Waste not, want not: promoting efficient use of health care resources

Choosing Wisely

The American College of Physicians in its ethics manual endorsed the idea that physicians ought to improve their ability to provide care to their patients more parsimoniously. This elicited a critical backlash; critics essentially claimed that what was being endorsed was a renamed form of rationing. In a recent article, Tilburt and Cassel argued that parsimonious care and rationing are ethically distinct practices. In this essay I critically assess that claim. I argue that in practice there is considerable overlap between what they term parsimonious care and what they define as rationing. The same is true of the Choosing Wisely campaign endorsed by the American Board of Internal Medicine. In both cases, if the goal is to control healthcare costs by reducing the use of marginally beneficial care that is not cost effective, then a public conversation about the justness of specific choices is essential.

A Randomized Trial of Displaying Paid Price Information on Imaging Study and Procedure Ordering Rates

BACKGROUND

Prior studies have demonstrated how price transparency lowers the test-ordering rates of trainees in hospitals, and physician-targeted price transparency efforts have been viewed as a promising cost-controlling strategy.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of displaying paid-price information on test-ordering rates for common imaging studies and procedures within an accountable care organization (ACO).

DESIGN

Block randomized controlled trial for 1 year.

SUBJECTS

A total of 1205 fully licensed clinicians (728 primary care, 477 specialists).

INTERVENTION

Starting January 2014, clinicians in the Control arm received no price display; those in the intervention arms received Single or Paired Internal/External Median Prices in the test-ordering screen of their electronic health record. Internal prices were the amounts paid by insurers for the ACO's services; external paid prices were the amounts paid by insurers for the same services when delivered by unaffiliated providers.

MAIN MEASURES

Ordering rates (orders per 100 face-to-face encounters with adult patients): overall, designated to be completed internally within the ACO, considered "inappropriate" (e.g., MRI for simple headache), and thought to be "appropriate" (e.g., screening colonoscopy).

KEY RESULTS

We found no significant difference in overall ordering rates across the Control, Single Median Price, or Paired Internal/External Median Prices study arms. For every 100 encounters, clinicians in the Control arm ordered 15.0 (SD 31.1) tests, those in the Single Median Price arm ordered 15.0 (SD 16.2) tests, and those in the Paired Prices arms ordered 15.7 (SD 20.5) tests (one-way ANOVA p-value 0.88). There was no difference in ordering rates for tests designated to be completed internally or considered to be inappropriate or appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

Displaying paid-price information did not alter how frequently primary care and specialist clinicians ordered imaging studies and procedures within an ACO. Those with a particular interest in removing waste from the health care system may want to consider a variety of contextual factors that can affect physician-targeted price transparency.

How Primary Care Physicians Integrate Price Information into Clinical Decision-Making

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how primary care physicians (PCPs) in routine outpatient practice use paid price information (i.e., the amount that insurers finally pay providers) in daily clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the experiences of PCPs who have had paid price information on tests and procedures for at least 1 year.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study using semi-structured interviews and the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-six PCPs within an accountable care organization.

INTERVENTION

Via the ordering screen of their electronic health record, PCPs were presented with the median paid price for commonly ordered tests and procedures (e.g., blood tests, x-rays, CTs, MRIs).

APPROACH

We asked PCPs for (a) their "gut reaction" to having paid price information, (b) the situations in which they used price information in clinical decision-making separate from or jointly with patients, (c) their thoughts on who bore the chief responsibility for discussing price information with patients, and (d) suggestions for improving physician-targeted price information interventions.

KEY RESULTS

Among "gut reactions" that ranged from positive to negative, all PCPs were more interested in having patient-specific price information than paid prices from the practice perspective. PCPs described that when patients' out-of-pocket spending concerns were revealed, price information helped them engage patients in conversations about how to alter treatment plans to make them more affordable. PCPs stated that having price information only slightly altered their test-ordering patterns and that they avoided mentioning prices when advising patients against unnecessary testing. Most PCPs asserted that physicians bear the chief responsibility for discussing prices with patients because of their clinical knowledge and relationships with patients. They wished for help from patients, practices, health plans, and society in order to support price transparency in healthcare.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician-targeted price transparency efforts may provide PCPs with the information they need to respond to patients' concerns regarding out-of-pocket affordability rather than that needed to change test-ordering habits.

Giving formulary and drug cost information to providers and impact on medication cost and use: a longitudinal non-randomized study

BACKGROUND

Providers wish to help patients with prescription costs but often lack drug cost information. We examined whether giving providers formulary and drug cost information was associated with changes in their diabetes patients' drug costs and use. We conducted a longitudinal non-randomized evaluation of the web-based Prescribing Guide ( www.PrescribingGuide.com ), a free resource available to Hawaii's providers since 2006, which summarizes the formularies and copayments of six health plans for drugs to treat 16 common health conditions. All adult primary care physicians in Hawaii were offered the Prescribing Guide, and providers who enrolled received a link to the website and regular hardcopy updates.

METHODS

We analyzed prescription claims from a large health plan in Hawaii for 5,883 members with diabetes from 2007 (baseline) to 2009 (follow-up). Patients were linked to 299 "main prescribing" providers, who on average, accounted for >88 % of patients' prescriptions and drug costs. We compared changes in drug costs and use for "study" patients whose main provider enrolled to receive the Prescribing Guide, versus "control" patients whose main provider did not enroll to receive the Prescribing Guide.

RESULTS

In multivariate analyses controlling for provider specialty and clustering of patients by providers, both patient groups experienced similar increases in number of prescriptions (+3.2 vs. +2.7 increase, p = 0.24), and days supply of medications (+141 vs. +129 increase, p = 0.40) averaged across all drugs. Total and out-of-pocket drug costs also increased for both control and study patients. However, control patients showed higher increases in yearly total drug costs of $208 per patient (+$792 vs. +$584 increase, p = 0.02) and in 30-day supply costs (+$9.40 vs. +$6.08 increase, p = 0.03). Both groups experienced similar changes in yearly out-of-pocket costs (+$41 vs + $31 increase, p = 0.36) and per 30-day supply (-$0.23 vs. -$0.19 decrease, p = 0.996).

CONCLUSION

Giving formulary and drug cost information to providers was associated with lower increases in total drug costs but not with lower out-of-pocket costs or greater medication use. Insurers and health information technology businesses should continue to increase providers' access to formulary and drug cost information at the point of care.

Development of a hospital-based program focused on improving healthcare value

BACKGROUND

Frontline physicians face increasing pressure to improve the quality of care they deliver while simultaneously decreasing healthcare costs. Although hospitals and physicians are beginning to implement initiatives targeting this new goal of healthcare value, few of them have a well-developed infrastructure to support this work.

METHODS

In March 2012, we launched a high-value care (HVC) program within the Division of Hospital Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. The HVC program is co-led by a physician and the division's administrator, and includes other hospitalists, resident physicians, pharmacists, and administrators. The program aims to (1) use financial and clinical data to identify areas with clear evidence of waste in the hospital, (2) promote evidence-based interventions that improve both quality of care and value, and (3) pair interventions with evidence-based cost awareness education to drive culture change.

RESULTS

We identified 6 ongoing projects during our first year. Preliminary data for our inaugural projects are encouraging. One initiative, which targeted decreasing nebulizer use on a high-acuity medical floor (often using metered-dose inhalers instead) led to a decrease in rates of more than 50%.

CONCLUSIONS

The HVC program is proving to be a successful mechanism to promote improved healthcare value and clinician engagement.