With transparency touted as a fundamental component of quality improvement in an emerging era of value-based health care, the call for increased reporting of procedural outcomes is burgeoning. Public reporting of coronary revascularization outcomes has been available in several states for several decades, and there are proposals to expand it more broadly. Fundamentally, the interest in public reporting reflects a desire to both improve and incentivize high-quality care. Another purported benefit is to assist patients in the selection of physicians and hospitals. However, for public reporting of procedural outcomes to be useful, it is imperative that the measure—in this case mortality—be homogeneously representative of overall procedural quality. Furthermore, “unintended consequences” must be addressed when advocating for public reporting as an essential component of value-based health care.
Kirtane AJ, Nallamothu BK, Moses JW. The Complicated Calculus of Publicly Reporting Mortality After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. JAMA Cardiol. 2016;1(6):637-638. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2016.1207