Di RE, Manuel D: Measuring population health: a review of indicators. Annu Rev Public Health 2006, 27:29-55.
• [10]Evans DB, Edejer TT, Lauer J, Frenk J, Murray CJ: Measuring quality: from the system to the provider. Int J Qual Health Care 2001, 13:439-446.
• [11]Galvin RS, McGlynn EA: Using performance measurement to drive improvement: a road map for change. Med Care 2003, 41:I48-I60.
• [12]Handler A, Issel M, Turnock B: A conceptual framework to measure performance of the public health system. Am J Public Health 2001, 91:1235-1239.
• [13]Mulligan J, Appleby J, Harrison A: Measuring the performance of health systems. BMJ 2000, 321:191-192.
• [14]Arah OA, Westert GP, Hurst J, Klazinga NS: A conceptual framework for the OECD Health Care Quality Indicators Project. Int J Qual Health Care 2006, 18(Suppl 1):5-13.
• [15]Jencks SF, Cuerdon T, Burwen DR, Fleming B, Houck PM, Kussmaul AE, Nilasena DS, Ordin DL, Arday DR: Quality of medical care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries: A profile at state and national levels. JAMA 2000, 284:1670-1676.
• [16]McGlynn EA: Selecting common measures of quality and system performance. Med Care 2003, 41:I39-I47.
• [17]OECD: Measuring up: Improving health system performance in OECD countries. 2002.
• [18]Schoen C, Davis K, How SK, Schoenbaum SC: U.S. health system performance: a national scorecard. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006, 25:w457-w475.
• [19]WHO: The WHO report 2000 - Health systems: Improving performance. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2000. Ref Type: Report
• [20]WHO: Summary measures of population health. Concepts, ethics, measurements and applicatrions. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2009. Ref Type: Report
• [21]Canadian Institute for Health Information: Health Indicators 2012. Ottawa, Ontario: CIHI; 2012. Ref Type: Report
• [22]Commonwealth Fund: Why not the best? Results from the national scorecard on U.S. health system performance. In Edited by McCarthy D, How SKH, Fryer A, Radley DC, Schoen C. 2011. Ref Type: Report
• [23]Institute of Medicine CoQoHCiA: Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st Century. Edited by Corrigan J, Donaldson MS, Kohn LT, Maguire SK, Pike KC. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, Institute of Medicine; 2001. Ref Type: Report
• [24]Reuben DB, Tinetti ME: Goal-oriented patient care–an alternative health outcomes paradigm. N Engl J Med 2012, 366:777-779.
• [25]Tinetti ME, Fried TR, Boyd CM: Designing health care for the most common chronic condition–multimorbidity. JAMA 2012, 307:2493-2494.
• [26]Wolff JL, Starfield B, Anderson G: Prevalence, expenditures, and complications of multiple chronic conditions in the elderly. Arch Intern Med 2002, 162:2269-2276.
• [27]Glazier RH, Agha MM, Moineddin R, Sibley LM: Universal health insurance and equity in primary care and specialist office visits: a population-based study. Ann Fam Med 2009, 7:396-405.
• [28]Glazier RH, Klein-Geltink J, Kopp A, Sibley LM: Capitation and enhanced fee-for-service models for primary care reform: a population-based evaluation. CMAJ 2009, 180:E72-E81.
• [29]Hollander MJ, Kadlec H, Hamdi R, Tessaro A: Increasing value for money in the Canadian healthcare system: new findings on the contribution of primary care services. Healthc Q 2009, 12:32-44.
• [30]Sibley LM, Moineddin R, Agha MM, Glazier RH: Risk adjustment using administrative data-based and survey-derived methods for explaining physician utilization. Med Care 2010, 48:175-182.
• [31]Sibley LM, Glazier RH: Evaluation of the equity of age-sex adjusted primary care capitation payments in Ontario, Canada. Health Policy 2012, 104:186-192.
