Tag Archive for: Quality oversight

You are here: Home / Quality oversight

Posts

State Partnerships to Improve Quality: Models and Practices from Leading States Issue Brief

/in /by

The National Academy for State Health Policy identified ten leading state quality improvement partnerships – interrelated broad-based partnerships, mostly with public and private sector representation, which have long-term, statewide, systemic quality improvement strategic intent, and transparent agendas.  This State Health Policy Briefing summarizes results of NASHP’s full report examining these partnerships in Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.  The key factors, policies, and practices that influence the quality improvement partnerships in these 10 states offer insights for achieving systemic improvement in health care quality and performance.  The full report is also available.

QI Models and Practices 136.6 KB

 

State Partnerships to Improve Quality: Models and Practices from Leading States Report

/in /by

This NASHP-led, Commonwealth Fund-supported report highlights ten leading state quality improvement partnerships, broad-based, public-private partnerships that strive for long-term, statewide, and systemic quality improvement. This report describes the state partnerships’ origins, internal processes, accomplishments, and lessons learned, as well as their five strategies for achieving quality improvement. The factors and policies that influence the 10 featured state partnerships offer key insights for achieving systemic improvement in health care quality and performance. The report features state partnerships in Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

Quality Improvement Partnerships 440.3 KB

 

Building Quality in Medicaid Managed Care: What Policy Makers Need to Know (and Do!)

/in /by

This report is designed to help policy makers sift through the complex responsibilities states assume as purchasers, regulators, and partners of health plans. Written in plain, jargon-free language, the report both clarifies state responsibilities for quality care and identifies the tools available to policy makers to help meet those responsibilities.

mmc_building_quality.pdf 1.7 MB

 

Improving Patient Safety: What States Can Do About Medical Errors

/in /by

This briefing paper synthesizes a discussion held among key policy officials in June 2000, at NASHP’s Flood Tide Forum II. The brief examines current federal, congressional, and state activities; proposes roles for states; and identifies actions that foundations and others could take.

Contents
Overview
Background
Patient Safety: How Significant a Problem for States?
What is happening at the Federal level and What Does that Mean for States?
Discussion
Next StepsCreate NASHP Publication | National Academy for State Health Policy Production Site

improving_patient_safety.pdf 598.8 KB

 

The Pennsylvania Learning Exchange: Helping States Improve and Integrate Patient Safety Initiatives Summary Report

/in /by

According to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), preventable medical errors are a leading cause of death in the United States. Yet, state officials who focus on patient safety have few venues to meet, share innovative strategies, and problem solve with each other because patient safety initiatives originate in a variety of state agencies.
This report summarizes the Pennsylvania Learning Exchange, an event that brought state officials to Pennsylvania in September 2007 to learn about the state’s successes, challenges, and key elements of its patient safety initiatives. The event was supported by the Commonwealth Fund.
Pennsylvania’s initiative is a model for developing a comprehensive, interagency approach to address patient safety within a broader context of state health policy and as a critical component of health reform. The Prescription for Pennsylvania coordinates patient safety efforts under an umbrella entity (the Governor’s Office of Health Care Reform) and involves multiple agencies. The learning exchange event focused on Pennsylvania’s innovative strategies, including its successful efforts to call statewide attention to the issue of patient safety; build a case for change; translate data into practice and policy; and create a state infrastructure to address the issue. It also provided an opportunity for visiting state officials to share their own innovations.
The purpose of the learning exchange was to enable state officials to explore policy and operational issues, identify emerging issues, develop policy solutions, and improve state health policy and practice.
Ten Pennsylvania patient safety officials from key state agencies were host officials. Participants included 24 state officials representing eleven states. All visiting officials provided short written summaries of what they gained from the learning exchange and how they planned to apply this new knowledge to their state’s work to improve patient safety.

Pennsylvania Learning Exchange Summary Report 448.2 KB

 

Maximizing the Use of State Adverse Event Data to Improve Patient Safety

/in /by

This report reviews key findings from a meeting of data collectors (state officials who administer reporting systems), analysts (state officials or consultants to them), and users (providers, purchasers, and consumers). The meeting was held to identify mechanisms to improve reporting, tools used for event report analysis and dissemination, and opportunities for improvement.
This report reviews key findings from the meeting to assist states in improving their reporting systems and to encourage providers to improve the quality of the required reports so that data are credible and useful in shaping patient safety improvement interventions. It focuses on data integrity, event report analysis, and data feedback. The report also raises a number of challenges and opportunities that states encounter as they attempt to improve their databases and the usefulness of the data for improving patient safety.
Contents
Introduction
Data Integrity
Event Report Analysis
Data Feedback
Challenges and Opportunities
Conclusion
Appendix A: Data summit participants
Appendix B: Profile of participating state reporting systems for hospital-based adverse events
Appendix C: Advisory group

use_of_adverse_data.pdf 425.7 KB

 

Residential Care and Assisted Living: State Oversight Practices and State Information Available to Consumers

/in /by

This report reviews state monitoring and oversight practices of assisted living facilities, along with information that is available on state agency Web sites to consumers and family members about assisted living.

resident_care_oversight.pdf 1.3 MB

 

Using Administrative Data to Assess Quality of Care in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program

/in /by

This paper is designed to provide states with guidance on how to use administrative data for quality assessment purposes. State agencies and health plans routinely collect administrative data such as enrollment, claims, and encounter files for billing and program operations purposes. While these data were not originally intended for quality purposes, they can form a strong foundation to support quality assessment activities.


SCHIP_quality_care.pdf 384.6 KB

 

Emerging Practices and Policy in Medicaid Managed Care for People with HIV/AIDS: Case Studies of Six Programs

/in /by

As treatment strategies for HIV/AIDS undergo rapid change, states struggle with the dual challenges of providing quality health care and containing costs. By June 1996, in an effort to meet those challenges, 35 states (including the District of Columbia) reported enrolling at least some people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHIV) in their risk-based Medicaid managed care programs.
The six Medicaid managed care programs studied for this report – Massachusettes, New Jersey, Tennessee, Texas, San Francisco (California) and Orange County (California) — cope with overseeing changes in HIV/AIDS treatment in different ways. These programs treat PLWHIV the same as other populations in certian areas, including: marketing/enrollment, consumer involvement, and capitated benefits.

1998.Aug_.emerging.practices.policy.medicaid.managed.care_.hiv_.aids_.case_.studies.pdf 3.9 MB

 

Sign Up for Our Weekly Newsletter

Sign Up for Our Weekly Newsletter

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Portland, Maine Office:

2 Monument Square, Suite 910
Portland, Maine 04101

p: 207-874-6524

Washington, DC Office:

1233 20th St., N.W., Suite 303
Washington, DC 20036

p: (202) 903-0101
f: (202) 903-2790

Contact Us

Phone: 202-903-0101

Copyright © 2019, by The National Academy for State Health Policy. All rights reserved. May not be published or otherwise distributed without explicit permission | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use