Association of Electronic Self-Scheduling and Screening Mammogram Completion.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate if an electronic health record (EHR) self-scheduling function was associated with changes in mammogram completion for primary care patients who were eligible for a screening mammogram using U.S. Preventive Service Task Force recommendations. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study (September 1, 2014-August 31, 2019, analyses completed in 2022) using a difference-in-differences design to examine mammogram completion before versus after the implementation of self-scheduling. The difference-in-differences estimate was the interaction between time (pre-versus post-implementation) and group (active EHR patient portal versus inactive EHR patient portal). The primary outcome was mammogram completion among all eligible patients, with completion defined as receiving a mammogram within 6 months post-visit. The secondary outcome was mammogram completion among patients who received a clinician order during their visit. RESULTS: The primary analysis included 35,257 patient visits. The overall mammogram completion rate in the pre-period was 22.2% and 49.7% in the post-period. EHR self-scheduling was significantly associated with increased mammogram completion among those with an active EHR portal, relative to patients with an inactive portal (adjusted difference 13.2 percentage points [95% CI 10.6-15.8]). For patients who received a clinician mammogram order at their eligible visit, self-scheduling was significantly associated with increased mammogram completion among patients with an active EHR portal account (adjusted difference 14.7 percentage points, [95% CI 10.9-18.5]). CONCLUSIONS: EHR-based self-scheduling was associated with a significant increase in mammogram completion among primary care patients. Self-scheduling can be a low-cost, scalable function for increasing preventive cancer screenings.

Association Between Capitated Payments and Preventive Care Among U.S. Adults.

Introduction: There is increasing interest in using capitation rather than fee for service to promote primary care and population health. The goal of this study was to examine the association between practice reimbursement mix (majority fee for service versus majority capitation versus other) and receipt of common preventive screening examinations and health counseling from 2012 to 2018. Methods: Using the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a retrospective cross-sectional study of 24,864 visits with primary care clinicians among patients aged 18-75 years without a cancer diagnosis was conducted. The main dependent measures were age- and sex-appropriate receipt of breast cancer screening, osteoporosis screening, cervical cancer screening, chlamydia testing, colon cancer screening, diabetes screening, and hyperlipidemia screening as well as 3 health counseling items. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the association between reimbursement mix and receipt of preventive care, adjusted for patient, visit, and practice characteristics. Results: Majority capitation reimbursement was associated with a greater likelihood of receiving breast cancer screening (AOR=2.11, 95% CI=1.16, 3.84, p=0.014) and osteoporosis screening (AOR=4.34, 95% CI=1.74, 10.8, p=0.0017) than majority fee-for-service or other reimbursement mixes. Reimbursement mix was not associated with the likelihood of receiving 9 other preventive care or health counseling services. Conclusions: Larger amounts of capitation reimbursement may improve some but not all aspects of preventive care compared with fee for service.

Association Between a Bundled Payment Program for Lower Extremity Joint Replacement and Patient Outcomes Among Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries.

Importance: Much of the evidence for bundled payments has been drawn from models in the traditional Medicare program. Although private insurers are increasingly offering bundled payment programs, it is not known whether they are associated with changes in episode spending and quality. Objective: To evaluate whether a voluntary bundled payment program offered by a national Medicare Advantage insurer was associated with changes in episode spending or quality of care for beneficiaries receiving lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of 23 034 LEJR surgical episodes that emulated a stepped-wedge design by using the time-varying, geographically staggered rollout of the bundled payment program from January 1, 2012, to September 30, 2019. Episode-level multivariable regression models were estimated within practice to compare changes before and after program participation, using episodes at physician practices that had not yet begun participating in the program during a given time period (but would go on to do so) as the control. Data analyses were performed from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022. Exposures: Physician practice participation in the bundled payment program. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was episode spending (plan and beneficiary). Secondary outcomes included postacute care use (skilled nursing facility and home health care), surgical setting (inpatient vs outpatient), and quality (90-day complications [including deep vein thrombosis, wound infection, fracture, or dislocation] and readmissions). Results: The final analytic sample included 23 034 LEJR episodes (6355 bundled episodes and 16 679 control episodes) from 109 physician practices participating in the program. Of the beneficiaries, 7730 were male and 15 304 were female, 3057 were Black, 19 351 were White, 447 were of other race or ethnicity (assessed according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services beneficiary race and ethnicity code, which reflects data reported to the Social Security Administration), and 179 were of unknown race and ethnicity. The mean (SD) age was 70.9 (7.2) years. Participation in the bundled payment program was associated with a 2.7% (95% CI, 1.3%-4.1%) decrease in spending per episode (mean episodic spending, $21 964 [95% CI, $21 636-$22 296] vs $22 562 [95% CI, $22 346-$22 779]), as well as reductions in skilled nursing facility use after discharge (21.3% for bundled episodes vs 25.0% for control episodes; odds ratio [OR], 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67-0.98]) and increased use of the outpatient surgical setting (14.1% for bundled episodes vs 8.4% for control episodes; OR, 1.79 [95% CI, 1.53-2.09]). The program was not associated with changes in quality outcomes, including 90-day complications (8.8% for bundled episodes vs 8.6% for control episodes; OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.86-1.20]) and readmissions (4.3% for bundled episodes vs 4.6% for control episodes; OR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.75-1.13]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of an LEJR bundled payment program offered by a national Medicare Advantage insurer, findings suggest that physician practice participation in the program was associated with a decrease in episode spending without changes in quality. Bundled payments offered by private insurers, including Medicare Advantage plans, are an alternate payment option to fee for service that may reduce spending for LEJR episodes while maintaining quality of care.

