´óÏóÊÓƵ

U.S. flag

SHARE:

FacebookXEmail AHRQPrint

All-Payer Claims Databases Measurement of Care: Systematic Review and Environmental Scan of Current Practices and Evidence

Appendix C. Environmental Scan Resources Included

Note: The Web addresses of some online resources have changed since we conducted the environmental scan. The current URLs are shown to provide the most recent information.

´óÏóÊÓƵExpert Materials

  1. AHRQ. Report Card Compendium (search tool). (Accessed in December 2014 but no longer available online).
  2. Public reporting of cost measures in health. Evidence-based Practice Center Technical Brief Protocol. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; January 9, 2014. AHRQ. . Accessed February 7, 2017.
  3. All-Payer Claims Database portal in USHIK (story in THL News Blog). http://thlibrary.wordpress.com/tag/ahrq/page/9/. Accessed February 7, 2017. (Portal is no longer online.)
  4. APCD File Submission Comparison. . Accessed February 7, 2017.
  5. Romano P, Hussey P, Ritley R. Selecting quality and resource use measures: a decision guide for community quality collaboratives. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; May 2010. ´óÏóÊÓƵPublication No. 09(10)-0073. http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/quality-resources/tools/perfmeasguide/index.html. Accessed February 7, 2017.
  6. AHRQ. United States Health Information Knowledgebase. User Guide: APCD Portal. . Accessed February 7, 2017.
  7. Fitzmaurice JM. USHIK: Data Standardization to Support Public Health Services. Public Health Data Consortium’s 2012 Annual Meeting; 8 Nov 2012. . Accessed February 7, 2017.

Return to Contents

APCD Council

  1. APCD Home Page. . Accessed February 7, 2017.
  2. APCD Interactive State Map. . Accessed February 7, 2017.
  3. APCD Showcase: States Leading by Example. . Accessed February 7, 2017.
  4. History of APCD Council Harmonization Efforts. October 2011. . Accessed February 7, 2017.

