Physician Quality Ratings Imperfect, But a Start
A few years ago I moved from my long-time home to a new city. As anyone who has ever relocated knows, settling in is a process that extends well beyond the arrival of the family furniture. There are schools to consider, restaurants to find, churches to join and friends to make.
To find our dentist, doctors and vet we did just like we did at our former home—we asked our friends and neighbors.
I will admit that not once did I consider looking at any of the physician ratings so proliferate on the Internet. Because I write about healthcare I knew that insurers were busy developing and introducing their own grading systems to guide members to “high quality” and “cost-efficient” physicians but I did not check on those either.
I know what I am looking for in a physician. Top on the list: Listens to me. There probably is not an effective quantitative method to measure that. And that is the root of the problem many physicians have with profiling or rating systems. From New York to California physicians have countered that the quality assessments are faulty and are really just a way for insurers to favor lower cost physicians over more expensive ones.
Payers have been dipping their toes into the profiling pond for several years now. The first efforts were more or less PR disasters for the health plans with the programs in Tennessee and Texas put on hold while state medical associations and Payers worked out the details.
But with all of the recent finger pointing regarding the high cost of healthcare, payers have persisted and developed some sophisticated models to assess their high volume physicians in terms of quality patient care.