Search

The Cleveland Health Quality Choice (CHQC) project was previously suggested to have been responsible for declines in inpatient mortality in Cleveland hospitals during the first years of the project (1992-1993). We sought to (a) verify this decline in mortality and (b) better understand its possible relationship to CHQC. We employed regression analysis to compare mortality rate trends for Cleveland versus the rest of Ohio using Ohio Hospital Association inpatient mortality data. We found that the rate of decline in mortality in Cleveland (-.218% per 6 months; 95% confidence limits, -.278% to -.159% per 6 months) was statistically indistinguishable from that in the rest of the state (-.188% per 6 months; 95% confidence limits, -.234% to -.143% per 6 months) (P = .35). We could not demonstrate a significant beneficial effect of the CHQC project on hospital mortality in Cleveland. Inpatient mortality was simultaneously declining at a statistically indistinguishable rate throughout the state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Updated guidelines give exercise and weight loss a bigger role in managing this potentially devastating disease. A careful yet cost-effective workup will rule out other conditions and target the candidate for drug therapy, surgery, or other interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Treatment Guideline increased the number of primary prevention patients eligible for statin therapy, yet uptake of these guidelines has been modest. Little is known of how primary care provider ( PCP ) beliefs influence statin prescription. Methods and Results We surveyed 164 PCP s from a community-based North Carolina network in 2017 about statin therapy. We evaluated statin initiation among the PCP s' statin-eligible patients between 2014 and 2015 without a previous prescription. Seventy-two PCP s (43.9%) completed the survey. The median estimate of the relative risk reduction for high-intensity statins was 45% (interquartile range, 25%-50%). A minority of providers (27.8%) believed statins caused diabetes mellitus, and only 16.7% reported always/very often discussing this with patients. Most PCPs (97.2%) believed that statins cause myopathy, and 72.3% reported always/very often discussing this with patients. Most (77.7%) reported always/very often using the 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk calculator, although many reported that in most cases other risk factors or patient preferences influenced prescribing (59.8% and 43.1%, respectively). Of 6172 statin-eligible patients, 22.3% received a prescription for a moderate- or high-intensity statin at follow-up. Providers reporting greater reliance on risk factors beyond atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk were less likely to prescribe statins. Conclusions Although beliefs and approaches to statin discussions vary among community PCP s, new prescription rates are low and minimally associated with those beliefs. These results highlight the complexity of increasing statin prescriptions for primary prevention and suggest that strategies to facilitate standardized discussions and to address external influences on patient beliefs warrant future study.

Objectives: Hospitals have rapidly acquired medical oncology practices in recent years. Experts disagree as to whether these trends are related to oncology-specific market factors or reflect a general trend of hospital-physician integration. The objective of this study was to compare the prevalence, geographic variation, and trends in physicians billing from hospital outpatient departments in medical oncology with other specialties., Study Design: Retrospective analysis of Medicare claims data for 2012 and 2013., Methods: We calculated the proportion of physicians and practitioners in the 15 highest-volume specialties who billed the majority of evaluation and management visits from hospital outpatient departments in each year, nationally and by state., Results: We included 338,998 and 352,321 providers in 2012 and 2013, respectively, of whom 9715 and 9969 were medical oncologists. Among the 15 specialties examined, medical oncology had the highest proportion of hospital outpatient department billing in 2012 and 2013 (35.0% and 38.3%, respectively). Medical oncology also experienced the greatest absolute change (3.3%) between the years, followed by thoracic surgery (2.4%) and cardiology (2.0%). There was marked state-level variation, with the proportion of medical oncologists based in hospital outpatient departments ranging from 0% in Nevada to 100% in Idaho., Conclusions: Hospital-physician integration has been more pronounced in medical oncology than in other high-volume specialties and is increasing at a faster rate. Policy makers should take these findings into consideration, particularly with respect to recent proposals that may continue to fuel these trends.

Background: Multiple payment reform efforts are under way to improve the value of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries, yet few directly address the interface between primary and specialty care., Objective: To describe regional variation in outpatient visits for individual specialties and the association between specialty physician-specific payments and patient-reported satisfaction with care and health status., Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study., Patients: A 20 % random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in 2012., Main Measures: Regions were grouped into quartiles of specialist index, defined as the observed/expected regional likelihood of having an outpatient visit to a specialist, for ten common specialties, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Outcomes were per capita specialty-specific physician payments and Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey responses., Key Results: The proportion of beneficiaries seeing a specialist varied the most for endocrinology and gastroenterology (3.7- and 3.9-fold difference between the highest and lowest quartiles, respectively) and least for orthopedics and urology (1.5- and 1.7-fold difference, respectively). Multiple analyses suggested that this variation was not explained by prevalence of disease. Average specialty-specific payments were strongly associated with the likelihood of visiting a specialist. Differences in per capita payments from lowest (Q1) to highest quartiles (Q4) were greatest for cardiology ($89, $135, $172, $251) and dermatology ($46, $64, $82, $124). Satisfaction with overall care (median [interquartile range] across specialties: Q1, 93.3 % [92.6-93.7 %]; Q4, 93.1 % [92.9-93.2 %]) and self-reported health status (Q1, 37.1 % [36.9-37.7 %]; Q4, 38.2 % [37.2-38.4 %]) was similar across quartiles. Satisfaction with access to specialty care was consistently lower in the lowest quartile of specialty index (Q1, 89.7 % [89.2-91.1 %]; Q4, 94.5 % [94.4-94.8 %])., Conclusions: Substantial regional variability in outpatient specialist visits is associated with greater payments with limited benefits in terms of patient-reported satisfaction with care or reported health status. Reducing outpatient physician visits may represent an important opportunity to improve the efficiency of care., Competing Interests: Compliance with Ethical Standards Disclaimer Dr. Clough was employed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services during the time in which the study was conducted. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the policy or views of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Purpose: To determine the relationships between hospital use of treating oncology practices and patient outcomes., Patients and Methods: Retrospective analysis of 397,646 Medicare beneficiaries who received anticancer therapy in 2012. Each beneficiary was associated with a practice; practices were ranked on the basis of risk-adjusted hospital use, that is, inpatient intensity. Outcomes included 30-day readmission, weekend admissions, intensive care unit stays in the last month of life, and hospice stay of ≥ 7 days. Outcomes were measured for each quartile of practice-level inpatient intensity. We fit multivariable logistic regression models to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for each outcome for each quartile of inpatient intensity., Results: Total 30-day readmissions were 22.8% and 31.9% (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.39 to 1.50) for patients in practices with the lowest versus highest quartiles of inpatient intensity, respectively; unplanned readmissions were 19.8% and 27.1% (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.41), respectively. The proportion of admissions that occurred on weekends was similar across quartiles. Patients of practices in the highest quartiles of inpatient intensity had higher rates of death in an ICU stay in the last month of life (25.5% versus 18.0%; OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.49) and a lower rate of hospice stay of at least 7 days (50.9% to 42.5%; OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.86)., Conclusion: Medical oncology practices that seek to reduce hospitalizations should consider focusing initially on processes related to end-of-life care and care transitions.

Background: Efforts to improve the efficiency of care for the Medicare population commonly target high cost beneficiaries. We describe and evaluate a novel management approach, population segmentation, for identifying and managing high cost beneficiaries., Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 6,919,439 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in 2012. We defined and characterized eight distinct clinical population segments, and assessed heterogeneity in managing practitioners., Results: The eight segments comprised 9.8% of the population and 47.6% of annual Medicare payments. The eight segments included 61% and 69% of the population in the top decile and top 5% of annual Medicare payments. The positive-predictive values within each segment for meeting thresholds of Medicare payments ranged from 72% to 100%, 30% to 83%, and 14% to 56% for the upper quartile, upper decile, and upper 5% of Medicare payments respectively. Sensitivity and positive-predictive values were substantially improved over predictive algorithms based on historical utilization patterns and comorbidities. The mean [95% confidence interval] number of unique practitioners and practices delivering E&M services ranged from 1.82 [1.79-1.84] to 6.94 [6.91-6.98] and 1.48 [1.46-1.50] to 4.98 [4.95-5.00] respectively. The percentage of cognitive services delivered by primary care practitioners ranged from 23.8% to 67.9% across segments, with significant variability among specialty types., Conclusions: Most high cost Medicare beneficiaries can be identified based on a single clinical reason and are managed by different practitioners., Implications: Population segmentation holds potential to improve efficiency in the Medicare population by identifying opportunities to improve care for specific populations and managing clinicians, and forecasting and evaluating the impact of specific interventions., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Utilization of cardiac services varies across regions and hospitals, yet little is known regarding variation in the intensity of outpatient cardiac care across cardiology physician practices or the association with clinical endpoints, an area of potential importance to promote efficient care., Methods and Results: We included 7 160 732 Medicare beneficiaries who received services from 5635 cardiology practices in 2012. Beneficiaries were assigned to practices providing the plurality of office visits, and practices were ranked and assigned to quartiles using the ratio of observed to predicted annual payments per beneficiary for common cardiac services (outpatient intensity index). The median (interquartile range) outpatient intensity index was 1.00 (0.81-1.24). Mean payments for beneficiaries attributed to practices in the highest (Q4) and lowest (Q1) quartile of outpatient intensity were: all cardiac payments (Q4 $1272 vs Q1 $581; ratio, 2.2); cardiac catheterization (Q4 $215 vs Q1 $64; ratio, 3.4); myocardial perfusion imaging (Q4 $253 vs Q1 $83; ratio, 3.0); and electrophysiology device procedures (Q4 $353 vs Q1 $142; ratio, 2.5). The adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) for 1 incremental quartile of outpatient intensity for each outcome was: cardiac surgical/procedural hospitalization (1.09 [1.09, 1.10]); cardiac medical hospitalization (1.00 [0.99, 1.00]); noncardiac hospitalization (0.99 [0.99, 0.99]); and death at 1 year (1.00 [0.99, 1.00])., Conclusion: Substantial variation in the intensity of outpatient care exists at the cardiology practice level, and higher intensity is not associated with reduced mortality or hospitalizations. Outpatient cardiac care is a potentially important target for efforts to improve efficiency in the Medicare population., (© 2016 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.)

In recent years many policy makers have recommended alternative payment models in medical oncology in order to reduce costs and improve patient outcomes. Yet information on how oncology practices differ in their use of key service categories is limited. We measured annual payments for key service categories delivered to fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries receiving care from 1,534 medical oncology practices in 2011-12. In 2012, differences in payments per beneficiary at the seventy-fifth-percentile practice compared to the twenty-fifth-percentile practice were $3,866 for chemotherapy (including administration and supportive care drugs), $1,872 for acute medical hospitalizations, and $439 for advanced imaging. Supportive care drugs, bevacizumab, and positron-emission tomography accounted for the greatest percentage of variation. Average practice payments for service categories were highly correlated across years but not correlated with each other, which suggests that service categories may be affected by different physician practice characteristics. These differences, even when clinical guidelines exist, demonstrate the potential for quality improvement that could be accelerated through alternative payment models., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Protecting the privacy of the patient's medical record is a central issue in current discussions about a patient bill of rights, and controversy over a proposed "unique health identifier" has raised the decibel level of these discussions. At the heart of the debate is how best to resolve the inherent conflict between the individual's right to privacy and the need for access to patients' health information for reasons of public health, research, and health care management.