Charlie Homer
President and CEO, National Initiative for Children’s Healthcare Quality

In this time of agonizing about broad health care reform, I take solace in celebrating the passage of CHIPRA (the Child Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act) just over a year ago, and focusing on its productive implementation. CHIPRA not only expanded access to health insurance for children, but–as the regular readers of this blog know–included groundbreaking activities to strengthen the QUALITY of care that children who are insured through CHIP or Medicaid receive.  These activities included substantial grants to states for demonstration projects (announced just yesterday) funding for an electronic health record that meets the specific needs of children, and two sequential activities around the measurement of quality of children’s health care.

The first measurement activity mandated by the CHIPRA legislation was the creation of a “core” measurement set. The legislation called for a tight deadline, mandated the scope of the measures, and specified an inclusive process for selecting the measures. Last summer, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) conducted a thoughtful, broadly inclusive process to create that core measurement set.

The process that AHRQ used is well described on their website. The panel included leaders of state Medicaid and CHIP programs, consumers, pediatricians and family physicians, dentists, and public health professionals. AHRQ contracted with experts to produce background information, too. The committee used a formal consensus process, voting on the validity, feasibility and importance of the measures. It then prioritized measures to make sure the set was balanced (e.g., acute, preventive and chronic care, inpatient and outpatient, and oral health). They recommended 25 measures that were subsequently reviewed by AHRQ’s National Advisory Committee and ultimately the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This recommended measurement set is now out for public comment, with responses due by March 1st.

This set includes 13 measures of preventive care, 5 for management of children with acute conditions, 9 of care for children with chronic conditions, 1 of patient experience and 1 of availability.

• Most of the preventive measures are relatively simple, emphasizing counting encounters (e.g., number of well child visits, frequency of prenatal care, and number receiving preventive dental care) rather than focusing on the content of the preventive care itself. Preventive content is addressed in assuring documentation of BMI (happily consistent with the current emphasis by the White House on obesity prevention), using standard tools for developmental screening, immunizations, and Chlamydia screening.

• Acute care measures address appropriate use of antibiotics, catheter associated blood stream infections in intensive care inpatient settings (the only inpatient measure), counts of those EPSDT eligible children who receive dental treatment and counts of emergency departments visits in a population (presumably an outcome measure assessing prevention and integration of care more than quality of acute care itself).

• The most common chronic conditions in childhood are addressed through a simple outcome measure for asthma (number of children over one year old with one or more asthma related emergency room visits), follow up for children on a medication for ADHD, follow up after mental illness hospitalization, and assessment of hemoglobin A1C for children with diabetes.

• Rounding out the set, the list includes the CAHPS Health Plan survey including supplemental items for Medicaid and Children with Chronic Conditions and an indicator of access to primary care practitioners.

One can quibble with some of the measures (e.g., the inclusion of children under two in the asthma measure given the difficulty of diagnosis, the accuracy of coding, and effectiveness of treatment in that age group) and lament the generally low bar the measures establish (e.g., counts of visits receiving more emphasis than content). I also believe the committee could have recommended the measurement of the “medical home” through the use of the CAHPS survey rather than defer this measurement to the future.

Congress recognized that any initial measurement set would be inadequate and specified that CMS create a program to develop new measures to address gaps in the core measurement set. Indeed, this week, AHRQ is convening a panel to recommend criteria for the measures under this new program. The committee highlighted gaps in their measurement set, specifically highlighting the need for better measures of mental health and substance abuse service, inpatient and specialty care, duration of enrollment and coverage, medical home, and other means of care integration, and availability of services. We at the National Initiative for Children’s Healthcare Quality–working with the National Quality Forum–recently convened an expert group that identified additional gap areas such as care coordination, broader indicators of population health, and special topics such as pediatric palliative care. We anticipate the Secretary will be seeking public comment on which topics the new program should address.

But, overall, for now, rather than critique the current set, it is far more important to commend the committee, AHRQ, CMS, and the Secretary for moving quickly, transparently and yet rigorously to assemble a thoughtful and credible measurement set. We should also urge HHS to move on to establishing effective mechanisms for collecting and reporting these data across all types of care provided in Medicaid and CHIP programs (e.g., fee-for-service and primary care case management as well as managed care), for encouraging universal, standardized reporting (not required under CHIPRA), and for assisting states and delivery organizations in using these data to improve care.

The views expressed by Guest Bloggers do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for Children and Families.