Dr. Darius Lakdawalla[/caption]
Darius Lakdawalla PhD
Quintiles Chair in Pharmaceutical Development and Regulatory Innovation
School of Pharmacy
Professor in the Sol Price School of Public Policy
University of Southern California
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Lakdawalla: New treatments for hepatitis-C are highly effective but also involve high upfront costs. Because they effectively cure the disease, all the costs of treatments are paid over a short period of time – about three months – but the benefits accrue for the rest of a patient’s life. This creates problems for the private health insurance system, where patients switch insurers. The insurer that pays the bill for the treatment might not be around to enjoy the benefits of averting liver damage, liver transplants, and other costly complications associated with hepatitis-C.
Dr. Benjamin D. Sommers[/caption]
Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD
Assistant Professor of Health Policy & Economics
Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health / Brigham & Women's Hospital
Boston, MA 02115
[caption id="attachment_24406" align="alignleft" width="125"]
Molly E. Frean[/caption]
Molly E. Frean
Data Analyst
Department of Health Policy and Management
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Boston, MA 02115
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Sommers: We conducted this study in an effort to see how Native Americans have fared under the Affordable Care Act. In addition to the law's expansion of coverage via Medicaid and tax credits for the health insurance marketplaces, the law also provided support for Native Americans’ health care specifically through continued funding of the Indian Health Service (IHS). We sought to see how both health insurance coverage patterns and IHS use changed in the first year of the law's implementation.
Jayant S Vaidya MBBS MS DNB FRCS PhD
Professor of Surgery and Oncology,
Scientific Director, Clinical Trials Group,
Division of Surgery and Interventional Science,
University College London
Whittington Health - Clinical Lead for Breast Cancer
Royal Free Hospital
University College London Hospital
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Prof. Vaidya: TARGIT-A randomised clinical trial (ISRCTN34086741) compared giving TARGIT IORT during lumpectomy vs. traditional EBRT given over several weeks after lumpectomy for breast cancer; local-recurrence-free-survival was similar in the two arms of the trial, particularly when TARGIT was given simultaneously with lumpectomy. Also, there were significantly fewer deaths from other causes with TARGIT IORT.
This study calculated journeys made by patients with breast cancer to receive their radiotherapy, using the geographic and treatment data from a large randomised trial.
The study then assessed the same outcomes (travel distances, travel time and CO2emissions) in two semi-rural breast cancers—the results of this assessment confirm and reinforce the original results: the benefit of the use of TARGIT for patients from two semi=rural breast centres was even larger (753 miles (1212 km), 30 h, 215 kg CO2 per patient).
Dr. Yeh[/caption]
Dr. James Song-Jeng Yeh, MD
Brigham and Women's Hospital
Boston MA
MedicalResearch.com: What is the purpose for this study?
Dr. Yeh: A number of factors influence physicians’ prescribing behavior, including physician’s knowledge and understanding of the drugs. Pharmaceutical detailing and financial incentives may affect such behavior. My interest in evidence-based medicine and how medical knowledge is translated into practice lead me to think about how physicians’ financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry may affect prescribing patterns.
In our study, we linked the Massachusetts physicians open payment database with the Medicare drug prescription claims database to determine if financial relationships with the industry are associated with increased brand-name statin drug prescribing. The open payment database reports payments that physicians receive from pharmaceutical and medical device industries. The open payment database when linked to the drug prescription claims database allowed us to answer this question.
We looked at year 2011, when two of the most commonly prescribed brand-name statin drugs (Lipitor and Crestor) were not yet available in generic formulation.
The outcome measured was what percentage of all statin prescription claims (both generic and brand-name) were brand-names.
Dr. E. Scott Sills[/caption]
Dr. Scott Sills MD, PhD
Medical Director at the Center for Advanced Genetics
an IVF program based in Carlsbad, California
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Sills: Often regarded as a miracle procedure by many infertile couples, in vitro fertilization (IVF) can be financially difficult for those without insurance coverage for the treatment. This prohibitive cost leads many would-be parents who pursue IVF to transfer multiple embryos at once, to increase their chances of getting a baby and minimize the need for additional attempts.
This new study now reports that the economic impact of IVF deserves a closer look. As corresponding author E. Scott Sills, MD PhD noted, rates of cesarean-section deliveries, premature births, and low birth weight of babies are all greater with two or more embryos transferred to the mother at once, compared to a lower risk, single-embryo pregnancy.
The data derived from a comprehensive analysis of all IVF cases in Vermont (UVM) and was recently published in the journal Applied Health Economics & Health Policy. It is believed to be the first effort to calculate the difference in infant hospital costs based on the number of embryos transferred. Sills and his team had access to UVM Medical Center records of patients who conceived through IVF and delivered at least 20 weeks into their pregnancies between 2007 and 2011.
Dr. Stacie Dusetzina[/caption]
Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD
Assistant Professor
Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy
Eshelman School of Pharmacy
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Dusetzina: Drug prices are of significant policy interest, particularly the prices for so-called “specialty” medications which are used to treat rare and/or complex conditions like cancer. In this study I estimated monthly price for orally-administered cancer treatments that were approved between 2000 and 2014. First I looked at the price of the drug during the year of initial FDA approval and then I looked at annual changes in the price after the year of approval. The main findings are that, even after inflation adjustment, the monthly price paid for orally-administered cancer treatments is increasing rapidly both at the time of approval and in subsequent years.
As an example, if you compare average monthly prices during the first year post-approval for treatments approved between 2000-2010 to those approved after 2010 there was a major increase in launch prices from $5,529 per month to $9,013 per month. Year-to-year changes in price after launch varied a lot by drug ranging from decreases in price of -2.7% per year to increases of 11.4% per year. However, nearly all of the products studied increased in price over time.
Dr. Andrew Pecora[/caption]
Andrew L. Pecora, M.D., F.A.C.P., C.P.E.
Dr. Christine Fisher[/caption]
Dr. Christine Fisher MD, MPH
Department of Radiation Oncology
University of Denver
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Fisher: Screenable cancers are treated by oncologists every day, including many in invasive, advanced, or metastatic settings. We aimed to determine how health insurance status might play into this, with the hypothesis that better access to health care would lead to presentation of earlier cancers. While this sounds intuitive, there is much debate over recent expansions in coverage through the Affordable Care Act and how this may impact health in our country.
MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings?
Dr. Fisher: The findings confirm that those without health insurance present with more advanced disease in breast, cervix, colorectal, and prostate cancers, including tumor stage, grade and elevated tumor markers. That is to say, all else being equal for risk of cancer, lack of health insurance was an independent risk factor for advanced presentation.
Dr. Joseph Ladapo[/caption]
Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD
Assistant Professor of Medicine and Population Health
Section on Value and Effectiveness
Department of Population Health
NYU Langone School of Medicine
New York NY 10016
MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings?
Dr. Ladapo: While cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are increasingly used to treat patients with arrhythmias, heart failure, and other risk factors for sudden cardiac death, these implantable devices require life-long follow-up to assess their performance and functionality. This need for continuous monitoring has galvanized the development of remote monitoring technologies for patients with CIEDs. Although randomized studies have shown that remote monitoring may reduce healthcare utilization and expenditures when compared to in-office monitoring, little is known about whether these findings generalize to day-to-day clinical practice. We aimed to address this uncertainty by evaluating healthcare utilization and expenditures in a cohort of patients with newly-implanted CIEDs who were followed remotely or with in-office monitoring.
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Ladapo: Remote monitoring is associated with a reduction in patients’ utilization of ambulatory and acute care and a reduction in expenditures associated with this utilization—at least over 24 months. This reduction was most pronounced among remotely monitored patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Although many of our comparisons between remote and office monitoring were not statistically significant, they trended toward favoring remote monitoring.
Dr. Jordan B. King[/caption]
Dr. Jordan B. King
Post Doctoral Fellow
Pharmacotherapy Outcome Resctr,
University of Utah
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: The cornerstone of treatment in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) revolves around low-cost generic medications such as angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and beta-blockers (BBs). However, recently the dual-acting angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril-valsartan, demonstrated improved survival and reduction in heart failure hospitalizations relative to enalapril, an ACEI, and optimal background therapy. This creates a situation in which we have a new medication which improves outcomes, but carries a high price tag ($4,560 per year) compared with ACEIs, the standard of care over the last 20 years, and are available as generic medications for <$50 per year. We set out to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality adjusted life year gained (QALY) from the perspective of a health care payer in the U.S. The ICER is a measure of how much we have to pay for sacubitril-valsartan to gain 1 unit of health relative to enalapril. In this case the unit of health is a year of life adjusted for quality.
We used a Markov model to estimate the costs and effectiveness of the two treatment options over a lifetime. In the base case, the ICER for sacubitril-valsartan was $50,959 per QALY gained. Health care interventions which cost <$50,000 per QALY are generally considered cost-effective, but some argue that <$100,000 per QALY is a more appropriate threshold in the U.S. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 57% and 80% of all simulations fell below the $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY thresholds, respectively. Sacubitril-valsartan was the less costly treatment arm in 5% of simulations, and enalapril dominated (less costly and more effective) in 17% of simulations.
Dr. Quinn Grundy[/caption]
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Quinn Grundy, PhD, RN
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Charles Perkins Centre
Faculty of Pharmacy
The University of Sydney
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Grundy: In 2010, United States (US) lawmakers passed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act as part of the Affordable Care Act. The goal of this legislation was to make publicly transparent the financial relationships between physicians and pharmaceutical and medical device companies. These relationships are associated with increased prescribing of high cost, brand name medications with limited track records for safety. Policymakers hoped that increased transparency would help to deter relationships between physicians and industry that could bias treatment decision-making in this way.
What caught our attention was that nurses, though they represent the largest proportion of health professionals, are omitted from the US Sunshine legislation. We questioned whether policymakers believed that nurses did not have the same kinds of relationships with industry as their physician counterparts, or, whether they did not believe that the consequences of nurse-industry interactions would warrant regulation.
Rather than assuming that nurses interacted with industry in the same way that physicians do, we conducted an exploratory, in-depth qualitative study of nurses’ interactions with industry representatives in day-to-day clinical practice. At 4 hospitals in the western US, we interviewed 72 nurses, hospital administrators, supply chain professionals and industry representatives. Over a period of 2 years, we also directly observed nurses’ interactions with what we call “medically-related” industry, including pharmaceutical, medical equipment and device, infant formula, and health technology companies.
Oanh Kieu Nguyen, MD, MAS | Assistant Professor
UT Southwestern Medical Center
Divisions of General Internal Medicine and Outcomes and Health Services Research
Dallas, TX
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Nguyen: The impetus for this study was Steven Brill’s 2013 Time magazine award-winning article, “Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us.” This report investigated inflated charges for hospital bills, and and suggested that a major driver of irrationally high charges was the disproportionate negotiating power of hospitals, as evidenced through their high profit margins. As hospital physicians, our reaction was “But what if hospitals that make more money are delivering more value and better outcomes to patients? If that’s the case, wouldn’t most people say that their profits justifiably earned?” Surprisingly, we found that no one had really looked at this issue in a systematic way.
We set out to answer this question using hospital financial data from California’s Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) and outcomes data on 30-day readmissions and mortality for congestive heart failure, acute myocardial infarction (‘heart attacks’), and pneumonia from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare website. California has more hospitals than any other state other than Texas, and also has a wide diversity of hospital types. The OSHPD financial data are also audited, so we thought these would be more reliable than using data from other sources. Because the outcomes reported on Hospital Compare are viewable by the general public, we thought hospitals would be most motivated to target improvements in these outcomes.
We found that there was almost no association between how much money a hospital made and its subsequent performance on outcomes. The exception to this was we found that hospitals that had better finances reported higher rates of 30-day mortality for congestive heart failure, which was counterintuitive. We’re not sure why this was the case but speculate that it is possible that hospitals with better finances take care of sicker heart failure patients because they have more advanced (and more expensive) treatments available.
Additionally, we looked to see if hospitals with lower readmissions rates subsequently made less money. This is a specific area of policy concern given federal penalties in the U.S. for excessive hospital readmissions. Many critics of these penalties have argued that reducing readmissions makes no financial sense for hospitals, since readmissions still generate hospital revenue despite the penalties. Thus, reducing readmissions would reduce a key source of hospital revenue and lead to poorer hospital finances. However, our analysis showed that lower readmissions rates were not associated with poorer hospital finances, as has been feared.
Joshua A. Roth, PhD, MHA
Assistant Member
AHRQ Patient-Centered Outcomes Research K12 Scholar
Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Roth: PSA prostate cancer screening is controversial because of uncertainty about the overall benefit-risk balance of screening and conflicting recommendations from a variety of prominent national panels. For example, there is debate about whether the cancer early-detection benefits of screening outweigh potential harms related to overdiagnosis of prostate cancer and associated overtreatment (for example, surgery and/or radiation therapy). However, this benefit-risk balance largely depends on how screening programs are structured (for example, the age range over which screening occurs, how often screened occurs, and the PSA level that triggers biopsies) and how screening detected prostate cancers are managed.
With these factors in mind, we developed a simulation model to estimate the morbidity, mortality, and cost outcomes of many PSA screening approaches that have been proposed by national panels or discussed in the peer-reviewed literature. The model calculates these outcomes using inputs from national databases and major PSA screening clinical trials. The primary outcome of our model was the cost per quality-adjusted life year gained—a measure that reflects the value of medical interventions through impacts on cost, survival, and health-related quality of life. We don’t have explicit rules for willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year in the United States, but interventions that cost $100,000 to $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year are generally considered to be of at least low to moderate value (whereas, for example, an intervention that costs $400,000 per quality-adjusted life year would be generally considered to be of very poor value).
Using the model, we found that more conservative PSA screening strategies (that is, those with less frequent screening and higher PSA level thresholds for biopsy referral) tended to be more cost-effective than less conservative strategies. Importantly, we found that no strategy was likely to be of high value under contemporary treatment patterns where many men with low-risk prostate cancer (that is, those with a Gleason score lower than 7 and clinical T2a stage cancer or lower) receive treatment with surgery or radiation therapy, but several strategies were likely to be of at least moderate value (cost per qualityadjusted life-year=$70 831-$136 332) with increased use of conservative management (that is, treating only after clinical progression) for low-risk, screen-detected cancers.
Hrishikesh Kale[/caption]
Hrishikesh Kale
School of Pharmacy
Virginia Commonwealth University
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: The cost of cancer care in the United States is extremely high and escalating every year. Because of increased cost sharing, patients are paying higher out-of-pocket costs for their treatments. Along with high medical expenses, cancer survivors face problems such as loss of employment and reduced productivity. It has been well-established in the literature that because of high out-of-pocket costs, many cancer survivors forgo or delay medical care and mental health-related services and avoid filling prescriptions. This puts their physical and mental health at risk.
A related issue is the growing number of cancer survivors in the U.S. As of January 2014, there were approximately 14.5 million cancer survivors in the U.S. By 2024, this number is expected to reach 19 million as a result of improved survival among patients with cancer along with an aging population. Therefore, we decided to investigate the prevalence and sources of financial problems reported by a nationally representative sample of cancer survivors from the 2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We also studied the impact of cancer-related financial burden on survivors’ health-related quality of life and psychological health.
Dr. LeaAnne DeRigne[/caption]
Dr. LeaAnne DeRigne MSW Ph.D.
FAU School of Social Work
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. DeRigne: 49 million U.S. employees work without paid sick leave, causing an even greater divide in health care disparities as well as undesirable health care outcomes. This study examined the relationship between paid sick leave benefits and delays in medical care and forgone medical care for both working adults and their family members. We also analyzed the risk of emergency department use and the risk of missing work because of illness or injury by paid sick leave status, as well as the interaction effects between paid sick leave and family income and health insurance.
Dr. Andrew Auerbach[/caption]
Dr. Andrew Auerbach MD
Professor of Medicine in Residence
Director of Research Division of Hospital Medicine
UCSF and
[caption id="attachment_22367" align="alignleft" width="100"]
Dr. Jeffrey Scnhipper[/caption]
Jeffrey L. Schnipper, MD, MPH
Associate Physician, Brigham and Women's Hospital
Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School
Department of Medicine
Brigham and Women's Hospital
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: The Affordable Care Act required the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a program to reduce what has been dubbed a “revolving door of re-hospitalizations.” Effective October 2012, 1 percent of every Medicare payment was deducted for a hospital that was determined to have excessive readmissions. This percentage has subsequently increased to up to 3 percent. Penalties apply to readmitted Medicare patients with some heart conditions, pneumonia, chronic lung disease, and hip and knee replacements.
Unfortunately, few data exist to guide us in determining how many readmissions are preventable, and in those cases how they might have been prevented.
MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings?
Response: Our main findings were that 27 percent of readmissions were preventable, and that the most common contributors to readmission were being discharged too soon, poor coordination between inpatient and outpatient care providers, particularly in the Emergency Departments and in arranging post acute care.
Dr. Richard Iorio[/caption]
Richard Iorio, MD
Dr. William and Susan Jaffe Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery
Chief of the Division of Adult Reconstructive Surgery
NYU Langone Medical Center
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Iorio: NYU Langone Medical Center’s Department of Orthopaedic Surgery realized early that alternate payment strategies based on value rather than volume were going to be increasing in prevalence and represent the future of compensation strategies As leaders in orthopaedics, we knew that we must embrace this change and develop strategies and effective protocols to successfully navigate this alternative payment universe.
In 2011, NYU Langone’s Hospital for Joint Diseases was chosen as a pilot site for CMS’s Bundled Payment Care Initiative, focusing on Medicare patients undergoing a total joint replacement. Beginning in 2013, we implemented protocols developed at our hospital focusing on preoperatiive patient selection criteria in an effort to ensure better outcomes for Medicare patients who underwent total joint replacements. Under a bundled payment program, hospitals assume financial responsibility for any complications over the entire episode of care 90 days after surgery, including postsurgical infections and hospital readmissions.
We compared year over year outcomes from year 1 to year 3 of this program, and found:
Dr. Andrey Ostrovsky[/caption]
Andrey Ostrovsky, MD
CEO | Co-Founder
Care at Hand
Medical Research: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Ostrovsky: Hospital readmissions are a large source of wasteful healthcare spending, and current care transition models are too expensive to be sustainable. One way to circumvent cost-prohibitive care transition programs is complement nurse-staffed care transition programs with those staffed by less expensive nonmedical workers. A major barrier to utilizing nonmedical workers is determining the appropriate time to escalate care to a clinician with a wider scope of practice. The objective of this study is to show how mobile technology can use the observations of nonmedical workers to stratify patients on the basis of their hospital readmission risk.
Dr. Joanna Thomson[/caption]
Joanna Thomson MD MPH
Assistant Professor
Division of Hospital Medicine
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: Children with medical complexity have lifelong and complex illnesses. These children account for a disproportionate amount of pediatric health care use. The lives of families are affected – both financially and socially. We sought to characterize the challenges these families face through examination of financial and social hardships. In a cohort of families with children who receive care at Cincinnati Children’s Complex Care Center, four out of five families reported experiencing at least one hardship. The striking frequencies observed, despite relatively high measures of household socioeconomic status, suggest that these families face great challenges. For example, families frequently experienced the need to borrow money and expected little to no help from family or friends.
In order to benchmark the hardships experienced by families of children with medical complexity, we compared the hardships they experienced to those faced by the families of children with asthma in the Greater Cincinnati Asthma Risks Study. After accounting for key demographic and socio-economic differences between the two groups, families of children with medical complexity experienced similar to higher levels of financial and social hardship. For instance, families of children with medical complexity were over two times as likely to report the inability to pay their rent or mortgage than families of children with asthma.
Dr. Melissa Garrido[/caption]
Melissa Garrido, PhD
Assistant Professor / Research Health Science Specialist
GRECC, James J Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, NY
Brookdale Department of Geriatrics & Palliative Medicine
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: Medical costs for people with serious illnesses are rapidly rising in the United States. Concerns about medical debt and bankruptcy are especially relevant when deciding whether to begin or maintain a treatment that may have limited benefit to a patient’s survival or quality of life. Among patients with advanced cancer, one such decision is the choice of whether to use additional chemotherapy when the disease has not responded to an initial line or lines of chemotherapy. In this study, we used data from a prospective study of patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers to examine the relationship between chemotherapy use at study entry (median of four months before death) and estimated costs of healthcare other than chemotherapy in the last week of life.
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Garrido: Among patients with end-stage cancer, those who received chemotherapy in the months before death had higher estimated costs of care in the last week of life. We did not find evidence that this relationship was explained by patients’ preferences for care, do-not-resuscitate orders, or discussions of care preferences.
Dr. Peter Yarbrough[/caption]
Peter M. Yarbrough MD
Department of Internal Medicine Division of General Internal Medicine
University of Utah Medical Center and
George E. Whalen Veteran Affairs Medical Center
Salt Lake City, Utah
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Yarbrough: Waste is a major contributor to healthcare costs, accounting for an estimated $910 billion/year. Part of this waste includes unnecessary testing and routine laboratory testing has been recognized as frequently unnecessary for inpatients with an estimated 30-50% of tests not being needed. Through implementation of a multifaced quality improvement initiative including accurate cost feedback through the Value Driven Outcomes (VDO) the University of Utah Healthcare Internal Medicine hospitalist group was able to demonstrate a significant reduction in cost per day ($138 to $123) and cost per visit ($618 to $558) without adverse effect on length of stay or 30-day readmissions. A major component of the intervention included the use of a rounding checklist with discussion of tests required during rounds. Supporting that common laboratory tests were affected, the analysis showed a significant decrease in the number of BMP, CMP, and CBC tests per day compared to an institutional control. Estimated cost savings for this intervention were approximately $250,000 over the first year of the intervention.
Prof. Jonathan Pinkney[/caption]
Jonathan Pinkney MD FRCP
Professor of Medicine
Plymouth University and Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry
Centre for Clinical Trials and Population Studies
Plymouth Science Park Phase 1
Honorary Consultant Physician Diabetes and Endocrinology
University Medicine Derriford Hospital
Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust
Plymouth UK
Medical Research: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Pinkney: The background is that the study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research in response to a call for research on the problem of unscheduled emergency admissions to hospitals in the UK. The rates of patient attendance at emergency departments and subsequent acute admissions to hospitals have risen year on year. Rising numbers of admissions have significant knock-on effects for acute hospitals including crowding in emergency departments, pressures on staffing, and disruption of elective treatment because of high rates of bed occupancy. The increase in admissions has been associated largely with increased short stay admissions. As a result, there has been an increasing view that a significant proportion of acute medical admissions may not be necessary, and in this respect may be said to be avoidable. There had been relatively limited research on how hospitals can best reduce these avoidable admissions.
The main aims of the study were to investigate how senior staff in four major acute hospitals in south west England endeavour to avoid unnecessary acute admissions, and to examine a range of different systems in place in different hospitals to avoid unnecessary admissions. We called this project the "3A" or Avoidable Acute Admissions study. The 3A study was a mixed methods study with a strong emphasis on the narrative experience of patients, carers and healthcare professionals in the emergency departments and associated units of these four acute hospitals. The quantitative component of the study was an application of Value Stream Mapping (VSM), a technique from lean theory, and this was used to identify and measure points of delay in the patient journey.
Rajan Anthony Sonik[/caption]
Rajan Anthony Sonik
Lurie Institute for Disability Policy
Heller School for Social Policy and Management
Brandeis University
Waltham, MA
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: We know that food insecurity (experiencing hunger, insufficient food, or concerns about having enough food) is associated with a host of health problems, ranging from behavior health conditions to iron deficiencies. However, understanding the relationship between food insecurity and healthcare utilization and cost patterns has been more difficult to assess with available data. Presumably, rises in food insecurity should worsen health, which in turn should increase healthcare utilization and ultimately costs.
To examine this topic, I actually looked at this in the opposite way by asking if a decrease in food insecurity might lead to decrease in costs. The opportunity to do so arose in the form of the April 2009 increase in benefit levels for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP; formerly the Food Stamps Program) that were part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (commonly referred to as the “stimulus package”). SNAP has been shown to alleviate food insecurity, and so this increase in benefits created the chance to explore my question. I analyzed Massachusetts data from October 2006 to August 2012 using interrupted time series models and found that inpatient Medicaid cost growth in Massachusetts fell by 73% (p = 0.003) after the increase in SNAP benefits. Moreover I found that decreased admissions were the primary driver of this outcome rather any patterns in health care inflation. In addition, I found that, for people with selected chronic illnesses that create heightened sensitivity to food insecurity, the drop in cost growth was even greater (the diseases studied were sickle cell disease, diabetes, malnutrition/failure to thrive, inflammatory bowel disease, asthma, and cystic fibrosis).
MedicalResearch.com Interview with: [caption id="attachment_21033" align="alignleft" width="133"] Dr. Mark Ketterer[/caption] Mark W Ketterer PhD, ABPP Health Psychology Henry Ford Hospital Detroit Michigan MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Dr. Ketterer: Reducing wasteful healthcare costs is a high priority For Medicare/Medicaid, Obamacare and all third party payors. Cognitive impairment (CI) is highly...
Dr. Paul Barr[/caption]
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Paul Barr MSc, PhD
Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Clinical Practice
The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Barr: I belong to the Preference Laboratory, a group of researchers in The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, who focus on research to improve patient engagement in their health care. One of our areas of interest is mental health, especially depression given the high and increasing prevalence of this condition in America and worldwide. Previous research has found that individuals with depression are not fully engaged in the treatment decision making process and may not be aware of their options. Decision aids are short tools that provide information on available treatment options and information about those options that is important to patients and clinicians, which can facilitate greater patient engagement through shared decision making. To develop these tools, it is important to identify the information important to patients and clinicians when making treatment decisions.
By conducting a national survey of individuals with depression and clinicians who treat depression across the US, we found that patients and clinicians felt that the effectiveness of treatment, potential side-effects and time to recovery were important to discuss. However, where patients wanted to know about about cost and insurance coverage of treatment, clinicians did not focus on these priorities. Yet when asked to take the patient’s perspective, clinicians had the same priorities as patients, including cost and insurance coverage. In addition, only 18% of patient respondents reported experiencing a high level of shared decision making on the CollaboRATE survey (www.collaboratescore.org).
Dr. Sam Most[/caption]
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Sam P. Most, M.D., F.A.C.S.
Professor, Departments of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery and Surgery (Division of Plastic Surgery, by courtesy)
Chief, Division of Facial Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery
Stanford University School of Medicine
Stanford, CA
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Most: Insurance companies often require patients to try a 6 or more week treatment with nasal steroids prior to allowing nasal surgery to proceed. This is true even in cases of physician-documented severe or extreme anatomic nasal obstruction that we know will not respond to medical therapy. We sought to examine this from a cost and quality-of-life perspective.
We found that while the up-front cost of surgery is obviously much higher than medical therapy, when viewed from an effect on improvement of quality of life (or lack thereof, in the case of medical therapy), the surgical therapy became more cost effective as years passed by.
Dr. Sapna Kaul[/caption]
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Sapna Kaul, Ph.D
Huntsman Cancer Institute
2000 Circle of Hope
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Kaul: The United States has the highest healthcare expenditures in the world, and close to one-third of these expenditures are believed to be unnecessary. One potential reason for these unnecessary expenditures is that patients may ask for medical services that are unnecessary. At the same time, primary care physicians (PCP) could find it difficult to refuse to prescribe unnecessary medical services as they may worry that it may compromise patient satisfaction. Also, there is a shortage of primary care workforce in the U.S. and PCPs may have insufficient time to effectively address patient requests.
We investigated 2 types of unnecessary medical practices initiated by patient requests:
(1) providing unnecessary specialty referrals, and
(2) prescribing brand-name drugs when generic alternatives were available.
To explore these practices, we used data on 840 U.S. PCPs from a national survey of physicians conducted in 2009. Over 50% of primary care physicians reported providing unnecessary specialty referrals and 39% prescribed brand-name drugs at patient requests. Several provider and organizational factors, such as physician specialty and solo/2-person practice, were related to reporting unnecessary practices.