Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Survey research in healthcare is an important tool to collect information about healthcare delivery, service use and overall issues relating to quality of care. Unfortunately, physicians are often a group with low survey response rates and little research has looked at response rates among physician specialists. For these reasons, the purpose of this project was to explore survey response rates among physician specialists in a large metropolitan Canadian city. Methods As part of a larger project to look at physician payment plans, an online survey about medical billing practices was distributed to 904 physicians from various medical specialties. The primary method for physicians to complete the survey was via the Internet using a well-known and established survey company ( www.surveymonkey.com ). Multiple methods were used to encourage survey response such as individual personalized email invitations, multiple reminders, and a draw for three gift certificate prizes were used to increase response rate. Descriptive statistics were used to assess response rates and reasons for non-response. Results Overall survey response rate was 35.0%. Response rates varied by specialty: Neurology/neurosurgery (46.6%); internal medicine (42.9%); general surgery (29.6%); pediatrics (29.2%); and psychiatry (27.1%). Non-respondents listed lack of time/survey burden as the main reason for not responding to our survey. Conclusions Our survey results provide a look into the challenges of collecting healthcare research where response rates to surveys are often low. The findings presented here should help researchers in planning future survey based studies. Findings from this study and others suggest smaller monetary incentives for each individual may be a more appropriate way to increase response rates.

Safety-net hospitals provide essential care to patients regardless of their insurance coverage, financial circumstances, or immigration status, and they often operate with thin margins. But the lack of a clear definition for safety-net hospitals presents challenges.

In 2015 the Medicare Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) program paid hospitals $1.4 billion in performance-based incentives; 30 percent of a hospital's VBP Total Performance Score was based on performance on Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) measures of the patient experience of care. Hospitals receive patient experience points based on three components: achievement, improvement, and consistency. For 2015 we examined how the three components affected reimbursement for 3,152 hospitals, including their impact on low-performing and high-minority hospitals. Achievement accounted for 96 percent of the differences among hospitals in total HCAHPS points. Although achievement had the biggest influence on payments, payments related to improvement and consistency were more beneficial for low-performing hospitals that disproportionately served minority patients. The findings highlight the important inducement that paying for improvement provides to initially low-performing hospitals to improve care and the role this incentive structure plays in minimizing resource redistributions away from hospitals serving minority populations. Additional emphasis on improvement points could benefit hospitals serving disadvantaged patients.

Medicare Advantage (MA) plans provide fewer home health (HH) services than traditional Medicare (TM), but MA plans vary in how they reimburse HH agencies. Like TM, episodic MA plans allow agencies to determine the number and type of visits. Alternatively, per-visit MA plans dictate a specific number of visits and which disciplines provide them. This study examined differences in HH care delivery and patient outcomes among TM, episodic MA, and per-visit MA plans. Secondary analysis of HH agency data from January 2019 to December 2022. For 285,297 HH stays, we used inverse probability of treatment weighting regression to compare TM vs each MA plan type and per-visit vs episodic MA plans. We examined HH length of stay; number of visits from nursing, therapy disciplines, social work, and aides; transfer to an inpatient facility during HH; improvement in self-care and mobility function; and community discharge. Compared with TM, both MA plans had shorter stays and fewer visits from nursing, therapy, and aides, and episodic MA plans had fewer social work visits. Comparing MA plans with each other, per-visit MA had 2.3% shorter stays, 3.0% more physical therapy visits, and 6.8% fewer social work visits vs episodic MA. Differences in outcomes between MA and TM varied by MA plan type, but compared with TM, per-visit MA had a 6% higher likelihood of inpatient transfers (95% CI, 1.02-1.10). Comparing MA plans, per-visit MA had a 12% higher likelihood of inpatient transfers (95% CI, 1.06-1.18) than episodic MA. Episodic MA plans, which allow HH agencies flexibility in determining visit delivery, may have fewer adverse inpatient transfer outcomes compared with MA plans that dictate the amount and type of care provided.

Somatic gene editing (SGE) holds great promise for making genetic therapy possible for many monogenic conditions very soon. Is our current system of European market authorization and reimbursement ready for the expected tsunami of gene therapies? At a recent workshop of the Netherlands ZonMw consortium on ethical, legal, and social implications of personalized medicine, we discussed the current possibilities for bringing new gene therapies to the clinic. In Europe, it is not yet clear whether the route via the European medicines agency as an advanced therapy medicinal product is the most appropriate for evaluation of highly personalized SGE applications, although this may optimally guarantee safety and effectiveness. Compassionate use may ensure faster access than the centralized procedure but does not stimulate the commercial development of products. Prescription to named patients may only provide adequate access for single patients. Temporary authorization of use may allow access to medication half a year before formal market authorization has been granted, but may also have large budget impacts. Magistral compounding under a hospital exemption may be an attractive solution for rare, tailor-made applications at an acceptable price. To approve local experimental use of a therapy on a case-by-case basis may be fast, but does not guarantee optimal safety, effectiveness, and broad implementation. We argue that alternative routes should be considered for products developed for a market of large groups of patients versus unique personalized treatments. A balance between scientific evidence for safety and effectiveness, affordability, and fast access may demand a range of alternative solutions.

As hard as it may be for clinicians to adopt new practices, it is often harder for them to \"de-innovate,\" or give up old practices, even when new evidence reveals that those practices offer little value. In this article we explore recent controversies over screening for breast and prostate cancer and testing for sleep disorders. We show that these controversies are not caused solely by a lack of clinical data on the harms and benefits of these tests but are also influenced by several psychological biases that make it difficult for clinicians to de-innovate. De-innovation could be fostered by making sure that advisory panels and guideline committees include experts who have competing biases; emphasizing evidence over clinical judgment; resisting \"indication creep,\" or the premature extension of innovations into unproven areas; and encouraging clinicians to explicitly consider how their experiences bias their interpretations of clinical evidence.As hard as it may be for clinicians to adopt new practices, it is often harder for them to \"de-innovate,\" or give up old practices, even when new evidence reveals that those practices offer little value. In this article we explore recent controversies over screening for breast and prostate cancer and testing for sleep disorders. We show that these controversies are not caused solely by a lack of clinical data on the harms and benefits of these tests but are also influenced by several psychological biases that make it difficult for clinicians to de-innovate. De-innovation could be fostered by making sure that advisory panels and guideline committees include experts who have competing biases; emphasizing evidence over clinical judgment; resisting \"indication creep,\" or the premature extension of innovations into unproven areas; and encouraging clinicians to explicitly consider how their experiences bias their interpretations of clinical evidence.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the ACA, for short) became law with President Obama’s signature on March 23, 2010. It represents the most significant transformation of the American health care system since Medicare and Medicaid. It is argued that it will fundamentally change nearly every aspect of health care, from insurance to the final delivery of care. The length and complexity of the legislation and divisive and heated debates have led to massive confusion about the impact of ACA. It also became one of the centerpieces of 2010 congressional campaigns. Essentials of ACA include: 1) a mandate for individuals and businesses requiring as a matter of law that nearly every American have an approved level of health insurance or pay a penalty; 2) a system of federal subsidies to completely or partially pay for the now required health insurance for about 34 million Americans who are currently uninsured – subsidized through Medicaid and exchanges; 3) extensive new requirements on the health insurance industry; and 4) numerous regulations on the practice of medicine. The act is divided into 10 titles. It contains provisions that went into effect starting on June 21, 2010, with the majority of provisions going into effect in 2014 and later. The perceived major impact on practicing physicians in the ACA is related to growing regulatory authority with the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) and the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). In addition to these specifics is a growth of the regulatory regime in association with further discounts in physician reimbursement. With regards to cost controls and projections, many believe that the ACA does not fix the finances of our health care system – neither public nor private. It has been suggested that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the administration have used creative accounting to arrive at an alleged deficit reduction; however, if everything is included appropriately and accounted for, we will be facing a significant increase in deficits rather than a reduction. When posed as a global question, polls suggest that public opinion continues to be against the health insurance reform. The newly elected Republican congress is poised to pass a bill aimed at repealing health care reform. However, advocates of the repeal of health care reform have been criticized for not providing a meaningful alternative approach. Those criticisms make clear that it is not sufficient to provide vague arguments against the ACA without addressing core issues embedded in health care reform. It is the opinion of the authors that while some parts of the ACA may be reformed, it is unlikely to be repealed. Indeed, the ACA already is growing roots. Consequently, it will be extremely difficult to repeal. In this manuscript, we look at reducing the regulatory burden on the public and providers and elimination of IPAB and PCORI. The major solution lies in controlling the drug and durable medical supply costs with appropriate negotiating capacity for Medicare, and consequently for other insurers. Key words: Affordable Care Act, health care costs, health care regulation, health care reform, Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, health exchanges, health care subsidies, health insurance premiums, uninsured, Medicare, cost control