Association of Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative with patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative affected patient-reported measures of quality. DATA SOURCES: Surveys of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged from acute care hospitals participating in BPCI Model 2 and comparison hospitals between October 2014 and June 2017. Variables from Medicare administrative data and the Provider of Services file were used for sampling and risk adjustment. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated risk-adjusted differences in patient-reported measures of care experience and changes in functional status, for beneficiaries treated by BPCI and comparison hospitals. DATA COLLECTION: We selected a stratified random sample of BPCI and matched comparison beneficiaries. We fielded nine waves of surveys using a mail and phone protocol, yielding 29 193 BPCI and 29 913 comparison respondents. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Most BPCI and comparison survey respondents reported a positive care experience and high satisfaction. BPCI respondents were slightly less likely than comparison respondents to report positive care experience or high satisfaction. Despite these differences in care experience, there was no difference between BPCI and comparison respondents in self-reported functional status approximately 90 days after hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: These findings reduce concerns that BPCI may have unintentionally harmed patient health but suggest room for improvement in patient care experience.

The Global Burden of Potential Productivity Loss from Uncorrected Presbyopia.

PURPOSE: The onset of presbyopia in middle adulthood results in potential losses in productivity among otherwise healthy adults if uncorrected or undercorrected. The economic burden could be significant in lower-income countries, where up to 94% of cases may be uncorrected or undercorrected. This study estimates the global burden of potential productivity lost because of uncorrected functional presbyopia. DESIGN: Population data from the US Census Bureau were combined with the estimated presbyopia prevalence, age of onset, employment rate, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in current US dollars, and near vision impairment disability weights from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study to estimate the global loss of productivity from uncorrected and undercorrected presbyopia in each country in 2011. To allow comparison with earlier work, we also calculated the loss with the conservative assumption that the contribution to productivity extends only up to 50 years of age. PARTICIPANTS: The economic modeling did not require the use of subjects. METHODS: We estimated the number of cases of uncorrected or undercorrected presbyopia in each country among the working-age population. The number of working-age cases was multiplied by the labor force participation rate, the employment rate, a disability weight, and the GDP per capita to estimate the potential loss of GDP due to presbyopia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome being measured is the lost productivity in 2011 US dollars resulting from uncorrected or undercorrected presbyopia. RESULTS: There were an estimated 1.272 billion cases of presbyopia worldwide in 2011. A total of 244 million cases, uncorrected or undercorrected among people aged <50 years, were associated with a potential productivity loss of US $11.023 billion (0.016% of global GDP). If all those people aged <65 years are assumed to be productive, the potential productivity loss would be US $25.367 billion or 0.037% of global GDP. Correcting presbyopia to the level achieved in Europe would reduce the burden to US $1.390 billion (0.002% of global GDP). CONCLUSIONS: Even with conservative assumptions regarding the productive population, presbyopia is a significant burden on productivity, and correction would have a significant impact on productivity in lower-income countries.

An international comparison of stakeholder motivation to implement liver cancer control.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization offers clear guidance on the development of national cancer control programmes based on a country's level of resources, yet the motivation to implement such programmes may be driven by factors other than resources. OBJECTIVES: To compare stakeholder motivation to implement a national liver cancer control programme and assess if variation in motivation was associated with stakeholder characteristics or with national indicators of need and resources. METHODS: Relevant stakeholders were purposively selected from 13 countries (Australia, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Nigeria, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey and USA) to participate in a structured survey on liver cancer control. Respondents included 12 individuals working in clinical, 5 in policy and 3 in advocacy roles from each country. Stakeholders' motivation was measured using a scale grounded in expectancy theory and knowledge gained during previous qualitative interviews. Comparisons across countries and respondent characteristics were conducted using hierarchical regression. Country level motivation scores, holding constant individual level covariates, were correlated with indicators of need and resources and tested using Pearson's correlation coefficients. RESULTS: In total, 260 stakeholders, equally drawn from the study countries, completed the survey (45% response rate). At the national level, motivation was highest in Nigeria, Thailand and China (P < 0.001), and lowest in Italy (P < 0.001) and Germany (P = 0.003). Higher motivation was observed among stakeholders working at the international level relative to the local level (P = 0.017). Motivation was positively associated with a country's relative burden of liver cancer (P = 0.015) and negatively associated with their level of resources (P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first empirical evidence on the motivation of stakeholders to implement national cancer control programmes. Furthermore, we demonstrate that motivation is more clearly associated with a country's cancer control needs rather than resources.

Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: As more studies report on patient preferences, techniques are needed to identify, assess and, eventually, synthesize results from a diverse set of methodologies. Data on patient preferences are valuable to decision makers in a variety of ways. Preferences for outcomes can be used to inform decision and cost-effectiveness models, while preferences for treatments can inform patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) and patient-centered care. OBJECTIVES: This project sought to identify and assess the literature reporting on the treatment preferences of adult patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition to cataloging the preference elicitation methods used, we developed and assessed a novel quality assessment checklist for preference-based studies. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and EconLit databases were searched to identify studies examining patient preferences for medications for type 2 diabetes studies published since inception of each database. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: The review protocol specified inclusion of studies reporting diabetes-treatment preferences among adults with type 2 diabetes, using a range of preference measurement methods. Studies were excluded if participants were not patients with type 2 diabetes and if treatments were not pharmacological therapies targeting glycemic control, or if no primary preference information was collected. Two investigators independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and articles sequentially to select studies for data abstraction based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Data on study country, year, number of respondents, preference elicitation method, number of attributes, subgroup analyses, and funding source were abstracted into standardized tables. A novel checklist (PREFS) was used to assess the data quality and validity across different types of preference studies by assessing the following: purpose of the study; respondent sampling; explanation of preference assessment methods; findings reported for total sample; and significance testing. Each item was scored, and an aggregate score was then calculated (ranging from 0 to 5). RESULTS: Of the 2,100 unique citations, 61 met the inclusion criteria. The studies used conjoint analysis (n = 10), time trade-off (n = 6), standard gamble (n = 2), contingent valuation (n = 1), other stated preference methods (n = 39), and revealed preferences (n = 5). Sample sizes ranged from 27 to 14,033, with an average of 562 respondents, and two-thirds included a subgroup analysis. Most studies were conducted in one country, predominantly the USA (n = 27), UK (n = 14), Canada (n = 10), and Germany (n = 7), while 14 were conducted in multiple (2-18) countries across two or more countries. There was an increase in the annual rate of studies published over time from the time of the first publication in 1985 (p = < 0.01). Most (n = 52) studies were funded by pharmaceutical or device companies, with government, academic, association, and hospital sources also funding studies. One study met all five of the PREFS criteria and 12 met four; yet four studies met none of the criteria. The average was 27. LIMITATIONS: Currently, preferences reviews are limited by the mixed quality in the reporting of studies, the publication bias inherent in the literature, a lack of guidelines to conduct various methods, and the difficulty of synthesizing results from different studies. Our study is also limited by its focus on English language articles. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: This study provides the first systematic evaluation of the methods used in the broad existing body of research into patient preferences for type 2 diabetes medications and can serve as a primary source of information for decision makers. Future work is necessary to assess the utility of the results of reviews of preference information and to develop best-practice guidelines for the reporting of, and methods of conducting, preference studies and systematic reviews of such studies. REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42012002285).

