Comparing Quality Scores to a Benchmark

Although the term “benchmark” is often thought to mean an “average,” the original meaning of this term in the context of quality improvement is performance that is known to be achievable because someone has achieved it. Comparing performance to a benchmark definitely sets a higher “bar” than comparing to any average. One still has to determine, however, whether the benchmark will be internal to the set of entities on which you are reporting or external, e.g., based on performance in the State or Nation.

Advantages of Comparing to a Benchmark

• It sets a higher bar, which sponsors may want to do particularly if earlier reports comparing performance to an average have not engaged consumers and or motivated providers to improve quality.
• It shows everyone in the community what health care organizations and professionals should be striving toward over the long run, not just what is “okay” right now.
• It signals to the community that the report sponsor wants to achieve significant change.

Disadvantages of Comparing to a Benchmark

• Displaying and explaining this kind of comparator to the public can be challenging. People are more accustomed to comparisons to averages than to benchmarks.
• Providers may resist being compared to something that makes almost everyone look less than the best. This will be especially true if the benchmark is external and none of the entities achieves scores close to that performance level.

Also in "Choosing a Comparator"

• Comparing Health Plans and Providers to Each Other
• Comparing to a State or National Average
• Comparing to a Benchmark (the Highest Performance Achieved)
• Comparing to the Top 10 or 20 Percent of Performers
• Comparing to an Independent Standard