• No results found

Transparency Advisory Group (formerly Reporting Task Force) February 18, 2014

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Transparency Advisory Group (formerly Reporting Task Force) February 18, 2014"

Copied!
21
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Transparency Advisory

Group

(formerly Reporting Task Force)

(2)
(3)

Short-term SMART Goal

• The TAG’s charter guides our work. What should the focus for 2014 be?

“ADVISE” • Who should we be advising?

1. The Aim 3 team:

• Tasked with developing consumer-facing tools

2. Utah Health Data Committee:

• Required to provide “Comparison Reports”

• Identifying high-priority data uses (Best Use Committee)

3. Office of Health Care Statistics:

• Ensuring data completeness and quality • Providing access to data users

• Each entity has internal goals that the TAG can support

(4)
(5)
(6)

Which categories of measures do you think would be valuable to consumers?

(7)

What features did you like?

• Layout • Easy navigation • Definitions • Terms of use • Mapping capabilities • Twitter feed • Longitudinal data • Risk adjustment • Quality outcomes • Printable

• Compare facility types • Compare multiple years • Patient-friendly display • Everyday language

• Thorough

• “Are you uninsured?” button

• Prominently displayed prices

(8)

What features did you dislike?

• County level data • Showing DRGs

• Hover features not clear • Missing data

• Challenging navigation • Challenging

interpretation

• Unpleasant looking

• Too many acronyms or jargon

• Complicated

• Limited data categories • Not consumer-oriented,

designed for regulatory compliance

• Lack of quality about quality impedes value assessment

(9)

Other insights?

• Obtain user feedback about what measures they would like to see

• Need to clearly define “cost” and “price” • Who is our audience?

• What has been the impact of these public reports?

(10)

Other Criteria

Type I Options – Basis of Comparison

1. Health Care System (Intermountain, MountainStar, University, etc.)

2. Facilities (Individual hospitals or surgical centers) 3. Geographic area (ZIP code, Small Area, County) 4. Payer Types (HMO, PPO, Self-funded, etc.)

5. Specific Payers (Health Plans, PBMs)

6. Pharmacy type (Chain retail, big-box, independent, mail-order)

(11)

Other Criteria

Type II Options – Unit of Observation

1. Preventive Services (Colonoscopy, Mammography, Well-child exam, immunizations, etc.)

2. Most common diagnosis (Diabetes, Asthma, Cancer, etc.)

3. Most common procedures (Delivery, THR, etc.) 4. Most common prescriptions and maybe by drug

(12)

Other Criteria

Type III Options – Unit of Measurement

1. Average total cost (payer paid + patient responsibility)

2. Average bundled cost of care (professional cost + facility cost)

3. Average patient out of pocket

4. Average patient paid vs. insurer paid 5. Average discount – charged vs. paid 6. Brand name vs. generic

(13)
(14)

Objectives

1. Assess consumer use of online health

information

– How do consumers find information? – What sources do they currently use?

– What barriers are there to understanding and using quality and pricing information?

(15)

Objectives

2. Identify the healthcare pricing information

that will be most valuable to Utah consumers

– What are consumer needs in this area?

– What conditions or procedures? i.e. maternity, orthopedic, imaging

– At what level should information be displayed? i.e. health plan, provider (hospital or clinic), facility type

– Who is the target audience? Commercially insured or uninsured?

– What level of aggregation/summary allows the

(16)

Objectives

3. Model the display of healthcare information

to best facilitate accuracy and clarity

– How much explanatory verbiage is necessary? How can this be best conveyed?

– What colors and symbols convey the information clearly?

– What designs are appealing to consumers, such that they remain on the site?

(17)

Focus Group Questions

1. Have you ever looked for health information online? What kind of information have you looked for? How did you find it?

2. Have you looked at information about healthcare quality? Was this information based on user

comments or something else? What sites have you looked at?

3. Have you looked at information about healthcare prices? What sites have you looked at? What did you like or not like about the information you found? What did you like or not like about how that

(18)

Focus Group Questions

4. Would it be useful to have information about healthcare prices? How might you use that information?

5. If you were to look for information about healthcare prices online, for yourself or someone else, what

kinds of procedures or services would it be useful to have information about?

6. Based on this sample list, for which procedures would it be useful to have pricing information? 7. What other types of information would be useful

relative to healthcare prices? What have you

discovered in the past that you wish you had known before about pricing?

(19)

Focus Group Questions

8. Looking at this sample display, is it easy to

understand? What do you like about it? What do you dislike about it?

9. Have you ever discussed healthcare pricing with a doctor or pharmacist? Why or why not? Would you feel comfortable doing so?

10. Has a doctor or pharmacist ever brought up the topic of pricing with you? Did he or she provide any

information to you? If so, what form was it in? Did you use it? Why or why not?

(20)

Update on Data Quality from

APCD

(21)

Upcoming Topics

• March to May

- Initial focus group results

- Literature review discussion

- Early reviews of APCD data on

prescriptions, chosen CPT codes for

feedback

References

Related documents

People are now visiting wine regions based on their online presence, which is new for not just Paso Robles but all wine regions, which is why the online presence is vital for the

clinical faculty, the authors designed and implemented a Clinical Nurse Educator Academy to prepare experienced clinicians for new roles as part-time or full-time clinical

These requirements as stated reflect refinement of the November 2011 draft version of this document. Requirement 2 now combines two aspects of solutions for

As SWOne does not provide, or arrange to provide, the relevant records in relation to those premises where they fulfil the role, the premises manager is operating without

The tense morphology is interpreted as temporal anteriority: the eventuality described in the antecedent is localised in the past with respect to the utterance time.. Compare this

Objectives We sought to investigate whether genetic effects on response to TnF inhibitors (TnFi) in rheumatoid arthritis (ra) could be localised by considering known

In order to attempt to solve the inverse problem of damage identification using vibration measurements to detect these changes, the direct problem of calculating

Amana Mutual Funds Trust, Saturna Capital Corporation, and Saturna Brokerage Services will not be liable for any errors or omissions in the zakah calculation. To receive