RESUMO
The objective of this study was to perform a practical assessment of publicly reported data from 4 reports on California provider groups through the eyes of the consumer. The study compared performance indicator content and rating methodologies, examined the degree of correlation in provider group performance on indicators common to 2 or more reports, and assessed the level of concordance among summary ratings of performance. Comparative analyses revealed significant variation in performance indicator content, data sources, and rating methodologies. Spearman correlation analysis revealed highly correlated group performance on patient satisfaction and member-requested group transfers, poorly correlated performance on breast and cervical cancer screening, and moderately correlated performance on state and regional average scores. Summary ratings applied to these data were only moderately correlated. These findings suggest that competing California provider group report cards produce inconsistent messages about provider quality and may create barriers to use, comprehension, and reliance upon quality information among consumers and other potential users.
