MedicalResearch.com Interview with: Elliot B Tapper, M.D. Clinical Fellow in Medicine (EXT) Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Boston MA 02215 Medical Research: What is...
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Julie M. Donohue, Ph.D.
Associate professor and Vice Chair for Research
Graduate School of Public Health Department of Health Policy and Management
University of Pittsburgh
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Donohue: We looked at data on medication use from January through September 2014 on 1 million Affordable Care Act-established marketplace insurance plan enrollees. Our analysis found that among people who enrolled in individual marketplaces, those who enrolled earlier were older and used more medication than later enrollees. Marketplace enrollees, as a whole, had lower average drug spending per person and were less likely to use most medication classes than patients enrolled in employer-sponsored health insurance. However, marketplace enrollees were much more likely to use medicines for hepatitis C and for HIV, which is particularly important given the general concerns about the rising costs of these medications for consumers.
(more…)
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Jalal B. Andre, MD
Director of Neurological MRI
Harborview Medical Center
Assistant Professor of Radiology
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195-7115
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Andre: Patient motion during clinical magnetic resonance (MR) examinations occurs frequently, can result in artifacts that degrade image quality, and has the potential to mask underlying pathology and affect patient care. Surprisingly, the frequency of motion artifacts in clinical MR examinations has been poorly documented in the literature, as has been the cost associated with obtaining such exams, specifically those that do not meet diagnostic criteria. To better quantify these observations, we performed a retrospective study evaluating the prevalence of motion artifacts during a randomly selected week of clinical MR examinations.
We devised a graded 5-tier scale to quantify patient motion, which incorporated the potential for clinical impact Using this scale, two neuroradiologists performed a consensus evaluation at a picture archiving and communication system station of 192 MR examinations performed during a single calendar week. This evaluation revealed that significant motion artifact (defined as artifact that could impact image interpretation and potentially change diagnosis) was present in 7.5% of outpatient and nearly 30% of inpatient and/or emergency department MR examinations, and that repeated sequences (subcomponents of an MR examination) were present in nearly 20% of completed MR examinations. In addition, we found that the specific imaged body part was less predictive of subsequent patient motion than was patient disposition (if they were imaged as a hospital inpatient and/or emergency department patient). Using a base-case cost estimate derived from fiscal year 2012 outpatient Medicare reimbursement rates and institutional cost estimates, our analysis suggested that a potential cost of $592 per hour could be lost in hospital revenue secondary to patient motion. Extrapolated over a calendar year, the cost of patient motion (as potential forgone institutional revenue) approached $115,000 per scanner per year. (more…)
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Judith Hibbard, Ph.D.
Senior Researcher, Health Policy Research Group
University of Oregon
MedicalResearch: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Hibbard: Two important trends are happening in health care today:
1) Policies which move away from paying for volume and toward paying for value; and
2) The emphasis on patient engagement and the need for the patient to play a key part in the care process. Because so many quality outcomes are determined to a large extent by patient behaviors, there is an implied assumption that if you pay primary care clinicians (PCPs) more for better quality outcomes, they will also try to engage the patient as a necessary partner in reaching quality targets. That is, there is a tacit assumption that clinicians will naturally engage patients if you incentivize them on the quality metrics. We had an opportunity to examine the soundness of this assumption, when we conducted a study of primary care clinicians whose compensation was based 40% on their performance of quality metrics.
The findings show that the vast majority of clinicians did not invest their efforts in patient engagement and activation, when trying to maximize their income under this model. They put their efforts in other areas. However, a year later they were very frustrated that their income was influenced by patient behaviors. This was their greatest frustration with the compensation model, and they indicated that “patient’s unwillingness to change their behavior” as the greatest barrier to achieving their quality goals.
(more…)
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Karoline Mortensen, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Health Services Administration
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
Medical Research: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Mortensen: For twenty years, use of hospital emergency departments has been on the rise in the United States, particularly among low-income patients who face barriers to accessing health care outside of hospitals including not having an identifiable primary health care provider. Almost half of emergency room visits are considered “avoidable.” The Emergency Department-Primary Care Connect Initiative of the Primary Care Coalition, which ran from 2009 through 2011, linked low-income uninsured and Medicaid patients to safety-net health clinics.
Medical Research: What are the main findings?
Dr. Mortensen: “Our study found that uninsured patients with chronic health issues – such as those suffering from hypertension, diabetes, asthma, COPD, congestive heart failure, depression or anxiety – relied less on the emergency department after they were linked to a local health clinic for ongoing care,” says Dr. Karoline Mortensen, assistant professor of health services administration at the University of Maryland School of Public Health and senior researcher. “Connecting patients to primary care and expanding the availability of these safety-net clinics could reduce emergency department visits and provide better continuity of care for vulnerable populations.”
(more…)
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Guijing Wang, PhD
Senior health economist
Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Wang: Our study is one of the first to analyze the impact of hospital costs related to atrial fibrillation (or AFib) in a younger stroke population. To determine these findings, we examined more than 40,000 hospital admissions information involving adults between the ages of 18 and 64 with a primary diagnosis of ischemic stroke between 2010 and 2012.
Although AFib is more common among those ages 65 and older, with strokes among younger adults on the rise in the U.S., we wanted to take a comprehensive look at AFib’s impact on hospital costs for these patients. AFib is associated with a 4- to 5-fold increased risk of ischemic stroke, which is the most common type of stroke.
Overall, our research found that AFib substantially increased hospital costs for patients with ischemic stroke – and that was consistent across different age groups and genders of those aged 18-64. Of the 33,500 first-time stroke admissions, more than seven percent had AFib, and these admissions cost nearly $5,000 more than those without the condition. In addition, we found that both the costs of hospitalization, as well as the costs associated with AFib, were higher among younger adults (18-54) than those aged 55 to 64.
(more…)
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Dan Gong BA
Yale University School of Medicine
------------
James C. Tsai, M.D., M.B.A.
President - New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai
Delafield-Rodgers Professor and Chair Department of Ophthalmology Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Donna Zulman MD MS
Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park
Division of General Medical Disciplines, Stanford University, Stanford California, USA
Medical Research: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Zulman: Within the United States, a small number of individuals account for disproporationate health care spending. Many of these high-cost patients have complex chronic conditions such as heart failure and diabetes. Others have complicated mental health conditions. But the vast majority have multiple chronic conditions, which can create challenges when patients are navigating their health care. For this study, we examined patterns of chronic conditions among high-cost patients in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System, and studied the relationship between different chronic conditions patterns and health care utilization and costs.
Medical Research: What are the main findings?
Dr. Zulman: We found that within the VA, the 5% highest cost patients accounted for 47% of total VA health care costs. Approximately two-thirds of these patients had chronic conditions affecting 3 or more body systems (for example, cardiovascular disease, asthma, and depression). However, patients with severe, dominating diseases such as cancer and schizophrenia were less likely to have a lot of comorbid conditions.
In addition, we found that even among these high-cost patients, having more conditions was associated with greater use of outpatient and inpatient services. However, as patients' multimorbidity across body systems increased, a greater share of their costs was generated in the outpatient setting and a smaller share of their costs was generated in the inpatient setting. This suggests that interventions focusing on high-cost patients should not only target costly hospitalizations, but should also coordinate and maximize efficiency of outpatient services across multiple conditions. (more…)
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Catherine L. Chen M.D., M.P.H.
UCSF Dept of Anesthesia
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Chen: Cataract surgery is a very common and safe surgery that most older adults have in their 70's or 80's. It usually happens as a same-day surgery and most patients only need eye drops to numb the eye with little or no intravenous sedation for a procedure that on average is only 18 minutes long. Given their age, these patients typically have other concurrent medical problems, so even though multiple research studies and professional societies have concluded that routine preoperative testing is not necessary before cataract surgery, we found that this testing still frequently occurs in these patients. More than half of the patients in our study had at least one preoperative test performed in the month before their surgery.
We hypothesized prior to undertaking this study that the older and sicker patients were the ones who were most likely to get preoperative testing. Instead, what we found was that the most important factor that determined whether or not a patient got tested was the ophthalmologist who operated on the patient. This is an important finding because it shows that most patients are not getting extra testing, but the few that do are getting testing because that's the way their ophthalmologist typically prepares his patients for surgery. Most of the time, this testing is not needed and will not affect how well the patient does during and after surgery. (more…)
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Haichang Xin, PhD
Department of Health Care Organization and policy
School of Public Health
University of Alabama at Birmingham
MedicalResearch: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Xin: Since high cost-sharing policies can reduce both needed care and unneeded care use, it raises the concern whether these policies are a good strategy for controlling costs among chronically ill patients, especially whether utilization and costs in emergency department (ED) service and inpatient care will increase in response. Moreover, the costs saved by reduced physician care may be offset or even exceeded by the increased ED or inpatient care expenditures, causing a total cost increase for health plans.
This study was the first to examine whether high cost-sharing policies for physician care are associated with a differential impact on total care costs between chronically ill individuals and healthy individuals. Total care includes physician care, ED service and inpatient care.
MedicalResearch: What are the main findings?
Dr. Xin: Chronically ill individuals’ probability of reducing any overall care costs was significantly less than healthier individuals (β= 2.18, p = 0.04), while the integrated Difference-in-difference estimator from split results in the two-part model indicated that going from low cost-sharing to high cost-sharing significantly reduced costs by $12,853.23 more for sick people than for healthy people (95% CI: -$17,582.86, -$8,123.60).
(more…)
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Brian Montague, DO MS MPH
Assistant Professor of Medicine and of Health Services, Policy and Practice
Division of Infectious Diseases
Brown University / The Miriam Hospital
Medical Research: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Montague: Hepatitis C is in an important public health problem affecting 4-5 million persons in the US alone. Given the risk of infection associated with drug use, the prevalence of hepatitis C in corrections has been significantly higher than in the general population.
Prior to 2013, the available treatment options were both expensive and of significant toxicity and limited efficacy. Uptake to these therapies were low. Starting in 2013, new therapeutics options offering shorter course treatments and efficacies greater than 90% became available. These therapies offer new possibilities to increase uptake to treatment, however the cost of the therapies has made rapid scale up of treatment impossible. Given the risk of serious harms to patients with advanced liver disease if not treated, insurance has begun to approve these new therapies for patients with more advanced disease.
Departments of corrections are obliged to provide the same standard of care to persons in corrections as they would receive in the community. Unlike Medicaid and community insurance providers, correctional systems worker under a fixed budget. Large increases in expenditures for treatment of hepatitis C without establishing mechanisms to offset these costs risks compromising other essential programs and functions in the correctional health system.
Medical Research: What are the main findings?
Dr. Montague: In a cross-sectional analysis we estimated the burden of hepatitis C within the department of corrections. At the time of the study, an estimated 836 persons have chronic hepatitis C. Among these an estimated 119 have advanced liver disease, stage 3 or 4 fibrosis, and would meet criteria for treatment under most insurance programs. Even a conservative approach of restricting treatment in corrections to those with stage 3 or 4 fibrosis would incur costs of over $15 million, which is greater than 6 times the current correctional health budget for pharmaceuticals and 76% of the overall correctional health budget.
(more…)
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Gabriel Brooks, MD
Gastrointestinal Cancer Center
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Brooks: The background for our study is that hospitalizations in patients with cancer are common, costly, and distressing to patients. Acute hospital care is the single largest expenditure category in cancer care, accounting for substantially greater costs than even chemotherapy. However, patients generally wish to avoid hospitalization, and they certainly want to avoid complications of treatment that can lead to hospitalization. For these reasons, we sought to identify the extent to which hospitalizations are perceived as potentially avoidable by clinicians who are directly involved in patient care.
We interviewed three physicians for each of 103 patients with cancer who experienced a hospitalization. For 24 patients (23%) two or more of the three physicians agreed that hospitalization had been potentially avoidable.
(more…)MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Haichang Xin, PhD
Department of Health Care Organization and policy
School of Public Health
University of Alabama at Birmingham
MedicalResearch: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Xin: Research suggests that nearly half of all emergency department (ED) visits in the United States are for nonurgent conditions, leading to billions of dollars in potentially avoidable spending annually. A well-functioning primary care system has the capacity to provide timely, adequate, and effective care for patients in order to avoid nonurgent emergency department use and care costs.
This study examined how deficiencies in ambulatory care were associated with nonurgent emergency department care costs nationwide, and to what extent these costs can be reduced if deficiencies in primary care systems could be improved.
MedicalResearch: What are the main findings?
Dr. Xin: Patient perceived poor and intermediate levels of primary care quality had higher odds of nonurgent emergency department care costs (OR=2.22, p=0.035, and OR=2.05, p=0.011, respectively) compared to high quality care, with a marginal effect (at means) of 13.0% and 11.5% higher predicted probability of nonurgent ED care costs.
