No abstract

The goal of this ongoing comprehensive osteoporosis disease management initiative is to provide the adult primary care physicians' (PCPs) offices with a program enabling them to systematically identify and manage their population for osteoporosis. For over six years, Hill Physicians Medical Group (Hill Physicians) has implemented multiple strategies to develop a best practice for identifying and treating members who were candidates for osteoporosis therapy. Numerous tools were used to support this disease management effort, including: evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, patient education sessions, the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE) questionnaire tool, member specific reports for PCPs, targeted member mailings, office-based Peripheral Instantaneous X-ray Imaging (PIXI) test and counseling, dual x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan guidelines, and web-based Electronic Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (eSCORE) questionnaire tools. Hill Physicians tabulated results for patients who completed 2649 SCORE tests, screened 978 patients with PIXI tests, and identified 338 osteopenic and 124 osteoporotic patients. The preliminary results of this unique six-year ongoing educational initiative are slow but promising. New physician offices express interest in participating and those offices that have participated in the program continue to screen for osteoporosis. Hill Physicians' message is consistent and is communicated to the physicians repeatedly in different ways in accordance with the principles of educational outreach. Physicians who have conducted the program have positive feedback from their patients and office staff and have begun to communicate their experience to their peers.

269 Background: The Integrated Healthcare Association (IHA) is a non-profit organization which runs the largest Pay for Performance program in California. We describe a feasibility study to apply NQF cancer quality measures to linked commercial claims and state registry data and calculate results at the physician organization level. We describe phase I of the study: identifying appropriate measures and securing access to the data. Methods: We requested technical specifications for 9 NQF breast and colon cancer quality measures from the measure stewards and 2009 –2012 claims data from 7 California health plans. Results: Two barriers were identified in phase I: First, California Cancer Registry (CCR) data policies, designed for public health surveillance and not quality measurement, caused delays and present hurdles to public reporting. CCR data is not available until it is at least 95% complete, so 2011 data was not available until October 2013. Moreover, CCR requires that they conduct the data linkage, which required new data use agreements between the data aggregator and each participating insurer – costly in both time and legal fees. Finally, obstacles to public reporting any of the CCR data at the provider level still exist. Barrier 2: NQF measure specifications for linked claims-registry data sets do not currently exist, so the project team developed them, adding to the problem of proliferating non-harmonized quality measures. Conclusions: While the application of NQF measures to claims-registry linkage appears feasible for measurement of cancer care quality at the medical group level, registry policies and the lack of standard technical specifications for linked claims-registry data sets adversely impact the timeliness, usability, and comparability of results using two widely available data sources. More flexible policies on the part of data registries and attention to measure harmonization could improve data quality and usability for cancer care quality assessment and public reporting, and should be considered. In phase 2, we will apply the measures at the physician group level, and assess the feasibility of public reporting at the physician group level.