• [32]Smith PM, Glazier RH, Sibley LM: The predictors of self-rated health and the relationship between self-rated health and health service needs are similar across socioeconomic groups in Canada. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63:412-421.
• [33]Parente ST, Weiner JP, Garnick DW, Fowles J, Lawthers AG, Palmer RH: Profiling resource use by primary-care practices: managed Medicare implications. Health Care Financ Rev 1996, 17:23-42.
• [34]Powe NR, Weiner JP, Starfield B, Stuart M, Baker A, Steinwachs DM: Systemwide provider performance in a Medicaid program. Profiling the care of patients with chronic illnesses. Med Care 1996, 34:798-810.
• [35]Salem-Schatz S, Moore G, Rucker M, Pearson SD: The case for case-mix adjustment in practice profiling, When good apples look bad. JAMA 1994, 272:871-874.
• [36]Stuart ME, Steinwachs DM: Patient-mix differences among ambulatory providers and their effects on utilization and payments for Maryland Medicaid users. Med Care 1993, 31:1119-1137.
• [37]Weiner JP, Starfield BH, Powe NR, Stuart ME, Steinwachs DM: Ambulatory care practice variation within a Medicaid program. Health Serv Res 1996, 30:751-770.
• [38]Borkan J, Eaton CB, Novillo-Ortiz D, Rivero CP, Jadad AR: Renewing primary care: lessons learned from the Spanish health care system. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010, 29:1432-1441.
• [39]Chang HY, Clark JM, Weiner JP: Morbidity trajectories as predictors of utilization: multi-year disease patterns in Taiwan's national health insurance program. Med Care 2011, 49:918-923.
• [40]Sicras-Mainar A, Velasco-Velasco S, Navarro-Artieda R, Prados-Torres A, Bolibar-Ribas B, Violan-Fors C: Adaptive capacity of the Adjusted Clinical Groups Case-Mix System to the cost of primary healthcare in Catalonia (Spain): a observational study. BMJ Open 2012., 2(3) doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000941
• [41]Hanley GE, Morgan S, Reid RJ: Explaining prescription drug use and expenditures using the adjusted clinical groups case-mix system in the population of British Columbia, Canada. Med Care 2010, 48:402-408.
• [42]Reid RJ, MacWilliam L, Verhulst L, Roos N, Atkinson M: Performance of the ACG case-mix system in two Canadian provinces. Med Care 2001, 39:86-99.
• [43]Reid RJ, Roos NP, MacWilliam L, Frohlich N, Black C: Assessing population health care need using a claims-based ACG morbidity measure: a validation analysis in the Province of Manitoba. Health Serv Res 2002, 37:1345-1364.
• [44]Reid RJ, Verhulst L, Forrest CB: Comparing apples with apples in clinical populations: applications of the adjusted Clinical Group System in British Columbia. Healthc Manage Forum 2002, 15:11-16.
• [45]Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment: Guidance document for the costing process, version 1.0. 1–24. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); 1996. Ref Type: Report
• [46]Canadian Institute of Health Information: Resource Intensity Weights. Summary of Methodology 1995/96. 1–75. Ottawa, ON: Author; 1995. Ref Type: Report
• [47]Pink GH, Bolley HB: Physicians in health care management: 3, Case Mix Groups and Resource Intensity Weights: An overview for physicians. CMAJ 1994, 150:889-894.
• [48]Smith PC: Measuring health system performance. Eur J Health Econ 2002, 3:145-148.
• [49]Kristensen T, Olsen KR, Schroll H, Thomsen JL, Halling A: Association between fee-for-service expenditures and morbidity burden in primary care. Eur J Health Econ 2014, 15:599-610.
• [50]Kristensen T, Rose OK, Sortso C, Ejersted C, Thomsen JL, Halling A: Resources allocation and health care needs in diabetes care in Danish GP clinics. Health Policy 2013, 113:206-215.