A Cluster Randomized Trial of Primary Care Practice Redesign to Integrate Behavioral Health for Those Who Need It Most: Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions.

PURPOSE: Patient outcomes can improve when primary care and behavioral health providers use a collaborative system of care, but integrating these services is difficult. We tested the effectiveness of a practice intervention for improving patient outcomes by enhancing integrated behavioral health (IBH) activities. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention combined practice redesign, quality improvement coaching, provider and staff education, and collaborative learning. At baseline and 2 years, staff at 42 primary care practices completed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) as a measure of IBH. Adult patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) survey. Primary outcomes were the change in 8 PROMIS-29 domain scores. Secondary outcomes included change in level of integration. RESULTS: Intervention assignment had no effect on change in outcomes reported by 2,426 patients who completed both baseline and 2-year surveys. Practices assigned to the intervention improved PIP workflow scores but not PIP total scores. Baseline PIP total score was significantly associated with patient-reported function, independent of intervention. Active practices that completed intervention workbooks (n = 13) improved patient-reported outcomes and practice integration (P ≤ .05) compared with other active practices (n = 7). CONCLUSION: Intervention assignment had no effect on change in patient outcomes; however, we did observe improved patient outcomes among practices that entered the study with greater IBH. We also observed more improvement of integration and patient outcomes among active practices that completed the intervention compared to active practices that did not. Additional research is needed to understand how implementation efforts to enhance IBH can best reach patients.

Health plan-based mailed fecal testing for colorectal cancer screening among dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees: Outcomes of 2 program models.

BACKGROUND: Health insurance plans are increasingly offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but few studies have compared the outcomes of different program models (eg, invitation strategies). METHODS: This study compares the outcomes of 2 health plan-based mailed FIT program models. In the first program (2016), FIT kits were mailed to all eligible enrollees; in the second program (2018), FIT kits were mailed only to enrollees who opted in after an outreach phone call. Participants in this observational study included dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees who were aged 50 to 75 years and were due for CRC screening (1799 in 2016 and 1906 in 2018). Six-month FIT completion rates, implementation outcomes (eg, mailed FITs sent and reminders attempted), and program-related health plan costs for each program are described. RESULTS: All 1799 individuals in 2016 were sent an introductory letter and a FIT kit. In 2018, all 1906 were sent an introductory letter, and 1905 received at least 1 opt-in call attempt, with 410 (21.5%) sent a FIT. The FIT completion rate was 16.2% (292 of 1799 [95% CI, 14.5%-17.9%]) in 2016 and 14.6% (278 of 1906 [95% CI, 13.0%-16.2%]) in 2018 (P = .36). The overall implementation costs were higher in 2016 ($40,156) than 2018 ($34,899), with the cost per completed FIT slightly higher in 2016 ($138) than 2018 ($126). CONCLUSIONS: An opt-in mailed FIT program achieved FIT completion rates similar to those of a program mailing to all dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees. LAY SUMMARY: Health insurance plans can use different program models to successfully mail fecal test kits for colorectal cancer screening to dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees, with nearly 1 in 6 enrollees completing fecal testing.

Integrating behavioral health & primary care for multiple chronic diseases: Clinical trial of a practice redesign toolkit.

Context: Most patients in need of behavioral health (BH) care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some practices integrate behavioral health care (IBH), with medical and BH providers at the same location, working as a team. However, it is difficult to achieve high levels of integration. Objective: Test the effectiveness of a practice intervention designed to increase BH integration. Study Design: Pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial. Setting: 43 primary care practices with on-site BH services in 13 states. Population: 2,460 adults with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions. Intervention: 24-month practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Outcomes: Primary outcomes were changes in the 8 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) domain scores. Secondary outcomes were changes in medication adherence, self-reported healthcare utilization, time lost due to disability, cardiovascular capacity, patient centeredness, provider empathy, and several condition-specific measures. A sample of practice staff completed the Practice Integration Profile at each time point to estimate the degree of BH integration in that site. Practice-level case studies estimated the typical costs of implementing the intervention. Results: The intervention had no significant effect on any of the primary or secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses showed no convincing patterns of effect in any populations. COVID-19 was apparently not a moderating influence of the effect of the intervention on outcomes. The intervention had a modest effect on the degree of practice integration, reaching statistical significance in the Workflow domain. The median cost of the intervention was $18,204 per practice. In post-hoc analysis, level of BH integration was associated with improved patient outcomes independent of the intervention, both at baseline and longitudinally. Conclusions: The specific intervention tested in this study was inexpensive, but had only a small impact on the degree of BH integration, and none on patient outcomes. However, practices that had more integration at baseline had better patient outcomes, independent of the intervention. Although this particular intervention was ineffective, IBH remains an attractive strategy for improving patient outcomes.

