The State of

Managed Care Quality

- 1998 -

National Committee for Quality Assurance

Table of Contents

Introduction

The National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) has based this second annual edition of The State of Managed Care Quality on information submitted by 447 managed health care plans for use in Quality Compass 1998, NCQA's database of managed health care information. Quality Compass 1998 contains plan-specific performance, accreditation and member satisfaction information from 292 managed health care plans throughout the United States; another 155 managed care organizations contributed their data for use in calculating averages and benchmarks.

Because Quality Compass uses standardized information from NCQA's Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS® 3.0/1998), and includes 1997 results from health plans that collectively cover more than 60 million Americans, it offers an unprecedented opportunity to examine and compare performance across the managed care industry, and to produce national, regional and state averages, as well as benchmarks on specific measures of care and service. This report takes advantage of those capabilities to provide answers to the following questions:

About the Report

The second State of Managed Care Quality report takes advantage of the most comprehensive database of information about managed care plans available - NCQA's Quality Compass 1998. Quality Compass collects information from NCQA's Accreditation program -- in which more than 330 health plans, covering three quarters of all HMO enrollees, participate -- and HEDIS, which is in use by more than 90% of health plans.

Quality Compass contains data on more than 50 HEDIS measures for all 447 participating plans - information that would fill more than 4,000 pages of text. For this report, we are focusing on 10 HEDIS measures that convey the broad findings of NCQA's analyses and touch upon many of the key issues and populations concerned about managed care, and which can serve as important indicators of the industry's overall performance. We also examine a number of key measures of member satisfaction.

The clinical HEDIS measures are:

The HEDIS member satisfaction measures are:

The Format

This report is presented in two sections: the first provides information about overall industry and regional performance, as well as trends between 1996 and 1997; the second section examines the broader issue of accountability in health care, by looking at the link between NCQA Accreditation and performance across clinical and satisfaction measures, as well as findings about the differences in performance between health plans that publicly report quality data and those that do not. This section also looks at the performance gains made by those health plans that submitted two years in a row.

In the first section of the report, for each measure, we provide a description of what was measured, why it is important, and how the managed care industry is doing. [Remember that the averages we provide represent the performance of those plans that voluntarily submitted data to Quality Compass.] We then discuss what improved performance could mean to the health of Americans, and describe some steps health plans can take to achieve that improvement.

The plan-specific, comparative information that underlies the analyses found in this report is available through Quality Compass 1998. This report thus provides important contextual information for employers, state officials, policy makers, the media, and others as they seek to understand why a particular region* of the country outperforms another, and which plans within a particular region are at the vanguard and which are not.

Four Key Findings

The data in this report lead us to four key findings about the quality of American managed health care plans in 1997. These are:

  1. The overall performance of the managed care industry remained largely unchanged between 1996 and 1997. Small improvements of about 1 % were noted on several measures, but no major gains were recorded for the industry overall (not including cases where the measures themselves changed - e.g., beta blockers). One exception: just one year after NCQA introduced a new HEDIS measure related to physician advice to stop smoking, providers are delivering such advice substantially more often (64% vs. 61%). This will save hundreds of lives and millions of dollars over the next decade.
  2. Health plans that submitted data for both 1996 and 1997 reported significant improvements across almost all measures. Example: while the industry overall showed an average rate for cervical cancer screening of 71.3% in 1997, plans that reported both 1996 and 1997 results improved from 71.5% in 1996 to 73.7% in 1997. On eight out of 10 performance measures, health plans that reported data two years in a row not only showed greater overall improvement, but reported higher scores as well.
  3. NCQA-Accredited plans outperformed non-accredited plans on all clinical and satisfaction measures. Example: While 76.9% of heart attack patients received beta blocker medications as appropriate in plans that have achieved Full NCQA Accreditation, only 65.4% received such drugs in non-accredited plans. Beta blockers improve survival expectancy for cardiac patients by as much as 43%. Coupled with a new study reporting that NCQA-Accredited plans actually cost - on average - 4% less than other plans, the significance of NCQA Accreditation in identifying value in health plan purchasing is clear.
  4. Health plans that publicly report performance information perform substantially better than those that don't on clinical measures, and attain significantly greater member satisfaction. Example: In health plans that allow public reporting of their data, 58.5% of members are "completely" or "very" satisfied with care and service, as opposed to only 50.4% in plans that decline to report their data publicly. Children receiving their full complement of immunizations by age two numbered 69.3% in publicly accountable plans, versus only 57.7% in plans that don't allow their data to be identified.

