Variation in spending associated with primary care practices.

OBJECTIVES: To measure variation in spending and inpatient prices associated with the primary care physician (PCP) practice to which patients are attributed. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of claims data. METHODS: We used random effect models to estimate case mix-adjusted spending across large PCP practices within 3-digit zip codes. We compare inpatient prices for patients in high-spending practices with those in low-spending practices. RESULTS: The physician practice to which a patient was attributed is associated with significant differences in spending after controlling for patient comorbidities and geography. Patients attributed to practices in the top quartile of total medical expenses have about 30% higher spending than patients attributed to practices in the bottom quartile of adjusted spending in their 3-digit zip code. If patients attributed to practices in the top 2 quartiles had spending equivalent to those in the median practice, total spending would drop by 8%. Price variation accounts for a meaningful amount of the variation, with inpatient prices 17% higher in top-quartile vs bottom-quartile practices. We cannot disaggregate the large variation in utilization into practice patterns and unmeasured case mix (including unmeasured differences in patients' socioeconomic status) vs random health shocks, but correlation in spending patterns across years suggests that some persistent differences in spending patterns exist. CONCLUSIONS: There are meaningful opportunities to reduce spending by changing patient PCP selection, encouraging patients to use lower-priced specialists and hospitals, and eliminating wasteful care. Attention must be paid to the best ways to reap these savings.

Workforce planning-going beyond the count.

Every country struggles with how best to meet the demand for health care services with the available resources. This commentary offers a perspective on the Israeli physician workforce and the analyses of Horowitz et al., which found age and gender differences in physician productivity and career longevity, differences across specialties, and a sizeable fraction of licensed Israeli physicians living abroad. Workforce planning can be subject to data collection and statistical uncertainties, but even more important are the assumptions and forecasts related to demand for services and organizational arrangements for care delivery. Readers should be cautious in analyzing productivity just by counting hours or years worked, and comparisons across countries may not account for differences in the nature of physician work. The question of whether Israel has enough physicians for the future has to go "beyond the count" to looking at the roles of other health professionals, the use of new technologies and new team configurations, and the overall efficiency and effectiveness of health care delivery systems such as hospitals, ambulatory care clinics, and community-based care.

Comparative effectiveness and costs of insulin pump therapy for diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), or "insulin pump" therapy, is an alternative to multiple daily insulin injections (MDII) for management of diabetes. This study evaluates patterns of healthcare utilization, costs, and blood glucose control for patients with diabetes who initiate CSII. STUDY DESIGN: Pre-post with propensity-matched comparison design involving commercially insured US adults (aged 18-64 years) with insulin-requiring diabetes who transitioned from MDII to CSII between July 1, 2009, and June 30, 2012 ("CSII initiators"; n = 2539), or who continued using MDI (n = 2539). METHODS: Medical claims and laboratory results files obtained from a large US-wide health payer were used to construct direct medical expenditures, hospital use, healthcare encounters for hypoglycemia, and mean concentration of glycated hemoglobin (A1C). We fit difference-in-differences regression models to compare healthcare expenditures for 3 years following the switch to CSII. Stratified analyses were performed for prespecified patient subgroups. RESULTS: Over 3 years, mean per-person total healthcare expenditures were $1714 (95% confidence interval [CI], $1184-$2244) higher per quarter for CSII initiators compared with matched MDII patients (total mean 3-year difference of $20,565). Compared with matched controls, mean A1C concentrations became lower for CSII initiators by 0.46% in year 2 (P = .0003) and by 0.32% in year 3 (P = .047). CSII initiators also had a higher rate of hypoglycemia encounters in year 1 (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: For adults with insulin-requiring diabetes, transitioning from MDII to CSII was associated with modest improvements in A1C but more hypoglycemia encounters and increased healthcare expenditures, without significant improvement in other potentially offsetting areas of healthcare consumption.

Making genomic medicine evidence-based and patient-centered: a structured review and landscape analysis of comparative effectiveness research.

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) in genomic medicine (GM) measures the clinical utility of using genomic information to guide clinical care in comparison to appropriate alternatives. We summarized findings of high-quality systematic reviews that compared the analytic and clinical validity and clinical utility of GM tests. We focused on clinical utility findings to summarize CER-derived evidence about GM and identify evidence gaps and future research needs. We abstracted key elements of study design, GM interventions, results, and study quality ratings from 21 systematic reviews published in 2010 through 2015. More than half (N = 13) of the reviews were of cancer-related tests. All reviews identified potentially important clinical applications of the GM interventions, but most had significant methodological weaknesses that largely precluded any conclusions about clinical utility. Twelve reviews discussed the importance of patient-centered outcomes, although few described evidence about the impact of genomic medicine on these outcomes. In summary, we found a very limited body of evidence about the effect of using genomic tests on health outcomes and many evidence gaps for CER to address.Genet Med advance online publication 13 April 2017.

