Patient Engagement

The Pain That Results From Pain Measurement

Article · May 25, 2016

At this point, most clinicians understand that the opioid epidemic is real and important. In the discussions of what happened and what to do about it, critics point at measurement of pain in the HCAHPS survey, and express concern that financial incentives for hospitals to improve patient experience are causing doctors to prescribe narcotics too liberally. Some critics of the Affordable Care Act extend this logic train to conclude that Obamacare is driving the opioid epidemic.

This blog posting is not about politics, however, nor is it really about financial incentives. It is about measurement itself — and the question of whether the very act of measuring anything in health care can produce potentially perverse consequences. The short answer to that question is “Yes.” The next question is what to do about it.

First, some comments on my potential conflicts of interest. Much of my career has involved measurement of quality and efficiency with the goal of improving performance — so I am pro-measurement in general, and familiar with the pushback that often follows. Currently, I work for a company, Press Ganey Associates, Inc., that does a great deal of measurement, including measurement of patient experience. Press Ganey is not the only company that measures HCAHPS for hospitals and its counterpart surveys for physicians and emergency departments, but Press Ganey is sufficiently well known that it is often blurred with HCAHPS. That assumption is wrong, but not important for this piece, since I am in favor of HCAHPS measuring pain control.

Why do I dismiss the importance of financial incentives for pain control? Quite simply, financial incentives for pain control don’t really exist for doctors, who are the ones who prescribe medications. There is no CMS incentive that gives doctors more money if their patients’ pain control is better, or that takes money away if it is worse. Nor do I know of any commercial insurers or provider organizations that tie physician compensation to pain control.

Hospitals do have a small amount of money tied directly to pain control for inpatients — but it is so small that it barely qualifies for the term “rounding error.” CMS ties 0.5% of payment to patient experience, of which there are nine components. Pain control thereby “drives” 0.055% of hospital payments. If any hospital passes along financial risk for pain control to physicians, it is spending more money on the accounting than is at stake.

Some physicians have incentives to improve patients’ likelihood to recommend their organization, so they might think that if they prescribe more narcotics, they might get better recommendations. However, research shows the opposite is true — physicians who give more narcotics actually tend to have slightly lower patient ratings. In any case, prescription data demonstrate that the opioid epidemic began in the late 1990s, long before HCAHPS began measuring pain in hospital patients (2006) and even longer before the first financial incentives for patient experience were introduced (2012). So the case that the HCAHPS or Obamacare are driving the opioid epidemic is not a good one.

The Paradox of Pain Measurement

Nevertheless, I don’t dispute that simply knowing that pain control is being measured can change the way physicians practice — and that this awareness can lead to better care in some patients and worse care in others. As one thoughtful (and angry) emergency department physician said to me, he knew that it was not true that physicians had a financial incentive to prescribe narcotics . . . “but,” he said, “it feels like it is true.”

The larger issue is that no one likes being measured, and therefore any measurement can produce perverse effects. Measuring surgical mortality can cause physicians to avoid surgery on high-risk patients, even if those patients’ outcomes might be worse with non-surgical care. Measuring my patients’ experience might nudge me to do tests and give medications that are marginally indicated. Measuring my efficiency and my antibiotic stewardship might nudge me in the opposite direction and cause me to withhold interventions that could be beneficial.

Name a performance measure, and I can give you a potentially perverse effect that might result from its use. Pain control is the topic of the day, but tomorrow it might be efficiency, or readmissions, or the percentage of patients who have surgery in the last week of life.

In a profession that believes “First, do no harm,” a logical conclusion is that measurement itself is the problem — at least for the gray-zone issues that are so common in medicine. These gray zones exist because there are so many competing values. It’s clear that giving every patient in pain a narcotic is a bad idea, but so is giving opioids to none of them. If there is no right answer, some might argue that society should trust physicians’ judgement, give them autonomy, and leave them alone. And stop measuring pain control and many other metrics.

Yet this approach would mean accepting that improvement is not possible — when we know that improvement is an imperative. There is tremendous variation in management of pain, and depressing evidence that non-white patients are less likely to receive adequate analgesia. Not measuring would mean accepting this variation.