Partnerships for Blood Pressure Control in Washington State, December 2016-July 2017.

According to recent guidelines, 46% of U.S. adults have high blood pressure (i.e., hypertension). Traditionally addressed in clinical settings, only 54% of adults successfully manage their hypertension. Community-clinical partnerships that facilitate medication adherence and lifestyle changes are promising avenues to achieve population-level blood pressure control. We examined partnerships for blood pressure control in Washington State, their facilitators and barriers, and ways public health departments could foster partnerships. We conducted 41 semistructured interviews with clinic staff, community-based organization (CBO) staff, pharmacy staff, and community health workers (CHWs). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-adapted Himmelman Collaboration Continuum, which describes five levels of partnership intensity, guided our thematic analysis. We found variation across sectors in partnership frequency and intensity. Clinic and pharmacy staff reported fewer partnerships than CBO staff and CHWs, and mostly either low or very high intensity partnerships. CBO staff and CHWs described partnerships at each intensity level. Trust and having a shared mission facilitated partnerships. Competition, lack of time, limited awareness of resources, and lack of shared health records constituted barriers to partnership. Bringing potential partners together to discuss shared goals, increasing technological integration, and building awareness of resources may help bridge clinical and community silos and improve population-level blood pressure control.

Direct-to-member mailed colorectal cancer screening outreach for Medicaid and Medicare enrollees: Implementation and effectiveness outcomes from the BeneFIT study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening uptake is low, particularly among individuals enrolled in Medicaid. To the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding the effectiveness of direct-to-member outreach by Medicaid health insurance plans to raise colorectal cancer screening use, nor how best to deliver such outreach. METHODS: BeneFIT is a hybrid implementation-effectiveness study of 2 program models that health plans developed for a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) intervention. The programs differed with regard to whether they used a centralized approach (Health Plan Washington) or collaborated with health centers (Health Plan Oregon). The primary implementation outcome of the current study was the percentage of eligible enrollees to whom the plans delivered each intervention component. The primary effectiveness outcome was the rate of FIT completion within 6 months of mailing of the introductory letter. RESULTS: The health plans identified 12,000 eligible enrollees (8551 in Health Plan Washington and 3449 in Health Plan Oregon). Health Plan Washington mailed an introductory letter and FIT kit to 8551 enrollees (100%) and delivered a reminder call to 839 (10.3% of the 8132 attempted). Health Plan Oregon mailed an introductory letter, and a letter and FIT kit plus a reminder postcard to 2812 enrollees (81.5%) and 2650 enrollees (76.8%), respectively. FIT completion rates were 18.2% (1557 of 8551 enrollees) in Health Plan Washington. In Health Plan Oregon, completion rates were 17.4% (488 of 2812 enrollees) among enrollees who were mailed an introductory letter and 18.3% (484 of 2650 enrollees) among enrollees who also were mailed a FIT kit plus reminder postcard. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of mailed FIT outreach by health plans may be effective and could reach many individuals at risk of developing colorectal cancer.