These ambulatory care quality deficiency related costs amounted up to $229 million for private plans (95% CI: $100 million, $358 million), $58.5 million for public plans (95% CI: $33.9 million, $83.1 million), and an overall of $379 million (95% CI: $229 million, $529 million) at the national level.
(more…)
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Stacie B. Dusetzina PhD
Assistant professor in the Eshelman School of Pharmacy and the Gillings School of Global Public Health
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Member of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Dusetzina: Charges for health services — the amounts providers request before payments are negotiated — have not been widely known for services delivered in physicians’ offices. Charges can be considered the maximum amount that would be paid by a person without insurance who does not or is unable to negotiate for a lower price. In this study we used recently released data from the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Public Use File and other sources to measure what physicians charged for chemotherapy drugs delivered intravenously in 2012 and the amounts reimbursed by Medicare and private health plans for the same services.
We found that uninsured cancer patients may be asked to pay from 2 to 43 times what Medicare pays for chemotherapy drugs. Medicare and insurers don’t pay the sticker price of health care. They pay a discounted rate. However, uninsured patients don’t have the bargaining power, or they may not try to negotiate for a better price. On average, Medicare paid approximately 40 percent of the charged amounts for chemotherapy drugs. Private insurers paid nearly 57 percent of the charged amounts on average. We also looked at what cancer patients were asked to pay for an office visit. Uninsured patients may be asked to pay from $129 to $391, depending on the complexity of the visit. Medicare paid between $65 and $188 and private insurance paid between $78 and $246 for the same visits.
(more…)MedicalResearch.com Interview with: Cary P. Gross MD Professor of General Medicine, of Epidemiology (Chronic Diseases) and of Faculty of Arts and Sciences Yale...
MedicalResearch.com Interview with: Dr. Joseph Bosco MD III Orthopedic Surgery The New York University Langone Medical Center Medical Research: What is the background for...
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Peter Muennig, MD, MPH
Columbia University
Mailman School of Public Health
NYC 10032
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Muennig: The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment (OHIE) is one of just two experimental investigations of the health benefits of medical insurance. The first was the Rand Health Insurance Experiment, which was conducted over 3 decades ago. The OHIE randomly assigned participants to receive Medicaid or their usual care. It found that Medicaid protected families from financial ruin caused by medical illness, that it reduced depression, and that it increased preventive screening tests. However, it produced no medical benefits with respect to high blood pressure, diabetes, or high cholesterol. Medicaid opponents suggested that this meant that we should get rid of Medicaid because Medicaid does not improve physical health. But Medicaid proponents suggested that too few participants enrolled to detect a benefit, and, regardless of the study’s flaws, reduced depression, financial protections, and improved screening were reason enough to continue.
We found that the Medicaid opponents were right. Medicaid actually didn’t produce any meaningful benefits with respect to blood pressure, diabetes, or cholesterol. But we also found that the Medicaid proponents were right. It’s impacts on depression alone rendered it cost-effective even if one does not account for the benefits of financial protections or medical screening.
(more…)
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Jeffrey (Jerry) G. Jarvik MD MPH
Professor, Radiology, Neurological Surgery and Health Services
Adjunct Professor, Pharmacy and Orthopedics & Sports Medicine
Director, Comparative Effectiveness, Cost and Outcomes Research Center University of Washington Seattle, WA
Medical Research: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Jarvik: When I arrived at the Univ of WA over 20 years ago, my mentor, Rick Deyo, had just finished leading a project that was responsible for developing one of the first set of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute low back pain. These guidelines, published in a booklet by AHRQ (then called AHCPR), recommended that patients with acute low back pain not undergo imaging for 4-6 weeks unless a red flag was present. One of the exceptions was that patients older than 50 could get imaged immediately, the rationale being that older adults had a higher prevalence of potentially serious conditions such as cancer, infections, etc, that would justify the early imaging. As a practicing neuroradiologist, it was clear that a potential problem with this strategy is that the prevalence of age-related changes, which may or may not be related to back pain, also increases with age. So earlier imaging of older adults would almost certainly reveal findings, and these could easily start a series of unfortunate events leading to potentially poor outcomes and more healthcare resource use. Thus this policy of early imaging of older adults didn’t entirely make sense.
