Reporting of quality measures in gynecologic oncology programs at Prospective Payment System (PPS)-Exempt Cancer Hospitals: An early glimpse into a challenging initiative Journal Article


Authors: Cohn, D. E.; Leitao, M.; Levenback, C.; Berkowitz, R.; Roman, L.; Lucci, J.; Kim, S.; Lancaster, J.; Odunsi, K.; Wakabayashi, M.; Goff, B. A.
Article Title: Reporting of quality measures in gynecologic oncology programs at Prospective Payment System (PPS)-Exempt Cancer Hospitals: An early glimpse into a challenging initiative
Abstract: Objective The Affordable Care Act mandates the Prospective Payment System (PPS)-Exempt Cancer Hospitals Quality Reporting program. These 11 hospitals (which are paid fee-for-service rather than on a DRG system) began reporting measures (2 general safety, 2 breast, 1 colon) in 2013. Given this reporting mandate, we set out to determine whether the PPS-exempt gynecologic oncology programs could identify quality measures specific to the care of our patients. Methods A list of 12 quality measures specific to gynecologic oncology was created (from sources including the National Quality Forum and the SGO). Measures already in use were not included. The list was ranked by the gynecologic oncology program directors at the PPS-exempt hospitals. Descriptive statistics (including mean and SD for rankings) were utilized. Results Despite mandatory reporting of quality measures for PPS-exempt cancer hospitals, little consensus exists regarding specific gynecologic cancer measures. Documentation of debulking status, cancer survival, and offering minimally invasive surgery (for endometrial cancer) and intraperitoneal chemotherapy (for ovarian cancer) are important, but with widely variable responses (when ranked 1-12, standard deviations are 2-3). General issues regarding adherence to guidelines for the use of GCSF, documentation of functional status, and tracking of patient satisfaction scores were ranked the lowest. Three of the directors reported that their compensation is partially linked to quality outcomes. Conclusions There is wide variability in ranking of quality measures, and may relate to provider or institutional factors. Despite the mandatory reporting in PPS-exempt cancer hospitals, work remains to define gynecologic cancer quality measures. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: cancer chemotherapy; cancer survival; patient satisfaction; united states; outcome assessment; endometrium cancer; cytoreductive surgery; consensus; ovary cancer; breast cancer; combination chemotherapy; practice guideline; genital neoplasms, female; health care quality; quality indicators, health care; health program; medicare; cancer center; data collection; thromboembolism; colon cancer; uterine cervix cancer; medical oncology; outcome and process assessment (health care); minimally invasive surgery; medical documentation; hospital readmission; gynecology; gynecologic cancer; functional status; sample size; medical fee; fee-for-service plans; hospice care; mandatory reporting; thrombosis prevention; prospective payment; patient protection and affordable care act; affordable care act; pps-exempt; quality measures; hospitals, special
Journal Title: Gynecologic Oncology
Volume: 130
Issue: 3
ISSN: 0090-8258
Publisher: Elsevier Inc.  
Date Published: 2013-09-01
Start Page: 403
End Page: 406
Language: English
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.05.026
PROVIDER: scopus
PUBMED: 23718934
DOI/URL:
Notes: --- - "Export Date: 1 October 2013" - "CODEN: GYNOA" - "Source: Scopus"
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
MSK Authors
  1. Mario Leitao
    575 Leitao