5. Public Reporting as a Quality Improvement Strategy

Author
Year
Schultz
2001 158
Stein
2009 159
1. Study
Purpose
and/or a
priori
Hypothesis
To investigate
consumers’
use of report
cards that
provide
information on
service quality
and
satisfaction at
the provider
group level
To examine
consumer
preferences
regarding
content and
use of provider
performance
data and other
provider
information to
aid in
consumers’
decisionmaking
2.
Geographic
Location
Minneapolis -
St. Paul, MN
3. Study
Design/
Type
Descriptive
Survey
Pennsylvania Focus
Groups
4. Sample/
Population:
Who or what
is studied? 5. Outcomes
Employees
of firms (28
large)
aligned with
a purchasers
group
BHCAG who
had Choice
Plus, specific
plan
coverage.
n=996 single
coverage
n=913 family
coverage
4 focus
groups
including 41
Medicaid
enrolled
mental health
care
consumers in
Pennsylvania
Probability of
seeing the
report card,
finding it useful
and selecting a
care system
based on the
contextual
factors
Uses of provider
information and
discussions
about the value
of information
and formatting
K-20
6. Name of
Report or
Subject
Matter 7. Results 8. Summary
Performan
ce Results
Book
(PRB)
Probability - Respondents’ Ease
of Selecting a Care
System(coefficients)
See PRB: Single (0.0350); Family
(-0.0235)
PRB Helpful: Single (-0.1610);
Family (0.2082)
Coefficients of Probability of
Seeing the Public Report [Single;
Family]:
Married: (NA); 0.1629
Female: 0.1205; 0.2351**
Age: 0.0064; -0.001
Technical School: 0.2673**; -
0.0160
Income Missing: 0.329*; 0.556
Information from Experience:
0.1901**; 0.493
Premium Important: -0.2097*; -
.0426
Large Company: -0.6633***;
-0.2933**
***p