More than 20 years have passed since public reporting of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes first began in New York State, but reporting remains a polarizing issue.
Advocates of public reporting point to the strong incentive that public disclosure of outcomes data provides for institutions and clinicians to improve clinical care and to the importance of enabling patients to make informed choices about their care. Critics highlight the methodological challenges that impede fair and accurate assessments of care quality as well as reporting’s unintended consequences. Public reporting of PCI outcomes has only been implemented in 5 states, but reporting efforts for multiple conditions and procedures are now proliferating nationally, propelled by the notion that transparency improves the quality of health care and fosters trust in health care institutions. Careful evaluation of the evidence to date for PCI in particular, however, suggests that enthusiasm for such efforts should be tempered.
Conclusions and Relevance
Public reporting has not achieved its primary objectives. Policy makers should consider variations of reporting that might strengthen care quality, empower patients, and mitigate undesirable repercussions.
Wadhera RK, Joynt Maddox KE, Yeh RW, Bhatt DL. Public Reporting of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Outcomes: Moving Beyond the Status Quo. JAMA Cardiol. 2018;3(7):635–640. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2018.0947
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: