Search

Importance: Little is known about the association between industry payments and medical device selection.Objective: To examine the association between payments from device manufacturers to physicians and device selection for patients undergoing first-time implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D).Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, patients who received a first-time ICD or CRT-D device from any of the 4 major manufacturers (January 1, 2016-December 31, 2018) were identified. The data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry was linked with the Open Payments Program's payment data. Patients were categorized into 4 groups (A, B, C, and D) corresponding to the manufacturer from which the physician who performed the implantation received the largest payment. For each patient group, the proportion of patients who received a device from the manufacturer that provided the largest payment to the physician who performed implantation was determined. Within each group, the absolute difference in proportional use of devices between the manufacturer that made the highest payment and the proportion of devices from the same manufacturer in the entire study cohort (expected prevalence) was calculated.Exposures: Manufacturers' payments to physicians who performed an ICD or CRT-D implantation.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of the study was the manufacturer of the device used for the implantation.Results: Over a 3-year period, 145 900 patients (median age, 65 years; 29.6% women) received ICD or CRT-D devices from the 4 manufacturers implanted by 4435 physicians at 1763 facilities. Among these physicians, 4152 (94%) received payments from device manufacturers ranging from $2 to $323 559 with a median payment of $1211 (interquartile range, $390-$3702). Between 38.5% and 54.7% of patients received devices from the manufacturers that had provided physicians with the largest payments. Patients were substantially more likely to receive devices made by the manufacturer that provided the largest payment to the physician who performed implantation than they were from each other individual manufacturer. The absolute differences in proportional use from the expected prevalence were 22.4% (95% CI, 21.9%-22.9%) for manufacturer A; 14.5% (95% CI, 14.0%-15.0%) for manufacturer B; 18.8% (95% CI, 18.2%-19.4%) for manufacturer C; and 30.6% (95% CI, 30.0%-31.2%) for manufacturer D.Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, a large proportion of ICD or CRT-D implantations were performed by physicians who received payments from device manufacturers. Patients were more likely to receive ICD or CRT-D devices from the manufacturer that provided the highest total payment to the physician who performed an ICD or CRT-D implantation than each other manufacturer individually. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: The US Department of Justice (DOJ) conducted an investigation into implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) not meeting the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services National Coverage Determination (NCD) criteria.Objective: To examine changes in the proportion of initial primary prevention ICDs that did not meet NCD criteria following the announcement of the DOJ investigation at hospitals that reached settlements (settlement hospitals) and those that did not (nonsettlement hospitals).Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, longitudinal, serial cross-sectional analysis of 300 151 initial primary prevention ICDs among Medicare beneficiaries from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2015, at 1809 US hospitals in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) ICD Registry, of which 452 hospitals (with 99 591 primary prevention ICDs) reached settlements with the DOJ.Exposures: The DOJ investigation announcement in 2010.Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of initial primary prevention ICDs not meeting NCD criteria.Results: In January 2007, the proportion of initial ICDs not meeting NCD criteria was 25.8% (95% CI, 24.7% to 26.8%) at settlement hospitals and 22.8% (95% CI, 22.1% to 23.5%) at nonsettlement hospitals (P < .001). Over the study period, there was a 62.7% (95% CI, 59.2% to 66.1%) relative decrease and 16.1% (95% CI, 14.8% to 17.5%) absolute decrease in the proportion of ICDs not meeting NCD criteria at settlement hospitals compared with a 53.2% (95% CI, 50.4% to 56.0%) relative decrease and 12.1% (95% CI, 11.2% to 13.0%) absolute decrease in proportion at nonsettlement hospitals (P < .001 for both; P for interaction < .001). Trends significantly differed between hospital groups only in the period following the announcement of the DOJ investigation (January 2010-June 2011) [corrected], with larger and more rapid decreases at settlement hospitals (P for interaction = .01). Over the study period, there was a 32.8% (95% CI, 29.9% to 35.7%) relative decrease and a 1703 ICDs (95% CI, 1520 to 1886) absolute decrease in the volume of primary prevention ICDs implanted at settlement hospitals compared with a 17.4% (95% CI, 14.8% to 20.0%) relative decrease and a 1495 ICDs (95% CI, 1249 to 1741) absolute decrease in volume at nonsettlement hospitals (P < .001 for both; P for interaction < .001), with more modest decreases or slight increases in secondary prevention ICD volume. These patterns were similar when examining ICD utilization among non-Medicare beneficiaries.Conclusions and Relevance: From 2007 through 2015, the volume of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and the proportion of devices not meeting the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services National Coverage Determination criteria decreased at all hospitals with substantially larger decreases at hospitals that reached settlements in the US Department of Justice investigation. These patterns extended to implantable cardioverter-defibrillators placed in non-Medicare beneficiaries, which were not the focus of the US Department of Justice investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the option of shared decision making offered to patients instead of the earlier conventional consent procedures, particularly for hip replacement and knee osteoarthritis. It discusses how the physician reviews the options, also informing the patients about the risks involved in the treatment option. It also talks about the legislative route by Washington State encouraging shared decision making.

A response from the authors to their article "Change in Body Mass Index Associated With Lowest Mortality in Denmark," which appeared in a 2016 issue is presented.

The article discusses the need to revitalize reasonable-patient standards for informed consent through shared decision making. Topics include policy initiatives to advance informed consent with the reasonable-patient standard, informed consent and high-value patient-centered care, and the importance of implementing value-based payment models that recognize high-quality informed consent practices.

The authors discuss some measures that physicians can adopt both at the bedside and in the community to help reform the U.S. health care system and achieve their moral and professional responsibilities to the public. The consideration and adoption of new ways to measuring and improving the quality of care are encouraged. The authors also address the concerns over costs of medical care. Other areas that the authors believe needed improvement are communication, involvement in community-based programs and payment reform solutions.