Quality measurement is here to stay, but a JAMA viewpoint asks if anyone is keeping tabs on the costs of measurement.
In less than 20 years, the need to measure healthcare quality has become obvious. An infrastructure has grown up around the task of creating and validating measures, and deciding which ones CMS or commercial payers will use to connect pay with performance.
Measurement is here to stay, with CMS looking to tie 50% of all payments to value-based care by 2018 and physicians facing new requirements from the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act.
But, as 3 authors in JAMA asked last week, is anyone keeping tabs on what measurement costs?
Mark A. Schuster, MD, PhD, and Sarah E. Onorato, BA, both of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, and David O. Meltzer, MD, PhD, of the University of Chicago, took on this question in their essay, “Measuring the Cost of Quality Measurement: A Missing Link in Quality Strategy,” which observes that when selecting measures, cost is typically not a consideration. And that’s a problem, because the costs—especially data collection—can be considerable and the process time-consuming.
Then, the authors say, there’s the question of who pays. Are costs folded into hospital charges, insurance premiums, or other fees? Will the promise of electronic health records to bring down the cost of extracting data ever live up to the hype?
It’s time to be honest about the cost of measuring quality, the authors say. Bringing transparency and comparing the cost and value of similar measures would let the less useful (and less used) ones be discarded. An expensive measure that has high clinical value could be kept if its value can be demonstrated.
Cost should not be the only factor, they argue. But it has to be part of the equation, because doing so could inspire innovations to bring down the cost of the reporting process. That could also make things less burdensome for doctors and nurses if measurement fits better into the workflow.
The authors are not against measurement. “Measuring quality of care is essential to improving it,” they write. “However, the current, cost-uninformed approach has created a proliferation of measures, many of which are needlessly burdensome for health care organizations.”
If the point of measurement is to reveal what in healthcare has value, they authors say, the measures themselves have to pass muster.
Reference
Schuster MA, Onorato SE, Meltzer DO. Measuring the cost of quality measurement: a missing link in quality strategy [published August 31, 2017]. JAMA. 2017; doi:10.1001/jama.2017.11525
Impact of Amivantamab-Lazertinib on EGFR, MET Resistance Alterations in NSCLC: Danny Nguyen, MD
September 15th 2025The combination of amivantamab and lazertinib in first-line non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) significantly reduces resistance mechanisms with implications for second-line treatment, said Danny Nguyen, MD, of City of Hope.
Read More
AI in Health Care: Balancing Governance, Innovation, and Trust
September 2nd 2025In this conversation with Reuben Daniel, associate vice president of artificial intelligence at UPMC Health Plan, we dive into how UPMC Health Plan builds trust with providers and members, discuss challenges of scaling AI effectively, and hear about concrete examples of AI's positive impact.
Listen
ACA Dependent Coverage Extension and Young Adults’ Substance-Associated ED Visits
September 15th 2025This study examines the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on substance-associated emergency department (ED) visits among young adults, revealing reduced alcohol-associated visits but unchanged opioid-associated visits.
Read More