Risk Management and Healthcare Policy (Dec 2021)
Disparate Impacts of Two Public Reporting Initiatives on Clinical and Perceived Quality in Healthcare
Abstract
Ahreum Han,1 Jongsun Park2 1Department of Health Care Administration, Trinity University, San Antonio, TX, USA; 2Department of Public Administration, Gachon University, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, South KoreaCorrespondence: Jongsun ParkDepartment of Public Administration, Gachon University, 1342 Seongnam-daero, Sujeong-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, South KoreaTel +82 31-750-5251Email [email protected]: Transparency is increasingly viewed as a prerequisite for value-based health care that invites quality in the assessment of achieved value. However, nowadays the ability of transparency initiatives to enhance quality of care remains obscure, if not rejected. Thus, this study aims to investigate how transparency initiatives influence two types of quality of care: clinical and perceived quality.Methods: First, factor analyses were conducted to construct three dependent variables: healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), 30-day readmission rates, and patient satisfaction. Then, the three quality models were compared by running ordinary least squares multiple regressions using STATA 14.1. The existence of heteroskedasticity was remedied by using robust standard errors.Results: Examining general acute care hospitals in the US, the present study noted that the ability of public reporting to improve quality of care remains inconclusive and that the pursuit of transparency may lead to inadvertent results. The disclosure of all-payer claims data (APCD) was found to have the power to differentiate hospitals’ clinical and perceived quality, but it failed to reach the desired outcomes without market pressure. The impact of transparency on quality of care diverges depending on the unique characteristics of each transparency policy, even though they pursue the same ends through information dissemination. Furthermore, the same public policy showed starkly disparate impacts on clinical quality (eg, healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and 30-day readmission rates) and perceived quality (eg, patient satisfaction).Conclusion: Despite the theoretically acknowledged merits of transparency, the present study noted that its ability to enhance quality of care remains inconclusive, and the pursuit of transparency may even inadvertently harm quality of care. While hospitals may need to finetune their strategies for each quality measurement in order to cope with the new environmental pressure, it is health policymakers’ role to coordinate those quality metrics and improve the validity of patient experience measures and surveys.Keywords: transparency, public reporting, all-payer claims data, APCD, clinical quality, healthcare-associated infections, HAIs, 30-day readmission rates, perceived quality, patient satisfaction
