Prepared by:
Stanford-University of California San Francisco Evidence-based Practice Center
Principal Investigator
R. Adams Dudley, M.D., M.B.A.
Investigators
Anne Frolich, M.D.
David L. Robinowitz, M.D.
Jason A. Talavera, B.S.
Peter Broadhead, B.A.
Harold S. Luft, Ph.D.
Other Contributor
Kathryn McDonald, M.M.
EPC Associate Director
File Name Description Software Version File Size ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 01front.doc Microsoft Word® Document MS Word® 2002 68KB 10 pages Contents: Title Page, Preface, Acknowledgments, Structured Abstract, Table of Contents ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 02chap1.doc Microsoft Word® Document MS Word® 2002 868KB 14 pages Contents: Chapter 1. Introduction: Background, Purpose of This Report, Rationale for Focus on Randomized Controlled Trials, Types of Incentives, Incentive Theory, Figure 1. Application of Andersen's model to provider behavior, Characteristics of Incentives, Conceptual Models of Individual Provider and Organizational Responses to Incentives, Figure 2. Model of an individual provider's response to incentives, Figure 3. Model of an organization's response to incentives ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 03chap2.doc Microsoft Word® Document MS Word® 2002 134KB 8 pages Contents: Chapter 2. Methods for Literature Search: Technical Expert Advisory Panel, Target Audiences and Population, Key Questions, Literature Review Methods, Table 1. Information sources for literature review and catalog of ongoing research, Table 2. MEDLINE® searches to identify potentially relevant primary data, Table 3. Search terms and citations for Cochrane databases, Table 4. Evaluating randomized controlled trials for completeness of reporting, Identifying Ongoing Research, Table 5. Information sources for the catalog of ongoing research, Table 6. Search terms and citations for GOLD, Table 7. Search terms and citations for HSRProj database, Table 8. Design information sought about ongoing research, ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 04chap3.doc Microsoft Word® Document MS Word® 2002 875KB 14 pages Contents: Chapter 3. Results for Literature Search: Synthesis of Literature About Quality-based Purchasing; Figure 4. Articles identified by systematic searches; Table 9. Evaluating randomized, controlled trials for completeness of reporting; Table 10. Available results by conceptual model domains tested; Ongoing Research Into Quality-based Purchasing ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 05t11t12.doc Microsoft Word® Document MS Word® 2002 72KB 4 pages Contents: Chapter 3 (continued): Table 11. Ongoing quality-baased purchasing research: Projects in the Rewarding Results initiative; Table 12. Ongoing quality-based purchasing research: Other QBP projects ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 06chap4.doc Microsoft Word® Document MS Word® 2002 103KB 7 pages Contents: Chapter 4. Methods for Assessing the Usefulness of Outcome Reports: General Approach to Simulation; Figure 5. Hypothetical world of hospitals; Figure 6. Hypothetical world and evaluation function (adapted from Thomas and Hofer); Enhancements to the Thomas and Hofer Model; Table 13. The six scenarios simulated ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 07chap5.doc Microsoft Word® Document MS Word® 2002 230KB 16 pages Contents: Chapter 5. Results of Simulations To Assess the Usefulness of Outcomes Reports: Scenario 1: Reproducing Thomas and Hofer; Table 14. Scenario 1: Predictive values, year 1; Table 15. Scenario 1, year 1: Sensitivity and specificity calculations; Table 16. Scenario 1: Probability, given that a hospital has received two, three, or four stars over 2 years, that it is good vs. poor; Table 17. Scenario 1: Expected score distribution over 2 years; Figure 7. Scenario 1: Percentage of good vs. bad hospitals by 3-year star score; Table 18. Scenario 1: Expected score distribution for good vs. poor hospitals over 3 years; Scenario 2: Adding Another Hospital Category; Figure 8. Scenario 2: Hypothetical world of hospitals; Figure 9. Scenario 2: Hypothetical world and evaluation function; Figure 10. Scenario 2: Proportion of superior, good, and poor hospitals by 3-year star score; Figure 11. Scenario 2: Proportion of poor, good, and superior hospitals with each type of derivative score; Scenario 3: Updating Assumptions About the Hypothetical Distribution of Hospital Quality; Figure 12. Scenario 3: The hypothetical world; Figure 13. Scenario 3: Hypothetical world and evaluation function; Figure 14. Scenario 3: Proportion of superior, good, and poor hospitals by 2-year star scores; Figure 15. Scenario 3, year 3: Proportion of superior, good, and poor hospitals by 3-year star