Finally, it is important to note that the data presented in this report reflects only the performance of those plans willing to share their data, whether for public reporting or simply for analysis. Many health plans reported no data at all, thus aligning themselves with preferred provider organizations and the fee-for-service sector, about which little or no quality information is available. Given the close relationship between accountability and performance, employers and consumers should look skeptically on plans that fail to participate in accountability efforts.

* Note:

The regions referred to in this report refer to U.S. Census Bureau regions. States in each region include:

The State of Managed Care Quality - 1998

National and Regional Performance Averages: Wide Variations Within and Between Regions

Consistent with last year's State of Managed Care Quality report, the regional averages presented below show that the industry varies widely on performance from region to region. Even more dramatic differences were recorded within each region. That is, even in a high performing region like New England, some plans reported very low rates on certain measures. Thus, consumers and employers in New England should still carefully consider quality before selecting a health plan.

Also consistent with last year's findings, New England health plans outperformed, on average, health plans from other regions, recording the highest averages on 10 out of 11 clinical performance and service measures included in this report. The high performance of New England health plans is undoubtedly related to collaborative efforts between health plans spanning many years, and should serve as a model for plans in other regions.

Listed below are the national and regional averages for each measure included in this report. For definitions of each measure, a discussion of the impact of improving care related to that measure, and other important information, please refer to the following pages.

National and Regional Performance Averages

Adolescent Immunizations

National Average: 52.2%

Advising Smokers to Quit

National Average: 64.0%

Beta Blocker Treatment

National Average: 74.0%

Breast Cancer Screening

National Average: 71.3%

Cervical Cancer Screening

National Average: 71.3%

Mountain: 69.0%

Cesarean Sections

National Average: 20.7%

Childhood Immunizations

National Average: 65.4%

Diabetic Retinal Exam

National Average: 39.0%

Follow Up After Hospitalization

for Mental Illness

National Average: 67.3%

Prenatal Care in the First Trimester

National Average: 83.1%

Overall Member Satisfaction

National Average: 55.7%

Adolescent Immunization Status

What did we measure?

This measure shows the percentage of 13-year-olds who received appropriate immunizations (for measles, mumps and rubella) during the previous year.

Why is it important?

Immunizations are an effective and inexpensive way to significantly reduce the incidence of potentially dangerous diseases. While children are typically immunized during early childhood for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), an immunization booster shot is required during adolescence to ensure continued protection against these illnesses. Significant outbreaks of measles have been recorded as recently as the past 10 years.

How is the managed care industry doing?

Adolescent Immunization Status

What it would mean if all health plans performed as well as the best plans?

If industry-wide performance were brought up to the 90th percentile benchmark of 79.1% it would significantly reduce the likelihood of outbreaks of these illnesses. Immunizations are among the most cost effective forms of preventive care.

What can plans do to improve rates of adolescent immunizations?

Innovative health plans have established partnerships with local school systems both to educate parents and students about immunizations, and to actually deliver them as well. Birthday card reminder notices are also effective tools to increase immunization rates. Plans should attempt to educate parents about the benefit of adolescent immunizations and encourage them to make sure their children receive recommended vaccinations. Health plans should also develop systems to remind doctors of the need to immunize adolescents while the adolescent member is in the doctor's office. Reminders delivered during office visits are much more likely to result in immunizations being delivered since they do not require a special trip to the doctor's office.

