4.2 Article

Costs Associated with Data Collection and Reporting for Diabetes Quality Improvement in Primary Care Practices: A Report from SNOCAP-USA

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN BOARD OF FAMILY MEDICINE
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 275-282

Publisher

AMER BOARD FAMILY MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2012.03.110049

Keywords

Data Reporting; Health Policy; Practice-Based Research Network; Primary Health Care; Quality of Health Care; Quality Improvement

Funding

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) [HHSA290200710008I]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Information about the costs and experiences of collecting and reporting quality measure data are vital for practices deciding whether to adopt new quality improvement initiatives or monitor existing initiatives. Methods: Six primary care practices from Colorado's Improving Performance in Practice program participated. We conducted structured key informant interviews with Improving Performance in Practice coaches and practice managers, clinicians, and staff and directly observed practices. Results: Practices had 3 to 7 clinicians and 75 to 300 patients with diabetes, half had electronic health records, and half were members of an independent practice association. The estimated per-practice cost of implementation for the data collection and reporting for the diabetes quality improvement program was approximately $15,552 per practice (about $6.23 per diabetic patient per month). The first-year maintenance cost for this effort was approximately $9,553 per practice ($3.83 per diabetic patient per month). Conclusions: The cost of implementing and maintaining a diabetes quality improvement effort that incorporates formal data collection, data management, and reporting is significant and quantifiable. Policymakers must become aware of the financial and cultural impact on primary care practices when considering value-based purchasing initiatives. (J Am Board Fam Med 2012;25:275-282.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available