Physician report cards: Help, ho-hum or horror? - Public scorecards on individual doctors are just around the corner, and payers want you to supply the data. - ModernMedicine
Physician report cards: Help, ho-hum or horror?Public scorecards on individual doctors are just around the corner, and payers want you to supply the data.

Source: Medical Economics


Up to now, most healthcare "report cards" for consumers have focused on hospitals and large physician groups. That's about to change.

Two medium-sized health plans and an employer coalition—all in different states—are already publishing web-based scorecards on individual doctors and small practices. Big insurers such as United and Aetna publish very basic rankings, while some Blues plans—including Highmark in Pennsylvania—are preparing more-detailed report cards. And CMS, now soliciting physician quality data on a voluntary basis, wants to post individual report cards as soon as possible.

Claims data still form the basis of most scorecards. But there's growing pressure on physicians to supply their own data, both to increase accuracy and to expand payers' knowledge of what care is actually being provided. So now you have one more reason to get an EHR: Your public image may depend on it.

While advocates argue that published ratings will lead to better care, critics warn that they could have the opposite effect. For example, scorecards could motivate physicians to avoid noncompliant patients and to provide some interventions inappropriately in order to reach "target rates," notes internist and economist Rachel M. Werner of the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, who's also an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.


Power Points
Should physicians be afraid of public reporting? "If the data are statistically valid and reliable and the scores are an accurate reflection of quality, physicians should have nothing to fear," says Werner. But, she adds, the catch is that we don't know yet whether the measures actually do reflect quality.

Those quality metrics will improve, predicts Geoffrey B. Baker, CEO of Med-Vantage, a health informatics firm in San Francisco that builds report cards and pay-for-performance programs for insurance companies. Among other things, he predicts, report card makers will design a process that "delivers actionable results to physicians for follow-up on nonadherent patients."

Baker believes that scorecards comparing individual physicians and other providers can "change American healthcare. This will be the basis on which Americans decide on their care needs as they take on more of the financial responsibility for their own health."

Whether or not that's true, it's clear that public ratings are in your future. Here are the experiences of some physicians with the first generation of report cards.

Doctors accept scorecards, but with reservations

So far, there has been little physician resistance to report cards. For instance, the Geisinger Health Plan, based in Danville, PA, posted its first report card on the web in late April, and only a handful of the 1,500 primary care physicians in its network chose not to be publicly ranked, says geriatrician Anthony Aquilina, the plan's regional medical director. He adds that the physicians were able to see what their report cards looked like for more than a year before they were published.

The Geisinger scorecard looks at chronic and preventive care, patient satisfaction, and access. But although it compares practices, rather than individual doctors, most practices in the plan's network have only one or two doctors, says Aquilina. So, to a large extent, this is a report card on individual practitioners.

The same is true of the report card issued for two and a half years by the Maine Health Management Coalition (MHMC), a group of employers, health plans, and providers that are trying to improve healthcare quality in Maine. In this sparsely populated state, soloists form a large portion of the physician community, so the coalition's report card on practices lists many doctors by name.


Comments from our Readers
 Posted Jul 25 2006 10:07PM
Quality measures and P4P in theory sound appropriate - but currently there are inaccuracies in claims data collection that inaccurately record a physician's performance or there is no system in place for rectifying the ranking even if the physician has substantiated his or her case. I know of a physician colleague who was told he only had 1 diabetic patient meet retinopathy screening standards. He went back and retrieved the records of each one of his diabetic patients which showed 100% compliance- with a documented ophthalmic exam for retinopathy in the chart within the last year. When approached, the CEO of the insurance carrier noted that the physician did indeed meet performance standards but that nothing could be done to rectify his ranking because there was no system in place to do so. I'm concerned that until perfected, quality measures and P4P are another obstacle to physician autonomy and will only add to the frustrations already experienced in the profession.
 Posted Jul 26 2006 01:39PM
BCBS recently audited my charts and found as my only deficit that I did not record on the front sheet whether or not my patients were illicit drug abusers. I feel this is a useless item for a facesheet as patients at risk are unlikely to be truthful about it, and if they are drug abusers, that belongs on the problem list, not under "risk factor assessment". Nonetheless, because of this one deficiency, I was warned that I would no longer be able to see BCBS patients, i.e., their "report card" shows that I am not qualified to care for their patients. I have been in practice for 25 years and am well respected for my ability to manage complex and difficult patients. I have developed detailed facesheets to match the needs of my patient population. Nonetheless, I could easily be publicly branded as an incompetent physician and put into bankruptcy if BCBS carries through with this threat as they form my 2nd largest patient base. (I have one year to "correct my deficiencies"). This is the kind of lunacy we can expect to be subjected to if this "report card" mentality is allowed to proceed.
 Posted Jul 26 2006 06:31PM
Ranking and P4P will only work if payers data is correct. Two examples of payer data idiocy (1) I get repeated reminders to do a PAP smear on a trans sexual, after writing abck to United HC THREE times "patient is genetically male", finally calling them - the rimders keep coming and (2) I get reminders about doing lab work on a diabetic who has been DEAD for three years from Healthnet. Have they not realized she hasn't paid a premium for her Medicare secondary policy for those 3 years ? The real problem is as another correspondent wrote is that we owe these payers nothing more for their paltry below cost reimbursements, the best attitude we could all take to to set a date to cancel all 3rd party contracts, form a national non profit physician insurer, and agree only to contract with the single entity and put these leeches on healthcare out of business.
 Posted Sep 19 2006 04:21PM
Docs, For the sake of your profession and your patients, don't give in to this. The insurance industry has found yet another brilliant way to interfere with your professionl judgment. US docs are the best in the world. Don't let the AMA sell you out. Demmd that your societies stand up for you and stiop buying into managed care and CMS lies. Also, read the IOM errors study data and the HeralthGrades boondogle and demand that the fraudulent science be corrected. You are the only hope for patients.
Read More Comments
post a comment
Your email address will NOT be published.
appears with your comment
read our privacy policy
Note: does not support HTML
All comments submitted are subject to review, and may be delayed before posting. We reserve the right not to post comments.

eSamples check closet
eSamples check closet
Practice ToolsPractice Tools
Coding Counselor
Coding Counselor

Simple and accurate ICD-9 code search. Start Here

Patient Education
Patient Education

Print customized patient education handouts. Start Here

Dermatology Diagnosis
Dermatology Diagnosis

Identify skin diseases by age, gender, location. Start Here

AHRQ Clinical Guidelines
AHRQ Clinical Guidelines

Objective findings on medical interventions. Start Here



Source: Medical Economics,
Click here