Reporting of quality measures in gynecologic oncology programs at Prospective Payment System (PPS)-Exempt Cancer Hospitals: an early glimpse into a challenging initiative.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Affordable Care Act mandates the Prospective Payment System (PPS)-Exempt Cancer Hospitals Quality Reporting program. These 11 hospitals (which are paid fee-for-service rather than on a DRG system) began reporting measures (2 general safety, 2 breast, 1 colon) in 2013. Given this reporting mandate, we set out to determine whether the PPS-exempt gynecologic oncology programs could identify quality measures specific to the care of our patients. METHODS: A list of 12 quality measures specific to gynecologic oncology was created (from sources including the National Quality Forum and the SGO). Measures already in use were not included. The list was ranked by the gynecologic oncology program directors at the PPS-exempt hospitals. Descriptive statistics (including mean and SD for rankings) were utilized. RESULTS: Despite mandatory reporting of quality measures for PPS-exempt cancer hospitals, little consensus exists regarding specific gynecologic cancer measures. Documentation of debulking status, cancer survival, and offering minimally invasive surgery (for endometrial cancer) and intraperitoneal chemotherapy (for ovarian cancer) are important, but with widely variable responses (when ranked 1-12, standard deviations are 2-3). General issues regarding adherence to guidelines for the use of GCSF, documentation of functional status, and tracking of patient satisfaction scores were ranked the lowest. Three of the directors reported that their compensation is partially linked to quality outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variability in ranking of quality measures, and may relate to provider or institutional factors. Despite the mandatory reporting in PPS-exempt cancer hospitals, work remains to define gynecologic cancer quality measures.
