Do pregnant women living in higher well-being populations in the USA experience lower risk of preterm delivery? A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if preterm birth, defined as gestational age <37 weeks, is lower for women living in counties with higher well-being, after accounting for known individual risk factors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of all US births in 2011. PARTICIPANTS: We obtained birth data from the National Center for Health Statistics which included 3 938 985 individuals. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was maternal risk of preterm delivery by county; primary independent variable was county-level well-being as measured by the Gallup-Sharecare Well-Being Index (WBI). RESULTS: Women living in counties with higher population well-being had a lower rate of preterm delivery. The rate of preterm birth in counties in the lowest WBI quintile was 13.1%, while the rate of preterm birth in counties in the highest WBI quintile was 10.9%. In the model adjusted for maternal risk factors (age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, smoking status, timing of initiation of prenatal visits, multiparity, maternal insurance payer), the association was slightly attenuated with an absolute difference of 1.9% (95% CI 1.7% to 2.1%; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women who live in areas with higher population well-being have lower risk of preterm birth, even after accounting for individual risk factors.

Impact of Cost Display on Ordering Patterns for Hospital Laboratory and Imaging Services.

BACKGROUND: Physicians "purchase" many health care services on behalf of patients yet remain largely unaware of the costs of these services. Electronic health record (EHR) cost displays may facilitate cost-conscious ordering of health services. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether displaying hospital lab and imaging order costs is associated with changes in the number and costs of orders placed. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study. PARTICIPANTS: All patients with inpatient or observation encounters across a multi-site health system from April 2013 to October 2015. INTERVENTION: Display of order costs, based on Medicare fee schedules, in the EHR for 1032 lab tests and 1329 imaging tests. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes for both lab and imaging orders were (1) whether an order was placed during a hospital encounter, (2) whether an order was placed on a given patient-day, (3) number of orders placed per patient-day, and (4) cost of orders placed per patient-day. KEY RESULTS: During the lab and imaging study periods, there were 248,214 and 258,267 encounters, respectively. Cost display implementation was associated with a decreased odds of any lab or imaging being ordered during the encounter (lab adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.97, p = .01; imaging AOR = 0.97, p < .001), a decreased odds of any lab or imaging being ordered on a given patient-day (lab AOR = 0.95, p < .001; imaging AOR = 0.97, p < .001), a decreased number of lab or imaging orders on patient-days with orders (lab adjusted count ratio = 0.93, p < .001; imaging adjusted count ratio = 0.98, p < .001), and a decreased cost of lab orders and increased cost of imaging orders on patient-days with orders (lab adjusted cost ratio = 0.93, p < .001; imaging adjusted cost ratio = 1.02, p = .003). Overall, the intervention was associated with an 8.5 and 1.7% reduction in lab and imaging costs per patient-day, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Displaying costs within EHR ordering screens was associated with decreases in the number and costs of lab and imaging orders.

Exit Survey of Senior Residents: Cost Conscious but Uninformed.

Background Cost awareness, to ensure physician stewardship of limited resources, is increasingly recognized as an important skill for physicians. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has made cost awareness part of systems-based practice, a core competency of resident education. However, little is known about resident cost awareness. Objective We sought to assess senior resident self-perceived cost awareness and cost knowledge. Methods In March 2014, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of all emergency medicine, internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, orthopaedic surgery pediatrics, and medicine-pediatrics residents in their final year at Yale-New Haven Hospital. The survey examined attitudes toward health care costs and residents' estimates of order prices. We considered resident price estimates to be accurate if they were between 50% and 200% of the Connecticut-specific Medicare price. Results We sent the survey to 84 residents and received 47 completed surveys (56% response rate). Although more than 95% (45 of 47) felt that containing costs is the responsibility of every clinician, and 49% (23 of 47) agreed that cost influenced their decision when ordering, only 4% (2 of 47) agreed that they knew the cost of tests being ordered. No residents accurately estimated the price of a complete blood count with differential, and only 2.1% (1 of 47) were accurate for a basic metabolic panel. The overall accuracy of all resident responses was 25%. Conclusions In our study, many trainees exit residency with self-identified deficiencies in knowledge about costs. The findings show the need for educational approaches to improve cost awareness among trainees.

Impact of laboratory cost display on resident attitudes and knowledge about costs.

AIM: Cost awareness has been proposed as a strategy for curbing the continued rise of healthcare costs. However, most physicians are unaware of the cost of diagnostic tests, and interventions have had mixed results. We sought to assess resident physician cost awareness following sustained visual display of costs into electronic health record (EHR) order entry screens. STUDY DESIGN: We completed a preintervention and postintervention web-based survey. Participants were physicians in internal medicine, paediatrics, combined medicine and paediatrics, obstetrics and gynaecology, emergency medicine, and orthopaedic surgery at one tertiary co are academic medical centre. Costs were displayed in the EHR for 1032 unique laboratory orders. We measured attitudes towards costs and estimates of Medicare reimbursement rates for 11 common laboratory and imaging tests. RESULTS: We received 209 survey responses during the preintervention period (response rate 71.1%) and 194 responses during the postintervention period (response rate 66.0%). The proportion of residents that agreed/strongly agreed that they knew the costs of tests they ordered increased after the cost display (8.6% vs 38.2%; p<0.001). Cost estimation accuracy among residents increased after the cost display from 24.0% to 52.4% for laboratory orders (p<0.001) and from 37.7% to 49.6% for imaging orders (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Resident cost awareness and ability to accurately estimate laboratory order costs improved significantly after implementation of a comprehensive EHR cost display for all laboratory orders. The improvement in cost estimation accuracy for imaging orders, which did not have costs displayed, suggested a possible spillover effect generated by providing a cost context for residents.

Impact of price display on provider ordering: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Displaying order prices to physicians is 1 potential strategy to reduce unnecessary health expenditures, but its impact on patterns of care is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To review characteristics of previous price display interventions, impact on order costs and volume, effects on patient safety, acceptability to physicians, and the quality of this evidence. DESIGN: Systematic review of studies that showed numeric prices of laboratory tests, imaging studies, or medications to providers in real time during the ordering process and evaluated the impact on provider ordering. Two investigators independently extracted data for each study and evaluated study quality using a modified Downs and Black checklist. RESULTS: Of 1494 studies reviewed, 19 met inclusion criteria, including 5 randomized trials, 13 pre-post intervention studies, and 1 time series analysis. Studies were published between 1983 and 2014. Of 15 studies reporting the quantitative impact of price display on aggregate order costs or volume, 10 demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in the intervention group. Price display was found to decrease aggregate order costs (9 of 13 studies) more frequently than order volume (3 of 8 studies). Patient safety was evaluated in 5 studies and was unaffected by price display. Provider acceptability tended to be positive, although evidence was limited. Study quality was mixed, with checklist scores ranging from 5/21 to 20/21. CONCLUSIONS: Provider price display likely reduces order costs to a modest degree. Patient safety appeared unchanged, though evidence was limited. More high-quality evidence is needed to confirm these findings within a modern context.