Advising Smokers to Quit

What did we measure?

The percentage of smokers or recent quitters age 18 and older who received advice to quit smoking from a health plan professional.

Why is it important?

Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the U.S., causing more than 400,000 deaths each year. Nearly 49 million Americans smoke despite these risks, and despite the fact that about 70% of smokers report that they would like to quit. Estimates of the annual negative economic impact of smoking on the U.S. range up to $100 billion dollars. Smokers are more likely to quit if advised to do so by their physician than for any other reason.

How is the managed care industry doing?

Advice to Quit Smoking


What it would mean if all health plans performed as well as the best plans?

If industry-wide performance were brought up to the 90th percentile benchmark of 74.3%, an additional 4.2 million enrollees who smoke would be advised about the benefits of quitting, and nearly 26,000 more people would quit smoking each year, saving hundreds of lives and saving tens of millions of dollars in health care costs.

What can plans do to improve rates of advising smokers to quit?

Plans should encourage their providers to talk openly with their patients about smoking and provide opportunities and programs that encourage and support members to quit. Evidence suggests that tracking smoking status as a "vital sign" leads to more aggressive counseling and higher quit rates. In addition, health plans should consider offering tobacco cessation classes and/or offering interested members a "stop smoking tool kit" as part of their benefits, and pharmaceutical aids such as nicotine patches and other such smoking cessation supports could be offered without copayment.

Beta Blocker Treatment After A Heart Attack

What did we measure?

The percentage of members age 35 and older who were hospitalized and discharged with the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction who received a prescription for beta blockers.

Why is it important?

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, and every year, more than 500,000 Americans die from heart disease. Annually, approximately 1.5 million Americans suffer a heart attack. The cost to the nation is enormous; the total cost of medical care and lost productivity due to heart disease is $60 billion annually. Beta blockers are a remarkably effective, low cost drug that have been shown to significantly reduce morbidity and mortality associated with heart disease, as well as reduce the chance of a second heart attack

How is the managed care industry doing?

Beta Blockers After a Heart Attack


What it would mean if all health plans performed as well as the best plans:

If industry-wide performance were brought up to the 90th percentile benchmark of 93.1%, more than 2,000 cardiac deaths would be avoided among HMO enrollees each year. The number of future heart attacks avoided would be even higher. Expenditures for cardiac care would also be reduced by tens of millions of dollars annually.

What can plans do to improve beta blocker treatment rates:

Many physicians are unaware of the extent to which these drugs improve cardiac outcomes, and therefore fail to prescribe them when appropriate. The key to improving rates of use is for the plan to educate providers about the value of these agents, provide incentives to encourage their use, and provide physicians with guidelines and other decision support tools that will assist them in prescribing drugs appropriately.

Breast Cancer Screening

What did we measure?

The percentage of women between the ages of 52 and 69 who have had at least one mammogram during the past two years.

Why is it important?

Breast cancer is the second most common type of cancer among American women, with approximately 184,300 new cases reported each year. Women who have their breast cancer detected early have more treatment choices and better chances for survival. Mammography screening has been shown to reduce mortality by 20% to 40% among women aged 50 and older.

How is the managed care industry doing?

Breast Cancer Screening

What would it mean if all health plans performed as well as the best plans?

If all managed care plans performed at the 90th percentile benchmark of 80.9%, an additional 1,287 breast cancer cases would be detected each year. Early detection and treatment of breast cancer would help prevent well over 100 deaths per year and save almost $4 billion in treatment and lost productivity costs associated with this illness.

What can plans do to improve rates of breast cancer screening:

Plans should work to educate women about the importance of regular mammograms. Some women still fear mammograms; others don't understand why they are important; still others may simply need a reminder that they are due for a mammogram. Plans should also work to make mammograms more convenient. Some innovative health plans regularly provide their practitioners with lists of members who have not received recommended mammograms and allowing practitioners to deliver targeted reminders to women during office visits. Health plans may also consider sending shower cards or mirrors to female reminders instructing them on breast self exam techniques and mammography guidelines.

