Abstract:
A method is presented for measuring the recovery of a medical treatment provider&#39;s patients from a given medical condition. During treatment and recovery, a patient periodically takes a survey to report the current intensity of the signs and symptoms caused by his/her medical condition. The patient also assigns a weight to each sign/symptom, indicating the relative intensity of his/her desire to eliminate it. The product of the intensity of a sign or symptom and its corresponding weight measures the diminishment of quality of life. An outcomes measure, measurable in quality-adjusted life-years, compares a patient&#39;s predicted recovery, which is rendered by an independent source at the time the patient&#39;s diagnosis is determined, with the patient&#39;s actual recovery. Outcomes measures for a provider&#39;s patients with a given medical condition and with similar predicted recoveries are combined to produce an unbiased, risk-adjusted outcomes index that can be compared with that of other providers.

Description:
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS 
       [0001]    This is a division of application Ser. No. 11/738,099, filed Apr. 20, 2007, now U.S. Pat. No. ______, granted ______, which is incorporated herein by reference. 
     
    
     FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH: Not Applicable 
     SEQUENCE LISTING OR PROGRAM: Not Applicable 
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
       [0002]    The ability to measure accurately health care quality—especially patient outcomes—has been elusive. While comparisons have been made of the health care quality of entire facilities (e.g., hospitals, health plans), little progress has been made with respect to providing unbiased and risk-adjusted performance measures for individual providers. 
         [0003]    While some quality measurement systems, such as HEDIS [www.ncqa.org/programs/hedis/], compare compliance (e.g., the percentage of a providers&#39; patients receiving vaccinations), none has been totally successful in providing a method for comparing the outcomes of individual providers. A persistent problem has been the difficulty in making comparisons of provider outcomes when patients initially face dissimilar recovery risks, due to illness severity, co-morbidities and other risk factors. Accordingly, methods and systems for making valid comparisons of provider outcomes are needed. 
       BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
       [0004]    1. Field of Invention 
         [0005]    This invention relates to measuring the quality of health care delivered. 
         [0006]    2. Prior Art 
         [0007]    The prior art of record identified by the examiner of the parent application is cited below. The text directly relevant to the current divisional application is presented in italics. 
         [0008]    The most remarkable prior arts of record are as follows: 
         [0009]    Kraftson et al.—U.S. Pat. No. 6,151,581 
         [0010]    Mohlenbrock et al.—U.S. Pat. No. 5,018,067 
         [0011]    Baker et al.—U.S. Publication No. 2006/0161456 
         [0012]    Adak et al.—U.S. Publication No. 2004/0242972 
         [0013]    Doyle et al.—EP 297780 A2 
         [0014]    Szilagya, Peter G. “ Managed care for children: Effect on access to care and utilization of health services.” Children and Managed Health Care,  1998, volume 8 (2). Pp. 39-59. 
         [0015]    Kraftson teaches data for surveys administered to patients to provide quality of care, but fails to teach of providing a database of physicians and patients along with the physician&#39;s charge for a medical procedure, the outcomes index, prognosis rating of that procedure, historical data with patient outcomes ratings, and recovery score in quality-adjusted life years; and furthermore creating a treatment plan and comparing the treatment plan to the actual treatment provided to the patient and comparing the recovery score and adjusting the recovery score within the database and then finally comparing the new outcomes index to other providers. 
         [0016]    Mohlenbrock teaches claims processing to find benefits for patient, but fails to teach of providing a database of physicians and patients along with the physician&#39;s charge for a medical procedure, the outcomes index, prognosis rating of that procedure, historical data with patient outcomes ratings, and recovery score in quality-adjusted life-years; and furthermore creating a treatment plan and comparing the treatment plan to the actual treatment provided to the patient and comparing the recovery score and adjusting the recovery score within the database and then finally comparing the new outcomes index to other providers. 
         [0017]    Baker teaches eligibility of patients with an insurance plan, but fails to teach of providing a database of physicians and patients along with the physician&#39;s charge for a medical procedure, the outcomes index, prognosis rating of that procedure, historical data with patient outcomes ratings, and recovery score in quality-adjusted life-years; and furthermore creating a treatment plan and comparing the treatment plan to the actual treatment provided to the patient and comparing the recovery score and adjusting the recovery score within the database and then finally comparing the new outcomes index to other providers. 
         [0018]    Adak teaches recovery scores for treatments plans, but fails to teach of providing a database of physicians and patients along with the physician&#39;s charge for a medical procedure, the outcomes index, prognosis rating of that procedure, historical data with patient outcomes ratings, and recovery score in quality-adjusted life-years; and furthermore creating a treatment plan and comparing the treatment plan to the actual treatment provided to the patient and comparing the recovery score and adjusting the recovery score within the database and then finally comparing the new outcomes index to other providers. 
         [0019]    Doyle teaches a claims processing system but fails to teach of providing a database of physicians and patients along with the physician&#39;s charge for a medical procedure, the outcomes index, prognosis rating of that procedure, historical data with patient outcomes ratings, and recovery score in quality-adjusted life-years; and furthermore creating a treatment plan and comparing the treatment plan to the actual treatment provided to the patient and comparing the recovery score and adjusting the recovery score within the database and then finally comparing the new outcomes index to other providers. 
         [0020]    Szilagyi teaches utilization reports of health care services used for treatment, but fails to teach of providing a database of physicians and patients along with the physician&#39;s charge for a medical procedure, the outcomes index, prognosis rating of that procedure, historical data with patient outcomes ratings, and recovery score in quality-adjusted life-years; and furthermore creating a treatment plan and comparing the treatment plan to the actual treatment provided to the patient and comparing the recovery score and adjusting the recovery score within the database and then finally comparing the new outcomes index to other providers. 