Return to Contents

Reports, Task Forces, Policy Briefs

  1. Allen KC. Utah’s All Payer Claims Dataset: A Vital Resource for Health Reform. TennCare Annual Meeting; 19 Jan 2011.
  2. APCD Council; University of New Hampshire; NAHDO. Recommendations for collecting payer information on plan benefit design and payments to providers for non-claims based services. Durham, NH: APCD Council; September 2014. . Accessed February 7, 2017.
  3. Bebinger M; WBUR Boston. 2011. Patients Would Lose in Blue Cross-Tufts Medical Center Dispute. NPR/WBUR, All Things Considered; November 15, 2011. . Accessed February 7, 2017.
  4. Brannen T. New Hampshire acute care hospital comparison: a commercial insurance relative cost comparison. Concord: New Hampshire Insurance Department; 2008. . Accessed February 7, 2017.
  5. Calsyn M. Shining light on health care prices: steps to increase transparency. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress; 2014. . Accessed February 8, 2017.
  6. Campbell T. How is CO APCD data being used by stakeholders? Pay for Performance Summit; 24-26 Mar 2014; San Francisco, CA. . Accessed February 8, 2017.
  7. Price transparency: an essential building block for a high-value, sustainable health care system. Berkeley, CA: Catalyst for Payment Reform; 2013. . Accessed June 20, 2017.
  8. Report card on state price transparency laws. Berkeley, CA: Catalyst for Payment Reform; 2014. . Accessed February 8, 2017.
  9. Massachusetts all-payer claims database. Overview. Boston, MA: Center for Health Information and Analysis; 2016. . Accessed February 8, 2017.
  10. Overview of the Massachusetts all-payer claims database. Boston, MA: Center for Health Information and Analysis; 2016. . Accessed February 8, 2017.
  11. Colorado’s all payer claims database: reference guide and sample of initial data reports. Denver, CO: Center for Improving Value in Health Care; 2012. 
  12. Risk adjustment definitions and methodology: key information for the Colorado APCD. Denver, CO: Center for Improving Value in Health Care; 2013.
  13. Colorado all payer claims database spot analysis: physical therapy/occupational therapy, acupuncture, chiropractic and massage services in the commercial insurance market. Denver, CO: Center for Improving Value in Health Care; 2014. 
  14. Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial payment comparisons, 2011. Denver, CO: Center for Improving Value in Health Care; 2014.  
  15. Opportunities to bend the cost curve: reduce cesarean delivery rates in Colorado: insights from the Colorado all payer claims database. Denver, CO: Center for Improving Value in Health Care; July 2014. 
  16. Mathieu J. The Colorado APCD: a resource to help improve health and lower costs. Citizens’ Health Advisory Summit; 25 Sep 2014; Durango, CO.
  17. Lower costs, better care: reforming our health care delivery system. Baltimore, MD: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; January 30, 2014. . Accessed February 8, 2017.
  18. 2013 cost trends report. Boston: Commonwealth of Massachusetts Health Policy Commission; 2013. . Accessed February 8, 2017.
  19. Commonwealth of Massachusetts notice of benefit and payment parameters 2014. Risk adjustment methodology & operation. Boston, MA: Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority; April 2013. . Accessed February 8, 2017.
  20. Freedman J. Freedman Healthcare. Local lessons from national APCD efforts. 4 Sep 2014. Seattle: Washington Health Alliance; 2014. . Accessed February 8, 2017.
  21. Hawaii all-payer claims database request for information. Honolulu: Governor’s Healthcare Transformation Office; 2014. . Accessed February 8, 2017.
  22. Green L, Lischko A, Bernstein T Realizing the potential of all-payer claims databases: creating the reporting plan. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; 2014. . Accessed February 8, 2017.
  23. James J. Health Policy Briefs: Public Reporting on Quality and Costs. Health Affairs 2012 Mar 8. . Accessed February 8, 2017.
  24. 2012 health care cost and utilization report. Washington, DC: Health Care Cost Institute; September 2013. . Accessed February 8, 2017.
  25. 2007-2011 Vermont health care cost and utilization report. Washington, DC: Health Care Cost Institute; 2014. . Accessed February 8, 2017.
  26. 2007-2011 Vermont health care cost and utilization report analytic methodology, V1.1. Washington, DC: Health Care Cost Institute; May 13, 2014. . Accessed February 8, 2017.
  27. Health Data Transparency Basics. Columbus: Health Policy Institute of Ohio; March 2012. . Accessed February 8, 2017.
  28. Analysis of all payer claims database for the State of Iowa. Des Moines: Iowa Department of Human Services; December 9, 2011. . Accessed February 8, 2017.
  29. Jacobson DM, Teutsch S. An environmental scan of integrated approaches for defining and measuring total population health by the clinical care system, the government public health system and stakeholder organizations. Commissioned Paper. Washington, DC: National Quality Forum; June 2012. . Accessed February 6, 2017.
  30. Kramer MS. Massachusetts all payer claims database (APCD). UMass Center for Clinical & Translational Science 4th Annual Research Retreat; 8 May 2013; Worcester, MA. . Accessed February 8, 2017.
  31. Kramer MS, Hines, K. Risk adjustment and rate review - the Massachusetts perspective. Boston, MA: Center for Health Information and Analysis; April 10, 2014. . Accessed February 8, 2017.
  32. Lence CT. Health care price transparency for consumers: a review of original and prior research on best practices for the development of state-based Web resources. (Prepared under Grants to States to Support Health Insurance Rate Review and Increase Transparency in Health Care Pricing - Cycle III, Federal Grant No. 1 PRPPR140059-01-00.) Salt Lake City, UT: HealthInsight; July 2014. . Accessed February 8, 2017.
  33. Lerche J, Winkelman R. Issue Brief. Applicability of all-payer claims databases for rate review and other regulatory functions. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; June 2014. .
  34. Leonard J. Using an APCD to inform healthcare policy, strategy, and consumer choice: Maine’s experience. Medicaid Enterprise Systems Conference; 19-23 Aug 2012; Boston, MA. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  35. Measuring health care quality and cost in Massachusetts. Boston, MA: Division of Health Care Finance and Policy; 2009. Publication No. 10-310-HCF-01. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  36. McHugh C, Cutler J. Report of the LD 1818 Work Group to evaluate options and actions available to improve the availability of and access to health care data and to examine the all-payor claims database system in Maine. Augusta, ME: LD 1818 Work Group; February 23, 2013. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  37. Miller P, Love D, Sullivan E, et al. All-payer claims databases: an overview for policymakers. Washington, DC: State Coverage Initiatives, AcademyHealth, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; May 2010. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  38. Muir MA, Alessi SA, King JS. Clarifying costs: can increased price transparency reduce healthcare spending? William Mary Pol Rev 2013;4(2):319-66. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  39. Collecting health data: all-payer claims databases. Health Cost Containment and Efficiencies. NCSL Briefs for State Legislators, No. 4. Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures; May 2010. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  40. Evaluating episode groupers: a report from the National Quality Forum. Washington, DC: National Quality Forum; September 2014. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  41. Conference materials and video. All-Payer Claims Databases: Unlocking the Potential. Boston, MA; 4 Nov 2014. Convened by the Network for Excellence in Health Innovation.