First-year implementation of mailed FIT colorectal cancer screening programs in two Medicaid/Medicare health insurance plans: qualitative learnings from health plan quality improvement staff and leaders.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening rates remain low, especially among certain racial and ethnic groups and the uninsured and Medicaid insured. Clinics and health care systems have adopted population-based mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) programs to increase screening, and now health insurance plans are beginning to implement mailed FIT programs. We report on challenges to and successes of mailed FIT programs during their first year of implementation in two health plans serving Medicaid and dual eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees. METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study gathered data through in-depth interviews with staff and leaders at each health plan (n = 10). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, field notes from program planning meetings between the research team and the health plans, and internal research team debriefs informed interview guide development. Qualitative research staff used Atlas.ti to code the health plan interviews and develop summary themes through an iterative content analysis approach. RESULTS: We identified first-year implementation challenges in five thematic areas: 1) program design, 2) vendor experience, 3) engagement/communication, 4) reaction/satisfaction of stakeholders, and 5) processing/returning of mailed kits. Commonly experienced challenges by both health plans related to the time-consuming nature of the programs to set up, and complexities and delays in working with vendors. We found implementation successes in the same five thematic areas as well as four additional areas of: 1) leadership support, 2) compatibility with the health plan, 3) broader impacts, and 4) collaboration with researchers. Commonly experienced successes included the ability to adapt the mailed FIT program to the individual health plan culture and needs, and the synchronicity between the programs and their organizational missions and goals. CONCLUSIONS: Both health plans successfully adapted mailed FIT programs to their own culture and resources and used their strong quality management resources to maximize success in overcoming the time demands of setting up the program and working with their vendors. Mailed FIT programs administered by health plans, especially those serving Medicaid- and dual eligible Medicaid/Medicare-insured populations, may be an important resource to support closing gaps in colorectal cancer screening among traditionally underserved populations.

Challenges in Reaching Medicaid and Medicare Enrollees in a Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test Program.

BeneFIT was a demonstration project that worked with a Medicaid/Medicare health plan to implement a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) program. The goal was to reach age-eligible enrollees who were due for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and prompt them to complete a FIT. One health insurance plan collaborated with six federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in Oregon. Reach was defined as the percent of eligible individuals overdue for CRC screening who were mailed a FIT in 2016. We examined patient-level factors associated with reach, using multivariable log binomial regression and FIT completion rates at 6 months. The health plan identified 3386 age-eligible members overdue for CRC screening. Of these, 2615 (77.2%) were reached (mailed FIT kits) and 771 (22.8%) were not; 478 (14.1%) because they were not considered to be clinic patients and 290 (8.6%) because of mailing issues. Patient-level factors associated with not being reached were: being male, being Medicaid-insured (vs. Medicare), and having no primary care visits (vs. 4+ visits) in the last year. Among all enrollees identified as overdue for CRC screening, FIT completion rates at 6 months were 14.8% overall and 18.5% in the subgroup reached. In a mailed FIT program, a health insurance plan attempted to reach as many enrollees overdue for CRC screening as possible, however 22.8% were not mailed a FIT. Additional efforts are needed to ensure that the hardest to reach enrollees can participate in CRC screening.

Team-Based Clinic Redesign of Opioid Medication Management in Primary Care: Effect on Opioid Prescribing.

PURPOSE: Six key elements of opioid medication management redesign in primary care have been previously identified. Here, we examine the effect of implementing these Six Building Blocks on opioid-prescribing practices. METHODS: Six rural-serving organizations with 20 clinic locations received support for 15 months during the period October 2015 to May 2017 to implement the Six Building Blocks. Patients undergoing long-term opioid therapy (LtOT) at these study sites were compared with patients undergoing LtOT enrolled in a regional health plan who did not receive care at the study sites but who resided in the same primary care service areas (control group). Outcomes were monthly trend in the proportion of patients undergoing LtOT prescribed a ≥100 morphine equivalent dose (MED) of opioids daily and the total number of patients receiving an opioid prescription. An interrupted time series using difference-indifference analysis was used for tests of significance. RESULTS: The proportion of patients prescribed a ≥100 MED of opioids daily decreased 2.2% (11.8% to 9.6%) among patients at the intervention clinics and 1.3% (14.0% to 12.7%) among patients in the control group. The rate of decrease was significantly greater among study patients than among patients in the control group (P = .018). The rate of decrease in the number of patients on LtOT at intervention clinics increased during the intervention period compared with the preintervention period (P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to redesign opioid medication management in primary care resulted in a significant decrease in opioid prescribing. Future research is needed to determine if these results are generalizable to other settings and to assess implications for patient-reported outcomes.

A Randomized Trial of External Practice Support to Improve Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Primary Care.

PURPOSE: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of adding various forms of enhanced external support to practice facilitation on primary care practices' clinical quality measure (CQM) performance. METHODS: Primary care practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho were eligible if they had fewer than 10 full-time clinicians. Practices were randomized to practice facilitation only, practice facilitation and shared learning, practice facilitation and educational outreach visits, or practice facilitation and both shared learning and educational outreach visits. All practices received up to 15 months of support. The primary outcome was the CQM for blood pressure control. Secondary outcomes were CQMs for appropriate aspirin therapy and smoking screening and cessation. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat approach. RESULTS: Of 259 practices recruited, 209 agreed to be randomized. Only 42% of those offered educational outreach visits and 27% offered shared learning participated in these enhanced supports. CQM performance improved within each study arm for all 3 cardiovascular disease CQMs. After adjusting for differences between study arms, CQM improvements in the 3 enhanced practice support arms of the study did not differ significantly from those seen in practices that received practice facilitation alone (omnibus P = .40 for blood pressure CQM). Practices randomized to receive both educational outreach visits and shared learning, however, were more likely to achieve a blood pressure performance goal in 70% of patients compared with those randomized to practice facilitation alone (relative risk = 2.09; 95% CI, 1.16-3.76). CONCLUSIONS: Although we found no significant differences in CQM performance across study arms, the ability of a practice to reach a target level of performance may be enhanced by adding both educational outreach visits and shared learning to practice facilitation.

Prescription of high-risk medications among patients with chronic kidney disease: a cross-sectional study from the Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho region Practice and Research Network.

Background: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at high risk for adverse drug events related to medication dosing errors and prescriptions for relatively contraindicated medications, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Objectives: To examine the scope of and variation in prescribing relatively contraindicated medications and medications above the recommended dose levels among patients with stage III/IV CKD in primary care practice. Methods: This is a cross-sectional descriptive study that used structured electronic health record data. The study participants were patients aged 18 years and older from three primary care clinics in a practice-based research network. Number/proportion of adult patients with stage III/IV CKD; proportion of these patients with at least one NSAID or other relatively contraindicated medication prescribed over 2 years. Results: Of the 7586 eligible adult patients, 4.9% had stage III/IV CKD; 46.6% of these 373 patients with stage III/IV CKD were prescribed at least one relatively contraindicated drug (acarbose, chlorpropamide, glyburide, nitrofurantoin or any NSAID) during the 2-year study period; and 34.0% of patients with stage III/IV CKD were prescribed NSAIDs. Conclusions: Primary care patients with stage III/IV CKD were frequently prescribed or had documented use of relatively contraindicated drugs and thus were at risk of adverse drug events. Given the significant number of individuals with CKD in the USA, research that examines rates of adverse events related to these prescriptions and that tests primary care-based interventions to decrease inappropriate prescribing of relatively contraindicated medications to these patients is needed.

Exploring the barriers and facilitators to use of point of care tests in family medicine clinics in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care tests (POCTs) are increasingly used in family medicine clinics in the United States. While the diagnostics industry predicts significant growth in the number and scope of POCTs deployed, little is known about clinic-level attitudes towards implementation of these tests. We aimed to explore attitudes of primary care providers, laboratory and clinic administrative/support staff to identify barriers and facilitators to use of POCTs in family medicine. METHODS: Seven focus groups and four semi-structured interviews were conducted with a total of 52 clinic staff from three family medicine clinics in two US states. Qualitative data from this exploratory study was analyzed using the constant comparison method. RESULTS: Five themes were identified which included the impact of POCTs on clinical decision-making; perceived inaccuracy of POCTs; impact of POCTs on staff and workflow; perceived patient experience and patient-provider relationship, and issues related to cost, regulation and quality control. Overall, there were mixed attitudes towards use of POCTs. Participants believed the added data provided by POCT may facilitate prompt clinical management, diagnostic certainty and patient-provider communication. Perceived barriers included inaccuracy of POCT, shortage of clinic staff to support more testing, and uncertainty about their cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The potential benefits of using POCTs in family medicine clinics are countered by several barriers. Clinical utility of many POCTs will depend on the extent to which these barriers are addressed. Engagement between clinical researchers, industry, health insurers and the primary care community is important to ensure that POCTs align with clinic and patient needs.

