Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 May 27;4(1):2381468319852358.
doi: 10.1177/2381468319852358. eCollection 2019 Jan-Jun.

Using a Health Economic Framework to Prioritize Quality Indicators: An Example With Smoking Cessation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Affiliations

Using a Health Economic Framework to Prioritize Quality Indicators: An Example With Smoking Cessation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Austin Nam et al. MDM Policy Pract. .

Abstract

Background. Health care performance monitoring is a major focus of the modern quality movement, resulting in widespread development of quality indicators and making prioritizations an increasing focus. Currently, few prioritization methods of performance measurements give serious consideration to the association of performance with expected health benefits and costs. We demonstrate a proof-of-concept application of using a health economic framework to prioritize quality indicators by expected variations in population health and costs, using smoking cessation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as an example. Methods. We developed a health state transition, microsimulation model to represent smoking cessation practices for adults with COPD from the health care payer perspective in Ontario, Canada. Variations in life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime costs were associated with changes in performance. Incremental net health benefit (INHB) was used to represent the joint variation in mortality, morbidity, and costs associated with the performance of each quality indicator. Results. Using a value threshold of $50,000/QALY, the indicators monitoring assessment of smoking status and smoking cessation interventions were associated with the largest INHBs. Combined performance variations among groups of indicators showed that 81% of the maximum potential INHB could be represented by three out of the six process indicators. Conclusions. A health economic framework can be used to bring dimensions of population health and costs into explicit consideration when prioritizing quality indicators. However, this should not preclude policymakers from considering other dimensions of quality that are not part of this framework.

Keywords: COPD; health economics; quality indicators; smoking cessation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Health state transition model.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow diagram of process indicators in the model. Process indicators influence the occurrence of other process indicators, intermediate events, and the abstinence rate.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Total variation in life years, quality-adjusted life years, costs, and net health benefit associated with smoking cessation quality indicators. Incremental outcomes between performance levels of 0% to 100%. Bars are positioned around outcomes at baseline performance levels (vertical line). Maximum range represents combined changes to all process indicators and does not include explicit changes to outcome indicators.

Similar articles

References

    1. Chiu WT, Yang CM, Lin HW, Chu TB. Development and implementation of a nationwide health care quality indicator system in Taiwan. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(1):21–8. - PubMed
    1. Mainz J, Hansen AM, Palshof T, Bartels PD. National quality measurement using clinical indicators: the Danish National Indicator Project. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99(8):500–4. - PubMed
    1. ten Asbroek AHA, Arah OA, Geelhoed J, Custers T, Delnoij DM, Klazinga NS. Developing a national performance indicator framework for the Dutch health system. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004;16(Suppl. 1):i65–i71. - PubMed
    1. Thomson R, Taber S, Lally J, Kazandjian V. UK Quality Indicator Project (UK QIP) and the UK independent health care sector: a new development. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004;16(Suppl. 1):i51–i56. - PubMed
    1. Roland M. Linking physicians’ pay to the quality of care—a major experiment in the United Kingdom. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(14):1448–54. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources