Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Bases de dados
País/Região como assunto
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
JAMA ; 329(21): 1840-1847, 2023 06 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37278813

RESUMO

Importance: US hospitals report data on many health care quality metrics to government and independent health care rating organizations, but the annual cost to acute care hospitals of measuring and reporting quality metric data, independent of resources spent on quality interventions, is not well known. Objective: To evaluate externally reported inpatient quality metrics for adult patients and estimate the cost of data collection and reporting, independent of quality-improvement efforts. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective time-driven activity-based costing study at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore, Maryland) with hospital personnel involved in quality metric reporting processes interviewed between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019, about quality reporting activities in the 2018 calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included the number of metrics, annual person-hours per metric type, and annual personnel cost per metric type. Results: A total of 162 unique metrics were identified, of which 96 (59.3%) were claims-based, 107 (66.0%) were outcome metrics, and 101 (62.3%) were related to patient safety. Preparing and reporting data for these metrics required an estimated 108 478 person-hours, with an estimated personnel cost of $5 038 218.28 (2022 USD) plus an additional $602 730.66 in vendor fees. Claims-based (96 metrics; $37 553.58 per metric per year) and chart-abstracted (26 metrics; $33 871.30 per metric per year) metrics used the most resources per metric, while electronic metrics consumed far less (4 metrics; $1901.58 per metric per year). Conclusions and Relevance: Significant resources are expended exclusively for quality reporting, and some methods of quality assessment are far more expensive than others. Claims-based metrics were unexpectedly found to be the most resource intensive of all metric types. Policy makers should consider reducing the number of metrics and shifting to electronic metrics, when possible, to optimize resources spent in the overall pursuit of higher quality.


Assuntos
Hospitais , Registros Públicos de Dados de Cuidados de Saúde , Melhoria de Qualidade , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde , Humanos , Atenção à Saúde/economia , Atenção à Saúde/normas , Atenção à Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Hospitais/normas , Hospitais/estatística & dados numéricos , Hospitais/provisão & distribuição , Melhoria de Qualidade/economia , Melhoria de Qualidade/normas , Melhoria de Qualidade/estatística & dados numéricos , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde/economia , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Adulto , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Revisão da Utilização de Seguros/economia , Revisão da Utilização de Seguros/normas , Revisão da Utilização de Seguros/estatística & dados numéricos , Segurança do Paciente/economia , Segurança do Paciente/normas , Segurança do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Economia Hospitalar/estatística & dados numéricos
2.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm ; 26(7): 839-847, 2020 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32584684

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined patient characteristics and treatment patterns of high-dose insulin therapy (> 200 units/day) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). OBJECTIVE: To understand patient characteristics, dosing, adherence, and persistence related to high-dose insulin therapy. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study that used administrative claims from a large national health plan. Patients were identified who had been diagnosed with T2DM and who were aged 18-89 years, enrolled in a commercial or Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plan, newly initiated on a total daily dose (TDD) > 200 units of insulin between January 2011 and August 2015. Patients were required to be enrolled 6 months before and 12 months after the index date. Patients were categorized to Regimen-100 if treated with U-100 insulin only or Regimen-500 if treated with U-500R with or without U-100. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were evaluated. An adjustment factor for the days supply was calculated as the ratio of median time between insulin claims, and median pharmacy reported days supply for each insulin prescription. Adjusted days supply, quantity, and concentration were used to calculate TDD for each quarter after the index date. Adherence was measured as the proportion of days covered (PDC) for each regimen. Persistence was measured in 2 ways: the percentage of patients remaining on index medications in each quarter and the proportion of patients who maintained TDD > 200 units during all 4 quarters of the 12-month post-index period. RESULTS: We identified 2,339 patients newly titrated up to TDD > 200 units on either Regimen-100 (2,062, 88.2%) or Regimen-500 (277, 11.8%). Patients on Regimen-500 were slightly younger with higher prevalence of comorbidities. The mean TDD (SD) for Regimen-100 decreased from 228.6 (36.0) units during the first quarter to 194.2 (181.4) units during the last quarter. The mean TDD (SD) for Regimen-500 increased from 294.2 (102.2) units in the first quarter to 304.8 (281.6) units in last quarter. The average adherence to the high-dose insulin regimen was 68.2% (30.7; median 72.6%) for the Regimen-100 cohort and 75.5% (27.0; median 85.2%) for the Regimen-500 cohort. In the Regimen-100 and Regimen-500 cohorts, 45.3% and 55.2% had a PDC ≥ 80%, respectively. Only 23.0% and 51.6% of patients maintained TDD > 200 units for the Regimen-100 and Regimen-500 cohorts, respectively, throughout the 4 quarters after the index date. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that many patients did not maintain high-dose insulin use over time, especially those on standard U-100 insulin only. This dosing pattern appears to reflect the differences in patient characteristics, insulin needs, and adherence/persistence behavior between those on Regimen-100 and those on Regimen-500. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by funding from Eli Lilly and Company to Humana as a collaborative research project involving employees of both companies. Chen, Brown, Fan, Taylor, and He are employees of Eli Lilly and Company. Nair and Meah are employees of Humana, which received funding to complete this research. Siadaty was an employee of Humana at the time of this study.


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/diagnóstico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/administração & dosagem , Insulina/administração & dosagem , Revisão da Utilização de Seguros , Adesão à Medicação , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/epidemiologia , Relação Dose-Resposta a Droga , Feminino , Humanos , Revisão da Utilização de Seguros/tendências , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto Jovem
3.
BMJ Qual Saf ; 29(8): 645-654, 2020 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31796578

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Academic fellowships in quality improvement (QI) and patient safety (PS) have emerged as one strategy to fill a need for physicians who possess this expertise. The authors aimed to characterise the impact of two such programmes on the graduates and their value to the institutions in which they are housed. METHODS: In 2018, a qualitative study of two US QIPS postgraduate fellowship programmes was conducted. Graduates' demographics and titles were collected from programme files,while perspectives of the graduates and their institutional mentors were collected through individual interviews and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-eight out of 31 graduates (90%) and 16 out of 17 (94%) mentors participated in the study across both institutions. At a median of 3 years (IQR 2-4) postgraduation, QIPS fellowship programme graduates' effort distribution was: 50% clinical care (IQR 30-61.8), 48% QIPS administration (IQR 20-60), 28% QIPS research (IQR 17.5-50) and 15% education (7.1-30.4). 68% of graduates were hired in the health system where they trained. Graduates described learning the requisite hard and soft skills to succeed in QIPS roles. Mentors described the impact of the programme on patient outcomes and increasing the acceptability of the field within academic medicine culture. CONCLUSION: Graduates from two QIPS fellowship programmes and their mentors perceive programmatic benefits related to individual career goal attainment and institutional impact. The results and conceptual framework presented here may be useful to other academic medical centres seeking to develop fellowships for advanced physician training programmes in QIPS.


Assuntos
Bolsas de Estudo , Médicos , Educação de Pós-Graduação em Medicina , Humanos , Segurança do Paciente , Melhoria de Qualidade
4.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm ; 22(11): 1338-1347, 2016 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27783549

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Medication adherence is pivotal for the successful treatment of diabetes. However, medication adherence remains a major concern, as nonadherence is associated with poor health outcomes. Studies have indicated that increasing patients' share of medication costs significantly reduces adherence. Little is known about a potential out-of-pocket (OOP) cost threshold where substantial reduction in adherence may occur. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of diabetes OOP pharmacy costs on antihyperglycemic medication adherence and identify the potential threshold at which significant reduction in adherence may occur among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective cohort study using longitudinal U.S. pharmacy and medical claims data from the IMS Health Medical Claims (Dx) database. Patients with T2DM who initiated therapy with a branded antihyperglycemic medication during the index period (January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2011) and had 3 years of follow-up data were included. The primary outcome was adherence to antihyperglycemic medications, measured as the number of days covered. Propensity scores were calculated using baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics to control for potential confounding factors. Four strata were created based on mean propensity scores. Across each stratum, patients were assigned to 5 diabetes OOP pharmacy (including generics) cost levels: $0-$10, $11-$40, $41-$50, $51-$75, and > $75. Multivariate regression models were used to estimate association of diabetes OOP pharmacy costs and adherence for each stratum. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of total OOP pharmacy costs and index drug category OOP costs on adherence. RESULTS: A total of 15,416 patients were assessed. Across each stratum in the diabetes OOP pharmacy cost analysis group, mean patient age ranged from 52.3 to 56.1 years, mean number of antihyperglycemic medication classes ranged from 1.5 to 3.2, and mean household income ranged from $60,763 to $79,373. Most patients used a commercial plan (55%-85%). The propensity-stratified multivariate regression model revealed an overall negative relationship between diabetes OOP pharmacy costs and adherence across several OOP cost levels. Diabetes OOP pharmacy cost level $51-$75 appeared as the threshold at which adherence reduced significantly (77-78 fewer days of coverage over 3 years of follow-up; P < 0.05) when compared with the lowest OOP costs ($0-$10) across all strata. Adherence reduced further (99-145 fewer days of coverage; P < 0.0001) for the higher diabetes OOP pharmacy cost levels (> $75) when compared with the lowest OOP cost levels. Sensitivity analyses with total OOP pharmacy costs and index drug category OOP costs revealed negative association with adherence across all strata. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes OOP pharmacy cost was negatively associated with patient adherence, and a potential OOP cost threshold ($51-$75) was identified at which adherence reduced significantly. The study findings may be beneficial in informing the design of health care plans to achieve optimal adherence and improve disease management in patients with T2DM. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. Eli Lilly and Company was involved in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; preparation of the manuscript; and decision to submit for publication. Fu is an employee of Eli Lilly and Company. Taylor and Kwan are employees of Lilly USA. Fu and Kwan hold stock or stock options in Eli Lilly and Company. Bibeau was an employee of Eli Lilly and Company at the time of this study and initial submission of this manuscript. Bibeau is currently employed by Janssen Scientific Affairs. The abstract for this study was presented at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2016; April 19-22, 2016; San Francisco, California. Bibeau and Fu contributed to the study design and collected the data. All authors contributed equally to data interpretation and manuscript preparation and revision.


