5. Public Reporting as a Quality Improvement Strategy

Author
Year
QA
Fox
2001 64
Poor
Habermann
2007 65
Fair
1. Study
Purpose
and/or a
priori
Hypothesis
(if stated)
responses to
report cards in
2 markets.
2. To
determine
how personal
characteristics
relate to
exposure, and
3. To assess
the perceived
helpfulness of
the report
cards
The study
evaluates the
impact of
CAHPS report
card in
assisting
newly enrolled
Medicaid case
heads in
selecting a
managed care
plan.
To examine
the effects of
a Medicare
policy change
and HEDIS
measures on
2.
Geographic
Location
(e.g., New
York, USA,
etc.)
3. Study
Design/ Type
Kansas Comparison
Groups Post
test only
8 regions of
the US
covered by
cancer
registries
(San
Comparison
Groups Pre
test Post test
4. Sample/
Population or
Population
670 (69.6%)
completed the
survey
St. Louis n=900
stratified by
enrollment in
Monsanto plan or
3 other HMOs.
784 (87%)
completed the
survey
Medicaid
population who
enrolled in
Kansas Medicaid
managed care
program in May
1998.
30, 857 women
aged 65-74
diagnosed with
breast cancer
from 1994 to
2002.
5. Primary
Comparison
Employees
in St. Louis
compared on
all outcome
measures
Intervention:
New
Enrollees
who received
CAHPS
report in the
mail. n=343
Control:
New
enrollees
who did not
receive the
CAHPS
report along
with plan
material
n=698.
Assessed by
self
reporting.
Compares
stage of
cancer at
diagnosis for
women 65-
69 (reported
L-7
6. All Outcomes
Measured
Ho 1:
CAHPS will raise the
salience of quality and
awareness of health
plan differences
among Medicaid
consumers
Ho 2:
CAHPS will improve
the health plan
decision-making
process
Ho 3:
Women who are
Medicaid beneficiaries
will make informed
choices about their
plans.
% of women at early
stage at diagnosis
7. Name of
Public
Report and
Description
CAHPS`
HEDIS
8. Based on
a theory?
How is it
applied?
9. Context:
Decisionmaker
Characteristics
10. Context:
Type of
Decision/
Choice