Building Tailored Resource Guides to Address Social Risks and Advance Health Equity in the Veterans Health Administration.

Background: Health care organizations, including the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), are increasingly adopting programs to address social determinants of health. As part of a comprehensive social risk screening and referral model, tailored resource guides can support efforts to address unmet social needs. However, limited guidance is available on best practices for the development of resource guides in health care settings. Observations: This article describes the development of geographically tailored resource guides for a national VHA quality improvement initiative, Assessing Circumstances and Offering Resources for Needs (ACORN), which aims to systematically screen for and address social needs among veterans. We outline the rationale for using resource guides as a social needs intervention and provide a pragmatic framework for resource guide development and maintenance. We offer guidance based on lessons learned from the development of ACORN resource guides, emphasizing a collaborative approach with VHA social workers and other frontline clinical staff, as well as with community-based organizations. Our how-to guide provides steps for identifying high-yield resources along with formatting considerations to maximize accessibility and usability among patients. Conclusions: Resource guides can serve as a valuable cross-cutting component of health care organizations' efforts to address social needs. We provide a practical approach to resource guide development that may support successful implementation within the VHA and other clinical settings.

Industry Payments to US Physicians by Specialty and Product Type.

This study examines the distribution of payments within and across specialties and the medical products associated with the largest total payments.

Implementing a Social Needs Screening and Referral Program Among Veterans: Assessing Circumstances & Offering Resources for Needs (ACORN).

BACKGROUND: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system routinely screens Veterans for food insecurity, housing instability, and intimate partner violence, but does not systematically screen for other health-related social needs (HRSNs). OBJECTIVES: To (1) develop a process for systematically identifying and addressing Veterans' HRSNs, (2) determine reported prevalence of HRSNs, and (3) assess the acceptability of HRSN screening among Veterans. DESIGN: "Assessing Circumstances and Offering Resources for Needs" (ACORN) is a Veteran-tailored HRSN screening and referral quality improvement initiative. Veterans were screened via electronic tablet for nine HRSNs (food, housing, utilities, transportation, legal needs, social isolation, interpersonal violence, employment, and education) and provided geographically tailored resource guides for identified needs. Two-week follow-up interviews with a purposive sample of Veterans explored screening experiences. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of Veterans presenting for primary care at a VA urban women's health clinic and suburban community-based outpatient clinic (October 2019-May 2020). MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes included prevalence of HRSNs, Veteran-reported acceptability of screening, and use of resources guides. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and rapid qualitative analysis. KEY RESULTS: Of 268 Veterans screened, 50% reported one or more HRSNs. Social isolation was endorsed most frequently (29%), followed by educational needs (19%), interpersonal violence (12%), housing instability (9%), and utility concerns (7%). One in five Veterans reported at least one form of material hardship. In follow-up interviews (n = 15), Veterans found screening acceptable and felt VA should continue screening. No Veterans interviewed had contacted recommended resources at two-week follow-up, although several planned to use resource guides in the future. CONCLUSION: In a VA HRSN screening and referral program, Veterans frequently reported HRSNs, felt screening was important, and thought VA should continue to screen for these needs. Screening for HRSNs is a critical step towards connecting patients with services, identifying gaps in service delivery, and informing future resource allocation.

On All Accounts: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Limited Preoperative Optimization Efforts Before Colon Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Reports suggest that preoperative optimization of a patient's serious comorbidities is associated with a reduction in postoperative complications. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the cost and benefits of preoperative optimization, accounting for total costs associated with postoperative morbidity. DESIGN: This study is a decision tree cost-effectiveness analysis with probabilistic sensitivity analysis (10,000 iterations). SETTING: This is a hypothetical scenario of stage II colon cancer surgery. PATIENT: The simulated 65-year-old patient has left-sided, stage II colon cancer. INTERVENTION: Focused preoperative optimization targets high-risk comorbidities. OUTCOMES: Total discounted (3%) economic costs (US $2018), effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, cost/quality-adjusted life-years gained), and net monetary benefit. RESULTS: We calculated the per individual expected health care sector total cost of preoperative optimization and sequelae to be $12,395 versus $15,638 in those not optimized (net monetary benefit: $1.04 million versus $1.05 million). A nonoptimized patient attained an average 0.02 quality-adjusted life-years less than one optimized. Thus, preoperative optimization was the dominant strategy (lower total costs; higher quality-adjusted life-years). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated 100% of simulations favoring preoperative optimization. The breakeven cost of optimization to remain cost-effective was $6421 per patient. LIMITATIONS: Generalizability must account for the lack of standardization among existing preoperative optimization efforts, and decision analysis methodology provides guidance for the average patient or general population, and is not patient-specific. CONCLUSIONS: Although currently not comprehensively reimbursed, focused preoperative optimization may reduce total costs of care while also reducing complications from colon cancer surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B494. EN TODO CASO ANLISIS DE RENTABILIDAD DE LOS ESFUERZOS LIMITADOS DE OPTIMIZACIN PREOPERATORIA ANTES DE LA CIRUGA DE CNCER DE COLON: ANTECEDENTES:Los informes sugieren que la optimización preoperatoria de las comorbilidades graves de un paciente se asocia con una reducción de las complicaciones postoperatorias.OBJETIVO:El propósito de este estudio fue evaluar el costo y los beneficios de la optimización preoperatoria, teniendo en cuenta los costos totales asociados con la morbilidad postoperatoria.DISEÑO:Análisis de costo-efectividad de árbol de decisión con análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico (10,000 iteraciones).AJUSTE ENTORNO CLINICO:Escenario hipotético Cirugía de cáncer de colon en estadio II.PACIENTE:Paciente simulado de 65 años con cáncer de colon en estadio II del lado izquierdo.INTERVENCIÓN:Optimización preoperatoria enfocada dirigida a comorbilidades de alto riesgo.RESULTADOS:Costos económicos totales descontados (3%) (US $ 2018), efectividad (años de vida ajustados por calidad [AVAC]), relación costo-efectividad incremental (ICER, costo / AVAC ganado) y beneficio monetario neto (NMB).RESULTADOS:Calculamos que el costo total esperado por sector de atención médica individual de la optimización preoperatoria y las secuelas es de $ 12,395 versus $ 15,638 en aquellos no optimizados (NMB: $ 1.04 millones versus $ 1.05 millones, respectivamente). Un paciente no optimizado alcanzó un promedio de 0.02 AVAC menos que uno optimizado. Por lo tanto, la optimización preoperatoria fue la estrategia dominante (menores costos totales; mayores AVAC). El análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico demostró que el 100% de las simulaciones favorecían la optimización preoperatoria. El costo de equilibrio de la optimización para seguir siendo rentable fue de $ 6,421 por paciente.LIMITACIONES:La generalización debe tener en cuenta la falta de estandarización entre los esfuerzos de optimización preoperatorios existentes y esa metodología de análisis de decisiones proporciona una guía para el paciente promedio o la población general, no específica del paciente.CONCLUSIONES:Si bien actualmente no se reembolsa de manera integral, la optimización preoperatoria enfocada puede reducir los costos totales de la atención y al mismo tiempo reducir las complicaciones de la cirugía de cáncer de colon. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B494.

Ventilator Triage Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic at U.S. Hospitals Associated With Members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has or threatens to overwhelm health care systems. Many institutions are developing ventilator triage policies. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the development of ventilator triage policies and compare policy content. DESIGN: Survey and mixed-methods content analysis. SETTING: North American hospitals associated with members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors. PARTICIPANTS: Program directors. MEASUREMENTS: Characteristics of institutions and policies, including triage criteria and triage committee membership. RESULTS: Sixty-seven program directors responded (response rate, 91.8%); 36 (53.7%) hospitals did not yet have a policy, and 7 (10.4%) hospitals' policies could not be shared. The 29 institutions providing policies were relatively evenly distributed among the 4 U.S. geographic regions (range, 5 to 9 policies per region). Among the 26 unique policies analyzed, 3 (11.3%) were produced by state health departments. The most frequently cited triage criteria were benefit (25 policies [96.2%]), need (14 [53.8%]), age (13 [50.0%]), conservation of resources (10 [38.5%]), and lottery (9 [34.6%]). Twenty-one (80.8%) policies use scoring systems, and 20 of these (95.2%) use a version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Among the policies that specify the triage team's composition (23 [88.5%]), all require or recommend a physician member, 20 (87.0%) a nurse, 16 (69.6%) an ethicist, 8 (34.8%) a chaplain, and 8 (34.8%) a respiratory therapist. Thirteen (50.0% of all policies) require or recommend that those making triage decisions not be involved in direct patient care, but only 2 (7.7%) require that their decisions be blinded to ethically irrelevant considerations. LIMITATION: The results may not be generalizable to institutions without academic bioethics programs. CONCLUSION: Over one half of respondents did not have ventilator triage policies. Policies have substantial heterogeneity, and many omit guidance on fair implementation. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Gender Wage Disparities in Medicine: Time to Close the Gap.

Women physicians are paid less than their male peers across medical specialties and geographies. While the medical literature to date has focused on documenting the existence of a wage gap, less attention has been paid to fixing this gap. We focus on interventions around auditing, salary transparency, family leave, and childcare that can be implemented to advance gender wage parity.

