Mitigating case mix factors by choice of glycemic control performance measure threshold

Association between performance measures and glycemic control among patients with diabetes in a community-wide primary care cohort

BACKGROUND

Performance measures are used for assessing quality of care. Higher performance shown by these measures is expected to reflect better care, but little is known whether they predict better patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the predictive value of performance measures of glucose management on glycemic control, and evaluate the impact of patient characteristics on this association.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Cohort study (2007-2009).

SUBJECTS

A total of 15,454 type 2 diabetes patients (mean age, 66.5 y; 48% male) from the GIANTT cohort.

MEASURES

We included performance measures assessing frequency of HbA1c monitoring, glucose-lowering treatment status, and treatment intensification. Associations between performance and glycemic control were tested using multivariate linear regression adjusted for confounding, reporting estimated differences in HbA1c with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Impact of patient characteristics was examined through interactions.

RESULTS

Annual HbA1c monitoring was associated with better glycemic control when compared with no such monitoring (HbA1c -0.29%; 95% CI -0.37, -0.22). This association lost significance in patients with lower baseline HbA1c, older age, and without macrovascular comorbidity. Treatment status was associated with better glycemic control only in patients with elevated baseline HbA1c. Treatment intensification after elevated HbA1c levels was associated with better glycemic control compared with no intensification (HbA1c -0.21; 95% CI -0.26, -0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Performance measures of annual HbA1c monitoring and of treatment intensification did predict better patient outcomes, whereas the measure of treatment status did not. Predictive value of annual monitoring and of treatment status varied across patient characteristics, and it should be used with caution when patient characteristics cannot be taken into account.

A clinical action measure to assess glycemic management in the 65-74 year old veteran population

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of including of clinical actions within 6 months of a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level greater than 8% upon measure adherence (pass rates) and to assess the association between patient factors and the likelihood of not passing.

SETTING

Veterans Health Administration.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study for FY2002 to FY2004.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred fifty-three thousand one hundred thirty-two veterans aged 65-74 with diabetes mellitus not taking insulin; 99% were male and 86% white.

MEASUREMENTS

The clinical action measure included three categories: (a) initial pass (index HbA1c < 8%); (b) modified pass (index HbA1c ≥ 8%), and the hierarchical occurrence of one of the following events within 6 months after date of index HbA1c: subsequent HbA1c < 8%, being started on insulin (100% weight), new oral medication (50% weight), care in a diabetes mellitus-related clinic (25% weight); and (c) failure (no category met or HbA1c > 9%). Multinomial logistic regression models were used to evaluate associations between participant factors and the likelihood of not passing initially.

RESULTS

Most (82.6%) or the participants had an index HbA1c of less than 8%, and 10.6% were in the modified pass group. The failure rate (17.4%) fell to 6.8% when actions were weighted equally and to 9.4% using different weights. Veterans who are African American (odds ratios (ORs) = 1.43 and 1.44), unmarried (ORs = 1.19 and 1.24), poor (ORs = 1.36 and 1.17), or taking two or more oral antihyperglycemic agents (ORs = 2.61 and 3.72) were significantly more likely to be in the modified pass and failure groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Most veterans with an initial HbA1c of 8% or greater had clinical actions within 6 months. A measure that incorporates multiple treatment options, including education and nutrition, could be of benefit by encouraging dialogue of such options between patients and clinicians.

Clinical outcomes after insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes: 6-month data from the INSTIGATE observational study in five European countries

OBJECTIVES

To examine insulin regimens and factors that affect glycaemic control at 6 months after initiation of insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Information on patients requiring insulin initiation as part of usual care was collected in a prospective, observational, open-label study in five European countries. Univariate and multiple regression analyses were used to investigate factors associated with HbA1c achieved at 6 months.

RESULTS

Mean HbA1c for all patients at baseline was 9.6 ± 1.8%. Long/intermediate-acting insulin only was most commonly initiated in France and Spain, while long/intermediate or pre-mixed formulations were initiated in Greece and UK. This was consistent with guidelines used in those countries and there was little change in insulin regimen at 6 months in these countries. In Germany, short-acting insulin only was favoured at baseline and there was a shift towards basal/bolus regimens at 6 months, which reflected the local guidelines for insulin initiation in Germany. Mean HbA1c reduction was greatest in Germany (-2.3%), which was the only country to achieve a mean of <7% at 6 months. In all countries, HbA1c achieved at 6 months was associated with baseline HbA1c. Differences between countries were seen for influence of factors such as BMI, duration of diabetes, insulin regimen, insulin dose and number of oral anti-diabetes drugs on HbA1c achieved. Explained variability for the factors ranged from 5.6% to 22.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in insulin regimen were observed between countries, and appeared to reflect the guidelines and treatment regimens used.

Exclusion of patients from quality measurement of diabetes care in the UK pay-for-performance programme

BACKGROUND

We examined associations between patient and practice characteristics and exclusions from quality indicators for diabetes during the first 3 years of the Quality and Outcomes Framework, a major pay-for-performance scheme in the UK.

METHODS

Three cross-sectional analyses, conducted using data from the electronic medical records of all patients with diabetes registered in 23 general practices in Brent, North West London between 2004/2005 and 2006/2007. Patterns of exclusions were examined for three intermediate outcome indicators.

