Adenotonsillectomy and adenoidectomy in children: The impact of timing of surgery and post-operative outcomes.

AIM: To investigate the impact of adenotonsillectomy (ADT) and adenoidectomy (AD) on child health and evaluated their post-operative complications. METHODS: We included all children aged <16 years undergoing ADT (tonsillectomy ± adenoidectomy) or AD in New South Wales, Australia, 2008-2017. Health information was obtained from administrative hospitalisation data. Rates of post-operative complications and reoperation were evaluated using generalised estimating equations and Kaplan-Meier methods, respectively. RESULTS: Out of 156 500 included children, 112 361 had ADT and 44 139 had AD. Population rates increased during 2008-2017 (ADT: 68-79 per 10 000 children; AD: 25-34 per 10 000), and children were increasingly operated on at a younger age. Overall, 7262 (6.5%) and 1276 (2.9%) children had post-operative complications (mostly haemorrhage), and 4320 (3.8%) and 5394 (12.2%) required reoperation, following ADT and AD, respectively. Complication rates were highest among children aged 0-1 years, lowest for those 2-5 years and increased with age thereafter. Three-year reoperation rates for children aged 0-1 years were 9.0% and 25.9% following ADT and AD, respectively, decreasing thereafter to 0.5% and 2.1% in children aged 12-13 years. CONCLUSIONS: ADT and AD in Australian children have both increased in frequency and are being done at a younger age. Post-operative complications and reoperation rates highlight surgery is not without risk, especially for children under 2 years old. These findings support a more conservative approach to management of upper respiratory symptoms, with surgery reserved for cases where potential benefits are most likely to outweigh harms.

To Expand the Evidence Base About Harms from Tests and Treatments.

Rigorous evidence about the broad range of harms that might be experienced by a patient in the course of testing and treatment is sparse. We aimed to generate recommendations for how researchers might more comprehensively evaluate potential harms of healthcare interventions, to allow clinicians and patients to better include this evidence in clinical decision-making. We propose seven domains of harms of tests and treatments that are relevant to patients: (1) physical impairment, (2) psychological distress, (3) social disruption, (4) disruption in connection to healthcare, (5) labeling, (6) financial impact, and (7) treatment burden. These domains will include a range of severity of harms and variation in timing after testing or treatment, attributable to the service itself or a resulting care cascade. Although some new measures may be needed, diverse data and tools are available to allow the assessment of harms comprehensively across these domains. We encourage researchers to evaluate harms in sub-populations, since the harms experienced may differ importantly by demographics, social determinants, presence of comorbid illness, psychological state, and other characteristics. Regulators, funders, and editors might require either assessment or reporting of harms in each domain or require justification for inclusion and exclusion of different domains.

Hospital characteristics associated with low-value care in public hospitals in New South Wales, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Rates of low-value care vary between hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Understanding factors associated with this variation will help in understanding the drivers of low-value care and in planning initiatives to reduce low-value care. METHODS: For eight low-value procedures, we used Poisson regression of the number of low-value episodes at each hospital to assess the association between low-value care and hospital characteristics. We also used hierarchical clustering on the low-value procedures used and their rates at each hospital to try to identify groups of hospitals with higher or lower rates of low-value care across multiple procedures. RESULTS: Some hospital characteristics, such as hospital peer group and proportion of total episodes that involve the specific procedure, showed associations for some procedures, but none were consistent across all eight procedures. We clustered hospitals into five groups, but low-value care rates did not differ much between these groups. CONCLUSION: Available hospital variables show little association with rates of low-value care and no patterns across different low-value procedures. We need to investigate factors within hospitals, such as clinician knowledge and beliefs about low-value care.

Care for low back pain: can health systems deliver?