         [0021]    The following patent application is also relevant. G. Brown et al. [U.S. Publication No. 2004/0111278] teaches a computer-implemented method and system for numerically quantifying an individual&#39;s loss of quality of life as the result of an accident causing an injury. The approach, based on health-utility analysis, is applied to provide an estimate of the amount of monetary damages in a tort case. The individual&#39;s health state prior to the injury, intermediate health states, and remaining life expectancy are associated with health-state utility values of the same or similar health states. These latter are contained in a database of health-state utility values based on interviews of persons actually experiencing these health states. The health-state utility values are each weighted by the length of time the patient spends or is expected to spend in the corresponding health state and then summed up. This value is then compared with the health-state utility value of the patient&#39;s pre-accident state multiplied by that person&#39;s pre-accident remaining life expectancy. Brown fails to teach creating a set of reference recovery functions (RRFs), which are more consistent with a recovery that occurs as a smooth progression rather than as a series of discrete disjointed health states; generating a predicted recovery score by combining the prognosis rating with the RRFs; producing an actual recovery score solely from periodic surveys of the status of the patient&#39;s signs and symptoms, and including the patient&#39;s longevity; weighting each sign or symptom of the patient with respect to the intensity with which the patient wishes to eliminate the sign or symptom; generating a personal recovery function by interpolating the patient&#39;s recovery path with respect to the RRFs; calculating a recovery score as the area beneath the patient&#39;s recovery path; calculating an outcomes measure by combining the patient&#39;s predicted recovery score with the actual recovery score; and how to modify the outcomes measure with respect to the patient&#39;s actual life span once the patient expires. 
         [0022]    Another relevant patent application is M. Brown et al. [U.S. Publication No. 2007/0179809], which teaches a system and method for performing a cost-utility analysis with respect to pharmaceutical interventions. The focus of this invention is on comparing a plurality of alternative pharmaceutical interventions to determine the optimal intervention, whereas the focus of the current invention is on how well an individual patient recovers following treatment from a medical provider. As with G. Brown, M. Brown fails to teach creating a set of reference recovery functions (RRFs); generating a predicted recovery score by combining the prognosis rating with the RRFs; producing an actual recovery score solely from periodic surveys of the status of the patient&#39;s signs and symptoms, and including the patient&#39;s longevity; weighting each sign or symptom of the patient with respect to the intensity with which the patient wishes to eliminate the sign or symptom; generating a personal recovery function by interpolating the patient&#39;s recovery path with respect to the RRFs; calculating a recovery score as the area beneath the patient&#39;s recovery path; calculating an outcomes measure by combining the patient&#39;s predicted recovery score with the actual recovery score; and how to modify the outcomes measure with respect to the patient&#39;s actual life span once the patient expires. 
         [0023]    U.S. Pat. No. 5,519,607 (1973), issued to the current inventor, is also a relevant prior art record. This patent teaches an independently produced prognosis rating and a recovery rating, preferably generated by a panel of experts, and comparing the prognosis rating with the recovery rating. However, this patent fails to teach creating a set of reference recovery functions (RRFs); generating a predicted recovery score by combining the prognosis rating with the RRFs; producing an actual recovery score solely from periodic surveys of the status of the patient&#39;s signs and symptoms, and including the patient&#39;s longevity; weighting each sign or symptom of the patient with respect to the intensity with which the patient wishes to eliminate the sign or symptom; generating a personal recovery function by interpolating the patient&#39;s recovery path with respect to the RRFs; calculating a recovery score as the area beneath the patient&#39;s recovery path; and calculating an outcomes measure by combining the patient&#39;s predicted recovery score with the actual recovery score. 
         [0024]    In the published literature, the following volume is also relevant, especially Chapter 6 dealing with Cost-Utility Analysis.  Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes,  3rd Edition by M. F. Drummond, Mark J. Sculpher, G. W. Torrance, B. O&#39;Brien and G. L. Stoddart (Oxford University Press 2005). The Health Utilities Index (HUI) and its variations are presented in this book along with various other methods for evaluating health care programs. The HUI is used primarily to assess the effectiveness of a treatment, as compared with alternative treatment methods, whereas the outcomes index developed herein is used to rate medical providers. In the former approach, an outcomes measure is estimated for each medical condition, and a value between 0.0 and 1.0 is assigned to represent the quantity of Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) that are lost by an individual who has that medical condition. This source does not teach the methodology that is used to derive each outcomes measure. More importantly, the outcomes measures are not developed for individual risk categories (prognosis-rating groups), as taught by the current invention. The HUI is also based on a fixed survey instrument that is administered to all individuals with the given medical condition. The outcomes measure for the current invention, on the other hand, utilizes only the specific signs and symptoms experienced by the particular patient. Although the outcomes index measures loss of utility in terms of QALYs, it is not used to make interpersonal comparisons among patients, as is the case with the HUI. The preference-based health measure from the EuroQol Group is described in the publication “Health Policy under EuroQol: A New Facility for the Measurement of Health-Related Quality of Life by the EuroQol Group” (1990). It, too, uses a fixed survey instrument to assess the quality of life of an individual with a medical condition and differs from the current invention in the same ways that the HUI differs. 
       BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION—OBJECTS AND ADVANTAGES 
       [0025]    Accordingly, the objects and advantages of this method for measuring health care quality include the following: 
         [0026]    for a given medical episode, the issuance of a prognosis rating prior to the beginning of treatment by a diagnostic physician or other source independent of the treating physician facilitates producing a measure of the patient&#39;s recovery that is unbiased; 
         [0027]    the assessment of the patient&#39;s recovery is from the patient&#39;s own perspective, which is the foundation for an ideal measure of an individual&#39;s well-being; 
         [0028]    a formula based on a plurality of individual patient assessments can provide an objective measure that quantifies patients&#39; assessment of their recovery progress/regress; 
         [0029]    grouping patients according to their prognosis ratings enables risk-adjusted comparisons of doctors&#39; recovery rates, as patients within a given prognosis rating group face comparable recovery risks; 
         [0030]    the outcomes measure is based exclusively on changes in the quality and quantity of life, which makes it amenable to being measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); 
         [0031]    outcomes measures are readily compiled into an unbiased and risk-adjusted outcomes index that can be used to compare how well patients within a given prognosis rating group and with a given medical condition recover when treated by individual physicians; 
         [0032]    the methodology, when used in conjunction with the parent invention, is structured such that by achieving the best outcome for himself/herself, the treatment provider also provides the best recovery value for his/her patient; 
         [0033]    use of the outcomes index does not require making interpersonal comparisons; 
         [0034]    the outcomes index can be used to evaluate and compare the outcomes history of different treating physicians with respect to a given medical condition and a given prognosis-rating group; 
         [0035]    the outcomes index can be used to evaluate and compare the outcomes history of different hospitals and other care facilities; 
         [0036]    the outcomes index can be used by care providers to rate their own performance and to identify potential areas of improvement; 
         [0037]    the outcomes index can be used to evaluate a treating doctor and to identify potential areas of improvement; 
         [0038]    the outcomes index can be used by a patient for selecting a treatment plan or a treatment provider; 
         [0039]    the outcomes index can be used by insurers for ratings of care providers such as treating doctors 
         [0040]    the outcomes index can be used by an insured for selecting an insurer; and 
         [0041]    the outcomes index can be used generally as a decision support document. 
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
       [0042]    Although the preferred specification primarily references “illnesses” and “injuries”, as well as “treatments” and “procedures”, this patent applies more generally to any transaction in which a patient seeks to receive a benefit covered by that patient&#39;s health benefit plan. 
         [0043]    It is an object of the present invention to provide an unbiased and risk-adjusted method for quantitatively evaluating patient outcomes that will facilitate comparisons of providers on a diagnostic-specific basis. It is a further object to make this method automated, when used in conjunction with the parent invention. 
         [0044]    One aspect of the present invention provides a method for combining data from patients and physicians; another aspect provides a method for quantifying how quickly and completely a provider&#39;s patients recover. The latter method provides for the comparison of patient outcomes of different providers treating the same medical condition. 
         [0045]    The method for measuring health care quality comprises creating a set of reference recovery functions (RRFs) for one or more medical conditions, generating a predicted recovery score for a patient for a given medical episode, administering a plurality of surveys with respect to the signs and symptoms of the patient, calculating a survey score from each survey, generating a personal recovery function from all of the survey scores for the medical episode, calculating an actual recovery score from the personal recovery function, and calculating an outcomes measure that combines the predicted recovery score with the actual recovery score. The outcomes index is a compilation of the outcomes measures for a plurality of patients of a given provider within a single prognosis-rating group, all with a given medical condition. 
         [0046]    Methods are also disclosed for incorporating co-morbidities and mortalities into the assessment of a patient&#39;s recovery. 
         [0047]    All of the functions of the present invention can be automated. These include patient-administered surveys for assessing provider quality and a method for measuring and comparing risk-adjusted patient outcomes. The invention includes a database that can track health care quality data; a first processor that can administer any patient surveys that are scheduled, process quality indicators derived from the surveys, and distribute to insureds quality information on those providers who can provide the treatments needed by the insured; a second processor that can administer any patient surveys that are scheduled; and a third processor that can maintain patient outcomes measures and other measures of health care quality. 
     
    
     
       DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         [0048]      FIG. 3  illustrates a block diagram showing the relationships between the database and the three processing means. 
           [0049]      FIG. 10  illustrates a block diagram of a method for quantifying patient outcomes in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present invention. 
           [0050]      FIG. 13  illustrates a set of reference recovery functions for measuring patient outcomes. 
           [0051]      FIG. 14  illustrates a method for estimating a personal recovery function. 
           [0052]      FIG. 15  illustrates probability distributions for the remaining life of a healthy 55-year-old male and an impaired 55-year-old male. 
           [0053]      FIG. 16  is an example of a comparative report that incorporates the present invention. 
       
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 
       [0054]    The following is a list of terms utilized throughout this specification: 
         [0055]    Administrator: The entity that performs the tasks typically performed by the administrator of a health care plan, including but not limited to enrollment, eligibility confirmation, claims preparation, processing and adjudication, patient billing, account maintenance, database maintenance, and fraud detection. 
         [0056]    Insurer: The entity that provides health insurance or a prepaid health plan to a number of parties. 
         [0057]    Insured: A party that is insured by the insurer, including the person and his or her dependents covered by a policy issued by the insurer. 
         [0058]    Outcomes Index: A numerical index derived from the recovery scores of a number of patients with the same diagnosis and with prognosis ratings within a given range. 
         [0059]    Outcomes Measure: The numerical value resulting from combining the recovery scores of a patient, and that may include his/her predicted score or prognosis rating. 
         [0060]    Patient: A person receiving health services. 
         [0061]    Personal Recovery Function: A patient&#39;s interpolated recovery path that goes through each survey score. 
         [0062]    Provider: Any person or entity providing medical or health-related services. 
         [0063]    Physician: A doctor who conducts an initial or diagnostic examination of an insured to determine the patient&#39;s diagnosis and what medical services are needed. 
         [0064]    Prognosis Rating: A physician&#39;s predicted numerical value of a patient&#39;s recovery from a specific illness or injury. 
         [0065]    Recovery Score: The numerical value of a patient&#39;s recovery, based on two or more survey scores. 
         [0066]    Reference Recovery Function: The statistically estimated curve that is fitted to a number of survey scores or survey score sets. 
         [0067]    Survey: A set of statements or questions designed to quantify a patient&#39;s current health care status with respect to a specific illness or injury; or to establish a patient&#39;s satisfaction with one or more aspects of the health plan and its providers. 
         [0068]    Survey Score: The numerical value of a completed survey. 
         [0069]    Survey Score Set: One or more survey scores pertaining to a single illness or injury of a single patient. 
         [0070]    U.S. Pat. No. 5,225,976 taught that the diagnostic function would be separate and distinct from the therapeutic function and that the diagnosing physician would be either under contract to or an employee of the health plan, and therefore that his/her fealty would be with the health plan. Referring to  FIG. 3 , the health care delivery system taught by U.S. Pat. No. 5,225,976 can be implemented in a variety of ways. In a preferred embodiment, a distributed processing system is used to prevent fraud. The first processing means  12  is provided in the offices of each physician performing diagnostic examinations, and the second processing means  14  is provided in the offices of each provider performing medical treatment procedures. The interconnections between the database  10  and each processing means in each office are provided as illustrated in  FIG. 3  via some communications network. The database  10  is preferably provided in each first processing means  12 , but can also be provided in the third processing means  16  for access by each first processing means  12 . In an alternative embodiment the database  10 , the first processing means  12 , the second processing means  14  and the third processing means  16  can be part of a central processor. In this case, data entry means are provided in the office of each physician who performs diagnostic examinations to provide access to the first processing means  12  in the central processor. Also, data entry means are provided in the office of each provider who performs medical procedures to permit access to the second processing means  14 . 
         [0071]    Another benefit of this processing system is that an electronic medical record can be generated for each insured patient. This medical record will include the patient&#39;s medical history and can be used by the patient, the examining physician and the medical treatment provider alike. For example, when a patient visits an examining physician, that physician may review the patient&#39;s medical history to assist in the examination and diagnosis of any problem. 
         [0072]    The formation of the patient&#39;s electronic medical record will now be discussed with reference to  FIG. 3 , which illustrates first  12 , second  14  and third  16  processing means, and a database  10 . The database  10  contains each patient&#39;s medical history record. This record typically includes medical information that is not found in previous treatment plans or records. For example, it may include an emergency record that typically consists of the name of the family doctor, whom to notify in case of an emergency, drug allergies, serious illnesses, device (e.g. a pacemaker) or organ implants, other medical information and religious preference. 
         [0073]    The personal medical history typically includes other medical information that is not found in previous treatment plans or records. For example, childhood diseases and inoculations are typically included, as well as prior operations and major diseases. The patient&#39;s record also includes a clinical record that is generally derived from the information contained in prior treatment plans and treatment records. Therefore, the database  10  will typically include a complete medical history including, among other things, the patient&#39;s prescription drug history, laboratory test results, medical notes, and medical graphics such as X-rays, ECGs, and sonograms. 
         [0074]    When an insured visits an examining physician, the examining physician can access the database  10  via the first processing means  12  to view the insured&#39;s prior medical history to assist in the examination. The patient&#39;s records can also be accessed and downloaded from the storage medium that the patient presents at sign-in. As previously discussed, once the examination is completed, a treatment plan may be generated on the first processing means  12 . The first processing means  12  then accesses the database  10  to update the insured patient&#39;s record by adding the information from the new treatment plan to the database  10 . Alternatively or in addition, this information can be transmitted to the third processing means  16  so that the third processing means  16  can in turn update the database  10 . Also, the third processing means  16  can access the database  10  to add any information that was not available to the first  12  and second  14  processing means. 
         [0075]    When the insured visits a medical service provider, such as a physician, a pharmacist or a therapist, a new treatment record is generated by the second processing means  14 , as previously discussed. The information in the new treatment is also preferably added to the patient&#39;s record in the database  10  by the second processing means  14 . The information from the treatment record can also be transmitted to the third processing means  16  by the second processing means  14  so that the third processing means  16  can in turn update the database  10 . 
         [0076]    The information in the database  10  can be stored on any type of storage media, for example, on floppy disk, flash drive or any other type of magnetic media. Therefore, the insured may maintain a copy of the portion of the database  10  containing the personal medical history, including the emergency record and the clinical record. The information in the database  10  can also be stored on a central processor and it is preferred that the third processor  16  maintain a copy of this portion of the database  10 . 
         [0077]    U.S. Pat. No. 5,519,607 teaches how this system can also incorporate a rating system that measures the quality of care provided to the insured. When a diagnostic physician is preparing the treatment plan utilizing the first processing means  12 , the insured is assigned a prognosis rating, which indicates the expected recovery response of the insured following a treatment program by a medical treatment provider of average ability. The prognosis rating is preferably a number on an arbitrary scale, say from zero to ten. A prognosis rating of ten would indicate the most optimistic prognosis, while progressively lower numbers would indicate that a less optimistic recovery is expected. The prognosis rating depends on the severity of the patient&#39;s illness, as well as other relevant risk factors, such as age, heavy smoking and co-morbidities. The prognosis rating can then be reported from the diagnostic physician to the patient in a separate document. Additionally, the prognosis rating is transmitted by the first processing means  12  to the third processing means  16 . 
         [0078]    The third processing means  16  then adds this information to the database  10 . For each medical treatment provider, the database  10  will include information, i.e., an outcomes score or index, indicating how well insured patients having a given illness or injury and a given prognosis rating responded to the treatment; then, the actual outcome is compared with the expected outcome via some scoring method, which is a subject of the current patent application. As described earlier, the resulting information is then available for each insured patient to decide which medical treatment provider to select. For example, this information can then be presented to the insured in a graphical format showing, for each medical treatment provider, the prognosis rating on the vertical axis and the outcomes score on the horizontal axis. 
         [0079]    As an aspect of the present invention, a method is disclosed for comparing a patient&#39;s actual recovery score  188  with the patient&#39;s predicted recovery score  185 , as shown in  FIG. 10 . This figure shows that initially a number of surveys  166  is utilized to produce a set of reference recovery functions  180 , as explained below. These RRFs are then applied to subsequent surveys to obtain a recovery score  188 . The foundation of this methodology is a set of surveys  176  that seeks to quantify the progress over time of a patient&#39;s health status, preferably as viewed from the patient&#39;s own perspective. 
         [0080]    When the insured visits a physician or medical treatment provider, a survey  176  is completed. In the preferred embodiment, the survey is self-administered using a data entry device, and, if the patient is being examined by a diagnostic physician, the survey may be presented to the patient by the first processing means  12 ; if the patient is being treated by a medical treatment provider, it may be presented by the second processing means  14 ; or, alternatively, it may be presented by some other processing means that may or may not be sited in a provider&#39;s office. For example, the input device could be the patient&#39;s home computer. 
         [0081]    The survey  176  preferably requires that the patient report all signs and symptoms experienced during some recent period and which fall into any of, say, three categories: physical, sensory and functional. We call these changes in health status illness/injury-related effects, or IREs. Physical IREs relate to such factors as scars, acne, amputations and other types of disfigurement. Sensory IREs relate to such sensations as pain, itching, ringing in ears and other symptoms that affect the senses. Finally, functional IREs refer to impairments in the ability of a person to function or perform specific activities with the same proficiency as immediately prior to the onset of the illness or injury. In an alternative embodiment, mental effects, such as apprehension and anxiety, can also be included in the survey. 
         [0082]    The purpose of the survey  176  is to identify and characterize each IRE that is related to the illness or injury of the patient. In the preferred embodiment, the patient assigns to each IRE a value that depends on the patient&#39;s perception of its severity or intensity, say, on a scale of 0 to 10. After the survey is completed, in one embodiment, the diagnostic physician reviews the patient&#39;s survey and identifies all of the IREs that appear to be related to the patient&#39;s current diagnosis. It is this subgroup of IREs that is used to compute a survey score for the patient. In the preferred embodiment, the database  10  already contains all of the IREs associated with each illness and injury. If the IRE is not in the database with respect to that illness or injury, then it is not scored with respect to the current illness or injury. 
         [0083]    For the patient, the ideal outcome is one in which longevity is no less than prior to the onset of the illness or injury, and all of the associated signs and symptoms are eliminated immediately. The patient is the best evaluator of these effects; death is an objective fact. Therefore, periodic input from a living patient is all that is required to mechanically compute a survey score from the patient&#39;s survey. 
         [0084]    The preferred embodiment of the present invention measures the relative reduction or increase in the levels of the IREs over time, weighted by the “concern” that the patient has with each; i.e., it measures the patient&#39;s recovery progress as self-determined by the patient. In the preferred embodiment, the weights are obtained as follows: After all of the patient&#39;s IREs have been identified and characterized, they are presented to the insured by means of a display device connected to a data entry device. The patient then assigns a weight to each IRE representing the intensity of the patient&#39;s desire to eliminate it. For example, the patient could be informed that she can spend a maximum of $100 to eliminate all of the listed IREs. Then she would be asked to indicate the most that she would be willing to spend from her $100 budget to eliminate each one. 
         [0085]    It can be inferred that the greater the patient&#39;s willingness to spend on a particular IRE, the greater the desire to eliminate it. Based on these weights, a medical treatment provider can assess how best to alleviate the patient&#39;s IREs. Moreover, the provider will maximize his own outcomes score  189  by maximizing the patient&#39;s future survey scores. 
         [0086]    At subsequent visits to a provider with electronic access to the third processing means  16 , the patient inputs the current status of his/her IREs, re-scoring the intensity of previously specified IREs and adding and scoring any new ones. 
         [0087]    Referring again to  FIG. 10 , the patient&#39;s recovery score  188  is derived from all of the scores from each survey  177  for the current illness or injury; together, these comprise a survey score set  178 . Preferably, each IRE, I.sub.it, is scored on a ten-point scale: the higher the score, the more intensely does the patient perceive the IRE. The patient&#39;s normalized survey score  177  for a survey taken at time t is 
         [0000]      S.sub.t=10.0−.SIGMA.w.sub.i I.sub.it/.SIGMA.w.sub.i,
 
         [0088]    where w.sub.i (0≦w.sub.≦1) is the weight that the patient has assigned to the i-th IRE, and I is its intensity. In the preferred embodiment, the patient may supply new weights with each survey. In an alternative embodiment, the weights are assigned during the initial survey, but do not change over the course of the patient&#39;s recovery. 
         [0089]    The weighted sum (.SIGMA.w.sub.i I.sub.it.)/.SIGMA.w.sub.i lies between 0 and 10, with higher values associated with more severe signs and symptoms. Since higher prognosis ratings  182  are associated with less severe signs and symptoms, the weighted sum is subtracted from 10.0 to synchronize the survey scores with the prognosis ratings. 
         [0090]    The next step is to develop reference recovery functions (RRFs)  174  and  180 ; these are the benchmarks against which the patient survey scores are to be compared. In the preferred embodiment, nine RRFs are constructed, which will facilitate ten prognosis rating groups. RRF.sub.p (p=0, . . . , 9) is a statistically fitted curve showing the expected recovery path of a patient with a prognosis rating between p and p+1. A set of nine RRFs is shown in  FIG. 13 . The ordinate axis is an index scale from 0 to 10—it is also the scale for survey scores. RRF.sub.10 is the horizontal line at the top of the figure; it corresponds to “bliss”, a complete absence of IREs. RRF.sub.0, the horizontal line at the bottom of the figure, corresponds to death. 
         [0091]    Each RRF  174  is derived from a large number of survey score sets  168 , a set being defined as all of the survey scores for an individual with respect to a single illness or injury. In the preferred embodiment, the survey score sets  168  first are divided into groups according to their prognosis ratings before ranking them  170  and then subdividing them  172 . In an alternative embodiment, the arithmetic mean or other average statistic of each set of survey scores is first computed. These mean scores are preferably sorted in descending order  170  and then preferably divided into approximately nine groups  172 . Each group  172  consists of a sufficiently large number of survey scores so as to provide statistical significance when the curves are statistically fitted to the data  174 . In both embodiments, the following treatment is then applied to each subgroup. 
         [0092]    In a preferred embodiment, a curve is statistically fitted to the individual survey scores in each group, using a technique such as least squares. In another embodiment, the curve is fitted to the means of the survey score sets  168  comprising each data group. The type of curve that provides the best statistical fit to the data will likely depend on the characteristics of the recovery function for a particular illness or injury. Possible curve types include polynomial functions, elliptical and other conic functions, transcendental functions, as well as linear, linear-logarithmic and mixed functions. All functional types are within the scope of the present invention. An improved fit may also be obtained by estimating with separate functions the different phases of a patient&#39;s recovery (e.g., the “initial” or “stabilization phase,” the “maintenance phase” and the “terminal phase” of a chronic illness). 