RESULTS

Excluded patients were less likely to achieve treatment targets for HbA(1c) (2004/2005, 2006/2007), blood pressure (2005/2006, 2006/2007) and cholesterol (2005/2006). Black and South Asian patients were more likely to be excluded from the HbA(1c) indicator than White patients [adjusted odds ratio = 1.64 (1.17-2.29) in 2005/2006]. Patients diagnosed with diabetes duration of > 10 years [adjusted odds ratio = 2.01 (1.65-2.45) for HbA(1c) in 2006-2007] and those with co-morbidities (adjusted odds ratio, ≥ 3 co-morbidities compared with no co-morbidity for HbA(1c) adjusted odds ratio = 1.90 (1.24-2.90) in 2004/2005] were more likely to be excluded. Larger practices excluded more patients from the HbA(1c) indicator [adjusted odds ratio, practice ≥ 7000 compared with < 3000, 3.52 (2.35-5.27) in 2005-2006]. More deprived practices consistently excluded more patients from all indicators, whilst in 2007 older patients were excluded to a larger degree [adjusted odds ratio = 2.52 (1.21-5.28) ≥ 75 compared with 18-44 for blood pressure control].

CONCLUSIONS

Patients excluded from pay-for-performance programmes may be less likely to achieve treatment goals and disproportionately come from disadvantaged groups. Permitting physicians to exclude patients from pay-for-performance programmes may worsen health disparities.

Exploring and comparing the characteristics of nonlatent and latent composite scores: implications for pay-for-performance incentive design

A concise and reliable composite quality score would be helpful in judging the quality of a hospital's services, especially for pay-for-performance (P4P) initiatives. This study compared several nonlatent and latent composite quality scores to evaluate the quality of care using diabetes mellitus (DM) P4P data and discusses their characteristics and implications for P4P policy. The authors describe a cross-sectional study of the DM P4P data collected from the claims data of the Bureau of National Health Insurance (NHI) in Taiwan from January 2007 to December 2007. The DM patient outcome data, such as hemoglobin A1C values, were retrieved from the P4P database sponsored by the Bureau of NHI in Taiwan. The composite scores were derived from the following methods: 1) nonlatent scores methods (e.g., the raw sum score and the all-or-none score methods)and 2) latent scores methods (e.g., item-response theory-based Models I and II and the PRIDIT model). These scores are compared in terms of 2 aspects-agreement of hospital rankings (using Spearman's rank correlation) and reliability (using bootstrap methods). The latent methods were superior to the nonlatent methods because they were more reliable and had specific weighting themes. The correlations among the 3 latent methods were moderately high. The use of the PRIDIT approach, which is moderately difficult compared with item response theory-based model, is recommended if the insurer wants to balance convenience and precision.

Hidden complexities in assessment of glycemic outcomes: are quality rankings aligned with treatment?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate facility rankings in achieving <7% A1C levels based on the complexity of glycemic treatment regimens using threshold and continuous measures.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective administrative data analysis of Veterans Health Administration Medical Centers in 2003-2004. Eligible patients were identified using National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) measure specifications. A complex glycemic regimen (CGR) was defined as receipt of insulin or three oral agents. Facilities were ranked using five ordinal categories based up both z score distribution and statistical significance (P < 0.05). Rankings using the NCQA definition were compared with a subset receiving CGRs using both a <7% threshold and a continuous measure awarding proportional credit for values between 7.9 and <7.0%. Ranking correlation was assessed using the Spearman correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

A total of 203,302 patients (mean age 55.2 years) were identified from 127 facilities (range 480-5,411, mean 1,601); 26.7% (17.9-35.2%) were receiving CGRs, including 22.0% receiving insulin. Mean A1C and percent achieving A1C <7% were 7.48 and 48% overall and 8.32 and 24.8% for those receiving CGRs using the threshold measure; proportion achieved was 60.1 and 37.2%, respectively, using the continuous measure. Rank correlation between the overall and CGR subset was 0.61; 8 of 24 of the highest or lowest ranked facilities changed to nonsignificance status; an additional five sites changed rankings.

CONCLUSIONS

Facility rankings in achieving the NCQA <7% measure as specified differ markedly from rankings using the CGR subset. Measurement for public reporting or payment should stratify rankings by CGR. A continuous measure may better align incentives with treatment intensity.

Impact of pay for performance on ethnic disparities in intermediate outcomes for diabetes: a longitudinal study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of a major pay for performance incentive on trends in the quality of diabetes care in white, black, and South Asian ethnic groups in an urban setting in the U.K.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We developed longitudinal models examining the quality of diabetes care in a cohort of ethnically diverse patients in Southwest London using electronic family practice records. Outcome measures were mean blood pressure and A1C values between 2000 and 2005.

RESULTS

The introduction of pay for performance was associated with reductions in mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure, which were significantly greater than those predicted by the underlying trend in the white (-5.8 and -4.2 mmHg), black (-2.5 and -2.4 mmHg), and South Asian (-5.5 and -3.3 mmHg) groups. Reductions in A1C levels were significantly greater than those predicted by the underlying trend in the white group (-0.5%) but not in the black (-0.3%) or South Asian (-0.4%) groups. Ethnic group disparities in annual measurement of blood pressure and A1C were abolished before the introduction of pay for performance.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of a pay for performance incentive in U.K. primary care was associated with improvements in the intermediate outcomes of diabetes care for all ethnic groups. However, the magnitude of improvement appeared to differ between ethnic groups, thus potentially widening existing disparities in care. Policy makers should consider the potential impacts of pay for performance incentives on health disparities when designing and evaluating such programs.