Vital Directions for Health and Health Care: Priorities From a National Academy of Medicine Initiative.

Importance: Recent discussion has focused on questions related to the repeal and replacement of portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, issues central to the future of health and health care in the United States transcend the ACA provisions receiving the greatest attention. Initiatives directed to certain strategic and infrastructure priorities are vital to achieve better health at lower cost. Objectives: To review the most salient health challenges and opportunities facing the United States, to identify practical and achievable priorities essential to health progress, and to present policy initiatives critical to the nation's health and fiscal integrity. Evidence Review: Qualitative synthesis of 19 National Academy of Medicine-commissioned white papers, with supplemental review and analysis of publicly available data and published research findings. Findings: The US health system faces major challenges. Health care costs remain high at $3.2 trillion spent annually, of which an estimated 30% is related to waste, inefficiencies, and excessive prices; health disparities are persistent and worsening; and the health and financial burdens of chronic illness and disability are straining families and communities. Concurrently, promising opportunities and knowledge to achieve change exist. Across the 19 discussion papers examined, 8 crosscutting policy directions were identified as vital to the nation's health and fiscal future, including 4 action priorities and 4 essential infrastructure needs. The action priorities-pay for value, empower people, activate communities, and connect care-recurred across the articles as direct and strategic opportunities to advance a more efficient, equitable, and patient- and community-focused health system. The essential infrastructure needs-measure what matters most, modernize skills, accelerate real-world evidence, and advance science-were the most commonly cited foundational elements to ensure progress. Conclusions and Relevance: The action priorities and essential infrastructure needs represent major opportunities to improve health outcomes and increase efficiency and value in the health system. As the new US administration and Congress chart the future of health and health care for the United States, and as health leaders across the country contemplate future directions for their programs and initiatives, their leadership and strategic investment in these priorities will be essential for achieving significant progress.

Getting value from health spending: going beyond payment reform.

It is widely held that fee-for-service (FFS) payment systems reward volume and intensity of services, contributing to overall cost inflation, while doing little to reward quality, efficiency, or care coordination. Recently, The National Commission on Physician Payment Reform (sponsored by SGIM) has recommended that payers "should largely eliminate stand-alone fee-for-service payment to medical practices because of its inherent inefficiencies and problematic financial incentives." As the current and former Chief Medical Officers of a large national insurer, we agree that payment reform is a critical component of health care modernization. But calls to transform payment simultaneously go too far, and don't go far enough. Based on our experience, we believe there are several critical ingredients that are either missing or under-emphasized in most payment reform proposals, including: health care is local so no one size fits all; upgrading performance measures; monitoring/overcoming unintended consequences; using a full toolbox to achieve transformation; and ensuring that the necessary components for successful delivery reform are in place. Thinking holistically and remembering that healthcare is a complex adaptive system are crucial to achieving better results for patients and the health system.

UnitedHealthcare experience illustrates how payers can enable patient engagement.

Patient engagement is crucial to better outcomes and a high-performing health system, but efforts to support it often focus narrowly on the role of physicians and other care providers. Such efforts miss payers' unique capabilities to help patients achieve better health. Using the experience of UnitedHealthcare, a large national payer, this article demonstrates how health plans can analyze and present information to both patients and providers to help close gaps in care; share detailed quality and cost information to inform patients' choice of providers; and offer treatment decision support and value-based benefit designs to help guide choices of diagnostic tests and therapies. As an employer, UnitedHealth Group has used these strategies along with an "earn-back" program that provides positive financial incentives through reduced premiums to employees who adopt healthful habits. UnitedHealth's experience provides lessons for other payers and for Medicare and Medicaid, which have had minimal involvement with demand-side strategies and could benefit from efforts to promote activated beneficiaries.

Wide variation in episode costs within a commercially insured population highlights potential to improve the efficiency of care.