         [0093]    Once the RRFs are produced, they are added to the database  10  and become available at step  180  for scoring the predicted  184  and actual recovery path (personal recovery function)  186  and recovery score  188 . Over time, it is preferred to update the RRFs by using more recent survey score sets  168  to reflect advances in medical techniques and technologies. 
         [0094]    The best way to characterize each RRF graphically is by the area under its curve, where the abscissa is measured in years, and the ordinate axis measures the absence of IREs, i.e., the quality of life. This area, when divided by 10 (the upper value of the index), represents “quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)” (see “Theoretical Foundations of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis,” in Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, Gold, Marthe R. et al., 1996). 
         [0095]    Once the RRFs have been estimated for a given illness, the individual&#39;s personal recovery function (RF)  186  is estimated from a set of survey scores  178 . The area under the RF, between the first and last survey score in the set, equals the patient&#39;s recovery score (RS)  188 . Graphically, the personal RF  186  is a curve that goes through each survey score. 
         [0096]    To construct the personal RF, first connect each pair of adjacent survey scores by a line segment. Then treat each line segment sequentially. The personal RF will be a curve that lies above, below or on the line segment and its curvature will be based on the curvatures of the RRFs immediately above and below the line segment. 
         [0097]      FIG. 14 , which is an enlarged section of  FIG. 13 , shows how to construct a recovery function curve between two survey scores, S* and S**, respectively. This curve will lie above the line segment S* S** and will assume the curvature characteristics of the nearby RRFs. First, drop vertical lines from the two survey scores and from each intersection of the survey score line segment with an RRF. In  FIG. 14 , the four resulting lines intersect the abscissa at S.sub.1, S.sub.2, S.sub.3 and S.sub.4. Next, construct a chord between the two points at which the vertical lines at S.sub.1 and S.sub.4 intersect each of the relevant RRFs. V.sub.1 and V.sub.2 are the endpoints of the chord for RRF.sub.9, and V.sub.3 and V.sub.4 are the endpoints of the chord for RRF.sub.8. 
         [0098]    V.sub.a and V.sub.b are the vertical distances between the chords and their corresponding RRFs. Note that V.sub.a, V.sub.b and P are aligned on the same vertical, where P is an arbitrary point along the line segment S* S**. Determine a distance V that is vertically above P, and which is a weighted average of the distances V.sub.a and V.sub.b. If P lies between, say, RRF.sub.8 and RRF.sub.9, then the weights will depend on the vertical distance of the point P from the corresponding chords for RRF.sub.8 and RRF.sub.9: the closer is P to the chord for RRF.sub.9, the larger the weight assigned to V.sub.a relative to V.sub.b; and, conversely, the closer P is to the chord for RRF.sub.8, the larger the weight assigned to V.sub.b relative to V.sub.a. 
         [0099]    Similarly, construct a series of other vertical distances between S.sub.2 and S.sub.3. The locus of points connecting the tops of these distances is one portion of the curve that is constructed above S* S**. Another portion of the curve is constructed between S.sub.1 and S.sub.2 in the same way, but using the chords for RRF.sub.7 and RRF.sub.8. Finally, the portion of the arc between S.sub.3 and S.sub.4 is constructed using the chord for RRF.sub.9 and RRF.sub.10, the “bliss” line. The curves thus constructed between S.sub.1 and S.sub.2, S.sub.2 and S.sub.3, and S.sub.3 and S.sub.4 together comprise the personal RF. 
         [0100]    To calculate the recovery score, RS  188 , determine the area below the personal RF between S.sub.1 and S.sub.4, which is easily computed using Simpson&#39;s Rule (see any standard calculus text), and then divide by 10. As discussed earlier, this area is in units of QALYs. Call this area RS.sub.idp, where the subscript refers to the i-th patient, d-th diagnosis, and p-th prognosis rating. 
         [0101]    Next, compare the patient&#39;s recovery score  188  with the predicted score  185  based on the patient&#39;s prognosis rating  182 . As before, compute the area under a curve between S.sub.1 and S.sub.4 using Simpson&#39;s Rule, but this time for the RRF associated with the patient&#39;s prognosis rating. If the patient&#39;s prognosis rating  182  contains a fractional part, such as 7.2, then the predicted score is interpolated from the RRFs that bracket the prognosis rating, i.e., RRF.sub.7 and RRF.sub.8. First, compute A.sub.7 and A.sub.8, the areas under RRF.sub.7 and RRF.sub.8, respectively. Then the predicted score, PS, in QALYs is 
         [0000]      PS=(A.sub.7+(PR-int(PR))(A.sub.8-A.sub.7))/10, 
         [0102]    where int(PR) is the integer value of the prognosis rating. In the example, int(7.2)=7. 
         [0103]    There are several ways to combine the recovery scores of patients to obtain an outcomes measure  189  for a provider. One measure is 
         [0000]      M.sub.dp*=(.SIGMA..sub.i (RS.sub.idp/t.sub.i))/ I, [corrected]   
         [0104]    where t.sub.i is the total number of actual years over which the recovery score is measured and I is the total number of patients being scored. Note that the best possible score for M* is 1.0 and occurs only if a doctor has eliminated all of the IREs of all of the patients in this group instantly and completely and has fully restored their longevity. The closer is M* to 1.0, the closer is the doctor to perfection. 
         [0105]    Another measure is 
         [0000]      M.sub.dp.sup.+=(.SIGMA..sub.i (RS.sub.idp/PS.sub.idp))/ I.    
         [0106]    This is the sum of the ratios of actual patients scores to their predicted scores. A value of 1.0 indicates that the doctor, on average, just meets expectations, while a higher (lower) value indicates that he exceeds (falls short of) expectations. 
         [0107]    A third measure is M.sub.dp.sup.#=.SIGMA..sub.i RS.sub.idp/.SIGMA..sub.i PS.sub.idp. 