There are unintended consequences with everything one does in life — including measuring pain and other issues important in health care. But there are unintended consequences with not measuring, too. When patients are suffering, physicians should respond. Sometimes that response will involve medications, including narcotics. But often that response should involve conversations with the patient to put their symptoms in perspective and ease the fears that can magnify their discomfort.

Should the financial incentives that exist for pain control be changed? Some advocates for the current financial incentives for pain control worry that no one will pay attention to this issue if there is no money tied to it. Incentives are always subject to tweaking, but in general, I favor financial incentives for financial issues (e.g., efficiency) and non-financial incentives (e.g., transparency) for quality — and that goes for pain, patient experience, and other outcomes that matter to patients.

On balance, we do not need less measurement in health care; we need more wisdom about what to do with the data.

New call for submissions ­to NEJM Catalyst

Now inviting longform articles

Connect

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

Learn More »

More From Patient Engagement
Barriers to Providing an Oustanding Patient Experience

Buzz Survey Report: Patient Experience

An independent NEJM Catalyst report sponsored by University of Utah Health on barriers to achieving an excellent patient experience.

The Patient Engagement Capacity Framework

The Patient Engagement Capacity Model: What Factors Determine a Patient’s Ability to Engage?

Patient engagement assessments often don’t dig deep enough to identify why patients don’t participate in their own health care. We present a new model to help providers pinpoint the reasons for lack of engagement and address them more effectively.

Organizational Mindset Is the Biggest Barrier to Engaging Patients as Consumers

Survey Snapshot: The Patient-Physician Relationship Is Key

Both parties involved in a consumer-facing transaction have access to important information about the product or service — but this isn’t the case with health care.

What High-Need, High-Cost Patients Say About How to Reduce High Utilization of ED and Inpatient Services

High-Need, High-Cost Patients Offer Solutions for Improving Their Care and Reducing Costs

More home health care and after-hours clinics, telemedicine, and home delivery of medications are among top solutions.

Top Physician Pain Points Identified by Chronic Patients

Unmet Needs: Hearing the Challenges of Chronic Patients with Artificial Intelligence

With natural language processing and machine learning, researchers are identifying patient emotional and medical needs that are not being met by clinicians and patient advocacy groups.

Health Care Can Learn a Lot from Other Consumer-Facing Industries - Especially About Customer Service - Consumerization of Health Care

Patient Engagement Survey: Health Care Has a Lot to Learn from Consumer-Friendly Industries

The consumerization of health care continues to reshape the way that patients engage with providers and experience care. Most providers see this fundamental change in the health care model as a necessary response to changing patient demands, and have embraced the need to learn from other industries.

Bilazarian01_pullquote patient engagement both sides of the bed

Patient Engagement from Both Sides of the Bed

When patients and families are included in medical rounds as valued members of the team, the quality of care improves.

Ten Guiding Principles for Patient-Centered Care as Described by Mountain States Health Alliance to consider with patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR)

Complementary Approaches to Patient Engagement in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research

It’s important for providers to understand and apply the key principles foundational to patient-centered outcomes research efforts.

Selected Advantages of Improved Patient Electronic Access to Health Data

Patient-Led Data Sharing — A New Paradigm for Electronic Health Data

The pieces are in place for a truly disruptive shift in how patients can access and use their own clinical data to improve their health.

Collapse of Two Online Health Communities as Result of Removal of Users Starting from Superusers

Online “Superusers” as Allies of the Health Care Workforce

Three proposed steps for integrating peer-driven online health communities with traditional services to improve health outcomes for people with chronic conditions.

Connect

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

Learn More »

Topics

Patient Incentives

70 Articles

Survey Snapshot: Is Transparency the Answer…

NEJM Catalyst Insights Council members say that while transparency might be necessary, we have to…

Primary Care

184 Articles

New Evidence on Stemming Low-Value Prescribing

New research suggests that deploying strong and surprising messages could help to address overprescribing of…

Stone-Age Policies Stifle Modern Solutions

Health care leaders must advocate for regulatory and reimbursement changes to unlock the potential of…

Insights Council

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

Apply Now