Adaptation of an Evidence-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

INTRODUCTION: Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) provide primary care to low-income and uninsured patients in the United States. FQHCs are required to report annual measurements and provide evidence of improvement for quality measures; effective methods to improve quality in FQHCs are needed. Systems of Support (SOS) is a proactive, mail-based, colorectal cancer screening program that was developed and tested in an integrated health care system. The objective of this study was to adapt SOS for use in an FQHC system, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). METHODS: We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews in 2014 with organizational leadership, medical staff, and nursing staff to identify facilitators of and barriers to implementation of SOS in an FQHC system. The interview guide was based on the CFIR framework. Interview transcripts were analyzed using Template Analysis. We adapted SOS and planned implementation strategies to address identified barriers. RESULTS: Facilitators of implementation of SOS were previous quality improvement experience and engagement of clinic and administrative leadership. Barriers to implementation were a more diverse patient population, a decentralized administrative structure, and communication challenges throughout the organization. Program adaptations focused on patient instructions and educational materials as well as elimination of follow-up phone calls. Implementation strategies included early and frequent engagement with organizational leadership and a smaller pilot program before organization-wide implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Use of CFIR identified facilitators of and barriers to implementation of the evidence-based colorectal cancer screening program. Program adaptations and implementation strategies based on this study may generalize to other FQHC systems that are considering implementation of a proactive, mail-based colorectal cancer screening program.

Regional variation in anesthesia assistance during outpatient colonoscopy is not associated with differences in polyp detection or complication rates.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We investigated the rate and predictors of anesthesia assistance during outpatient colonoscopy and whether anesthesia assistance is associated with colonoscopy interventions and outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using a 20% sample of Medicare administrative claims submitted during the 2003 calendar year. We analyzed data from 328,177 adults, 66 years old or older, who underwent outpatient colonoscopy examinations. RESULTS: Overall, 8.7% of outpatient colonoscopies were performed with anesthesia assistance. In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of anesthesia assistance included black race, female sex, and a nonscreening indication; anesthesia assistance increased with median income and comorbidities. General and colorectal surgeons, fewer years in their practice, and nonhospital site of service were also significantly associated with anesthesia assistance. The strongest predictor of anesthesia assistance was the Medicare carrier, with odds ratios ranging from 0.22 (95% confidence interval: 0.12-0.43) for the Arkansas carrier (crude rate 0.9%) to 9.90 (95% confidence interval: 7.92-12.39) for the Empire carrier in New York area (crude rate 35.3%) compared with the Wisconsin carrier (crude rate 4.3%). There was also considerable variation among endoscopists; 75% of providers had no colonoscopies with anesthesia assistance recorded in their dataset, and 4.5% of providers had anesthesia assistance in at least three quarters of their examinations. Anesthesia assistance was not associated with the diagnosis of polyps, the performance of biopsy or polypectomy, or complications in multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant variations among regions and sites of service in anesthesia assistance during outpatient colonoscopies of Medicare beneficiaries. Although this variation has considerable economic implications, it was not associated with measures of patient risk or outcomes, such as polyp detection or procedure-related complications.

Determination of colonoscopy indication from administrative claims data.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy outcomes, such as polyp detection or complication rates, may differ by procedure indication. OBJECTIVES: To develop methods to classify colonoscopy indications from administrative data, facilitating study of colonoscopy quality and outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN: We linked 14,844 colonoscopy reports from the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, a national repository of endoscopic reports, to the corresponding Medicare Carrier and Outpatient File claims. Colonoscopy indication was determined from the procedure reports. We developed algorithms using classification and regression trees and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) to classify colonoscopy indication. Predictor variables included ICD-9CM and CPT/HCPCS codes present on the colonoscopy claim or in the 12 months prior, patient demographics, and site of colonoscopy service. Algorithms were developed on a training set of 7515 procedures, then validated using a test set of 7329 procedures. RESULTS: Sensitivity was lowest for identifying average-risk screening colonoscopies, varying between 55% and 86% for the different algorithms, but specificity for this indication was consistently over 95%. Sensitivity for diagnostic colonoscopy varied between 77% and 89%, with specificity between 55% and 87%. Algorithms with classification and regression trees with 7 variables or LDA with 10 variables had similar overall accuracy, and generally lower accuracy than the algorithm using LDA with 30 variables. CONCLUSIONS: Algorithms using Medicare claims data have moderate sensitivity and specificity for colonoscopy indication, and will be useful for studying colonoscopy quality in this population. Further validation may be needed before use in alternative populations.

