It has been observed for quite some time that the U.S. spends far more per capita on healthcare compared to other countries. Yet by many measures of healthcare, the U.S. lags behind many other developed nations. e.g. high rates of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, etc. What does it mean when you spend a lot for something but you don’t get much in return? It implies low quality.

This idea that we aren’t getting out what we’re putting into the healthcare industry has led to numerous efforts to re-evaluate and improve many different aspects of care. Payers are slowly shifting this burden of quality to hospitals and doctors by closely monitoring and tracking a variety of different variables. For example, hospitals are tracking:

Patient variables – Patient age, related co-morbidities, like smoking, obesity, hypertension.

Types of Procedures – Spinal fusion, bone spur removal, hip replacements, etc.

Outcomes – Improvements in pain and function, blood loss, infection rates, readmission, etc.

This is just a tiny sample of the data being collected by hospitals, insurance companies and Medicare, and it’s not really clear how that data is being used to improve care as a whole. We do know that Medicare is imposing penalties on hospitals that have elevated complications rates/poor health outcomes, but what role does a monetary penalty have on tangible improvements to quality?

Thankfully, some websites that have access to some of this data are making it available to the public. One of the best sites to find information about doctors and hospitals is ProPublica.org. A simple search on their website reveals the Minnesota “Emergency Room Wait Watcher,” which tracks how long a patients who arrives at a certain emergency department must wait before seeing a doctor, their total time to discharge and other factors. Or you can check out this link, which explores outcomes and complications by procedure for a variety of different Minnesota clinics. It’s fascinating information.

The data used in the second piece was collected between 2009-2013, so while it’s not the most up to date information, it’s a very good start at improving transparency in healthcare. Unfortunately, some hospitals are reluctant to release this data or provide thorough statistics out of fear of how they might be perceived. Additionally, some hospitals fear that insurance companies may begin steering patients towards clinics with better outcomes and lower infection rates, which would obviously hurt their bottom line.

Ultimately, it’s the patients and doctors who are suffering when hospitals keep this information away from the public, as it limits access to the best quality care. Improving the quality and value of healthcare doesn’t need to cost more money. We just need to ensure we’re basing our improvement efforts on sound science, timely and accessible data, and effective collaboration across a surgical team and a care center as a whole. High quality and affordable care can, should be, and hopefully soon will be, one in the same.