Search

Objective: To develop a basic benefit package for detection and treatment of early breast cancer by evaluating the effectiveness and costs for screening mammography, primary surgery, adjuvant therapy, and follow-up care.Data Sources: Published articles were retrieved through MEDLINE; additional articles were obtained through searches of their bibliographies. Cancer statistics were taken from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data, population statistics were taken from US Census data, and charges from 1993 Southern California Medicare fees were used to represent costs.Study Selection: Studies were selected on the basis of their design. Preference, in decreasing order, was given to meta-analyses of randomized trials, individual randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, and case series.Data Extraction: Studies were examined for the effect of the intervention on overall survival, disease-free survival, and health-related quality of life. We evaluated effects on survival in terms of number of lives saved at 10 years and average years of life saved. Costs were related to the benefits observed and modeled onto a hypothetical health care organization of 500,000 lives.Results: Based on this analysis, we recommend a basic benefit plan for the detection and treatment of early breast cancer that would include the following: (1) screening mammography only for women aged 50 to 69 years; (2) choice of mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery with radiation therapy for all women with early breast cancer; (3) adjuvant therapy for all women at risk of recurrence; and (4) only clinical follow-up without routine testing for metastatic disease.Conclusions: By choosing which services they provide to specific groups of patients, providers can substantially reduce their expenses and still provide quality health benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We compared patient outcomes before and after the introduction of the diagnosis related groups (DRG)-based prospective payment system (PPS) in a nationally representative sample of 14,012 Medicare patients hospitalized in 1981 through 1982 and 1985 through 1986 with one of five diseases. For the five diseases combined; length of stay dropped 24% and in-hospital mortality declined from 16.1% to 12.6% after the PPS was introduced (P less than .05). Thirty-day mortality adjusted for sickness at admission was 1.1% lower than before (16.5% pre-PPS, 15.4% post-PPS; P less than .05), and 180-day adjusted mortality was essentially unchanged at 29.6% pre-vs 29.0% post-PPS (P less than .05). For patients admitted to the hospital from home, 4% more patients were not discharged home post-PPS than pre-PPS (P less than .05), and an additional 1% of patients had prolonged nursing home stays (P less than .05). The introduction of the PPS was not associated with a worsening of outcome for hospitalized Medicare patients. However, because our post-PPS data are from 1985 and 1986, we recommend that clinical monitoring be maintained to ensure that changes in prospective payment do not negatively affect patient outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We developed disease-specific measures of sickness at admission based on medical record data to study mortality of Medicare patients with one of five conditions (congestive heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, pneumonia, and hip fracture). We collected an average of 73 sickness variables per disease, but our final sickness-at-admission scales use, on average, 19 variables. These scales are publicly available, and explain 25% of the variance in 30-day postadmission mortality for patients with acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, or cerebrovascular accident. Sickness at admission increased following the introduction of the prospective payment system (PPS). For our five diseases combined, the 30-day mortality to be expected because of sickness at admission was 1.0% higher in the 1985-1986 period than in the 1981-1982 period (16.4% vs 15.4%), and the expected 180-day mortality was 1.6% higher (30.1% vs 28.5%). Studies of the effects of PPS on mortality must take this increase in sickness at admission into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We estimate the lifetime, discounted costs that smokers and drinkers impose on others through collectively financed health insurance, pensions, disability insurance, group life insurance, fires, motor-vehicle accidents, and the criminal justice system. Although nonsmokers subsidize smokers' medical care and group life insurance, smokers subsidize nonsmokers' pensions and nursing home payments. On balance, smokers probably pay their way at the current level of excise taxes on cigarettes; but one may, nonetheless, wish to raise those taxes to reduce the number of adolescent smokers. In contrast, drinkers do not pay their way: current excise taxes on alcohol cover only about half the costs imposed on others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this series we have described changes in the quality of care that have occurred in the treatment of hospitalized elderly Medicare patients with one of five conditions between 1981-1982 and 1985-1986. In this article we report on a mortality analysis, patient and hospital subgroup comparisons, and time series studies we have conducted in an attempt to determine whether changes in quality of care can be linked causally to the introduction of the prospective payment system. Based on these analyses we conclude that (1) mortality following hospitalization has been unaffected by the introduction of the prospective payment system, and improvements in in-hospital processes of care that began prior to the prospective payment system have continued after its introduction, but (2) the prospective payment system has increased the likelihood that a patient will be discharged home in an unstable condition. We recommend that efforts to correct this problem be intensified and that clinical monitoring of the impact of the prospective payment system continue as hospital cost-containment pressures intensify. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We developed explicit process criteria and scales for Medicare patients hospitalized with congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, pneumonia, cerebrovascular accident, and hip fracture. We applied the process scales to a nationally representative sample of 14,012 patients hospitalized before and after the implementation of the diagnosis related group-based prospective payment system. For the four medical diseases, a better process of care resulted in lower mortality rates 30 days after admission. Patients in the upper quartile of process scores had a 30-day mortality rate 5% lower than that of patients in the lower quartile. The process of care improved after the introduction of the prospective payment system; eg, better nursing care after the introduction of the prospective payment system was associated with an expected decrease in 30-day mortality rates in pneumonia patients of 0.8 percentage points, and better physician cognitive performance was associated with an expected decrease in 30-day mortality rates of 0.4 percentage points. Overall, process improvements across all four medical conditions were associated with a 1 percentage point reduction in 30-day mortality rates after the introduction of the prospective payment system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We have conducted a nationally representative before-after study of the effects of the diagnosis related groups-based prospective payment system (PPS) on quality of in-hospital care for aged Medicare patients. We used a pre-post design with multiple time points in both the pre-PPS (calendar years 1981 and 1982) and post-PPS (July 1985 through June 1986) periods. We gathered clinically detailed data from medical records of patients with one of six diseases and supplemented these data with postdischarge information from Health Care Financing Administration files. We used a stratified multistage cluster sampling design with data gathered on 16,758 patients chosen from 297 hospitals in 30 areas in five states. Our hospital participation rate was 97%; we successfully accessed 96% of the medical records we requested; and our mean item-level reliability score was 0.80. Our sample matches the nation closely on hospital urbanicity, size, teaching status, ownership, and percentages of Medicare and Medicaid patients, and patient demographics and mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We used administrative (Part A Medicare) data to identify a representative sample of 1126 patients with congestive heart failure and 1150 with acute myocardial infarction in hospitals with significant unexpectedly high inpatient, age-sex-race-disease-specific death rates ("targeted") vs all other ("untargeted") hospitals in four states. Although death rates in targeted hospitals were 5.0 to 10.9 higher per 100 admissions than in untargeted hospitals, 56% to 82% of the excess could result from purely random variation. Differences in the quality of the process of care (based on a medical record review) could not explain the remaining statistically significant differences in mortality. Comparing targeted hospitals with subsets of untargeted ones, eg, those with lower than expected death rates, did not affect this conclusion. Severity of illness explained up to 2.8 excess deaths per 100 admissions for patients with myocardial infarction. Identifying hospitals that provide poor-quality care based on administrative data and single-year death rates is unlikely; targeting based on time periods greater than 1 year may be better. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1985, we began a 4-year evaluation of the effects of the diagnosis related groups-based prospective payment system on quality of care for hospitalized Medicare patients. This article provides an overview of the study's background, aims, design, and methods. We used a clinically detailed review of the medical record supplemented by data on postdischarge outcomes drawn from the files of the Health Care Financing Administration and fiscal intermediaries to (1) compare outcomes of care after adjustment for sickness at admission, (2) assess the process of in-hospital care and relationships between processes and outcomes, and (3) assess status at discharge for a nationally representative sample of patients hospitalized before and after prospective payment was implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]