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/economia , Honorários Farmacêuticos , Gastos em Saúde , Hipoglicemiantes/economia , Adesão à Medicação , Farmácia , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Estudos de Coortes , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Honorários Farmacêuticos/tendências , Feminino , Seguimentos , Gastos em Saúde/tendências , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Revisão da Utilização de Seguros/economia , Revisão da Utilização de Seguros/tendências , Estudos Longitudinais , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Farmácia/tendências , Estudos Retrospectivos , Adulto Jovem
6.
MMWR Surveill Summ ; 60(6): 1-44, 2011 May 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21597458

RESUMO

PROBLEM: Substantial racial/ethnic health disparities exist in the United States. Although the populations of racial and ethnic minorities are growing at a rapid pace, large-scale community-based surveys and surveillance systems designed to monitor the health status of minority populations are limited. CDC conducts the Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health across the U.S. (REACH U.S.) Risk Factor Survey annually in minority communities. The survey focuses on black, Hispanic, Asian (including Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander), and American Indian (AI) populations. REPORTING PERIOD COVERED: 2009. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: An address-based sampling design was used in the survey in 28 communities located in 17 states (Arizona, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Washington). Self-reported data were collected through telephone, questionnaire mailing, and in-person interviews from an average of 900 residents aged ≥ 18 years in each community. Data from the community were compared with data derived from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) for the metropolitan and micropolitan statistical area (MMSA), county, or state in which the community was located and also compared with national estimates. RESULTS: Reported education level and household income were markedly lower in black, Hispanic, and AI communities than that among the general population living in the comparison MMSA, county, or state. More residents in these minority populations did not have health-care coverage and did not see a doctor because of the cost. Substantial variations were identified in self-perceived health status and prevalence of selected chronic conditions among minority populations and among communities within the same racial/ethnic population. In 2009, the median percentage of men who reported fair or poor health was 15.8% (range: 8.3%-29.3%) among A/PI communities and 26.3% (range: 22.3%-30.8%) among AI communities. The median percentage of women who reported fair or poor health was 20.1% (range: 13.3%-37.2%) among A/PI communities, whereas it was 31.3% (range: 19.4%-44.2%) among Hispanic communities. AI and black communities had a high prevalence of self-reported hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. For most communities, prevalence was much higher than that in the corresponding MMSA, county, or state in which the community was located. The median percentages of persons who knew the signs and symptoms of a heart attack and stroke were consistently lower in all four minority communities than the national median. Variations were identified among racial/ethnic populations in the use of preventive services. Hispanics had the lowest percentages of persons who had their cholesterol checked, of those with high blood pressure who were taking antihypertensive medication, and of those with diabetes who had a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1C) test in the past year. AIs had the lowest mammography screening rate within 2 years among women aged ≥40 years (median: 72.7%; range: 69.4%-76.2%). A/PIs had the lowest Pap smear screening rate within 3 years (median: 74.4%; range: 60.3%-80.8%). The median influenza vaccination rates in adults aged ≥65 years were much lower among black (57.3%) and Hispanic communities (63.3%) than the national median (70.1%) among the 50 states and DC. Pneumococcal vaccination rates also were lower in black (60.5%), Hispanic (58.5%), and A/PI (59.7%) communities than the national median (68.5%). INTERPRETATIONS: Data from the REACH U.S. Risk Factor Survey demonstrate that residents in most of the minority communities continue to have lower socioeconomic status, greater barriers to health-care access, and greater risks for and burden of disease compared with the general populations living in the same MMSA, county, or state. Substantial variations in prevalence of risk factors, chronic conditions, and use of preventive services among different minority populations and different communities within the same racial/ethnic population provide opportunities for public health intervention. These variations also indicate that different priorities are needed to eliminate health disparities for different communities. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION: These community-level survey data are being used by CDC and community coalitions to implement, monitor, and evaluate intervention programs in each community. Continuous surveillance of health status in minority communities is necessary so that community-specific, culturally sensitive strategies that include system, environmental, and individual-level changes can be tailored to these communities.


Assuntos
Doença Crônica/etnologia , Doença Crônica/epidemiologia , Disparidades nos Níveis de Saúde , Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde/etnologia , Adulto , Idoso , Asiático/estatística & dados numéricos , População Negra/estatística & dados numéricos , Coleta de Dados , Escolaridade , Feminino , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde , Hispânico ou Latino/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Renda , Indígenas Norte-Americanos/estatística & dados numéricos , Cobertura do Seguro/estatística & dados numéricos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA