Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Using Clinical Trial Summary Results to Establish Quality Measures—Reply

Using Clinical Trial Summary Results to Establish Quality Measures—Reply In Reply: Ms Yap and Dr Yap raise an important point: overreliance on the summary results of clinical trials leads to performance measures that can harmfully mismeasure quality. If clinical trials do not evaluate individual variations in patient risks and benefits, then the performance measures based on the average results of these trials may frequently mandate discretionary and even contraindicated care for many patients. Although well-designed performance measures may be the strongest mechanism for promoting more efficient and higher-quality care when performed prudently, simplistic, all-or-nothing, “evidence-based” measures can harmfully prioritize low-value care.1-3 Unfortunately, examples of such poorly designed measures are common. Related to one of the illustrations in our Commentary, 2 new NCQA diabetes performance measures mandate tight control for blood pressure and glucose for all patients with diabetes (glycated hemoglobin <7% and blood pressure <130/80 mm Hg),4 although risk-based analyses have shown that the expected benefits of achieving these tight goals are often minimal and that these rigid tight-control measures systematically encourage and reward the use of treatments that are speculative, expensive, burdensome, and of unproven long-term safety when used in low-risk patients or in those who are only modestly above goal on standard therapies.1-3 More complete risk-based analysis of clinical trials, as advocated in our Commentary, is a necessary (although insufficient) step toward the design of performance measures that can promote the improvement of high-priority care. Back to top Article Information Financial Disclosures: Dr Kent reported receiving research support from Pfizer. Dr Hayward did not report any financial disclosures. References 1. Hayward RA. Performance measurement in search of a path. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(9):951-95317329704Google ScholarCrossref 2. McMahon LF Jr, Hofer TP, Hayward RA. Physician-level P4P–DOA? can quality-based payment be resuscitated? Am J Manag Care. 2007;13(5):233-23617488186Google Scholar 3. Hayward RA. All-or-nothing treatment targets make bad performance measures. Am J Manag Care. 2007;13(3):126-12817335355Google Scholar 4. The National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) Web site. HEDIS 2008 Summary Table of Measures, Product Lines and Changes. http://web.ncqa.org/Portals/0/HEDISQM/HEDIS2008/2008_Measures.pdf. Accessed November 7, 2007 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA American Medical Association

Using Clinical Trial Summary Results to Establish Quality Measures—Reply

JAMA , Volume 298 (23) – Dec 19, 2007

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/using-clinical-trial-summary-results-to-establish-quality-measures-GHNTqlo3CP
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN
0098-7484
eISSN
1538-3598
DOI
10.1001/jama.298.23.2741-a
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In Reply: Ms Yap and Dr Yap raise an important point: overreliance on the summary results of clinical trials leads to performance measures that can harmfully mismeasure quality. If clinical trials do not evaluate individual variations in patient risks and benefits, then the performance measures based on the average results of these trials may frequently mandate discretionary and even contraindicated care for many patients. Although well-designed performance measures may be the strongest mechanism for promoting more efficient and higher-quality care when performed prudently, simplistic, all-or-nothing, “evidence-based” measures can harmfully prioritize low-value care.1-3 Unfortunately, examples of such poorly designed measures are common. Related to one of the illustrations in our Commentary, 2 new NCQA diabetes performance measures mandate tight control for blood pressure and glucose for all patients with diabetes (glycated hemoglobin <7% and blood pressure <130/80 mm Hg),4 although risk-based analyses have shown that the expected benefits of achieving these tight goals are often minimal and that these rigid tight-control measures systematically encourage and reward the use of treatments that are speculative, expensive, burdensome, and of unproven long-term safety when used in low-risk patients or in those who are only modestly above goal on standard therapies.1-3 More complete risk-based analysis of clinical trials, as advocated in our Commentary, is a necessary (although insufficient) step toward the design of performance measures that can promote the improvement of high-priority care. Back to top Article Information Financial Disclosures: Dr Kent reported receiving research support from Pfizer. Dr Hayward did not report any financial disclosures. References 1. Hayward RA. Performance measurement in search of a path. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(9):951-95317329704Google ScholarCrossref 2. McMahon LF Jr, Hofer TP, Hayward RA. Physician-level P4P–DOA? can quality-based payment be resuscitated? Am J Manag Care. 2007;13(5):233-23617488186Google Scholar 3. Hayward RA. All-or-nothing treatment targets make bad performance measures. Am J Manag Care. 2007;13(3):126-12817335355Google Scholar 4. The National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) Web site. HEDIS 2008 Summary Table of Measures, Product Lines and Changes. http://web.ncqa.org/Portals/0/HEDISQM/HEDIS2008/2008_Measures.pdf. Accessed November 7, 2007

Journal

JAMAAmerican Medical Association

Published: Dec 19, 2007

References