Professional uncertainty and the problem of supplier-induced demand

This paper discusses the puzzling problem of large differences in per capita use of certain common surgical procedures among neighboring populations, which by all available measures are quite similar in need for and access to services. The evidence reviewed here supports the hypothesis that variations occur to a large extent because of differences among physicians in their evaluation of patients (diagnosis) or in their belief in the value of the procedures for meeting patient needs (therapy). This hypothesis, which we call the professional uncertainty hypothesis, is germane to current controversies concerning the nature and extent of supplier influence on the demand for medical services. It is also important because of its implications for health regulatory policy. Our plan is to (1) review the relevance of the hypotheses for the supplier-induced demand controversy; (2) review the epidemiologic evidence on the nature and causes of variation; (3) examine patterns of use of common surgical procedures to illustrate the importance of supplier influence on utilization; and (4) consider some of the implications of the professional uncertainty hypotheses for public policy.

The Medical Outcomes Study. An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care

The Medical Outcomes Study was designed to (1) determine whether variations in patient outcomes are explained by differences in system of care, clinician specialty, and clinicians\u27 technical and interpersonal styles and (2) develop more practical tools for the routine monitoring of patient outcomes in medical practice. Outcomes included clinical end points; physical, social, and role functioning in everyday living; patients\u27 perceptions of their general health and well-being; and satisfaction with treatment. Populations of clinicians (n = 523) were randomly sampled from different health care settings in Boston, Mass; Chicago, Ill; and Los Angeles, Calif. In the cross-sectional study, adult patients (n = 22,462) evaluated their health status and treatment. A sample of these patients (n = 2349) with diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, and/or depression were selected for the longitudinal study. Their hospitalizations and other treatments were monitored and they periodically reported outcomes of care. At the beginning and end of the longitudinal study, Medical Outcomes Study staff performed physical examinations and laboratory tests. Results will be reported serially, primarily in The Journal

Tailoring an educational program on the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators to meet stakeholder needs: lessons learned in the VA

Abstract Background Given that patient safety measures are increasingly used for public reporting and pay-for performance, it is important for stakeholders to understand how to use these measures for improvement. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) are one particularly visible set of measures that are now used primarily for public reporting and pay-for-performance among both private sector and Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals. This trend generates a strong need for stakeholders to understand how to interpret and use the PSIs for quality improvement (QI). The goal of this study was to develop an educational program and tailor it to stakeholders’ needs. In this paper, we share what we learned from this program development process. Methods Our study population included key VA stakeholders involved in reviewing performance reports and prioritizing and initiating quality/safety initiatives. A pre-program formative evaluation through telephone interviews and web-based surveys assessed stakeholders’ educational needs/interests. Findings from the formative evaluation led to development and implementation of a cyberseminar-based program, which we tailored to stakeholders’ needs/interests. A post-program survey evaluated program participants’ perceptions about the PSI educational program. Results Interview data confirmed that the concepts we had developed for the interviews could be used for the survey. Survey results informed us on what program delivery mode and content topics were of high interest. Six cyberseminars were developed—three of which focused on two content areas that were noted of greatest interest: learning how to use PSIs for monitoring trends and understanding how to interpret PSIs. We also used snapshots of VA PSI reports so that participants could directly apply learnings. Although initial interest in the program was high, actual attendance was low. However, post-program survey results indicated that perceptions about the program were positive. Conclusions Conducting a formative evaluation was a highly important process in program development. The useful information that we collected through the interviews and surveys allowed us to tailor the program to stakeholders’ needs and interests. Our experiences, particularly with the formative evaluation process, yielded valuable lessons that can guide others when developing and implementing similar educational programs

Measuring resource use in economic evaluations: determining the social costs of mental illness

Concern over costs associated with mental disorders has led to an increase in the number of economic evaluations of treatment interventions; unfortunately, methods for measuring resource use have not kept pace with this concern. Although it is well-known that a significant proportion of the costs associated with mental illness are for resources other than treatment, program evaluators and researchers often count only treatment costs in cost-effectiveness comparisons. Further, existing methods for measuring resource use are plagued by faulty assumptions about resource use, poor validity and reliability, and difficulties quantifying resource use. The authors discuss these problems and suggest five ways of improving measurement of nontreatment resources: clarifying assumptions, using multiple data sources, flexible data collection strategies, methods for improving the accuracy of recall, and an episodic approach to measurement

Differences in the mix of patients among medical specialties and systems of care. Results from the medical outcomes study

OBJECTIVE: To determine differences in the mix of patients among medical specialties and among organizational systems of care. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of 20,158 adults (greater than or equal to 18 years of age) who visited providers\u27 offices during 9-day screening periods in 1986. Patient and physician information was obtained by self-administered, standardized questionnaires. SETTING: Offices of 349 physicians practicing family medicine, internal medicine, endocrinology, and cardiology within health maintenance organizations, large multispecialty groups, and solo or small single-specialty group practices in three major US cities. OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic characteristics, prevalence of chronic disease, disease-specific severity of illness, and functional status and well-being. RESULTS: Among patients with selected physician-reported chronic illnesses (diabetes, hypertension, recent myocardial infarction, or congestive heart failure), increasing levels of severity were associated with decreasing levels of functional status and well-being and with increased hospitalizations, more physician visits, and higher numbers of prescription drugs. Compared with patients of general internists, patients of cardiologists were older (56 vs 47 years, P less than .01), had worse functional status and well-being scores (P less than .01), and carried more chronic diagnoses (mean 1.32 vs 1.02, P less than .01); patients of family practitioners were younger (40 vs 47 years, P less than .01) and more functional (P less than .01), carried fewer chronic diagnoses (0.70 vs 1.02, P less than .01), and (among diabetic patients only) had lower disease-specific severity scores (2.06 vs 2.30 on a five-point scale, P less than .01). Compared with patients in health maintenance organizations, patients visiting solo practitioners under fee-for-service payment were older (50 vs 45 years, P less than .01) and sicker (had worse physical functioning) and had a higher mean number of chronic diagnoses (1.10 vs 0.93, P less than .01). CONCLUSION: Patient mix is related to utilization and differs significantly across medical specialties and systems of care. These differences must be taken into account when interpreting variations in utilization and outcomes across specialties and systems, and when considering alternative policies for payment

A longitudinal study of hospitalization rates for patients with chronic disease: results from the Medical Outcomes Study

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare inpatient and outpatient utilization rates between prepaid (PPD) and fee-for-service (FFS) insurance coverage for patients with chronic disease. DATA SOURCE/STUDY SETTING: Data from the Medical Outcomes Study, a longitudinal observational study of chronic disease patients conducted in Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles. STUDY DESIGN: A four-year prospective study of resource utilization among 1,681 patients under treatment for hypertension, diabetes, myocardial infarction, or congestive heart failure in the practices of 367 clinicians. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Insurance payment system (PPD or FFS), hospitalizations, and office visits were obtained from patient reports. Disease and severity indicators, sociodemographics, and self-reported functional status were used to adjust for patient mix and to compute expected utilization rates. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Compared to FFS, PPD patients had 31 percent fewer observed hospitalizations before adjustment for patient differences (p = .005) and 15 percent fewer hospitalizations than expected after adjustment (p = .078). The observed rate of FFS hospitalizations exceeded the expected rate by 9 percent. These results are not explained by system differences in patient mix or trends in hospital use over four years. Half of the PPD/FFS difference in hospitalization rate is due to intrinsic characteristics of the payment system itself. CONCLUSIONS: PPD patients with chronic medical conditions followed prospectively over four years, after extensive patient-mix adjustment, had 15 percent fewer hospitalizations than their FFS counterparts owing to differences intrinsic to the insurance reimbursement system

Variations in resource utilization among medical specialties and systems of care. Results from the medical outcomes study

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether specialty and system of care exert independent effects on resource utilization. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of just over 20,000 patients (greater than or equal to 18 years of age) who visited providers\u27 offices during 9-day periods in 1986. Patient- and physician-provided information was obtained by self-administered questionnaires. SETTING: Offices of 349 physicians practicing family medicine, internal medicine, endocrinology, and cardiology within health maintenance organizations, large multispecialty groups, and solo practices or small single-specialty group practices in three major US cities. OUTCOME MEASURES: Indicators of the intensity of resource utilization were examined among four medical specialties (family practice, general internal medicine, cardiology, and endocrinology) and five systems of care (health maintenance organization, multispecialty group-fee-for-service, multispecialty group-prepaid; solo practice and single-specialty group-fee-for-service, and solo practice and single-specialty group-prepaid) before and after controlling for the mix of patients seen in these offices. The indicators of resource utilization were hospitalizations, annual office visits, prescription drugs, and common tests and procedures, with rates estimated on both a per-visit and per-year basis. RESULTS: Variation in patient mix was a major determinant of the large variations in resource use. However, increased utilization was also independently related to specialty (cardiology and endocrinology), fee-for-service payment plan, and solo and single-specialty group practice arrangements. After adjusting for patient mix, solo practice/single-specialty groups-fee-for-service had 41% more hospitalizations than health maintenance organizations. General internists had utilization rates somewhat greater than family physicians on some indicators. CONCLUSION: Although variations in patient mix should be a major determinant of variations in resource use, the independent effects of specialty training, payment system, and practice organization on utilization rates need further explication. The 2- and 4-year outcomes now being analyzed will provide information critical to interpretation of the variations reported herein

Additional file 5: of Tailoring an educational program on the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators to meet stakeholder needs: lessons learned in the VA

PSI Educational Program Matrix. This file highlights information covered in each session of the PSI Educational Program and provides a list of materials referenced in each session. (PDF 213 kb

Additional file 1: of Tailoring an educational program on the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators to meet stakeholder needs: lessons learned in the VA

Formative Evaluation: Interview Guide. This file provides the interview guide we used for the telephone interviews to obtain a general understanding of potential PSI educational needs and assess whether similar a priori concepts should inform the survey. (PDF 168 kb

Additional file 3: of Tailoring an educational program on the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators to meet stakeholder needs: lessons learned in the VA

Post-program Evaluation Survey. This file provides the post-program survey that we administered to learn about stakeholders’ perceptions of the PSI Educational Program. (PDF 259 kb