Patients undergoing surgery are increasingly using the Internet to compare the quality of care provided at hospitals. A review of available Hospital Comparison Websites shows suboptimal measures of quality and inconsistent results. People who live in the New England and Mideast regions of the u.s. Spend significantly more on health care than those who live elsewhere in the nation.
Patients undergoing surgery are increasingly using the Internet to compare the quality of care provided at hospitals. A review of available Hospital Comparison Websites shows suboptimal measures of quality and inconsistent results. People who live in the New England and Mideast regions of the u.s. Spend significantly more on health care than those who live elsewhere in the nation.
Patients undergoing surgery are increasingly using the Internet to compare the quality of care provided at hospitals. A review of available Hospital Comparison Websites shows suboptimal measures of quality and inconsistent results. People who live in the New England and Mideast regions of the u.s. Spend significantly more on health care than those who live elsewhere in the nation.
Brought to you by Thomas Jefferson University’s Department of Health Policy
Volume II, Number 35
Hospital Comparison Websites – Are They Valuable?
Patients undergoing surgery are increasingly using the internet to compare the quality of care provided at hospitals. However, a review of available hospital comparison websites shows sub- optimal measures of quality and inconsistent results. This conclusion was reached by UCLA researchers, who conducted a study comparing surgical quality on six national hospital comparison websites. One governmental (Hospital Compare), two non-profit (Quality Check , Hospital Quality and Safety Survey) and three proprietary sites rated hospitals based on accessibility, data/statistical transparency, appropriateness and timeliness. Government and non-profit sites were most accessible and demonstrated the most data transparency. The proprietary web sites were best for appropriateness of care, comparing multiple surgical procedures using a combination of process, structure and outcomes measures. The authors’ suggest that the reason for sub-optimal quality measures and inconsistency is incomplete data and encourage surgeon involvement to overcome these barriers. (Arch Surg, 2007) Healthcare Spending Dependent on Geography People who live in the New England and Mideast regions of the U.S. spend significantly more on health care than those who live elsewhere in the nation. The states that spend the least on healthcare were Utah, Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, and Nevada. Per capita spending in Utah was 59 percent of that in Massachusetts. According to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the reasons for the differences included age and income, concentration of doctors in the state, the extent of private health insurance coverage, and the mix of services used by state residents. (Health Affairs, NY Times, 9/18/07) State Commission Meets in Harrisburg to Discuss Disease Management The Governor’s Chronic Care Management, Reimbursement, and Cost Reduction Commission is expected to focus first on diabetes, as well as other chronic conditions, including depression, asthma and heart disease. The 43-member panel includes officials from leading health insurers, hospitals, unions, and six ex-officio members who lead state agencies. The Commission is expected to deliver a plan by December 31, recommending changes needed to implement a model for improving chronic care statewide. Only a fraction of the people who need flu shots the most are getting them including just one in 5 babies and toddlers, say health officials. Flu kills about 36,000 Americans a year, and leads to about 20,000 hospitalizations. According to Julie Gerberding, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “we need to rethink the influenza vaccination season and encourage vaccination throughout the fall and winter”. CDC data from 2005-2006 indicates that 69% of people 64 years and older got vaccinated, while just 30% of younger adults who are at high risk because of underlying diseases received the vaccine. By 2010, the government wants the numbers increased to 90 percent of senior citizens and 60 percent of younger adults who are at high risk. (PND, 9/17/07, Associated Press, 9/19/07)
Any questions regarding this newsletter can be directed
to Valerie Pracilio at valerie.pracilio@jefferson.edu or Bettina Berman bettina.berman@jefferson.edu.