About 5 years ago, these guidelines hit home when I developed acute low back pain and since I was over 50 (barely) my doctor recommended that I get an imaging study. Being a knowledgeable patient and having a reasonable doctor, we mutually agreed not to get the study. I improved but that wasn’t the end of it. When we had the chance to apply for one of the CHOICE ARRA awards funded by AHRQ, we made answering this question of early imaging in older adults one of our primary goals.
(more…)
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Danil Makarov, MD Lead Investigator
Assistant Professor, Departments of Urology, Population Health and Health Policy
Member, Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center
NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY
Medical Research: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Makarov: The background for this study is that regional variation in patterns of care and healthcare spending is widely known. The drivers of this regional variation, though, are poorly understood. Certain policy groups like the IOM have suggested that policy efforts be focused on individual providers and patients. Programs such as Choosing Wisely, which encourage a dialogue between physicians and patients, are a great example of such efforts. However, some of our prior research suggests that regional variation is not random and that there might be are regional-level factors which drive variation.
To test out our hypothesis, we wanted to see whether inappropriate imaging for two unrelated cancers was associated at a regional level (it should not be).
Medical Research: What are the main findings?
Dr. Makarov: We found that, at a regional level, inappropriate breast cancer imaging was associated with inappropriate prostate cancer imaging.
(more…)
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Marc Ellsworth, M.D
Neonatology fellow at the
Mayo Clinic Children’s Center
MedicalResearch: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Ellsworth: Inhaled Nitric Oxide (iNO) is a drug that has FDA approval for use in neonates >34 weeks gestational age. It is used for severe respiratory failure secondary to pulmonary hypertension. However, it has been previously shown that neonatologists have been using this medication off-label and especially in the most premature neonates. Over the last 10 years there have been multiple large studies trying to determine a clinical use (ie long term benefit) for iNO in preterm neonates (patients where there is no FDA approval for iNO use currently). Despite evidence of short term benefit (improved clinical stability) use of this drug has not been shown to improve long-term outcomes (death and chronic lung disease) in premature neonates. As a result of these findings the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) released a consensus guideline in 2011 indicated that available evidence did not support the routine use of iNO in preterm neonates and discouraged this use of this expensive therapy in preterm neonates. Similarly, in 2014 the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a similar statement with similar recommendations.
In 2014 a group of NICUs (collectively called the Neonatal Research Network) associated with the NICHD published a report showing that the use of Inhaled Nitric Oxide in preterm infants (ie off-label) decreased following the report in 2011.
However, I did not feel that these NICUs were representative of the United States alone as the Neonatal Research Network consists of only a handful of NICUs (~15) and is directly associated with the NICHD. As a result I wanted to get a better idea of Inhaled Nitric Oxide use in a population based study to see if the trends were similar (ie use of iNO has been decreasing) on a much larger, more representative scale. (Editorial comment: My anecdotal experience was that rates of iNO use off-label have not decreased in preterm neonates since the 2011 report).
(more…)
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Alexander W. Pastuszak, MD, PhD
Male Reproductive Medicine and Surgery
Scott Department of Urology
Baylor College of Medicine Houston, TX
Medical Research: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Pastuszak: The link between erectile dysfunction (ED) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been growing stronger in recent years, and recommendations have recently been made to screen men with ED for CVD risk factors. The arteries in the penis are much smaller than those in the heart, and if vascular disease contributes to ED, which we know it does, then ED should be detected before CVD in affected men. We also know that treating men with CVD risk factors results in improvement in their risk of having acute cardiovascular events (i.e. heart attack, stroke, etc.). Because of these relationships, we wanted to assess the economic impact of screening men with erectile dysfunction for CVD, identifying men with CVD risk factors, and treating these men on the incidence of cardiovascular events and new cases of ED. Specifically, we wanted to look at the costs associated with screening and treatment of CVD and erectile dysfunction, and the cost savings resulting from screening and treating men with CVD risk factors and ED when preventing acute cardiovascular events.
Medical Research: What are the main findings?
Dr. Pastuszak: We modeled the reduction in acute cardiovascular events and the associated cost savings over 20 years. We predicted that approximately 5.8 million men with both CVD and ED would be identified over 20 years if we screened men with ED for CVD risk factors, and the cost of this screening would be $2.7 billion. We assumed that if we treated these at-risk men, there would be an approximately 20% decrease in cardiovascular events, which would prevent 1.1 million cardiovascular events over 20 years, saving $21.3 billion that would otherwise be put to treatment of these acute events. Since ED and CVD arise from the same pathology, we predicted that in treating the CVD risk factors, a similar decrease in ED cases would be seen as well, which would save $9.7 billion that would otherwise be put to ED treatment. In screening these men, a combined $28.5 billion would be saved over 20 years.
(more…)
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Eili Y. Klein Ph.D. Assistant Professor
Department of Emergency Medicine
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21209
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Klein: Antibiotic prescriptions rates vary widely across the country. We saw this at the state level, where rates in the highest prescribing states were as high as 1,200 prescriptions per 1,000 people to the lowest rates which were around 500 prescriptions per 1,000 people (see resistancemap.org). Europe has similar variation in prescribing rates across countries, and research there has documented a number of potential reasons for this such as education, access to health insurance, use of childcare centers, and cultural differences. However, the healthcare system in the US is structured differently than in Europe, so we set out to see if similar factors underlay differences in antibiotic prescribing in the US.
Understanding the drivers of differences in prescribing is important because it can help predict how future changes in demographics and socioeconomic characteristics will affect future antibiotic consumption. It also enables predictions in consumption as a result of interventions that target the healthcare delivery system, and also enables better targeting of information campaigns, such as the CDC's Get Smart Program, on appropriate antibiotic prescribing to specific sub-populations. Finally, it allows providers to better understand how their practice is driven by external factors.
The results of the study found that a primary factor driving differences in prescribing was the density of physicians. In other words, the more physicians there are per capita, the more prescriptions per capita. This result could just be due to more physicians making it easier to access a doctor and thus people go to visit a physician more. However, it could also suggest that physicians are competing to attract or retain patients in some manner and this is driving up prescriptions. To try to understand which of these effects was dominating the change, we examined the role of retail and urgent care clinics.
Stand-alone urgent care clinics and clinics incorporated into the retail arm of a store (e.g., CVS minute clinic) are truly an American-style invention, and bear little similarity to how most Europeans receive healthcare. Over the last decade these establishments have exploded in popularity and greatly expanded their reach. Surprisingly what we found was that in low-income areas, a clinic increased the prescribing rate, but didn't affect the rate that physicians were prescribing antibiotics. Thus, in these areas the story is all about access. Improving access to healthcare increases the likelihood that people will go to the doctor when they are sick and that increases the rate that people get prescribed antibiotics. This contrasted with wealthier areas, where we found that a clinic increased the rate of prescribing by physicians, which is likely due to competition. This competition can take multiple forms, from increasing the probability of getting an antibiotic as a physician is worried you won't come back otherwise, to changes in how physician offices work so that it is easier to walk-in to your doctor or get a same-day appointment. Though we were not able to quantify which of these effects was dominant in this research. (more…)
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Ann M. Sheehy, M.D., M.S.
Associate Professor
Division Head, Hospital Medicine
University of Wisconsin Department of Medicine
MedicalResearch: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Sheehy: Outpatient (observation) and inpatient status determinations are important for hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries. The Recovery Audit program, more commonly known as the RACs (Recovery Audit Contractors), is charged with surveillance and enforcement of such status determinations. Surveillance in the Medicare program is necessary, and Medicare fraud and abuse should not be tolerated. However, there are increasing concerns regarding RAC accuracy, auditor financial incentives, and the volume of audits and overpayment determinations auditors allege. We therefore studied Complex Medicare Part A RAC audits at 3 academic medical centers, the University of Wisconsin, the University of Utah, and Johns Hopkins, to determine the impact and trends of such audits.
There was a nearly 300% increase in RAC overpayment determinations in just 2 years at the study hospitals. Each year, the hospitals won a greater percent of contested cases, winning 68.0% of cases with decisions in 2013. Two-thirds of all favorable decisions for the hospitals occurred in the discussion period. Because discussion is not considered part of the formal appeals process, this is omitted from reports of RAC accuracy. None of the overpayment determinations contested the need for the care delivered, rather contested the billing location, outpatient or inpatient. The hospitals averaged 5 FTE each to manage the audit and appeals process. Claims still in appeals had been in process for a mean of 555 days without decisions.
(more…)
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Steven B. Cohen, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Rockville, Maryland 20850
MedicalResearch: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Cohen: Health care expenditures represent more than one-sixth of the U.S. gross domestic product, exhibit a rate of growth that exceeds other sectors of the economy, and constitute one of the largest components of the federal budget and states’ budgets. Although the rate of growth in health care spending has slowed in the past few years, costs continue to rise. As a result, an evaluation of the current health care system requires an understanding of the patterns and trends in the use of health care services and their associated costs and sources of payment. Studies that examine the concentration and persistence of high levels of expenditures over time are essential to help discern the factors most likely to drive health care spending and the characteristics of the individuals who incur them.
MedicalResearch: What are the main findings?
Dr. Cohen: Using information from the Household Component of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS-HC) sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), this study provides detailed estimates of the concentration and persistence in the level of health care expenditures in the United States. Attention is given to identifying the characteristics of individuals with the highest levels of medical expenditures, in addition to those factors that are associated with low medical expense profiles.
In 2011, 1 percent of the population accounted for 21.5 percent of total health care expenditures, and in 2012, the top 1 percent accounted for 22.7 percent of total expenditures with an annual mean expenditure of $97,956. The lower 50 percent of the population ranked by their expenditures accounted for only 2.8 percent and 2.7 percent of the total for 2011 and 2012 respectively. Of those individuals ranked at the top 1 percent of the health care expenditure distribution in 2011 (with a mean expenditure of $92,825), 19.6 percent maintained this ranking with respect to their 2012 health care expenditures.
In both 2011 and 2012, the top 10 percent of the population accounted for 65.3 percent of overall health care expenditures in 2011 (with a mean expenditure of $27,927), and 41.5 percent of this subgroup retained this top decile ranking with respect to their 2012 health care expenditures. Those who were in the top decile of spenders in both 2011 and 2012 differed by age, race/ethnicity, sex, health status, and insurance coverage (for those under 65) from those who were in the lower half in both years. (more…)
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Sanziana Roman MD FACS
Professor of Surgery Duke University
Section of Endocrine Surgery
Director of the Endocrine Surgery Fellows and Scholars Program
Duke University School of Medicine
Chief, General Surgery and Associate Chief of Surgery for Clinical Affairs, DVAMC
Medical Research: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Roman: Adjuvant radioactive iodine (RAI) is commonly used in the management of differentiated thyroid cancer. The main goals of adjuvant RAI therapy are to ablate remnant thyroid tissue in order to facilitate long-term follow-up of patients, decrease the risk of recurrence, or treat persistent and metastatic lesions.
On the other hand, Adjuvant radioactive iodine ( therapy is expensive, with an average cost per patient ranging between $5,429.58 and $9,105.67. It also carries the burden of several potential complications, including loss of taste, nausea, stomatitis with ulcers, acute and/or chronic sialoadenitis, salivary duct obstruction, dental caries, tooth loss, epiphora, anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, acute radiation pneumonitis, pulmonary fibrosis, male infertility, and radiation-induced malignancies. Therefore, Adjuvant radioactive iodine ( should be used only for appropriately selected patients, for whom the benefits would outweigh the risks.
Based on current guidelines, adjuvant RAI is not recommended for patients with papillary thyroid cancers confined to the thyroid gland when all foci are ≤1 cm (papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, or PTMC). Similarly, Adjuvant radioactive iodine ( does not have a role in the treatment of medullary and anaplastic thyroid cancer. Given the fact that variation in treatments exist, our goal was to analyze patterns of inappropriate adjuvant RAI use in the U.S. in order to identify potential misuses leading to an increase of costs for the healthcare system and unnecessary patients’ exposure to risks of complications.
(more…)
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
John Romley Ph.D
Economist at the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics
Research Assistant Professor Sol Price School of Public Policy
University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
MedicalResearch: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Romley: The need for better value in US health care is widely recognized. Existing evidence suggests that improvement in the productivity of American hospitals—that is, the output that hospitals produce from inputs such as labor and capital—has lagged behind that of other industries. However, previous studies have not adequately addressed quality of care or severity of patient illness. Our study, by contrast, adjusts for trends in the severity of patients’ conditions and health outcomes. We studied productivity growth among US hospitals in treating Medicare patients with heart attack, heart failure, and pneumonia during 2002–11. We found that the rates of annual productivity growth were 0.78 percent for heart attack, 0.62 percent for heart failure, and 1.90 percent for pneumonia. (more…)