Cervical Cancer Screening

What did we measure?

The percentage of women age 21 to 64 who had at least one Papanicolau (Pap) test during the past three years.

Why is it important?

Approximately 13,000 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed each year, and about 4,800 women die of the disease. Early detection can reduce the chance of death from cervical cancer by as much as 75%. A number of organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, and the American Cancer Society, recommend Pap testing every one to three years for all women who have been sexually active or who are over 18 years old.

How is the managed care industry doing?

Cervical Cancer Screening Rates

What it would mean if all health plans performed as well as the best plans:

If all health plans nationwide performed at the 90th percentile benchmark of 82.7% last year, an additional 293 cases of cervical cancer could have been detected, and 36 deaths due to cervical cancer could have been averted.

What can plans do to improve cervical cancer screening rates?

Health plans need to educate women about the importance of Pap tests, to provide information and counseling on the procedure to reduce anxiety and fear, and to make the tests convenient and accessible. Many health plans encourage women to have Pap tests during their obstetric/ gynecologic visit by providing them with notification cards to be filled out during the visit, and then mailed back with results. Other health plans send reminder "birthday" cards encouraging women to receive recommended Pap tests. Allowing an annual OB/GYN visit without a referral also removes one potential barrier to cervical cancer screening, and may help boost screening rates.

Cesarean Section

What did we measure?

The percentage of women who delivered by Cesarean section rather than vaginal delivery.

Why is it important?

Between one third and one half of all C-sections performed in the United States each year are probably unnecessary. C-sections are more expensive than vaginal deliveries, the recuperative period is greater, and there are more complications associated with them. Public health officials are working to reduce the U.S. C-section rate to 12 to 15% by the year 2000.

How is the managed care industry doing?

Cesarean Section Rates


What would it would mean if all health plans performed as well as the best plans?

The estimated risk of a woman dying after a C-section is four times higher than the risk of death following a vaginal delivery. C-sections are also typically followed by longer hospital stays and longer recovery times. Currently, 80% of all health plans report C-section rates between 14.8 and 38.4%.

What can health plans do to make C-section rates more appropriate?

Many women and physicians incorrectly assume that after a woman has delivered via C-section, all subsequent deliveries should also be via C-section. This belief is not supported by available evidence and likely contributes to over-utilization of this procedure. Health plans should educate women and providers about the option of delivering vaginally even after a C-section. Health plans may also lower C-section rates simply by providing practitioners with an analysis of how their own C-section rate compares with other practitioners' rates, thus highlighting any atypical practice patterns. Medical directors should also consider developing educational outreach programs or labor management seminars targeting physicians who have unusually high C-section rates.

Childhood Immunizations

What did we measure?

The percentage of two-year-old children who received appropriate immunizations by their second birthday. The completed series of vaccines includes many different components. Included here are: four diptheria-tetanus-pertussis, three polio, and one measles-mumps-rubella vaccination.

Why is it important?

Childhood immunizations help prevent serious illnesses, such as polio, tetanus, whooping cough, mumps, measles and meningitis. Vaccines are an easy, proven way to help a child stay healthy and avoid the potentially harmful effects of childhood diseases. It is estimated that one million children in the U.S. do not receive the necessary vaccinations by age two.

How is the managed care industry doing?

Childhood Immunization Rates

What would it mean if all health plans performed as well as the best plans?

If all health plans were brought up to the 90th percentile benchmark of 83%, unnecessary morbidity and mortality among children would be prevented, thus saving lives, life years, and associated costs. The Children's Defense Fund estimates that providing immunizations yields a 10:1 economic return on investment in terms of reduced medical expenditures

What can plans do to improve childhood immunization rates?

