Search

Process measures of healthcare quality are usually formulated as the number of patients who receive evidence-based treatment (numerator) divided by the number of patients in the target population (denominator). When the systems being evaluated can influence which patients are included in the denominator, it is reasonable to wonder if improvements in measured quality are driven by expanding numerators or contracting denominators. In 2003, the US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) based executive compensation in part on performance on a substance use disorder (SUD) continuity-of-care quality measure. The first goal of this study was to evaluate if implementing the measure in this way resulted in expected improvements in measured performance. The second goal was to examine if the proportion of patients with SUD who qualified for the denominator contracted after the quality measure was implemented, and to describe the facility-level variation in and correlates of denominator contraction or expansion. Using 40 quarters of data straddling the implementation of the performance measure, an interrupted time series design was used to evaluate changes in two outcomes. All veterans with an SUD diagnosis in all VA facilities from fiscal year 2000 to 2009. The two outcomes were 1) measured performance—patients retained/patients qualified and 2) denominator prevalence—patients qualified/patients with SUD program contact. Measured performance improved over time (P

Background Substance use disorders (SUDs) are a substantial problem in the United States (U.S.), affecting far more people than receive treatment. This is true broadly and within the U.S. military veteran population, which is our focus. To increase funding for treatment, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) has implemented several initiatives over the past decade to direct funds toward SUD treatment, supplementing the unrestricted funds VA medical centers receive. We study the ‘flypaper effect’ or the extent to which these directed funds have actually increased SUD treatment spending. Methods The study sample included all VA facilities and used observational data spanning years 2002 to 2010. Data were analyzed with a fixed effects, ordinary least squares specification with monetized workload as the dependent variable and funding dedicated to SUD specialty clinics the key dependent variable, controlling for unrestricted funding. Results We observed different effects of dedicated SUD specialty clinic funding over the period 2002 to 2008 versus 2009 to 2010. In the earlier period, there is no evidence of a significant portion of the dedicated funding sticking to its target. In the later period, a substantial proportion—38% in 2009 and 61% in 2010—of funding dedicated to SUD specialty clinics did translate into increased medical center spending for SUD treatment. In comparison, only five cents of every dollar of unrestricted funding is spent on SUD treatment. Conclusions Relative to unrestricted funding, dedicated funding for SUD treatment was much more effective in increasing workload, but only in years 2009 and 2010. The differences in those years relative to prior ones may be due to the observed management focus on SUD and SUD-related treatment in the later years. If true, this suggests that in a centrally directed healthcare organization such as the VA, funding dedicated to a service is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for increasing resources expended for that service.