         [0108]    A fourth embodiment is to estimate statistically the following relationship, using all doctors&#39; patients, i, having a diagnosis d and prognosis rating in group p: 
         [0000]      Y.sub.idp=b.sub.0+b.sub.1 M.sub.idp*+b.sub.2 M.sub.idp.sup.#+b.sub.3 PR.sub.idp+b.sub.4 ln Q.sub.idp+ u,    
         [0109]    where Y.sub.idp is the actual outcome in QALYs, M.sub.idp* and M.sub.idp.sup.# are as defined above, PR.sub.idp is the prognosis rating, ln Q.sub.idp is the natural logarithm of the number of times the doctor has performed the treatment, b.sub.0, . . . , b.sub.4 are parameters to be estimated, and u is a randomly distributed error term. 
         [0110]    Once this relationship is estimated, then Y.sub.idp is computed for each doctor with respect to his i patients in the dp-th category, using the estimated parameter values. Finally, the arithmetic mean of the Y.sub.idp is computed for each doctor, which becomes that doctor&#39;s Outcomes Index. 
         [0111]    An empirical analysis can be applied to determine which of the above or other measures of the Outcomes Index is preferred. The selection of the preferred measure would therefore be empirically determined and applied. The preferred measure can vary by illness or by other factors. 
         [0112]    It is preferred that the Outcomes Index remains a dynamic measure, because improvements in outcomes will evolve with medical practice and technology. Therefore, it is preferred that the RRFs be re-estimated from time to time with more recent survey score sets. 
         [0113]    This raises the question of whether previously computed RSs and personal RFs are to be recomputed each time the RRFs are updated. It is preferred that, in order to maintain stability in the Outcomes Index, only the latest survey scores are computed using the latest RRFs. Thus, an Outcomes Index may be based on recovery scores that are themselves based on different vintages of the RRFs. 
         [0114]    The Effect of Co-Morbidities 
         [0115]    Co-morbidities present a special problem in that two or more diagnostic codes may be involved, and two or more providers may have lead responsibilities. The effects of each disease and the responsibilities for the patient&#39;s recovery must be disentangled. 
         [0116]    Several embodiments to the co-morbidity problem are presented within the scope of the present invention. The simplest embodiment is not to address the co-morbidities explicitly. This means the RRFs  180 , and therefore the Outcomes Index  190 , may include multiple diagnoses. For example, the RRFs produced for Chagas heart disease (ICD-9 0860) might include the effects of the same patient&#39;s melanoma (as a co-morbidity). In this example, the Outcomes Index of the doctor treating the patient&#39;s melanoma would be affected by the performance of the doctor treating the Chagas heart disease, and vice versa. A further disadvantage is that this solution would likely increase the variance of the survey score sets  178  that comprise the RRFs  180 , which would in turn make the Outcomes Index  190  a less-precise measure of a provider&#39;s performance. 
         [0117]    A second embodiment excludes all cases involving significant co-morbidities. For example, if a patient has both colon cancer and diabetes, that patient&#39;s survey scores for these diseases are excluded entirely. A disadvantage with this approach is that doctors would know that they are not being evaluated for patients with serious co-morbidities and might be less conscientious as a result. There is also the perverse incentive for the provider, whose treatment of a patient is not going well, to “find” some co-morbidity for the patient so that the patient&#39;s recovery score will not count in his Outcomes Index. 
         [0118]    A better embodiment is to adjust the original prognosis rating  182  whenever the patient contracts a new illness, provided that the new illness is not a complication of an existing illness. In this case, the diagnostic physician assigns a prognosis rating  182  to the new illness, taking into consideration the likely effect of the original illness on the patient&#39;s recovery. A diagnostic physician also assigns a new prognosis rating to the original illness, given that the new illness will likely also affect the patient&#39;s recovery. All subsequent additions to the provider&#39;s Outcomes Index  190  are based on these new prognosis ratings. Under this embodiment, the RRFs  174  themselves should exclude all survey score sets involving significant co-morbidities. This embodiment has the advantage that estimates of the RRFs will usually have a smaller variance than if co-morbidities are included in the data set. 
         [0119]    Another embodiment applies a comprehensive econometric model that measures the effects of illness and injury, including co-morbidities, on remaining life years. It is preferred that the model be estimated with data on patients who have already gone through their life span, including patients who have died from natural causes. 
         [0120]    Consider the Relationship 
         [0000]        Y =a.sub.0+a.sub.1 A+b.sub.1 D.sub.1+ . . . +b.sub.n D.sub.n+c.sub.1 P.sub.1+ . . . +c.sub.n P.sub.n+d.sub.1 D.sub.1 D.sub.2+d.sub.2 D.sub.1 D.sub.3 + . . . +u,    
         [0121]    where A is the age of the patient; P.sub.d is the prognosis rating for illness d (d=1, . . . , n), P.sub.d=0 if the illness is not present; D.sub.d is a dummy variable with a value of 1 if the illness d is present, 0 if it is not present; D.sub.d D.sub.d′ is a term for the interaction between illness d and illness d; Y is the time between the patient&#39;s original diagnosis and the time of death, which may be measured in quality-adjusted life-years; a.sub.0, a.sub.1, b.sub.1, . . . , b.sub.n, c.sub.1, . . . , c.sub.n, d.sub.1, . . . , d.sub.n, are parameters to be estimated; and u is a randomly distributed error term. 
         [0122]    The model states that the value of Y depends on the age of the patient, the illnesses that the patient has been diagnosed with, and the patient&#39;s prognosis ratings for those illnesses. For some illnesses, the gender and/or ethnicity of the patient are also relevant. 
         [0123]    The dummy variables D.sub.d (d=1, . . . , n) exclude from the model illness(es) that are not currently present, but they also distinguish between the case where an illness is present and the prognosis rating is 0.0 (D=1; P=0.0) from the case where the d-th illness is not present (D=0; P=0.0). 
         [0124]    The interaction term, D.sub.d D.sub.d′, is designed to measure any effects that are in addition to the individual effects of the two illnesses. In other embodiments, the model can include terms such as D.sub.d D.sub.d′ D.sub.d″ to measure the additional effects due to tri-morbidities, etc. 