Development and Feasibility Testing of a Decision Aid for Acute Appendicitis.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis will be increasingly asked to choose between surgery and antibiotic management. We developed a novel decision aid for patients in the emergency department (ED) with acute appendicitis who are facing this choice. We describe the development of the decision aid and an initial feasibility study of its implementation in a busy tertiary care ED. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prepost survey analysis comparing patients before and after standardized implementation of the decision aid. Patients were surveyed about their experience making treatment decisions after discharge from the hospital. The primary outcome measure was the total score on the decisional conflict scale (; 0-100; lower scores better). RESULTS: The study included 24 participants (12 in the predecision aid period; 12 in the post period). Only 33% of participants in each group knew antibiotics were a treatment option prior to arriving at the ED. Prior to implementing the use of decision aid, only 75% of patients reported being told antibiotics were a treatment option, while this increased to 100% after implementation of the decision aid. The mean total decisional conflict scalescores were similar in the pre and post periods (mean difference = 0.13, 95% CI: -13 - 13, P > 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: This novel appendicitis decision aid was effectively integrated into clinical practice and helped toinform patients about multiple treatment options. These data support further large-scale testing of the decision aid as part of standardized pathways for the management of patients with acute appendicitis.

Verbal Descriptions of the Probability of Treatment Complications Lead to High Variability in Risk Perceptions: A Survey Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether different methods for communicating the probability of treatment complications for operative and nonoperative appendicitis treatments result in differences in risk perception. BACKGROUND: Surgeons must communicate the probability of treatment complications to patients, and how risks are communicated may impact the accuracy and variability in patient risk perceptions and ultimately their decision making. METHODS: A series of online surveys of American adults communicated the probability of complications associated with surgical or antibiotic treatment of acute appendicitis. Probability was communicated with verbal descriptors (eg, "uncommon"), point estimates (eg, "3% risk"), or risk ranges (eg, "1% to 5%"). Respondents then estimated the probability of a complication for a "typical patient with appendicitis." The Fligner-Killeen test of homogeneity of variance was used to compare the variability in respondent risk estimates based on the method of probability communication. RESULTS: Among 296 respondents, variance in probability estimates was significantly higher when verbal descriptions were used compared to point estimates ( P < 0.001) or risk ranges ( P < 0.001). Identical verbal descriptors produced meaningfully different risk estimates depending on the complication being described. For example, "common" was perceived as a 45.6% for surgical site infection but 61.7% for antibiotic-associated diarrhea. CONCLUSION: Verbal probability descriptors are associated with widely varying and inaccurate perceptions about treatment risks. Surgeons should consider alternative ways to communicate probability during informed consent and shared decision-making discussions.