Reforming payment methods to move away from fee-for-service reimbursement is widely seen as a crucial step toward controlling health care costs. Although there is a good deal of evidence about variability in costs under Medicare, little has been published about the variability of costs for care that is financed by private insurance. We examined both quality and actual medical costs for episodes of care provided by nearly 250,000 US physicians serving commercially insured patients nationwide. Overall, episode costs for a set of major medical procedures varied about 2.5-fold, and for a selected set of common chronic conditions, episode costs varied about 15-fold. Among doctors meeting quality and efficiency benchmarks, however, costs for episodes of care were on average 14 percent lower than among other doctors. Some markets exhibited much higher variation in episode costs, but there was essentially no correlation between average episode costs and measured quality across markets. The overall analysis suggests that changing incentives through payment reforms could help to improve performance, but providers are at different stages of readiness for such reforms and thus will often need support in order to succeed.

The political economy of U.S. primary care.

Compelling evidence suggests that the United States lags behind other developed nations in the health of its population and the performance of its health care system, partly as a result of a decades-long decline in primary care. This paper outlines the political, economic, policy, and institutional factors behind this decline. A large-scale, multifaceted effort--a new Charter for Primary Care--is required to overcome these forces. There are grounds for optimism for the success of this effort, which is essential to achieving health outcomes and health system performance comparable to those of other industrialized nations.

Electronic health records in four community physician practices: impact on quality and cost of care.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the electronic health record (EHR) on cost (i.e., payments to providers) and process measures of quality of care. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective before-after-study-control. From the database of a large managed care organization (MCO), we obtained the claims of patients from four community physician practices that implemented the EHR and from about 50 comparison practices without the EHR in the same counties. The diverse patient and practice populations were chosen to be a sample more representative of typical private practices than has previously been studied. MEASUREMENTS: For four chronic conditions, we used commercially-available software to analyze cost per episode over a year and the rate of adherence to clinical guidelines as a measure of quality. RESULTS: The implementation of the EHR had a modest positive impact on the quality measure of guideline adherence for hypertension and hyperlipidemia, but no significant impact for diabetes and coronary artery disease. No measurable impact on the short-term cost per episode was found. Discussions with the study practices revealed that the timing and comprehensiveness of EHR implementation varied across practices, creating an intervention variable that was heterogeneous. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline adherence increased across practices without EHRs and slightly faster in practices with EHRs. Measuring the impact of EHRs on cost per episode was challenging, because of the difficulty of completely capturing the long-term episodic costs of a chronic condition. Few practices associated with the study MCO had implemented EHRs in any form, much less utilizing standardized protocols.

Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise.

Medical scientists and public health policy makers are increasingly concerned that the scientific discoveries of the past generation are failing to be translated efficiently into tangible human benefit. This concern has generated several initiatives, including the Clinical Research Roundtable at the Institute of Medicine, which first convened in June 2000. Representatives from a diverse group of stakeholders in the nation's clinical research enterprise have collaborated to address the issues it faces. The context of clinical research is increasingly encumbered by high costs, slow results, lack of funding, regulatory burdens, fragmented infrastructure, incompatible databases, and a shortage of qualified investigators and willing participants. These factors have contributed to 2 major obstacles, or translational blocks: impeding the translation of basic science discoveries into clinical studies and of clinical studies into medical practice and health decision making in systems of care. Considering data from across the entire health care system, it has become clear that these 2 translational blocks can be removed only by the collaborative efforts of multiple system stakeholders. The goal of this article is to articulate the 4 central challenges facing clinical research at present--public participation, information systems, workforce training, and funding; to make recommendations about how they might be addressed by particular stakeholders; and to invite a broader, participatory dialogue with a view to improving the overall performance of the US clinical research enterprise.

Primary care in a new era: disillusion and dissolution?.

The current dilemmas in primary care stem from 1) the unintended consequences of forces thought to promote primary care and 2) the "disruptive technologies of care" that attack the very function and concept of primary care itself. This paper suggests that these forces, in combination with "tiering" in the health insurance market, could lead to the dissolution of primary care as a single concept, to be replaced by alignment of clinicians by economic niche. Evidence already exists in the marketplace for both tiering of health insurance benefits and corresponding practice changes within primary care. In the future, primary care for the top tier will cater to the affluent as "full-service brokers" and will be delivered by a wide variety of clinicians. The middle tier will continue to grapple with tensions created by patient demand and bureaucratic systems but will remain most closely aligned to primary care as a concept. The lower tier will become increasingly concerned with community health and social justice. Each primary care specialty will adapt in a unique way to a tiered world, with general internal medicine facing the most challenges. Given this forecast for the future, those concerned about primary care should focus less on workforce issues and more on macro health care financing and organization issues (such as Medicare reform); appropriate training models; and the development of a conception of primary care that emphasizes values and ethos, not just function.