Plans should attempt to educate parents about the benefit of childhood immunization and send reminders to parents encouraging their children to become vaccinated. Incentive programs featuring gift certificates or other giveaways have proven to be an effective tool in encouraging parents to have their children appropriately immunized. Health plans should also develop systems to remind parents of the need to immunize children while they are in the doctors office. Similarly, health plans should also develop systems - such as including immunization check lists on medical records - to help remind practitioners of recommended immunization schedules and whether or not individual patients are up to date. Some health plans have also developed effective partnerships with state governments to promote childhood immunizations.

Eye Exams for Patients with Diabetes

What did we measure?

The percentage of people with diabetes age 31 years and older who received an eye exam in the past year. (Note: because some diabetics can safely be screened less frequently than annually, one would not necessarily expect a screening rate of 100% in each health plan.)

Why is it important?

Diabetes is the leading cause of adult blindness in the United States. Blindness can be prevented, however, if retinal changes are detected early, and treated with a laser. Therefore, it is important that the approximately 14 million Americans with diabetes have their eyes examined regularly so that appropriate treatment can be initiated at the first sign of a problem.

How is the managed care industry doing?

Eye Exams for Patients with Diabetes


What would it mean if all health plans performed as well as the best plans?

According to one study, regular eye exams for diabetics reduce the risk of blindness due to diabetic retinopathy by an estimated 56%. If all health plans were performing at the 90th percentile benchmark of 57%, more than 875 additional cases of blindness would be prevented each year.

What can plans do to improve rates of eye exams for diabetes?

Like other preventive screenings, health plans need to educate physicians about diabetes and work with them to provide and convey information about the benefits of screening, and the ease and access of participating in a screening program. To eliminate one potential obstacle to diabetic retinal exams, health plans should consider allowing diabetic patients to see their optometrist annually without a referral or copay.

Follow Up After Hospitalization for Mental Illness

What did we measure?

The percentage of members age six years and older who were hospitalized with selected mental illnesses who were seen by a mental health provider within 30 days after discharge.

Why is it important?

An outpatient visit with a mental health practitioner is necessary to make sure that a recently released patient's transition to the home or work environment is supported and that gains made during hospitalization are not lost. Such visits also help detect early post-hospitalization reactions or medication problems.

How is the managed care industry doing?

Follow Up After Hospitalization for Mental Illness



What would it mean if all health plans performed as well as the best plans?

If all plans were performing at the 90th percentile benchmark of 86.5%, readmission rates would likely fall, medication problems would be detected earlier and more patients would maintain their treatment regimens, greatly improving their overall outcomes.

What can plans do to improve follow up rates after hospitalization for mental illness?

Health plans should make a practice of scheduling follow up appointments at the time a patient is discharged. Health plans should also educate patients and providers about the importance of such follow up visits. Systems should be established to generate reminder or "reschedule" notices that are mailed to patients in the event that a follow up visit is missed or canceled. In many cases, it may also be necessary to develop outreach systems or assign case managers to encourage recently released patients to keep follow up appointments, or reschedule missed appointments.

Prenatal Care in the First Trimester

What did we measure?

The percentage of women who began prenatal care during the first 13 weeks of pregnancy. Prenatal care consists of patient education, evaluation of the pregnant woman for physical or historic factors requiring special care, careful assessment of gestational age, and determination of the success with which the mother and fetus are tolerating the pregnancy.

Why is it important?

Health plans that provide timely and effective prenatal care can help reduce a woman's risk of delivering a low birthweight infant and can detect and address maternal health problems early in the pregnancy. Good prenatal care also greatly reduces infant mortality and complications related to drug or alcohol use during pregnancy. Many potentially serious pregnancy-related complications can be easily corrected if detected early.

How is the managed care industry doing?

Prenatal Care in the First Trimester

What would it mean if all health plans performed as well as the best plans?