Association of Patient Belief About Success of Antibiotics for Appendicitis and Outcomes: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: A patient's belief in the likely success of a treatment may influence outcomes, but this has been understudied in surgical trials. Objective: To examine the association between patients' baseline beliefs about the likelihood of treatment success with outcomes of antibiotics for appendicitis in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a secondary analysis of the CODA randomized clinical trial. Participants from 25 US medical centers were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. Included in the analysis were participants with appendicitis who were randomly assigned to receive antibiotics in the CODA trial. After informed consent but before randomization, participants who were assigned to receive antibiotics responded to a baseline survey including a question about how successful they believed antibiotics could be in treating their appendicitis. Interventions: Participants were categorized based on baseline survey responses into 1 of 3 belief groups: unsuccessful/unsure, intermediate, and completely successful. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three outcomes were assigned at 30 days: (1) appendectomy, (2) high decisional regret or dissatisfaction with treatment, and (3) persistent signs and symptoms (abdominal pain, tenderness, fever, or chills). Outcomes were compared across groups using adjusted risk differences (aRDs), with propensity score adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Results: Of the 776 study participants who were assigned antibiotic treatment in CODA, a total of 425 (mean [SD] age, 38.5 [13.6] years; 277 male [65%]) completed the baseline belief survey before knowing their treatment assignment. Baseline beliefs were as follows: 22% of participants (92 of 415) had an unsuccessful/unsure response, 51% (212 of 415) had an intermediate response, and 27% (111 of 415) had a completely successful response. Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those who believed antibiotics could be completely successful had a 13-percentage point lower risk of appendectomy (aRD, -13.49; 95% CI, -24.57 to -2.40). The aRD between those with intermediate vs unsuccessful/unsure beliefs was -5.68 (95% CI, -16.57 to 5.20). Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those with intermediate beliefs had a lower risk of persistent signs and symptoms (aRD, -15.72; 95% CI, -29.71 to -1.72), with directionally similar results for the completely successful group (aRD, -15.14; 95% CI, -30.56 to 0.28). Conclusions and Relevance: Positive patient beliefs about the likely success of antibiotics for appendicitis were associated with a lower risk of appendectomy and with resolution of signs and symptoms by 30 days. Pathways relating beliefs to outcomes and the potential modifiability of beliefs to improve outcomes merit further investigation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Applying Behavioral Nudges in a Dietary Comparator for Surgical Trials: Developing the MediDiet.

INTRODUCTION: Dietary interventions are increasingly being proposed as alternatives to surgery for common gastrointestinal conditions. Integrating aspects of cognitive psychology (e.g., behavioral nudges) into dietary interventions is becoming popular, but evidence is lacking on their effectiveness and unintended effects. We assessed the effects of including nudges in the development of a dietary intervention based on the Mediterranean diet. METHODS: We conducted two-arm randomized surveys of United States adults. After a validated dietary questionnaire, participants received feedback about dietary consistency with a Mediterranean diet with (A) no nudge versus (B) one of several nudges: peer comparison, positive affect induction + peer comparison, or defaults. Participants rated their negative and positive emotions, motivation for dietary change, and interest in recipes. Responses were analyzed using baseline covariate-adjusted regression. RESULTS: Among 1709 participants, 56% were men and the median age was 36 y. Nudges as a class did not significantly affect the extent of negative or positive emotions, motivation, or interest. However, specific nudges had different effects: compared to no nudge, peer comparison blunted negative emotions and increased motivation, although decreased interest in recipes, while defaults increased interest in recipes but reduced motivation. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot, behavioral nudges as a class of strategies did not improve participants' reactions to dietary feedback nor did they promote negative reactions. However, specific nudges may be better considered separately in their effects. Future testing should explore whether specific nudges including peer comparison and defaults improve dietary intervention effectiveness, especially in people with the specific gastrointestinal conditions of interest.

Effects of opioid addiction risk information on Americans' agreement with postoperative opioid minimization and perceptions of quality.

BACKGROUND: Judicious opioid prescribing and patient counseling, including in the postoperative context, are important efforts to address the U.S. opioid crisis. In discussions with patients and loved ones, there is commonly an emphasis on addiction risk. From a behavioral science standpoint, presenting addiction risk information represents a fear appeal. Clinicians may also seek to build trust and confidence by presenting balanced views of benefits and risks. However, little is known about if and how addiction risk information evokes negative emotions, affects perceptions of quality, and influences perspectives on judicious opioid prescribing. METHODS: We conducted a four-arm, randomized survey of U.S. adults involving a vignette about post-appendectomy pain management for a friend, including the quantity of opioids commonly prescribed. Participants were given either no additional information (control), addiction risk information, addiction plus health risk information, or addiction plus death risk information. We compared evoked affect, agreement with a reduced opioid prescription compared to common practice, and perceptions of quality. RESULTS: Among 1,546 participants (56% men, mean age 39), 78% agreed with reducing the quantity of opioids prescribed, relative to common practices. Compared to the control, providing addiction risk information did not impact the degree of evoked negative emotions or the likelihood of agreement with reduced opioid prescriptions. Providing opioid risk information increased the likelihood of high surgeon quality ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Among a sample of U.S. adults, presenting addiction risk did not effectively appeal to fear, nor increase agreement with judicious opioid prescribing. Alternative communication strategies may be needed for those purposes.

The Proportion of Marginalized Individuals in US Communities and Hospital Participation in Bundled Payments.

