The Effect of Financial Incentives on Patient Decisions to Undergo Low‐value Head Computed Tomography Scans

BackgroundExcessive diagnostic testing and defensive medicine contribute to billions of dollars in avoidable costs in the United States annually. Our objective was to determine the influence of financial incentives, accompanied with information regarding test risk and benefit, on patient preference for diagnostic testing.MethodsWe conducted a cross‐sectional survey of patients at the University of Michigan emergency department (ED). Each participant was presented with a hypothetical scenario involving an ED visit following minor traumatic brain injury. Participants were given information regarding potential benefit (detecting brain hemorrhage) and risk (developing cancer) of head computed tomography scan, as well as an incentive of $0 or$100 to forego testing. We used 0.1 and 1% for test benefit and risk, and values for risk, benefit, and financial incentive varied across participants. Our primary outcome was patient preference to undergo testing. We also collected demographic and numeracy information. We then used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs), which were adjusted for multiple potential confounders. Our sample size was designed to find at least 300 events (preference for testing) to allow for inclusion of up to 30 covariates in fully adjusted models. We had 85% to 90% power to detect a 10% absolute difference in testing rate across groups, assuming a 95% significance level.ResultsWe surveyed 913 patients. Increasing test benefit from 0.1% to 1% significantly increased test acceptance (adjusted OR [AOR] = 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2 to 2.1) and increasing test risk from 0.1% to 1% significantly decreased test acceptance (AOR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.52 to 0.93). Finally, a $100 incentive to forego low‐value testing significantly reduced test acceptance (AOR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.4 to 0.8).ConclusionsProviding financial incentives to forego testing significantly decreased patient preference for testing, even when accounting for test benefit and risk. This work is preliminary and hypothetical and requires confirmation in larger patient cohorts facing these actual decisions.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151851/1/acem13823_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151851/2/acem13823-sup-0001-DataSupplementS1.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151851/3/acem13823.pd

Attitudes toward cost-conscious care among U.S. physicians and medical students: analysis of national cross-sectional survey data by age and stage of training

Abstract Background The success of initiatives intended to increase the value of health care depends, in part, on the degree to which cost-conscious care is endorsed by current and future physicians. This study aimed to first analyze attitudes of U.S. physicians by age and then compare the attitudes of physicians and medical students. Methods A paper survey was mailed in mid-2012 to 3897 practicing physicians randomly selected from the American Medical Association Masterfile. An electronic survey was sent in early 2015 to all 5,992 students at 10 U.S. medical schools. Survey items measured attitudes toward cost-conscious care and perceived responsibility for reducing healthcare costs. Physician responses were first compared across age groups (30–40 years, 41–50 years, 51–60 years, and > 60 years) and then compared to student responses using Chi square tests and logistic regression analyses (controlling for sex). Results A total of 2,556 physicians (65%) and 3395 students (57%) responded. Physician attitudes generally did not differ by age, but differed significantly from those of students. Specifically, students were more likely than physicians to agree that cost to society should be important in treatment decisions (p < 0.001) and that physicians should sometimes deny beneficial but costly services (p < 0.001). Students were less likely to agree that it is unfair to ask physicians to be cost-conscious while prioritizing patient welfare (p < 0.001). Compared to physicians, students assigned more responsibility for reducing healthcare costs to hospitals and health systems (p < 0.001) and less responsibility to lawyers (p < 0.001) and patients (p < 0.001). Nearly all significant differences persisted after controlling for sex and when only the youngest physicians were compared to students. Conclusions Physician attitudes toward cost-conscious care are similar across age groups. However, physician attitudes differ significantly from medical students, even among the youngest physicians most proximate to students in age. Medical student responses suggest they are more accepting of cost-conscious care than physicians and attribute more responsibility for reducing costs to organizations and systems rather than individuals. This may be due to the combined effects of generational differences, new medical school curricula, students’ relative inexperience providing cost-conscious care within complex healthcare systems, and the rapidly evolving U.S. healthcare system.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146517/1/12909_2018_Article_1388.pd

Operating room waste: Disposable supply utilization in neurosurgical procedures

Objective Disposable supplies constitute a large portion of operating room (OR) costs and are often left over at the end of a surgical case. Despite financial and environmental implications of such waste, there has been little evaluation of OR supply utilization. The goal of this study was to quantify the utilization of disposable supplies and the costs associated with opened but unused items (i.e., waste ) in neurosurgical procedures. Methods Every disposable supply that was unused at the end of surgery was quantified through direct observation of 58 neurosurgical cases at the University of California, San Francisco, in August 2015. Item costs (in US dollars) were determined from the authors\u27 supply catalog, and statistical analyses were performed. Results Across 58 procedures (36 cranial, 22 spinal), the average cost of unused supplies was $653 (range$89-$3640, median$448, interquartile range $230-$810), or 13.1% of total surgical supply cost. Univariate analyses revealed that case type (cranial versus spinal), case category (vascular, tumor, functional, instrumented, and noninstrumented spine), and surgeon were important predictors of the percentage of unused surgical supply cost. Case length and years of surgical training did not affect the percentage of unused supply cost. Accounting for the different case distribution in the 58 selected cases, the authors estimate approximately $968 of OR waste per case,$242, 968 per month, and $2.9 million per year, for their neurosurgical department. Conclusions This study shows a large variation and significant magnitude of OR waste in neurosurgical procedures. At the authors\u27 institution, they recommend price transparency, education about OR waste to surgeons and nurses, preference card reviews, and clarification of supplies that should be opened versus available as needed to reduce waste

Predictors of Variation in Neurosurgical Supply Costs and Outcomes Across 4904 Surgeries at a Single Institution

Background There is high variability in neurosurgical costs, and surgical supplies constitute a significant portion of cost. Anecdotally, surgeons use different supplies for various reasons, but there is little understanding of how supply choices affect outcomes. Our goal is to evaluate the effect of patient, procedural, and provider factors on supply cost and to determine if supply cost is associated with patient outcomes. Methods We obtained patient information (age, gender, payor, case mix index [CMI], body mass index, admission source), procedural data (procedure type, length, date), provider information (name, case volume), and total surgical supply cost for all inpatient neurosurgical procedures from 2013 to 2014 at our institution (n = 4904). We created mixed-effect models to examine the effect of each factor on surgical supply cost, 30-day readmission, and 30-day mortality. Results There was significant variation in surgical supply cost between and within procedure types. Older age, female gender, higher CMI, routine/elective admission, longer procedure, and larger surgeon volume were associated with higher surgical supply costs (P \u3c 0.05). Routine/elective admission and higher surgeon volume were associated with lower readmission rates (odds ratio, 0.707, 0.998; P \u3c 0.01). Change this sentence to: “Only patient factors of older age, male gender, private insurance, higher CMI, and emergency admission were associated with higher mortality (odds ratio, 1.029, 1.700, 1.692, 1.080, 2.809). There was no association between surgical supply cost and readmission or mortality (P = 0.307, 0.548). Conclusions A combination of patient, procedural, and provider factors underlie the significant variation in neurosurgical supply costs at our institution. Surgical supply costs are not correlated with 30-day readmission or mortality

Analysis of Cost Variation in Craniotomy for Tumor Using 2 National Databases

BACKGROUND: There is a significant increase and large variation in craniotomy costs. However, the causes of cost differences in craniotomies remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To examine the patient and hospital factors that underlie the cost variation in tumor craniotomies using 2 national databases: the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) and Vizient, Inc. (Irving, Texas). METHODS: For 41 483 patients who underwent primary surgery for supratentorial brain tumors from 2001 to 2013 in the NIS, we created univariate and multivariate models to evaluate the effect of several patient factors and hospital factors on total hospital cost. Similarly, we performed multivariate analysis with 15 087 cases in the Vizient 2012 to 2015 database. RESULTS: In the NIS, the mean inflation-adjusted cost per tumor craniotomy increased 30%, from $23 021 in 2001 to$29 971 in 2013. In 2001, the highest cost region was the Northeast ($24 486 ±$1184), and by 2013 the western United States was the highest cost region ($36 058 ±$1684). Multivariate analyses with NIS data showed that male gender, white race, private insurance, higher mortality risk, higher severity of illness, longer length of stay, elective admissions, higher wage index, urban teaching hospitals, and hospitals in the western United States were associated with higher tumor craniotomy costs (all P \u3c .05). Multivariate analyses with Vizient data confirmed that longer length of stay and the western United States were significantly associated with higher costs (P \u3c .001). CONCLUSION: After controlling for patient/clinical factors, hospital type, bed size, and wage index, hospitals in the western United States had higher costs than those in other parts of the country, based on analyses from 2 separate national databases

Association Between Surgeon Scorecard Use and Operating Room Costs.

ImportanceDespite the significant contribution of surgical spending to health care costs, most surgeons are unaware of their operating room costs.ObjectiveTo examine the association between providing surgeons with individualized cost feedback and surgical supply costs in the operating room.Design, setting, and participantsThe OR Surgical Cost Reduction (OR SCORE) project was a single-health system, multihospital, multidepartmental prospective controlled study in an urban academic setting. Intervention participants were attending surgeons in orthopedic surgery, otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, and neurological surgery (n = 63). Control participants were attending surgeons in cardiothoracic surgery, general surgery, vascular surgery, pediatric surgery, obstetrics/gynecology, ophthalmology, and urology (n = 186).InterventionsFrom January 1 to December 31, 2015, each surgeon in the intervention group received standardized monthly scorecards showing the median surgical supply direct cost for each procedure type performed in the prior month compared with the surgeon's baseline (July 1, 2012, to November 30, 2014) and compared with all surgeons at the institution performing the same procedure at baseline. All surgical departments were eligible for a financial incentive if they met a 5% cost reduction goal.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was each group's median surgical supply cost per case. Secondary outcome measures included total departmental surgical supply costs, case mix index-adjusted median surgical supply costs, patient outcomes (30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and discharge status), and surgeon responses to a postintervention study-specific health care value survey.ResultsThe median surgical supply direct costs per case decreased 6.54% in the intervention group, from $1398 (interquartile range [IQR],$316-$5181) (10 637 cases) in 2014 to$1307 (IQR, $319-$5037) (11 820 cases) in 2015. In contrast, the median surgical supply direct cost increased 7.42% in the control group, from $712 (IQR,$202-$1602) (16 441 cases) in 2014 to$765 (IQR, $233-$1719) (17 227 cases) in 2015. This decrease represents a total savings of $836 147 in the intervention group during the 1-year study. After controlling for surgeon, department, patient demographics, and clinical indicators in a mixed-effects model, there was a 9.95% (95% CI, 3.55%-15.93%; P = .003) surgical supply cost decrease in the intervention group over 1 year. Patient outcomes were equivalent or improved after the intervention, and surgeons who received scorecards reported higher levels of cost awareness on the health care value survey compared with controls.Conclusions and relevanceCost feedback to surgeons, combined with a small departmental financial incentive, was associated with significantly reduced surgical supply costs, without negatively affecting patient outcomes