Reductions in a woman's likelihood of delivering a low birth-weight infant and other maternal and infant health problems could be achieved if the industry moved towards the 90th percentile benchmark of 95.1%. By raising the benchmark, preventable loss of life and illness could be avoided.

What can plans do to improve rates of prenatal care in first trimester?

Health plans and providers should develop comprehensive exercise and educational programs for pregnant women focusing on the importance and benefits of prenatal care for both mothers and infants, and about the significant risks associated with drug or alcohol use during pregnancy. Health plans should also consider developing incentive programs to encourage broader participation in such programs. Assigning case managers to high risk members may also help encourage appropriate prenatal care, and decrease dangerous behaviors.

Member Satisfaction

What did we measure?

These measures assess members' overall level of satisfaction with the health plan, as well as the level of satisfaction in specific areas, including choice of physician, referrals to a specialist, waiting time, and available information on members' rights.

Why are these measures important?

These measures will allow prospective members to assess how well others believe the plan is meeting their needs. Member-supplied information complements objective clinical data to provide a more complete view of a health plan's performance. NCQA requires that member satisfaction data be collected by a third party vendor.

How is the managed care industry doing?

Overall Member Satisfaction


Measure

National Average

Regional Averages

(top and bottom)

Overall Satisfaction

Members who indicated they were "completely" or "very" satisfied with their current health plan

55.7

New England - 63.1

South Central - 52.8

Satisfaction With Access to Care


Measure

National Average

Regional Averages

(top and bottom)

Satisfaction with Access to Care

Members who did NOT have a problem with delays in their medical care while they waited for approval by their health plans

82.2

New England - 88.4

South Central - 78.6

Access

Members who did NOT have a problem getting a referral to a specialist that they wanted to see

81.2

New England - 85.7

Pacific - 77.3

Access

Members who did NOT have a problem receiving care they and their doctor believed was necessary

85.3

New England - 89.4

South Central - 83.2

Satisfaction with Choice and Service


Measure

National Average

Regional Averages

(top and bottom)

Satisfaction with Choice and Service

Members who rated the plan as very good or excellent on the availability of information from their plan about eligibility, covered services or other issues

38.0

New England - 46.9

West N. Central - 35.2

 

Members who rated the plan as very good or excellent on the number of doctors they had to choose from

41.7

New England - 52.0

South Central - 38.0

 

Members who rated the plan as very good or excellent on the length of time they had to wait between making an appointment for routine care and the day of their visit

41.1

New England - 47.5

Mountain - 35.8

 

Members who rated the plan as very good or excellent on the ease of making appointments by phone

53.1

New England - 62.1

South Central - 49.2

The State of Accountability -1998

In health care, accountability and quality are closely linked. This is perhaps no surprise and it is a promising finding. What it means for consumers and employers is that there is a real, measurable return on efforts to require health plans to report on their performance - better quality care and service.

Unfortunately, accountability in health care is by no means universal. While the data in this report reflect the willingness of nearly 450 health plans across the country to share their data (some shared their data publicly, others provided data to help calculate accurate national and regional averages), hundreds of other health plans provided no data whatsoever. HMOs that don't report performance data join preferred provider organizations (PPOs) and the fee-for-service sector as the black holes of health care - we know nothing about their quality. This is unacceptable. Accountability in health care is a matter of public welfare, not simply an appealing academic idea. Market pressure will be the key to ensuring that, in the future, we have the objective data and information we need to make informed health care coverage decisions.

This section of the State of Managed Care Quality examines the relationship between performance and accountability. As indicated earlier, the results show that health plans that support accountability far outperform their counterparts.

Performance of Plans Reporting Data in Both 1997 and 1998: Rapid Improvement and Above Average Performance

Quality improvement takes time. Since NCQA first began accrediting health plans in 1991, several health plans have improved their accreditation status from Denial to Full Accreditation. This kind of improvement is noteworthy and speaks to the dedication and commitment of those plans to the accreditation process, and to delivering better care and service. The 252 health plans that submitted performance data to Quality Compass in both 1997 and 1998 demonstrate a similar commitment to accountability and performance measurement. Not surprisingly, as a group they also demonstrate rapid improvement and above average performance on all measures.

Health plans that reported data both last year and this year not only improved more than health plans overall, they outperformed other plans overall as well. For example, adolescent immunization rates rose 4.2% among plans reporting both years, but only 0.7% among plans in general. Eye exam rates for diabetics rose 2.2% among repeat participants, while they rose only 1.0% among plans overall. Notably, on every single measure of clinical quality, on average, plans that reported two years in a row beat the national averages. More specifically, childhood immunization rates were 2.4% above the national average, cervical cancer screening rates were 2.4% above average, beta blocker treatment rates were 4.3% above average, and follow up after hospitalization for mental illness rates were 4.7% higher.

The following graphs show the performance gains made by those plans that reported data in both 1997 and 1998, and how their performance compares to the average of all plans reporting data in 1998.



A Look at the Improvement in Performance

of Plans Reporting Data for both 1996 and 1997


*Note: This graph shows that plans which reported data for both 1996 and 1997 (Paired plans) improved more quickly and demonstrated higher overall performance than plans in general (1997 overall).

These results clearly show the value and importance of participating in public reporting efforts not just intermittently, but consistently, year after year. Encouraging our nation's health plans to publicly report performance data not only satisfies our need for information about health care, but also helps make that care better than it would be otherwise. The numbers speak for themselves: plans that publicly report data on a regular basis work harder to improve.

Performance of NCQA Accredited vs. Non-Accredited Plans: Do Better Systems and Processes Mean Better Care and Service?

Accountability takes several different forms. For the past seven years, NCQA Accreditation has been the most visible. NCQA Accreditation has long been considered the mark of excellence by sophisticated consumers and employers, and with good reason; the NCQA Accreditation process is extremely rigorous, requiring health plans to answer to more than 50 standards related to key administrative systems and process such as grievance procedures, utilization management processes, provider credentialing efforts and, in particular, quality improvement initiatives. The presumption, of course, has always been that health plans attentive to these critical areas would deliver excellent care and service as well. For the first time, this report confirms it.

On average, health plans with Full or One-Year Accreditation perform well above the national average on all 10 clinical measures. Correspondingly, plans not accredited by NCQA perform well below average (e.g., 8.4% below the national average on beta blockers). In many cases, the performance gap between health plans with NCQA Accreditation and non-accredited plans is enormous. For example, accredited plans outperform non-accredited plans on adolescent immunizations by 12.9%, and on beta blocker treatment by 11.3%. If all plans delivered beta blockers as consistently as accredited plans, it would prevent 2,027 cardiac deaths each year.

This finding goes well beyond validating NCQA's efforts - we've been confident all along that the quality of a health plan's systems and the quality of its care and service are closely linked. More importantly, this correlation makes the consumer's choice among health plans that much easier; NCQA Accredited plans not only function better, they deliver better care and service than unaccredited plans.

The following graphs show in more detail how NCQA Accreditation status correlates with health plan performance.

A Look at the Performance of

NCQA Accredited Plans vs. Non-Accredited Health Plans


* Statistical analysis confirms that in each case (except breast cancer), the performance gap between NCQA Accredited and non-accredited plans is significant, not surprising given the large differences in average rates.

The information presented on the preceding page in graph form is presented below in chart form for your convenience.

Performance by NCQA Accreditation Status

NCQA Accredited Plans

Non-Accredited Plans

Adolescent Immunization


54.5


41.6

Advising Smokers to Quit


64.6


63.0

Beta Blocker Treatment


76.7


65.4

Breast Cancer Screening


71.8


70.4

Cervical Cancer Screening


72.7


69.1

Childhood Immunization


67.1


61.8

Eye Exams for Diabetics


40.3


36.5

Follow up After Hospitalization for Mental Illness


68.4


65.1

Prenatal Care in the First Trimester


85.1


79.5

Overall Member Satisfaction


55.8


55.6

Publicly Reporting Plans vs. Non-Publicly Reporting Plans: Is Accountability an Indication of Quality?