Hospitals have demonstrated the benefits of both voluntary and mandatory bundled payments for joint replacement surgery. However, given generalizability and disparities concerns, it is critical to understand the availability of care through bundled payments to historically marginalized groups, such as racial and ethnic minorities and individuals with lower socioeconomic status (SES). This cross-sectional analysis of 3880 US communities evaluated the relationship between the proportion of Black and Hispanic individuals (minority share) or Medicare/Medicaid dual-eligible individuals (low SES share) and community-level participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative (BPCI) (being a BPCI community) and Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model (being a CJR community). An increase from the lowest to highest quartile of minority share was not associated with differences in the probability of being a BPCI community (3.5 percentage point [pp] difference, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.2% to 8.3%, P = 0.15), but was associated with a 16.1 pp higher probability of being a CJR community (95% CI 10.3% to 22.0%, P < 0.0001). An increase from the lowest to highest quartile of low SES share was associated with a 6.0 pp lower probability of being a BPCI community (95% CI -10.9% to -1.2%, P = 0.02) and 19.0 pp lower probability of being a CJR community (95% CI -24.9% to -13.0%, P < 0.0001). These findings highlight that the greater the proportion of lower SES individuals in a community, the lower the likelihood that its hospitals participated in either voluntary or mandatory bundled payments. Policymakers should consider community socioeconomic characteristics when designing participation mechanisms for future bundled payment programs.

Randomized Pilot Test of a Decision Support Tool for Acute Appendicitis: Decisional Conflict and Acceptability in a Healthy Population.

To test the effect of a new decision support tool for acute appendicitis and assess its efficacy and acceptability. Background: Mounting evidence from randomized controlled trials have shown that antibiotics can be a safe and effective treatment for appendicitis. Patients and surgeons must work together to choose the optimal treatment approach for each patient based on their own preferences and values. We developed a decision support tool to facilitate shared decision-making for appendicitis and its effect on decisional outcomes remains unknown. Methods: We conducted an online randomized field test in at-risk individuals comparing the decision support tool to a standard infographic. Individuals were randomized 3:1 to view the decision support tool or infographic. The primary outcome was the total decisional conflict scale (DCS) score measured before and after exposure to the decision support tool. Secondary outcomes included between-group DCS scores, and between-group comparisons of the acceptability. Results: One hundred eighty individuals were included in the study. Total DCS scores decreased significantly after viewing the decision support tool (59 [95% confidence interval (CI): 55-63] to 15 [95% CI: 12-17], P < 0.001) representing movement from a state of high to low decisional conflict. Individuals exposed to the decision support tool reported higher acceptability ratings (3.7 [95% CI: 3.6-3.8] vs 3.3 [95% CI: 3.2-3.5] out of 4) and demonstrated increased willingness to consider both treatment options. Conclusions: These data support the further use and testing of this novel decision support tool in patients with acute appendicitis.

Spillover Effects of Medicare's Voluntary Bundled Payments for Joint Replacement Surgery to Patients Insured by Commercial Health Plans.

BACKGROUND: Under the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program, bundled paymtents for lower-extremity joint replacement (LEJR) are associated with 2% to 4% cost savings with stable quality among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. However, BPCI may prompt practice changes that benefit all patients, not just fee-for-service beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between hospital participation in BPCI and LEJR outcomes for patients with commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage (MA). DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study using Health Care Cost Institute claims from 2011 to 2016. SETTING: LEJR at 281 BPCI hospitals and 562 non-BPCI hospitals. PATIENTS: 184 922 patients with MA or commercial insurance. MEASUREMENTS: Differential changes in LEJR outcomes at BPCI hospitals versus at non-BPCI hospitals matched on propensity score were evaluated using a difference-in-differences (DID) method. Secondary analyses evaluated associations by patient MA status and hospital characteristics. Primary outcomes were changes in 90-day total spending on LEJR episodes and 90-day readmissions; secondary outcomes were postacute spending and discharge to postacute care providers. RESULTS: Average episode spending decreased more at BPCI versus non-BPCI hospitals (change, -2.2% [95% CI, -3.6% to -0.71%]; P = 0.004), but differences in changes in 90-day readmissions were not significant (adjusted DID, -0.47 percentage point [CI, -1.0 to 0.06 percentage point]; P = 0.084). Participation in BPCI was also associated with differences in decreases in postacute spending and discharge to institutional postacute care providers. Decreases in episode spending were larger for hospitals with high baseline spending but did not vary by MA status. LIMITATION: Nonrandomized studies are subject to residual confounding and selection. CONCLUSION: Participation in BPCI was associated with modest spillovers in episode savings. Bundled payments may prompt hospitals to implement broad care redesign that produces benefits regardless of insurance coverage. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at the University of Pennsylvania.

Spillover effects of mandatory hip and knee replacement surgery bundles in medicare.

BACKGROUND: Medicare used the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Model to mandate that hospitals in certain health care markets accept bundled payments for lower extremity joint replacement surgery. CJR has reduced spending with stable quality as intended among Medicare fee-for-service patients, but benefits could "spill over" to individuals insured through private health plans. Definitive evidence of spillovers remains lacking. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between CJR participation and changes in outcomes among privately insured individuals. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: We used 2013-2017 Health Care Cost Institute claims for 418,016 privately insured individuals undergoing joint replacement in 75 CJR and 121 Non-CJR markets. Multivariable generalized linear models with hospital and market random effects and time fixed effects were used to analyze the association between CJR participation and changes in outcomes. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total episode spending, discharge to institutional post-acute care, and quality (e.g., surgical complications, readmissions). RESULTS: Patients in CJR and Non-CJR markets did not differ in total episode spending (difference of -$157, 95% CI -$1043 to $728, p = 0.73) or discharge to institutional post-acute care (difference of -1.1%, 95% CI -3.2%-1.0%, p = 0.31). Similarly, patients in the two groups did not differ in quality or other utilization outcomes. Findings were generally similar in stratified and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: There was a lack of evidence of cost or utilization spillovers from CJR to privately insured individuals. There may be limits in the ability of certain value-based payment reforms to drive broad changes in care delivery and patient outcomes.

Spending And Quality After Three Years Of Medicare's Voluntary Bundled Payment For Joint Replacement Surgery.

Medicare has reinforced its commitment to voluntary bundled payment by building upon the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative via an ongoing successor program, the BPCI Advanced Model. Although lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) is the highest-volume episode in both BPCI and BPCI Advanced, there is a paucity of independent evidence about its long-term impact on outcomes and about whether improvements vary by timing of participation or arise from patient selection rather than changes in clinical practice. We found that over three years, compared to no participation, participation in BPCI was associated with a 1.6 percent differential decrease in average LEJR episode spending with no differential changes in quality, driven by early participants. Patient selection accounted for 27 percent of episode savings. Our findings have important policy implications in view of BPCI Advanced and its two participation waves.

Physician Ordering of Screening Ultrasound: National Rates and Association With State-Level Breast Density Reporting Laws.

PURPOSE: To describe factors associated with screening ultrasound ordering and determine whether adoption of state-level breast density reporting laws was associated with changes in ordering rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a cohort study using National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data for 2007 to 2015. We included preventive office visits for women aged 40 to 74 years without breast symptoms and signs or additional reasons requiring ultrasound ordering. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify changes in ultrasound ordering rates pre- versus post-state-level density reporting laws, accounting for patient-, physician-, and practice-level characteristics. Analyses were weighted to account for the multistage probability sampling design of National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. RESULTS: Our sample included 12,787 visits over the 9-year study period. Overall, 28.9% (3,370 of 12,787) of women underwent a breast examination and 22.1% (2,442 of 12,787) had a screening mammogram ordered. Only 3.3% (379 of 12,787) had screening ultrasound ordered. Screening ultrasounds were ordered more frequently for younger women (rate ratio [RR] 0.8 per 10-year increase in age, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.6-0.9, P = .003) and at urban practices (RR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.1-5.0, P = .028), and less frequently in practices with computer reminders for ordering screening tests (RR 0.6, 95% CI: 0.3-0.9, P = .024). In multivariate analyses, the rate of ultrasound ordering did not change after adoption of density notification laws (RR 0.7, 95% CI: 0.3-2.0, P = .57). CONCLUSION: The rate of screening ultrasound ordering remains low over time. There was no observed association between adoption of state-level density reporting laws and overall changes in ultrasound ordering.

Early Postoperative Aortic Root Thrombus After Heartmate 3.

As a bridge to heart transplantation or destination treatment, implantation of the Heartmate 3 (HM3) left ventricular assist device is a viable option for patients with end-stage congestive heart failure. The recent Momentum 3 trial has shown favorable outcomes compared with Heartmate 2. We report the first case of aortic root thrombus occurring early after HM3 implantation as a bridge to heart transplantation. Our case suggests that bridging with an Impella 5.0 preceding HM3 implantation could potentially predispose patients to aortic root thrombus after HM3 implantation, due to Impella-related injury to the aortic valve and aortic root stasis after durable LVAD support.