The Health Care Financing Administration has contracted with 54 peer review organizations (PROs) to monitor hospital use and quality of care for Medicare patients. PROs promised reductions in readmissions, in "unnecessary" admissions or invasive procedures, and in "avoidable" mortality and morbidity. A review of contract summaries for 49 PROs revealed wide variations in reduction targets. In attempting to meet their goals, PROs will encounter numerous potential pitfalls, including inaccurate and incomplete discharge data, inadequate descriptors for the variety of patients and physicians' management plans, honest differences in judgments about patient care, and limited research on the criteria used to set their reduction targets as well as the means to accomplish them. Despite having more explicit quality-of-care objectives, PROs, like PSROs (professional standards review organizations) before them, are more likely to be seen as agents of cost containment than of quality assurance. Both their credibility and their effectiveness might be enhanced if an expert panel of clinicians and health services researchers were established to help them set and achieve reasonable objectives for quality of care.
This article has been cited by other articles:
Duclos, A., Gillaizeau, F., Colombet, I., Coste, J., Durieux, P.
(2008). Health staff perception regarding quality of delivered information to inpatients. Int J Qual Health Care
20: 13-21
[Abstract][Full Text]
Snyder, C., Anderson, G.
(2005). Do Quality Improvement Organizations Improve the Quality of Hospital Care for Medicare Beneficiaries?. JAMA
293: 2900-2907
[Abstract][Full Text]
Smith, M. A., Atherly, A. J., Kane, R. L., Pacala, J. T.
(1997). Peer Review of the Quality of Care: Reliability and Sources of Variability for Outcome and Process Assessments. JAMA
278: 1573-1578
[Abstract]
Korda, H.
(1994). Utilization Review for Medicaid Diagnosis-Related Group Systems: Practice, Innovation and Lessons of Experience. American Journal of Medical Quality
9: 54-67
[Abstract]
Hayes, R. P., Lundberg, M. T., Ballard, D. J.
(1994). Peer Review Organizations: Scientific Challenges in HCFA's Health Care Quality Improvement Initiative. Med Care Res Rev
51: 39-60
Schneider, J. K., Hornberger, S., Booker, J., Davis, A., Kralicek, R.
(1993). A Medication Discharge Planning Program: Measuring the Effect on Readmissions. Clin Nurs Res
2: 41-53
[Abstract]
Rubin, H. R., Rogers, W. H., Kahn, K. L., Rubenstein, L. V., Brook, R. H.
(1992). Watching the Doctor-Watchers: How Well Do Peer Review Organization Methods Detect Hospital Care Quality Problems?. JAMA
267: 2349-2354
[Abstract]
Rubenstein, L. V., Kahn, K. L., Reinisch, E. J., Sherwood, M. J., Rogers, W. H., Kamberg, C., Draper, D., Brook, R. H.
(1990). Changes in Quality of Care for Five Diseases Measured by Implicit Review, 1981 to 1986. JAMA
264: 1974-1979
[Abstract]
Lohr, K. N., Donaldson, M. S.
(1990). Assuring Quality of Care for the Elderly. J Law Med Ethics
18: 244-253
FIELDING, S. L.
(1990). Physician Reactions to Malpractice Suits and Cost Containment in Massachusetts. Work and Occupations
17: 302-319
[Abstract]
Imperiale, T. F., Siegal, A. P., Crede, W. B., Kamens, E. A.
(1988). Preadmission Screening of Medicare Patients: The Clinical Impact of Reimbursement Disapproval. JAMA
259: 3418-3421
[Abstract]
Kelly, J. T., Feldman, S. E., Ross, J. E. H.
(1987). Quality Review in the Peer Review Organization Program. American Journal of Medical Quality
2: 107-110
[Abstract]
Jencks, S. F., Kay, T.
(1987). Do Frail, Disabled, Poor, and Very Old Medicare Beneficiaries Have Higher Hospital Charges?. JAMA
257: 198-202
[Abstract]
Krieg, A. F., Abendroth, T. W., Bongiovanni, M. B.
(1986). What Is "Appropriate" Utilization of Diagnostic Tests?: Technical Performance, Diagnostic Performance, and Clinical Utility. American Journal of Medical Quality
1: 70-78
Previous