In health care, accountability is more than just a desirable ideal, it is a matter of public welfare, a basic expectation. Nevertheless, not all HMOs and no PPOs or fee-for-service plans report their data publicly, leaving consumers and employers to select their health coverage in the dark. Our analysis of the 447 plans that submitted data to NCQA's Quality Compass shows that the best health plans are also the most willing to step forward and share their data publicly.

In many cases, the difference between plans that disclose their performance and plans that don't is dramatic. For example, child and adolescent immunization rates are about 12 and 13% higher, respectively, in publicly reporting plans than in their non-reporting counterparts. Retinal screening rates for diabetics are 7.6% higher. The smallest difference in performance between plans that report and those that don't is still more than 5% (breast cancer screening). These differences are significant; if all health plans performed retinal screenings as consistently as did publicly reporting plans, an additional 360 cases of blindness could be prevented each year. Note that this analysis was only made possible because many health plans, although not willing to share their performance data publicly, nevertheless provided their data to NCQA to help make our analysis more accurate. Many other plans, about whose performance we are far more suspect, did not provide performance data at all. Plans that reported no data, along with the entire PPO and fee-for-service sectors of the industry, skirt accountability altogether.

While these differences seem compelling, consumers and employers should make assumptions about the quality of plans that don't publicly report performance data only as a last resort (there is no causal relationship between reporting status and quality, only a strong correlation - some non-reporting plans may, in fact, be high performers). Instead, NCQA recommends digging deeper and asking questions: Will the plan provide data if asked? If so, how does it compare on key measures of care and service with other area plans? Or is there a reason it can't release data? If it doesn't report performance data, how does it demonstrate accountability?

The following graphs more clearly illustrate the performance gap between plans that publicly report data and those that keep their data private.

A Look at the Relative Performance of

Publicly Reporting vs. Non-Publicly Reporting Health Plans







The data presented above in graph form are presented below in chart form for your convenience.

Performance by reporting status

Publicly Reporting Plans

Non-publicly Reporting Plans

Non-reporting HMOs, PPOs and Fee-For-Service

Adolescent Immunization Status


56.3


43.7


?

Advising Smokers to Quit


64.9


62.1


?

Beta Blocker Treatment


76.5


65.4


?

Breast Cancer Screening


73.2


67.7


?

Cervical Cancer Screening


73.3


67.3


?


Cesarean Section


19.9


22.4


?

Childhood Immunization Status


69.3


57.7


?

Eye Exams for Diabetics


41.5


33.8


?

Follow up After Hospitalization for Mental Illness



68.3



64.9



?

Prenatal Care in the First Trimester


85.4


78.6


?

Overall Member Satisfaction


58.5


50.4


?

Conclusion

This edition of The State of Managed Care Quality sheds important light on the issues of quality and accountability in managed care. The report clearly shows that managed care plans committed to measuring and releasing quality information demonstrate significantly better results than plans who refuse to make themselves accountable in such ways. The evidence supporting this point is irrefutable: plans that continually report HEDIS® statistics show demonstrable improvements over even a short period of time; plans that submit to NCQA's rigorous accreditation process show stronger results than non-accredited plans; and, finally, plans that release their information publicly outperform by far those that keep their information private.

These findings illustrate that we are progressing toward NCQA's goal of improving health care by fostering a marketplace that makes decisions based on readily available, standardized, information about quality. The findings also call for renewed efforts on the part of employers, consumers and others to insist upon accountability - not only from those managed care plans that currently decline to participate in these efforts, but also from other types of insurers who have, to date, escaped oversight entirely.

*** Please note that this report is available on NCQA's Web site at www.ncqa.org/state2.htm