         [0125]    This econometric model provides an estimate of the effect of different illnesses and injuries, as well as co-morbidities, on expected remaining life. In another embodiment, the model is extended by adding a time dimension that estimates the effects of varying time intervals between the onsets of the co-morbidities. 
         [0126]    In yet another embodiment, the model is estimated with the Outcomes Index of the treating doctor as an independent variable and expected remaining life as the dependent variable. This model can be used to predict the effect on expected remaining life of treatment by doctors with different Outcomes Indexes. 
         [0127]    In Case of Death 
         [0128]    When a person dies, quality-adjusted life is assumed to fall to zero. This can have a substantial impact on a doctor&#39;s Outcomes Index  190 , so it is important to measure this effect as accurately as possible. This raises two related issues: 1) if a patient dies prematurely, how do we penalize the doctor&#39;s Outcomes Index if it is unclear to what extent the death is related to the diagnosis that the doctor was treating; and 2) how long after the patient&#39;s treatment and to what extent should a doctor be penalized for the patient&#39;s death? 
         [0129]    In one embodiment, a “statute of limitations” can be applied to the patient&#39;s recovery score. For example, if a patient dies more than five years after the initial diagnosis, we could assume that the patient&#39;s death is due to other causes, and/or we could weight the impact on the recovery score by the likelihood that the disease in question is the primary cause of the patient&#39;s death, declining from, say, 100% in the first year to 20% in the fifth year. 
         [0130]    In another embodiment, the econometric model described above is estimated. Compute Y for a single patient, using estimated values for the parameters. If the patient dies in less than Y years, then future QALYs are lost, where future QALYs are equal to the area under the predicted RRF between the time of death and the time at which the predicted RRF crosses the death line (abscissa). In another embodiment, the cause-of-death entry on the patient&#39;s death certificate could be used. The problem here is that it is the treating provider who fills out the death certificate, and he has an incentive to enter a cause of death that has the most favorable impact on his Outcomes Index  190 . 
         [0131]    The preferred embodiment uses statistical methods to estimate the probability distributions shown in  FIG. 15 . The example distribution on the left shows the probability of death as a function of time based on a diagnosis for a 55-year-old male with a specific illness and prognosis rating. The probability of death is equal to the area under the curve between two time periods. The probability distribution on the right shows the probability of death, but for a 55-year-old male with no disease present. Technically, this distribution should represent a person with no disease present, and who does not die from the disease in question. 
         [0132]    In this example the two curves cross at about 12 years from the time of the initial diagnosis; thus, if the person dies at twelve years, it is equally likely that death is due to the illness as from some other cause. In this case, half of the loss of future QALYs can be attributed to the illness, where future QALYs are measured as above. 
         [0133]    The loss of QALYs due to death at other times can be estimated as follows. Let y=f(t) and z=g(t) be the respective probability distributions for normal and for impaired life expectancy, and F(t) and G(t) be the corresponding cumulative probability distributions. Let t.sub.d be the time of death, where time is measured as the number of years following the initial diagnosis. Then the appropriate weight to apply to the loss of future QALYs is (1-G(t.sub.d))/(2-F(t.sub.d)-G(t.sub.d)). 
         [0134]    In some applications, it is preferred to discount future QALYs. 
         [0135]    In the parent application to this divisional application, it was demonstrated how the process of collecting information, processing the information and producing an outcomes index can be fully automated from the standpoint of the health plan administrator. All required inputs are entered into the system by patients or providers; no additional inputs are required from the health plan administrator. 
         [0136]    In one embodiment of providing comparative information about treatment providers,  FIG. 16  provides an example using an Outcomes Index. The Outcomes Index described herein is used to enable, for instance, a patient to compare for the patient&#39;s specific diagnosis and prognosis rating, outcomes indexes for potential treatment providers. The Doctor Shopper.sup.SM report, as shown in  FIG. 16  and developed by the inventor as an example of the use of the Outcomes Index, clearly demonstrates how patients and health care providers may beneficially use the Outcomes Index. 
         [0137]    Based on self-administered survey data in a database and by automatically processing data in the database, one may generate comparative reports that may include an Outcomes Index. 
         [0138]    A comparative report that is provided as an aspect of the present invention may use tables, text, graphs or other textual and graphical means to reflect an Outcomes Index. A comparative report may be used by an insured for selecting a treatment provider and/or hospital. A comparative report may also be used by insurers for ratings of care providers such as physicians and hospitals. A comparative report may also be used by hospitals to rate their own performance and to take measures for performance improvements. A comparative report may be used by an insured for selecting an insurer and its health care network. It may also be used for any other provider that affects the outcome of a treatment of a patient. Accordingly a comparative report that may include an Outcomes Index is a decision support document. 
         [0139]    A method here provided as an aspect of the present invention can be performed by a processor that is part of a system. The steps of a method can be stored as instructions in a memory that can be accessed by the processor. A processor may be a distributed processor that may include more than one individual processor and may reside in different physical locations. It may also reside in a single computer device. A processor may act upon data that is retrieved from a database, and it may store results in a database. A database may comprise different storage locations as different individual databases. Databases and processors may be connected to a network. Work stations, such as personal computers, may be used to communicate with a processor and/or a database. Data may be retrieved through the network or provided to a database or a processor through the network. The network may be a private network. It may also be a public network, such as the Internet. On-line in the context of the present invention means communicating with a processor or database, possibly through a workstation or any other computing or communication device including a wireless device, wherein a device is connected to the processor and/or database through a network including the Internet. 
         [0140]    The following reference is generally descriptive of the background of the present invention and is hereby incorporated herein by reference: Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, Gold, Marthe R., Louise B. Russell, Joanna E. Siegel, Milton C. Weinstein. Oxford University Press, New York. 1996. 
         [0141]    While there have been shown, described and pointed out fundamental novel features of the invention as applied to preferred embodiments thereof, it will be understood that various omissions and substitutions and changes in the form and details of the device illustrated and in its operation may be made by those skilled in the art without departing from the spirit of the invention. It is the intention, therefore, to be limited only as indicated by the scope of the claims appended hereto.