First Ray of Sun Shines on Cancer Measure Reporting
One obstacle to better measurement compliance has been the practical fact that cancer patients often cross departments within an institution, "and it's not clear who is ultimately accountable for that patient: the primary care doctor, the one who diagnosed the patient, or the first or second specialist," Muther says.
With the advent of public reporting, he adds, "these measures become institutionalized so people understand what needs to be done, regardless of who is accountable, to deliver the right care to each patient."
Brawley points out that cancer has benefited from a lot more emotional forgiveness and delayed standard-setting than other life-threatening diseases like heart disease. He believes tighter scrutiny and care practice measures are long overdue.
"Maybe my own organization [the ACS] 80 or 90 years ago worked very hard to create that emotional tie to cancer," resulting in much less scientific scrutiny of whether treatments and testing actually work.
"Now that's changing, going away, and that's a good thing." Eventually, he sees many more cancer measures coming on line, especially those reflecting rates of needless care. It may take a few more years, he says, but "I think we're going to see a lot of growth in measures for cancer quality," he predicts.
I hope he's right.
Cheryl Clark is senior quality editor and California correspondent for HealthLeaders Media. She is a member of the Association of Health Care Journalists.
- Reform Puts Vise Grips on Physicians
- How Physicians Can Help Ease Mental Health Provider Shortages
- Look Beyond Nurse-Patient Ratios
- Medicare Opt-Out a Viable Physician Strategy
- Boston Marathon Bombing Yields Lessons for Hospitals
- NPP Demand Rising Under Value-Based Care Models
- Providers Lag as Consumers Set Agenda
- Physicians as Economic Powerhouses and Tech Laggards
- Hospital Groups Back NQF Report on Patient Sociodemographics
- Esther Dyson Launches Population Health Challenge