score; Figure 16. Scenario 3: Three-year derivative scores, predictive values; Figure 17. Scenario 3: Distribution of 3-year derivative scores, predictive values; Scenario 4: Fewer Patients per Hospital (N = 100); Figure 18. Scenario 4: Hypothetical world and evaluation function; Figure 19. Scenario 4, year 3: Proportion of superior, good, and poor hospitals by 3-year star score; Scenario 5: Identifying a Higher Proportion of Outliers; Figure 20. Scenario 5: Hypothetical world and evaluation function; Figure 21. Scenario 5: Proportion of superior, good, and poor hospitals by 3-year star score; Scenario 6: More Patients per Hospital ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 08chap6.doc Microsoft Word® Document MS Word® 2002 80KB 12 pages Contents: Chapter 6. Discussion: Analysis of Published and Ongoing Research; Evaluating Outcomes Reports; Future Research; Conclusion References and Included Studies Acronyms and Abbreviations ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 09appa.doc Microsoft Word® Document MS Word® 2002 27KB 1 page Contents: Appendix A. Quality-based Purchasing Technical Expert Panel and Peer Reviewers ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10appb.doc Microsoft Word® Document MS Word® 2002 26KB 2 pages Contents: Appendix B. General Approach to Simulations ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 11appc.doc Microsoft Word® Document MS Word® 2002 365KB 28 pages Contents: Appendix C. Assessing the Usefulness of Outcome Reports: Methods for Simulations; Figure C1. Hypothetical World of Hospitals; Figure C2. Hypothetical World and Evaluation Function (adapted from Thomas and Hofer); Table C1. The Six Scenarios Simulated; Results of Simulations; Table C2. Scenario 1: Predictive Values, Year 1; Table C3. Scenario 1, Year 1: Sensitivity and Specificity Calculations; Table C4. Scenario 1: Probability, Given that a Hospital Has Received Two, Three, or Four Stars over 2 Years, that It is Good vs. Poor; Table C5. Scenario 1: Expected Score Distribution over 2 Years; Figure C3. Scenario 1: Percentage of Good vs. Bad Hospitals by 3-Year Star Score; Table C6. Scenario 1: Expected Score Distribution for Good vs. Poor Hospitals over 3 Years; Figure C4. Scenario 1: Expected 3-Year Score Distribution for Good vs. Poor Hospitals; Figure C5. Scenario 2: Hypothetical World; Figure C6. Scenario 2: Hypothetical World and Evaluation Function; Figure C7. Scenario 2: Proportion of Superior, Good, and Poor Hospitals by 2-Year Star Score; Figure C8. Scenario 2: Proportion of Superior, Good, and Poor Hospitals by 3-Year Star Score; Figure C9: Scenario 2: Proportion of Poor, Good, and Superior Hospitals with Each Type of Derivative Score; Figure C10. Scenario 2: Expected Distribution of 3-Year Star Scores by Hospital Type; Figure C11. Scenario 3: Hypothetical World; Figure C12: Scenario 3: Hypothetical World and Evaluation Function; Figure C13. Scenario 3: Proportion of Superior, Good, and Poor Hospitals by 2-Year Star Scores; Figure C14. Scenario 3: Proportion of Superior, Good, and Poor Hospitals by 3-Year Star Score; Figure C15. Scenario 3: Three-Year Derivative Scores, Predictive Values; Figure C16: Scenario 3: Expected Distribution of 3-year Star Scores by Hospital Type; Figure C17. Scenario 3: Expected Distribution of 3-Year Star Scores by Hospital Type; Figure C18. Scenario 3: In 3 Years Ever Graded Poor vs. Never Graded Poor; Figure C19. Scenario 4: Hypothetical World and Evaluation Function; Figure C20. Scenario 4: Proportion of Superior, Good, and Poor Hospitals by 3-Year Star Score; Figure C21. Scenario 4: Expected Distribution of 3-Year Star Scores by Hospital Type; Figure C22. Scenario 5: Hypothetical World and Evaluation Function; Figure C23. Scenario 5: Proportion of Superior, Good, and Poor Hospitals by 3-Year Star Score; Figure C24. Scenario 5: Three-Year Derivative Scores, Predictive Values; Figure C25. Scenario 5: Expected Distribution of 3-Year Star Scores by Hospital Type; Figure C26. Scenario 6: Proportion of Superior, Good, and Poor Hospital by 3-Year Star Score; Figure C27: Scenario 6: Three-Year Derivative Score Predictive Values; Figure C28. Scenario 6: Expected Distribution of 3-Year Star Scores by Hospital Type; References ________________________________________________________________________________________________
AHRQ Publication No. 04-0057
Current as of July 2004
Internet Citation:
Strategies To Support Quality-based Purchasing: A Review of the Evidence. File Inventory, Technical Review Number 10. AHRQ Publication No. 04-0057, July 2004. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/qbpurinv.htm
Return to Evidence-based Practice
Clinical Information
AHRQ Home Page
Department of Health and Human Services