search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
tions,” Ms. McElhaney said. For ex- ample, Q Corp’s overall breast cancer screening rate, which it had been re- porting for years, took a dip thanks to the Medicare fee-for-service patients. “We always suspected this popula-


tion was unique. In terms of quality- measure reporting, they do perform very differently than either the Medi- care Advantage or the commercial population or Medicaid. They’re kind of their own unique little subpopula- tion,” Ms. McElhaney said. “From my perspective … that is one of the rea- sons we need to continue to include them in our data warehouse to have some transparency into both the cost and quality that that population re- ceives and generates.” Q Corp Senior Director Meredith


Roberts Tomasi says if Medicare fee- for-service data revealed that “Texas was really low in one area of utiliza- tion or really high in one area of price, there might be some probing ques- tions about why that might be or what a community can do about it.”


HEARING DOCTORS’ VOICES


3X Z\OZK\SXQ PY\ [_KVS ON OX^S^c MO\- ^S MK^SYX ^RO -OX^O\ PY\ 2OKV^R -K\O Research Data did something academ- ic researchers often neglect to do: It asked Texas physicians for their input on how to best use the Medicare data. The center’s preparation brought


physicians and other interested enti- ties from across the state, including TMA, together in “think tank” ses- sions. The center presented a variety of approaches before a consensus de- veloped to focus on variances in cost, utilization, and quality measures. “They have enlisted physicians’ in- put as to what sort of things would be valuable to us, which is somewhat un- usual for an academic endeavor,” said Dr. Ehrlich, who was part of those think tank sessions. “It was really col- laborative, and I think that’s why it’s QYSXQ ^Y LO WY\O LOXO MSKV KXN QS`O us more information that we can actu- ally utilize, because we had physician input.”


52 TEXAS MEDICINE November 2017


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64