  42. Report on patient contributions to medical expenses. Concord: New Hampshire Insurance Department; May 19, 2008. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  43. Report on the impact of House Bill 790 – an act relative to dependent coverage for health insurance in the 2007 session. Concord: New Hampshire Insurance Department; December 15, 2008. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  44. The impact of price transparency on HealthCost services in New Hampshire. Concord: New Hampshire Insurance Department; August 11, 2009. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  45. A study of NH vs. out of state medical care spending and carrier differences. Concord: New Hampshire Insurance Department; August 2, 2010. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  46. The impact of aging on medical care services covered by commercial insurance in New Hampshire. Concord: New Hampshire Insurance Department; August 26, 2010. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  47. A commercial insurance study of vaginal delivery and cesarean section rates at New Hampshire hospitals. Concord: New Hampshire Insurance Department; April 1, 2011. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  48. A study of ground ambulance transport commercial claims data. Concord: New Hampshire Insurance Department; February 24, 2011. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  49. Coburn A. Providing better care at lower cost: building Maine’s health data infrastructure to support financing and delivery system reform. Report of the Health Data Workgroup to Advisory Council on Health Systems Development. Augusta, ME: University of Southern Maine, Muskie School of Public Service; 2011. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  50. Finison K. Tri-state variation in health services utilization & expenditures in northern New England. Manchester, ME: Onpoint Health Data; June 2010. .
  51. PBGH Policy Brief: Price transparency. San Francisco: Pacific Business Group on Health; 2013. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  52. Pacific Business Group on Health. Consumer Decision Support Tools – Medical Services Shopping. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  53. Painter M, Chernew M. Counting change: measuring health care prices, costs, and spending. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; March 2012.. Accessed February 3, 2017.
  54. Porter J, Love D, Peters A, et al. The basics of all-payer claims databases: a primer for states. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; January 2014. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  55. Rexford J, Andrews E, Shipley B. The power of data: consumer involvement and accountability for Connecticut’s all payer claim database (APCD). Report of recommendations. Hartford: Connecticut Health Foundation; 2013. . Accessed February 6, 2017.
  56. Health Policy Snapshot: Health Care Costs. Issue Brief. What’s the price of health care? Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; August 2012. . Accessed February 3, 2017.
  57. All-payer claims databases: current status and realizing the potential. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; March 25, 2014. .
  58. Schaler-Haynes M. All payer claims databases: issues and opportunities for health care cost transparency in New Jersey. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Center for State Health Policy; May 2013. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  59. Senate Committee on Finance. High Prices, Low Transparency: The Bitter Pill of Health Care Costs. Hearing Before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate; June 18, 2013. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  60. State data spotlight: Maine’s health care claims database. Minneapolis, MN: State Health Access Data Assistance Center; May 2011. .
  61. Hartman L, Knutson D, Ricards J. Developing measures and analytic approaches. State Health Reform Assistance Network; APCD Small Group Convening; New Orleans, LA; 23-24 Jan 2014. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  62. Tu H, Lauer J. Impact of health care price transparency on price variation: the New Hampshire experience. Issue Brief No. 128. Washington, DC: Center for Studying Health System Change; November 2009. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  63. Tu H, Gourevitch R; Moving markets: lessons from New Hampshire’s health care price transparency experiment. Oakland: California Health Care Foundation; April 2014. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  64. Health care price transparency: meaningful price information is difficult for consumers to obtain prior to receiving care. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office; September 2011. Publication No. GAO-11-791. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  65. Utah health status update: the Utah all payer database (APD). Salt Lake City: Utah Department of Health; July 2009. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  66. Hospital sticker shock: a report on hospital sticker price variation in Washington State. (Prepared under a Health Insurance Rate Review Cycle III grant from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to the State of Washington Office of Financial Management, Funding Opportunity No. PR-PRP-13-001.) Seattle: Washington Health Alliance; 2014. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  67. Diabetes value metric final report. Middleton, WI: Wisconsin Collaborative for Healthcare Quality; 2010. . Accessed February 9, 2017.
  68. Yegian J. Bundled payment and reference pricing in California. National Summit on Health Care Price, Cost, and Quality Transparency; 2-4 Dec 2013. http://www.ehcca.com/presentations/hctranssummit1/yegian_ms7.pdf. Accessed February 9, 2017.
  69. Yegian J. California-based transparency initiatives. National Summit on Health Care Price, Cost, and Quality Transparency; 2-4 Dec 2013. http://www.ehcca.com/presentations/hctranssummit1/yegian_ms2.pdf. Accessed February 9, 2017.
  70. Yegian J. Briefing: The future of price transparency in California. California Health Care Foundation Briefing; Sacramento, CA; 9 Dec 2013. . Accessed February 9, 2017.

