Legacy of Excellence Digital Flipbook

Chapter 2: 2002 – 2006

literature review. A group training session was held early in 2004 to instruct attendees in procedures for critical review of the literature and grading levels of evidence, concluding with paper assignments The Evidence Machine had six key components that created a proactive process for the AAO-HNS/F to identify and prioritize areas of need, designing studies that would yield higher levels of evidence for these areas, then gathering, analyzing, and publishing the evidence in an orderly, systematic way. Methodological experts and clinical experts were also integral members of the working group in each area. The end goal was to increase the body of knowledge and availability to the world as well as continually update it so that the quality of evidence would be reexamined on a regular basis. Measures and Pay for Performance In the 2006 Annual Report, Dr. Cannon noted that, “Specialty organizations, including the Academy, are creating research agendas that incorporate performance measurement into their overall strategic planning.” Pay for performance, also known as value-based performance, was based on critical measures by which a physician’s performance is compared to benchmarks (ie, performance measures). An individual’s performance level determines the financial reimbursement. In addressing growing concern from the membership about the short and long-term implications of pay for performance, Dr. Cannon said in the March 2006 Bulletin , “Oddly enough trust, integrity, and providing the best quality of care have much in common. By aligning our priorities with the ultimate goal of providing superior care for our patients, we are protecting ourselves from the consequences of stepping outside ethical behavior. Therefore, we have nothing to fear from the implementation of pay-for- performance measures that will reward high quality healthcare delivery. To a committed physician, delivering superior care to his or her patients is a way of life.” In 2006 in response to the changes in the marketplace regarding pay for performance, the Academy added a new unit created specifically to address quality improvement in otolaryngology. Its primary responsibility was to facilitate the Academy’s participation in the discussions, debates, and development of performance measures. In addition to staffing and coordinating the Academy’s guideline panels, creating performance measurement

development activities and coordinating with external organizations, the Academy’s quality improvement staff members worked to create new programs to address patient safety, quality improvement, and the demand for value-based purchasing. Faced with a dearth of specialty-sponsored, evidence based quality measures and increasing pressure from insurers, employers, and consumers, the Academy sponsored the Translating Research Into Cross-Specialty 2004: Washington Advocacy Week was initiated as a new strategy for engaging Capitol Hill. It was a marriage of the traditional annual BOG training and agenda and the targeted strategy of Legislative Briefing Day. The week included training sessions by the best of Washington insiders about how to influence legislators and payers. The inaugural WAW was held March 6-9, 2004, with a record 240 members attending.

69