Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Specialty societies in the United States identified low-value tests and procedures that contribute to waste and poor health care quality via implementation of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation’s Choosing Wisely initiative. Objective To develop claims-based algorithms, to use them to estimate the prevalence of select Choosing Wisely services and to examine the demographic, health and health care system correlates of low-value care at a regional level. Design Using Medicare data from 2006 to 2011, we created claims-based algorithms to measure the prevalence of 11 Choosing Wisely-identified low-value services and examined geographic variation across hospital referral regions (HRRs). We created a composite low-value care score for each HRR and used linear regression to identify regional characteristics associated with more intense use of low-value services. Patients Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries over age 65. Main Measures Prevalence of selected Choosing Wisely low-value services. Key Results The national average annual prevalence of the selected Choosing Wisely low-value services ranged from 1.2% (upper urinary tract imaging in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia) to 46.5% (preoperative cardiac testing for low-risk, non-cardiac procedures). Prevalence across HRRs varied significantly. Regional characteristics associated with higher use of low-value services included greater overall per capita spending, a higher specialist to primary care ratio and higher proportion of minority beneficiaries. Conclusions Identifying and measuring low-value health services is a prerequisite for improving quality and eliminating waste. Our findings suggest that the delivery of wasteful and potentially harmful services may be a fruitful area for further research and policy intervention for HRRs with higher per-capita spending. These findings should inform action by physicians, health systems, policymakers, payers and consumer educators to improve the value of health care by targeting services and areas with greater use of potentially inappropriate care.

Purpose Although rates of hospice use have increased over time, insurance plan- and racial/ethnic-based disparities in rates have been reported in the USA. We hypothesized that increased rates of hospice use would reduce or eliminate insurance plan-based disparities and that racial/ethnic disparities would be eliminated in managed care (MC) insurance plans. Methods We studied the use of hospice care in the final 30 days of life among 40,184 elderly Texas Medicare beneficiaries who died from primary breast, colorectal, lung, pancreas, or prostate cancer between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2013, using statewide Medicare claims linked to cancer registry data. Rates of hospice use were computed by race/ethnicity and insurance plan (MC or fee-for-service (FFS)). We used logistic regression to account for the impact of confounding factors. Results Rates of hospice use increased significantly over time, from 68.9% in 2007 to 76.1% in 2013. By 2013, differences in hospice use rates between MC and FFS plans had been reduced from 10% to < 5%. However, after accounting for insurance plan and confounding factors, racial/ethnic minority beneficiaries’ hospice use was significantly lower than non-Hispanic white beneficiaries’ ( p < 0.0001). This disparity was observed among both FFS and MC beneficiaries. Conclusions Hospice use in the final 30 days of life has increased among elderly cancer patients in Texas, virtually eliminating the difference between FFS and MC insurance plans. Despite these positive trends, racial/ethnic-based disparities persist. These disparities are not explained by confounding factors. Future research should address social and behavioral influences on end-of-life decisions.

To improve the efficiency and quality of care, in 1995, the Veterans Health Administration launched a program that included increased use of information technology, performance measurement and reporting, realigned payment policies, and integration of services. After the implementation of this program, the quality of preventive, acute, and long-term care substantially improved. The quality of health care in the United States is variable and too often inadequate. 1 – 10 The Veterans Health Administration in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been criticized for poor quality of care. 11 – 14 In 1995, the VA launched a major reengineering of its health care system with aims that included better use of information technology, measurement and reporting of performance, and integration of services and realigned payment policies. 15 – 19 We sought to determine how the quality of care provided by the VA changed after reengineering and to compare the quality of care with that provided by another . . .

It is widely held that fee-for-service (FFS) payment systems reward volume and intensity of services, contributing to overall cost inflation, while doing little to reward quality, efficiency, or care coordination. Recently, The National Commission on Physician Payment Reform (sponsored by SGIM) has recommended that payers “should largely eliminate stand-alone fee-for-service payment to medical practices because of its inherent inefficiencies and problematic financial incentives.” As the current and former Chief Medical Officers of a large national insurer, we agree that payment reform is a critical component of health care modernization. But calls to transform payment simultaneously go too far, and don’t go far enough. Based on our experience, we believe there are several critical ingredients that are either missing or under-emphasized in most payment reform proposals, including: health care is local so no one size fits all; upgrading performance measures; monitoring/overcoming unintended consequences; using a full toolbox to achieve transformation; and ensuring that the necessary components for successful delivery reform are in place. Thinking holistically and remembering that healthcare is a complex adaptive system are crucial to achieving better results for patients and the health system.

Background: Substantial regional variations in health-care spending exist across the United States; yet, care and outcomes are not better in higher-spending areas. Most studies have focused on care in fee-for-service Medicare; whether spillover effects exist in settings without financial incentives for more care is unknown. Objective: We studied care for cancer patients in fee-for-service Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration (VA) to understand whether processes and outcomes of care vary with area-level Medicare spending. Design: An observational study using logistic regression to assess care by area-level measures of Medicare spending. Subjects: Patients with lung, colorectal, or prostate cancers diagnosed during 2001—2004 in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) areas or the VA. The SEER cohort included fee-for-service Medicare patients aged older than 65 years. Measures: Recommended and preference-sensitive cancer care and mortality. Results: In fee-for-service Medicare, higher-spending areas had higher rates of recommended care (curative surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage non—small-cell lung cancer and chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer) and preference-sensitive care (chemotherapy for stage IV lung and colon cancer and primary treatment of local/regional prostate cancer) and had lower lung cancer mortality. In the VA, we observed minimal variation in care by area-level Medicare spending. Discussion: Our findings suggest that intensity of care for Medicare beneficiaries is not driving variations in VA care, despite some overlap in physician networks. Although the Dartmouth Atlas work has been of unprecedented importance in demonstrating variations in Medicare spending, new measures may be needed to better understand variations in other populations.

Objective To develop quality prescribing indicators for general practitioners (GPs) who are non-monitored and not included in pay-for-performance programs, and to determine compliance with incentivized and non-incentivized indicators. Study design Descriptive cross sectional study. Setting : Aljarafe Primary Health Care Area (Andalusian Public Health Care Service, Spain), a rural and suburban area with a population of 323,857 inhabitants. Health assistance in this area is provided by 176 GPs in 37 health centers. Prescribing indicators were developed by a multidisciplinary group using a qualitative technique based on consensus. The members of the consensus group searched for updated recommendations focused on clinical evidence. Prescribing data were obtained from the computerised pharmacy records of reimbursed drugs and clinical data from the electronic clinical databases and hospital admission records. Results Fourteen indicators based on the selection of drugs of different therapeutic groups or linked to patient´s clinical information were designed. The compliance with indicators based on the selection of drugs linked to financial incentives was higher than that of indicators not linked to financial incentives. The compliance with indicators based on clinical information varied widely. Inappropriate prescribing ranged from 7 %, in the use of long-acting beta-agonists in asthma, to 86 % in the use of drugs for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in young women. Conclusions This study shows better compliance by GPs with indirect and incentivized quality prescribing indicators, included in pay-for-performance programs, compared with not-incentivized indicators based on the relative use of drugs and on the appropriateness prescribing.

Safety-net hospitals, which include urban hospitals serving large numbers of low-income, uninsured, and otherwise vulnerable populations, have historically faced greater financial strains than hospitals that serve more affluent populations. These strains can affect hospitals' quality of care, perhaps resulting in worse outcomes that are commonly used as indicators of care quality-mortality and readmission rates. We compared risk-standardized rates of both of these clinical outcomes among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries admitted for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia. These beneficiaries were admitted to urban hospitals within Metropolitan Statistical Areas that contained at least one safety-net and at least one non-safety-net hospital. We found that outcomes varied across the urban areas for both safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals for all three conditions. However, mortality and readmission rates were broadly similar, with non-safety-net hospitals outperforming safety-net hospitals on average by less than one percentage point across most conditions. For heart failure mortality, there was no difference between safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals. These findings suggest that safety-net hospitals are performing better than many would have expected. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Like the SGIM Commission, we rue the toxic incentives of the current fee-for-service system. But in the profit-maximizing milieu of American medicine, capitation risks making things even worse. Payment reform should focus not on manipulating greed, but on dampening it. Then the real motivations for good doctoring--altruism, social duty, and the glow we feel when we help our patients--can flourish.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act represents a major opportunity to achieve several key goals at once: improving disease prevention; reforming care delivery; and bending the cost curve of health spending while also realizing greater value for the dollars spent. Reform-based initiatives could produce major gains in a relatively short time. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services should develop an action plan detailing how the programs that the health reform law sets into motion throughout various agencies can work synergistically. It should also detail how best practices in finance and payment, in the organization and delivery of care, and in prevention can be expanded nationally.The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act represents a major opportunity to achieve several key goals at once: improving disease prevention; reforming care delivery; and bending the cost curve of health spending while also realizing greater value for the dollars spent. Reform-based initiatives could produce major gains in a relatively short time. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services should develop an action plan detailing how the programs that the health reform law sets into motion throughout various agencies can work synergistically. It should also detail how best practices in finance and payment, in the organization and delivery of care, and in prevention can be expanded nationally.