Can public reporting impact patient outcomes and disparities? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Recent US healthcare reforms aim to improve quality and access. We synthesized evidence assessing the impact that public reporting (PR), which will be extended to the outpatient setting, has on patient outcomes and disparities. METHODS: A systematic review using PRISMA guidelines identified studies addressing the impact of PR on patient outcomes and disparities. RESULTS: Of the 1970 publications identified, 25 were relevant, spanning hospitals (16), nursing homes (5), emergency rooms (1), health plans (2), and home health agencies (1). Evidence of effect on patient outcomes was mixed, with 6 studies reporting a favorable effect, 9 a mixed effect, 9 a null effect, and 1 a negative effect. One study found a mixed effect of PR on disparities. CONCLUSION: The evidence of the impact of PR on patient outcomes is lacking, with limited evidence that PR has a favorable effect on outcomes in nursing homes. There is little evidence supporting claims that PR will have an impact on disparities or in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Health systems should collect information on patient-relevant outcomes. The lack of evidence does not necessarily imply a lack of effect, and a research gap exists regarding patient-relevant outcomes and PR.

Stakeholder perspectives on European priorities for comprehensive liver cancer control: a conjoint analysis.

BACKGROUND: As liver cancer incidence and mortality remain high in many parts of Europe, a more comprehensive response is required to reduce the burden. Expert stakeholders should be involved in the design of responses because they have important insights about potentially effective responses and will be affected by policy changes. We aimed to prioritize liver cancer control strategies based on European liver cancer stakeholders' views of which strategies would have the greatest impact in a comprehensive liver cancer control plan. METHODS: One hundred liver cancer clinical, policy and advocacy stakeholders from France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Turkey were surveyed. Respondents completed 12 conjoint choice tasks in which they chose which of two subsets of 11 strategies would have the greatest impact in their country. RESULTS: All strategies were considered likely to have a positive impact (P < 0.01). The highest priority strategy was monitoring of at-risk populations, followed by centres of excellence, clinical education, multidisciplinary management, national guidelines, measuring social burden, public awareness, risk assessment and referral, research infrastructure and access to treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Canvassing stakeholder views through a conjoint analysis survey provided a robust quantitative prioritization that can complement traditional qualitative consultation processes. The prioritized strategies provide a logical starting point for decision makers considering developing national plans or collaborative efforts to achieve comprehensive liver cancer control in Europe.

Prioritizing strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control in Asia: a conjoint analysis.

BACKGROUND: Liver cancer is a complex and burdensome disease, with Asia accounting for 75% of known cases. Comprehensive cancer control requires the use of multiple strategies, but various stakeholders may have different views as to which strategies should have the highest priority. This study identified priorities across multiple strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control (CLCC) from the perspective of liver cancer clinical, policy, and advocacy stakeholders in China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Concordance of priorities was assessed across the region and across respondent roles. METHODS: Priorities for CLCC were examined as part of a cross-sectional survey of liver cancer experts. Respondents completed several conjoint-analysis choice tasks to prioritize 11 strategies. In each task, respondents judged which of two competing CLCC plans, consisting of mutually exclusive and exhaustive subsets of the strategies, would have the greatest impact. The dependent variable was the chosen plan, which was then regressed on the strategies of different plans. The restricted least squares (RLS) method was utilized to compare aggregate and stratified models, and t-tests and Wald tests were used to test for significance and concordance, respectively. RESULTS: Eighty respondents (69.6%) were eligible and completed the survey. Their primary interests were hepatitis (26%), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (58%), metastatic liver cancer (10%) and transplantation (6%). The most preferred strategies were monitoring at-risk populations (p<0.001), clinician education (p<0.001), and national guidelines (p<0.001). Most priorities were concordant across sites except for three strategies: transplantation infrastructure (p=0.009) was valued lower in China, measuring social burden (p=0.037) was valued higher in Taiwan, and national guidelines (p=0.025) was valued higher in China. Priorities did not differ across stakeholder groups (p=0.438). CONCLUSIONS: Priorities for CLCC in Asia include monitoring at-risk populations, clinician education, national guidelines, multidisciplinary management, public awareness and centers of excellence. As most priorities are relatively concordant across the region, multilateral approaches to addressing comprehensive liver cancer would be beneficial. However, where priorities are discordant among sites, such as transplantation infrastructure, strategies should be tailored to local needs.