New Marketplace

A Metrics Moonshot

Article · April 13, 2016

By the time I finished reading “Standardizing Patient Outcomes Measurement,” the New England Journal of Medicine article by Michael Porter, Tom Lee, and Stefan Larsson, I was cheering. The authors point out how a “let a thousand flowers bloom” approach to metrics development has resulted in a glut of process measures in health care and slowed progress toward metrics that reflect real outcomes. They decry the artisanal process by which organizations reinvent the metrics wheel over and over but with enough small differences to render broader comparisons of performance useless.

Our team at Weill Cornell Medicine recently compiled an inventory of the metrics by which we are measured by our four largest commercial payers and for our Medicare ACO. We counted 60 individual measures, with a grand total of 2 that apply across the entire group. All track processes rather than outcomes. There are similarities among the other 58 measures but also nuances that introduce a friction into our operations, to which we must devote significant resources to overcoming.

For example, 18% of the measures relate to management of patients who are diabetic. Every payer agrees on measuring the rate at which our attributed patients have an annual retinal eye exam. But while one payer simply measures whether an annual HbA1C level has been documented, another wants the level to be less than 9%. For one payer it is enough that we document prescribing a 180-day supply of a medication, where for another we need to demonstrate that the patient is taking that medication.

Is there is a business case for this complexity? Possibly, if you take the cynical viewpoint that the entities who administer payment for health care services want to set up providers to fail. I don’t believe that’s true — but the quantity of process measures is a real impediment in the quest for value in health care. Payers with a stated goal of improving quality are actively inhibiting progress toward more meaningful outcome measures.

If this patchwork quilt of process measures is the result of a focus on perfection — by specialty societies that choose measures they can control — then let me beg for imperfect uniformity instead. Variability has been linked to poorer outcomes in health care; surely we should apply the same lens to the metrics we use to measure those outcomes.

We’ve heard much recently about moonshots in medicine. This is a call for a metrics moonshot. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement, which seeks to identify and propagate well validated measures, is a great launching pad. But the planet on which health care needs to land is one where providers, payers and, most importantly, patients, define shared goals for health and measure efforts on how close we all are to achieving those goals. If all parties can devote the time and space to agree on the measures that matter, then health care’s complexity and cost will be reduced. Process measures are the pre-launch equipment checks that ensure our ship will function. Outcomes measures are what will make that giant step forward.

Meaningful outcomes measures will be out of reach as long as we expend our collective energies on reporting processes. Reducing the complexity of that reporting might just be the catalyst that practicing physicians need in order to focus on patient health.

New Call for Submissions ­to NEJM Catalyst

Connect

A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

More From New Marketplace
Robert Gavin head shot

Amazon and CVS: Short-Lived Unicorns in Health Care, or Healers of the “Tapeworm”?

Will Amazon–Berkshire Hathaway–JP Morgan and CVS-Aetna change the health care game? To one health care employer purchaser, these announcements feel a lot like Groundhog Day.

Fiona Scott Morton head shot

We Can’t Spend All Our Money on Health Care

We have to think about how much we want to spend on health according to how much it’s worth to us at the margin.

Simplified Chain of Production for Primary Care Services Generating Retail Prescriptions. Solid arrows indicate contractual relationships or ownership, and the dashed arrow indicates referral for prescription.

Does CVS–Aetna Spell the End of Business as Usual?

What might one of the largest mergers in history mean for the health care delivery system?

Lack of Incentive Is Top Barrier to Implementing Value-Based Payment

Survey Snapshot: Payer-Provider Alignment Is Difficult Even for Integrated Organizations

NEJM Catalyst Insights Council members say stronger incentives and better use of analytics could improve alignment.

Kaplan04_pullquote Time to Sink Two Canoe Payment Models Argument

Time to Sink the Two-Canoe Argument

Although the transition from fee-for-service to quality-based payment can leave physicians feeling trapped “with a foot in two canoes” while straddling the two payment methods, there are compelling ethical, professional, and business reasons against rationalizing continued support of fee-for-service medicine.

Mostashari01_pullquote - Medicare Advantage Holds the Key to Reforming the ACO Program

Medicare Advantage Holds the Key to Reforming the ACO Program

Value-based care continues to be the emphasis of federal policymakers, as well as many providers. Aligning Medicare Advantage with ACOs would boost both programs.

Physician Group Practices BPCI Classic Success and Looking Ahead to BPCI Advanced Bundled Payments

Physician Group Practices: Succeeding in Bundled Payments

Physician groups are demonstrating their ability to deliver care in new and innovative ways as part of the nationwide effort to transform health care delivery through value-based payment models. The physician experience and perspective is invaluable and should remain an important component of any shift to value-based care.

How Aligned Are Payers and Providers in Working Together to Achieve Value-Based Care

New Marketplace Survey: Payers and Providers Remain Far Apart

Health care stakeholders are not aligned in important goals and in large part are not working together to achieve value-based care, according to the NEJM Catalyst Insights Council. They are waiting on government regulators to change the payment model — including, possibly, single-payer health care.

Comparison of Select Characteristics of the Sample and Shared Savings Program - MMSP ACO - Physician-Led ACOs

Do Independent Physician-Led ACOs Have a Future?

While some of these smaller organizations are succeeding, they do face numerous challenges, and there is a need for both regulatory change as well as greater sharing of peer-based resources and best practices.

Disruption of Innovative Mergers in Health Care Industry - BDO graphic

Innovative Mergers Will Disrupt Health Care

The NEJM Catalyst Insights Council expects outside players to have a major impact on the industry over the next three years.

Connect

A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

Topics

We Can’t Spend All Our Money…

We have to think about how much we want to spend on health according to…

Change the Model → Change the…

If we’re going to change the health care payment model, do we need to change…

Change the Model → Change the…

If we’re going to change the health care payment model, do we need to change…

Insights Council

Have a voice. Join other health care leaders effecting change, shaping tomorrow.

Apply Now