You can't be against quality. And I'm not. Any more than I am against cost-effective medicine or comparative effectiveness. Peter and I have posted and written much on the the CMPI model for measuring quality and approach comparative effectiveness from the patient perspective and using tools that promote predictive, prospective care. And we will have a lot more to say and do in the months ahead. (Too bad John Mack couldn't get the wax and other debris out of his ears when I was talking about that in my opening remarks at the epharma conference. Then again, some people only hear what they want to hate instead of walking 5 feet and say "Hello, my name is John, what did you mean when you said ..." ) But I digress.
Having said all that, I applaud Janet Corrigan and Nancy Nielsen for trying to bring order to the quality chaos. But I wonder if the problem is not the orgy of objects to measure but the lack of focus on creating measures that are derived from clinical, as opposed to claims data, biomarkers instead of randomized clinical trials, meaningfully designed systems that help doctors in their daily practice instead of top down systems like the one being conceived by the billion dollar slush fund?
www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/12/29/prsd1229.htm
Having said all that, I applaud Janet Corrigan and Nancy Nielsen for trying to bring order to the quality chaos. But I wonder if the problem is not the orgy of objects to measure but the lack of focus on creating measures that are derived from clinical, as opposed to claims data, biomarkers instead of randomized clinical trials, meaningfully designed systems that help doctors in their daily practice instead of top down systems like the one being conceived by the billion dollar slush fund?
www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/12/29/prsd1229.htm