Accuracy of ovarian and colon cancer risk assessments by U.S. physicians.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown a mismatch between published cancer screening and genetic counseling referral recommendations and physician-reported screening and referral practices. Inaccurate cancer risk assessment is one potential cause of this mismatch. OBJECTIVE: To assess U.S. physicians' ability to accurately determine a woman's colon and ovarian cancer risk level. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional survey of U.S. family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists. A twelve-page questionnaire with a vignette of a woman's annual examination included a question about the patient's level of colon and ovarian cancer risk. The final study sample included 1,555 physicians weighted to represent practicing U.S. physicians nationally. MAIN MEASURE: Accuracy of physicians' ovarian and colon cancer risk assessments. KEY RESULTS: Overall, most physicians accurately assessed women's risk of ovarian (57.0%, CI 54.3, 59.6) and colon cancer (62.0%, CI 59.4, 64.6). However, 27.1% (CI 23.0, 31.6) of physicians overestimated the ovarian cancer risk among women at the same risk as the general population, and 65.1% (CI 60.2, 69.7) underestimated ovarian cancer risk among women at much higher risk than the general population. Physicians overestimated colon more than ovarian cancer risk (38.0%, CI 35.4, 40.6 vs. 27.1%, CI 23.0, 31.6) for women at the same risk as the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' misestimation of patient ovarian and colon cancer risk may put average risk patients in jeopardy of unnecessary screening and higher risk patients in jeopardy of missed opportunities for prevention or early detection of cancers.

Guideline-inconsistent breast cancer screening for women over 50: a vignette-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Professional organizations have issued guidelines recommending breast cancer screening for women 50 years of age. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the percent of U.S. primary care physicians who report breast cancer screening practices that are not consistent with guidelines, and the characteristics of physicians who reported offering extra test modalities. DESIGN: We analyzed a subset of a 2008 cross-sectional Women's Health Care survey sent to primary care physicians randomly selected from the national American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile. A subset of physicians received a survey that presented a vignette of a health maintenance visit for an asymptomatic 51-year-old woman who was not at high risk for breast cancer. Responses were weighted to represent physicians nationally. PARTICIPANTS: 1,654 U.S. family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists under age 65, who practiced in office or hospital based settings (62.8 % response rate). After exclusions, 553 study physicians remained for analysis. MAIN MEASURE: Physician self-report of breast cancer screening practices that are not consistent with the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG), and the American Cancer Society (ACS), defined as almost always offering mammography. KEY RESULTS: 36.0 % (95 % CI: 31.8 %-40.5 %) of physicians reported offering breast cancer screening tests inconsistent with national guidelines, with most offering extra tests (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] and/or ultrasound) (33.2 %, 95 % CI 29.1 %-37.6 %). In adjusted analysis, risk-averse physicians and those who believed in the clinical effectiveness of MRI were more likely to offer extra breast cancer screening tests. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians often report offering breast cancer screening test modalities beyond those recommended for a 51-year-old woman. Strategies, such as academic detailing regarding appropriate use of technology and provision of clinical decision support for breast cancer screening, could decrease overuse of resources.

Physicians' beliefs about effectiveness of cancer screening tests: a national survey of family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists.

OBJECTIVE: To study physicians' beliefs about the effectiveness of different tests for cancer screening. METHODS: Data were examined from the Women's Health Survey of 1574 Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, and Obstetrics-Gynecology physicians to questions about their level of agreement about the clinical effectiveness of different tests for breast, cervical, ovarian, and colorectal cancer screening among average risk women. Data were weighted to the U.S. physician population based on the American Medical Association Masterfile. Multivariable logistic regression identified physician and practice characteristics significantly associated with physicians' beliefs. RESULTS: There were 1574 respondents, representing a 62% response rate. The majority of physicians agreed with the effectiveness of mammography for women aged 50-69years, Pap tests for women aged 21-65years, and colonoscopy for individuals aged ≥50years. A substantial proportion of physicians believed that non-recommended tests were effective for screening (e.g., 34.4% for breast MRI and 69.1% for annual pelvic exam). Physicians typically listed their respective specialty organizations as a top influential organization for screening recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: There were several substantial inconsistencies between physician beliefs in the effectiveness of cancer screening tests and the actual evidence of these tests' effectiveness which can lead both to underuse and overuse of cancer screening tests.

Barriers to primary care physicians prescribing buprenorphine.