Ethical Obligations Regarding Short-Term Global Health Clinical Experiences: An American College of Physicians Position Paper.

This American College of Physicians position paper aims to inform ethical decision making surrounding participation in short-term global health clinical care experiences. Although the positions are primarily intended for practicing physicians, they may apply to other health care professionals and should inform how institutions, organizations, and others structure short-term global health experiences. The primary goal of short-term global health clinical care experiences is to improve the health and well-being of the individuals and communities where they occur. In addition, potential benefits for participants in global health include increased awareness of global health issues, new medical knowledge, enhanced physical diagnosis skills when practicing in low-technology settings, improved language skills, enhanced cultural sensitivity, a greater capacity for clinical problem solving, and an improved sense of self-satisfaction or professional satisfaction. However, these activities involve several ethical challenges. Addressing these challenges is critical to protecting patient welfare in all geographic locales, promoting fair and equitable care globally, and maintaining trust in the profession. This paper describes 5 core positions that focus on ethics and the clinical care context and provides case scenarios to illustrate them.

The Effects of Public Disclosure of Industry Payments to Physicians on Patient Trust: A Randomized Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Financial ties between physicians and the pharmaceutical and medical device industry are common, but little is known about how patient trust is affected by these ties. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate how viewing online public disclosure of industry payments affects patients' trust ratings for physicians, the medical profession, and the pharmaceutical and medical device industry. DESIGN: This was a randomized experimental evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: There were 278 English-speaking participants over age 18 who had seen a healthcare provider in the previous 12 months who took part in the study. INTERVENTIONS: Participants searched for physicians on an online disclosure database, viewed payments from industry to the physicians, and assigned trust ratings. Participants were randomized to view physicians who received no payment ($0), low payment ($250-300), or high payment (>$13,000) from industry, or to a control arm in which they did not view the disclosure website. They also were asked to search for and then rate trust in their own physician. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were trust in individual physician, medical profession, and industry. These scales measure trust as a composite of honesty, fidelity, competence, and global trust. KEY RESULTS: Compared to physicians who received no payments, physicians who received payments over $13,000 received lower ratings for honesty [mean (SD): 3.36 (0.86) vs. 2.75 (0.95), p < 0.001] and fidelity [3.19 (0.65) vs. 2.89 (0.68), p = 0.01]. Among the 7.9% of participants who found their own physician on the website, ratings for honesty and fidelity decreased as the industry payment to the physician increased (honesty: Spearman's ρ = -0.52, p = 0.02; fidelity: Spearman's ρ = -0.55, p = 0.01). Viewing the disclosure website did not affect trust ratings for the medical profession or industry. CONCLUSIONS: Disclosure of industry payments to physicians affected perceptions of individual physician honesty and fidelity, but not perceptions of competence. Disclosure did not affect trust ratings for the medical profession or the pharmaceutical and medical device industry. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02179632 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02179632 ).

Public Awareness of and Contact With Physicians Who Receive Industry Payments: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND: The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, part of the Affordable Care Act, requires pharmaceutical and medical device firms to report payments they make to physicians and, through its Open Payments program, makes this information publicly available. OBJECTIVE: To establish estimates of the exposure of the American patient population to physicians who accept industry payments, to compare these population-based estimates to physician-based estimates of industry contact, and to investigate Americans' awareness of industry payments. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey conducted in late September and early October 2014, with data linkage of respondents' physicians to Open Payments data. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3542 adults drawn from a large, nationally representative household panel. MAIN MEASURES: Respondents' contact with physicians reported in Open Payments to have received industry payments; respondents' awareness that physicians receive payments from industry and that payment information is publicly available; respondents' knowledge of whether their own physician received industry payments. KEY RESULTS: Among the 1987 respondents who could be matched to a specific physician, 65% saw a physician who had received an industry payment during the previous 12 months. This population-based estimate of exposure to industry contact is much higher than physician-based estimates from the same period, which indicate that 41% of physicians received an industry payment. Across the six most frequently visited specialties, patient contact with physicians who had received an industry payment ranged from 60 to 85%; the percentage of physicians with industry contact in these specialties was much lower (35-56%). Only 12% of survey respondents knew that payment information was publicly available, and only 5% knew whether their own doctor had received payments. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' contact with physicians who receive industry payments is more prevalent than physician-based measures of industry contact would suggest. Very few Americans know whether their own doctor has received industry payments or are aware that payment information is publicly available.

The Effect of Price Information on the Ordering of Images and Procedures.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ordering rates for imaging studies and procedures may change if clinicians are shown the prices of those tests while they are ordering. We studied the effect of 2 forms of paid price information, single median price and paired internal/external median prices, on how often pediatric-focused and adult-oriented clinicians (most frequently general pediatricians and adult specialists caring for pediatric-aged patients, respectively) order imaging studies and procedures for 0- to 21-year-olds. METHODS: In January 2014, we randomized 227 pediatric-focused and 279 adult-oriented clinicians to 1 of 3 study arms: Control (no price display), Single Median Price, or Paired Internal/External Median Prices (both with price display in the ordering screen of electronic health record). We used 1-way analysis of variance and paired t tests to examine how frequently clinicians (1) placed orders and (2) designated tests to be completed internally within an accountable care organization. RESULTS: For pediatric-focused clinicians, there was no significant difference in the rates at which orders were placed or designated to be completed internally across the study arms. For adult-oriented clinicians caring for children and adolescents, however, those in the Single Price and Paired Price arms placed orders at significantly higher rates than those in the Control group (Control 3.2 [SD 4.8], Single Price 6.2 [SD 6.8], P < .001 and Paired Prices 5.2 [SD 7.9], P = .04). The rate at which adult-oriented clinicians designated tests to be completed internally was not significantly different across arms. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of price information on ordering rates appears to depend on whether the clinician is pediatric-focused or adult-oriented.

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.

Medical Students' Views and Knowledge of the Affordable Care Act: A Survey of Eight U.S. Medical Schools.

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether medical students support the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or possess the knowledge or will to engage in its implementation as part of their professional obligations. OBJECTIVE: To characterize medical students' views and knowledge of the ACA and to assess correlates of these views. DESIGN: Cross-sectional email survey. PARTICIPANTS: All 5,340 medical students enrolled at eight geographically diverse U.S. medical schools (overall response rate 52% [2,761/5,340]). MAIN MEASURES: Level of agreement with four questions regarding views of the ACA and responses to nine knowledge-based questions. KEY RESULTS: The majority of respondents indicated an understanding of (75.3%) and support for (62.8%) the ACA and a professional obligation to assist with its implementation (56.1%). The mean knowledge score from nine knowledge-based questions was 6.9 ± 1.3. Students anticipating a surgical specialty or procedural specialty compared to those anticipating a medical specialty were less likely to support the legislation (OR = 0.6 [0.4-0.7], OR = 0.4 [0.3-0.6], respectively), less likely to indicate a professional obligation to implement the ACA (OR = 0.7 [0.6-0.9], OR = 0.7 [0.5-0.96], respectively), and more likely to have negative expectations (OR = 1.9 [1.5-2.6], OR = 2.3 [1.6-3.5], respectively). Moderates, liberals, and those with an above-average knowledge score were more likely to indicate support for the ACA (OR = 5.7 [4.1-7.9], OR = 35.1 [25.4-48.5], OR = 1.7 [1.4-2.1], respectively) and a professional obligation toward its implementation (OR = 1.9 [1.4-2.5], OR = 4.7 [3.6-6.0], OR = 1.2 [1.02-1.5], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of students in our sample support the ACA. Support was highest among students who anticipate a medical specialty, self-identify as political moderates or liberals, and have an above-average knowledge score. Support of the ACA by future physicians suggests that they are willing to engage with health care reform measures that increase access to care.

Undocumented injustice? Medical repatriation and the ends of health care.

The authors review the history and motivations behind medical repatriation, the transfer of undocumented patients in need of subacute care to their country of origin. They argue that involuntary medical repatriation violates the ethical duties of health care providers.

Public perceptions of providing IVF services to cancer and HIV patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the attitudes of the general U.S. population toward the use of IVF to assist adults with a history of cancer or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study. SETTING: Online. PATIENT(S): A total of 1,183 adult men and women across the U.S. INTERVENTION(S): Questionnaire consisting of multiple-choice and open-ended questions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Attitudes toward IVF for cancer and HIV patients. RESULT(S): A total of 82% supported IVF for cancer patients compared with 38% for HIV patients. The most common reasons for support was the anticipation of normal life expectancies and a belief in the universal right to have children, although nearly twice as many participants believed this to be a "right" for cancer patients than for HIV patients. Young respondent ages, higher educational attainment, Jewish religion, and a personal history of infertility were associated with higher likelihood of support. Lower education level, higher annual household income, and having children were predictors of discordance in support of IVF for cancer versus HIV patients. CONCLUSION(S): Despite advancements in the treatment of cancer and HIV, which have allowed patients to have longer life expectancies and improved chances of parenthood, there is significant disparity in the support of providing IVF to these patient groups.