Return to Contents

Trade, Business, White Papers

  1. TrendWatch. Price transparency efforts accelerate: what hospitals and other stakeholders are doing to support consumers. Wsahington, DC: American Hospital Association; July 2014. . Accessed February 10, 2017.
  2. Klem K. Bringing data to life: issues in empowering consumers to choose higher value health care. Denver, CO: Center for Improving Value in Health Care; August 2012. . Accessed February 10, 2017.
  3. Coluni B. White Paper. Save $36 billion in U.S. healthcare spending through price transparency. Ann Arbor, MI: Thomson Reuters; February 2012. . Accessed February 10, 2017.
  4. Hinkle L, Gauthier A, Christie-Maples J, et al. A closer look at state innovation model testing winning states: payment and delivery system reform analysis. Washington, DC: National Academy for State Health Policy. 2013.
  5. LinkedIn. All Payer Claims Database Group. http://www.linkedin.com/groups/All-Payer-Claims-Database-Group-3362505?mostPopular=&gid=3362505. Accessed February 10, 2017.
  6. Massachusetts payment reform. the role of a robust Massachusetts all-payer claims database; recommendations for policymakers. Burlington: Massachusetts Hospital Association; October 2011. . Accessed February 10, 2017.
  7. Prysunka A. Milliman White Paper. Best practices for launching and operating an all-payor claims database. Seattle, WA: Milliman; 2012. . Accessed February 10, 2017.
  8. Ricards J, Blewett L. Making use of all-payer claims databases for health care reform evaluation. (Prepared under Contract No. HHSP23320100024WI to the Office of Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.) Minneapolis, MN: State Health Access Data Assistance Center, Univerity of Minnesota; July 2014. . Accessed February 10, 2017.
  9. Stiefel M, Nolan K. A guide to measuring the Triple Aim: population health, experience of care, and per capita cost. IHI Innovation Series White Paper. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2012. . Accessed February 10, 2017.

Return to Contents

Books

  1. Institute of Medicine. Variation in health care spending: target decision making, not geography. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2013. . Accessed February 10, 2017.
  2. Institute of Medicine. Core measurement needs for better care, better health, and lower costs: counting what counts: workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2013. . Accessed February 10, 2017.

Return to Contents

APCD Web Sites

  1. California. Organizational link: . APCD but no consumer site yet.
  2. Colorado. Organizational link: . Public Web site link: . APCD and consumer site with cost data and quality measures.
  3. Kansas. Organizational link: . APCD but no consumer site yet; data consortium.
  4. Maine. Organizational link: . Public Web site link: . APCD and consumer site with cost data, no associated quality measures.
  5. Maryland. Organizational link: . APCD but no consumer site yet.
  6. Massachusetts. Organizational link: . Public Web site link: . APCD and consumer site with cost data and quality measures.
  7. Minnesota. Organizational link: . APCD but no consumer site yet; limited application defined by legislature.
  8. New Hampshire. Organizational link: . Public Web site link: . APCD and consumer site with cost data, no associated quality measures.
  9. Oregon. Organizational link: . APCD but no consumer site yet.
  10. Rhode Island. Organizational link: . APCD but no consumer site yet.
  11. Tennessee. Organizational link: . APCD but no consumer site yet.
  12. Utah. Organizational link: . APCD but no consumer site yet.
  13. Vermont. Organizational link: . APCD but no consumer site yet.
  14. Virginia. Organizational link: . Public Web site link: . MPCD and consumer site with cost data, no associated quality measures.
  15. Washington. Organizational links: ;  ; . Public Web site link: . APCD and consumer site but no cost data.
  16. Wisconsin. Organizational link: . Public Web site link: . APCD and consumer site with cost data and quality measures.

Publication:
17-0022-2-EF

Page last reviewed November 2020
Page originally created June 2017

Internet Citation: Appendix C. Environmental Scan Resources Included. Content last reviewed November 2020. ´óÏóÊÓƵ, Rockville, MD.
/data/apcd/envscan/app-c.html

Click to copy citation