PURPOSE: Despite the efficacy of buprenorphine-naloxone for the treatment of opioid use disorders, few physicians in Washington State use this clinical tool. To address the acute need for this service, a Rural Opioid Addiction Management Project trained 120 Washington physicians in 2010-2011 to use buprenorphine. We conducted this study to determine what proportion of those trained physicians began prescribing this treatment and identify barriers to incorporating this approach into outpatient practice. METHODS: We interviewed 92 of 120 physicians (77%), obtaining demographic information, current prescribing status, clinic characteristics, and barriers to prescribing buprenorphine. Residents and 7 physicians who were prescribing buprenorphine at the time of the course were excluded from the study. We analyzed the responses of the 78 remaining respondents. RESULTS: Almost all respondents reported positive attitudes toward buprenorphine, but only 22 (28%) reported prescribing buprenorphine. Most (95%, n = 21) new prescribers were family physicians. Physicians who prescribed buprenorphine were more likely to have partners who had received a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. A lack of institutional support was associated with not prescribing the medication (P = .04). A lack of mental health and psychosocial support was the most frequently cited barrier by both those who prescribe and who do not prescribe buprenorphine. CONCLUSION: Interventions before and after training are needed to increase the number of physicians who offer buprenorphine for treatment of addiction. Targeting physicians in clinics that agree in advance to institute services, coupled with technical assistance after they have completed their training, their clinical teams, and their administrations is likely to help more physicians become active providers of this highly effective outpatient treatment.

The central role of comorbidity in predicting ambulatory care sensitive hospitalizations.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory care sensitive hospitalizations (ACSHs) are commonly used as measures of access to and quality of care. They are defined as hospitalizations for certain acute and chronic conditions; yet, they are most commonly used in analyses comparing different groups without adjustment for individual-level comorbidity. We present an exploration of their roles in predicting ACSHs for acute and chronic conditions. METHODS: Using 1998-99 US Medicare claims for 1 06 930 SEER-Medicare control subjects and 1999 Area Resource File data, we modelled occurrence of acute and chronic ACSHs with logistic regression, examining effects of different predictors on model discriminatory power. RESULTS: Flags for the presence of a few comorbid conditions-congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hypertension and, for acute ACSHs, dementia-contributed virtually all of the discriminative ability for predicting ACSHs. C-statistics were up to 0.96 for models predicting chronic ACSHs and up to 0.87 for predicting acute ACSHs. C-statistics for models lacking comorbidity flags were lower, at best 0.73, for both acute and chronic ACSHs. CONCLUSION: Comorbidity is far more important in predicting ACSH risk than any other factor, both for acute and chronic ACSHs. Imputations about quality and access should not be made from analyses that do not control for presence of important comorbid conditions. Acute and chronic ACSHs differ enough that they should be modelled separately. Unaggregated models restricted to persons with the relevant diagnoses are most appropriate for chronic ACSHs.

Short-term outcomes of screening mammography using computer-aided detection: a population-based study of medicare enrollees.

BACKGROUND: Computer-aided detection (CAD) has rapidly diffused into screening mammography practice despite limited and conflicting data on its clinical effect. OBJECTIVE: To determine associations between CAD use during screening mammography and the incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive breast cancer, invasive cancer stage, and diagnostic testing. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Medicare program. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 67 to 89 years having screening mammography between 2001 and 2006 in U.S. SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results) regions (409 459 mammograms from 163 099 women). MEASUREMENTS: Incident DCIS and invasive breast cancer within 1 year after mammography, invasive cancer stage, and diagnostic testing within 90 days after screening among women without breast cancer. RESULTS: From 2001 to 2006, CAD prevalence increased from 3.6% to 60.5%. Use of CAD was associated with greater DCIS incidence (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.17 [95% CI, 1.11 to 1.23]) but no difference in invasive breast cancer incidence (adjusted OR, 1.00 [CI, 0.97 to 1.03]). Among women with invasive cancer, CAD was associated with greater likelihood of stage I to II versus III to IV cancer (adjusted OR, 1.27 [CI, 1.14 to 1.41]). In women without breast cancer, CAD was associated with increased odds of diagnostic mammography (adjusted OR, 1.28 [CI, 1.27 to 1.29]), breast ultrasonography (adjusted OR, 1.07 [CI, 1.06 to 1.09]), and breast biopsy (adjusted OR, 1.10 [CI, 1.08 to 1.12]). LIMITATION: Short follow-up for cancer stage, potential unmeasured confounding, and uncertain generalizability to younger women. CONCLUSION: Use of CAD during screening mammography among Medicare enrollees is associated with increased DCIS incidence, the diagnosis of invasive breast cancer at earlier stages, and increased diagnostic testing among women without breast cancer. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California, Davis.