Low back pain is the leading cause of years lived with disability globally. In 2018, an international working group called on the World Health Organization to increase attention on the burden of low back pain and the need to avoid excessively medical solutions. Indeed, major international clinical guidelines now recognize that many people with low back pain require little or no formal treatment. Where treatment is required the recommended approach is to discourage use of pain medication, steroid injections and spinal surgery, and instead promote physical and psychological therapies. Many health systems are not designed to support this approach. In this paper we discuss why care for low back pain that is concordant with guidelines requires system-wide changes. We detail the key challenges of low back pain care within health systems. These include the financial interests of pharmaceutical and other companies; outdated payment systems that favour medical care over patients' self-management; and deep-rooted medical traditions and beliefs about care for back pain among physicians and the public. We give international examples of promising solutions and policies and practices for health systems facing an increasing burden of ineffective care for low back pain. We suggest policies that, by shifting resources from unnecessary care to guideline-concordant care for low back pain, could be cost-neutral and have widespread impact. Small adjustments to health policy will not work in isolation, however. Workplace systems, legal frameworks, personal beliefs, politics and the overall societal context in which we experience health, will also need to change.

Les lombalgies sont la principale cause d'années de vie vécues avec une incapacité dans le monde. En 2018, un groupe de travail international a invité l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé à attirer l'attention sur la charge que représentent les lombalgies et sur la nécessité d'éviter le recours excessif aux solutions médicales. En effet, selon les dernières recommandations cliniques internationales, de nombreux cas de lombalgie ne nécessitent pas ou peu de traitement formel. Lorsqu'un traitement est requis, il est recommandé de limiter la prise d'analgésiques, les injections de stéroïdes et la chirurgie rachidienne, et d'encourager plutôt les thérapeutiques physiques et psychologiques. Très souvent, les systèmes de santé ne sont pas conçus pour appliquer cette approche. Dans cet article, nous abordons les raisons pour lesquelles un changement des systèmes s'impose si l'on veut prendre en charge les lombalgies suivant les recommandations. Nous détaillons les principales difficultés de la prise en charge des lombalgies dans le cadre des systèmes de santé. Il s'agit notamment des intérêts financiers des laboratoires pharmaceutiques, entre autres; des systèmes de paiement obsolètes qui privilégient la prise en charge médicale à l'autogestion par les patients; et de croyances et traditions médicales profondément ancrées parmi les médecins et la population. Nous donnons des exemples internationaux de solutions, de politiques et de pratiques prometteuses pour les systèmes de santé confrontés de plus en plus souvent à une prise en charge inefficace des lombalgies. Nous suggérons des politiques qui, sans incidence sur les coûts, en transférant les ressources allouées aux soins inutiles vers des soins conformes aux recommandations, pourraient avoir un impact considérable. De petits ajustements des politiques de santé ne suffiront cependant pas. Les systèmes des milieux professionnels, les cadres juridiques, les croyances personnelles, les politiques et le contexte sociétal global dans lequel s'inscrit la santé devront également changer.

El dolor lumbar es la causa principal de vivir con discapacidad durante años en todo el mundo. En 2018, un grupo de trabajo internacional pidió a la Organización Mundial de la Salud que prestara más atención a la carga del dolor lumbar y a la necesidad de evitar soluciones excesivamente médicas. De hecho, las principales directrices clínicas internacionales reconocen ahora que muchas personas con dolor lumbar requieren poco o ningún tratamiento formal. Cuando se requiere tratamiento, el enfoque recomendado es desalentar el uso de analgésicos, inyecciones de esteroides y cirugía de la columna vertebral y, en su lugar, promover las terapias físicas y psicológicas. Muchos sistemas de salud no están diseñados para apoyar este enfoque. En este documento, se expone por qué el cuidado del dolor lumbar de acuerdo con las directrices requiere cambios en todo el sistema. Se detallan los retos clave de la atención del dolor lumbar en los sistemas de salud. Estos incluyen los intereses financieros de las compañías farmacéuticas y de otro tipo, los sistemas de pago obsoletos que favorecen la atención médica por encima del autocuidado de los pacientes, así como las tradiciones y las creencias médicas profundamente arraigadas sobre la atención del dolor de espalda entre los médicos y el público general. Se presentan ejemplos internacionales de soluciones prometedoras y de políticas y prácticas para los sistemas de salud que se enfrentan a una carga cada vez mayor de la atención ineficaz para el dolor lumbar. Se sugieren políticas que, al desplazar los recursos de la atención innecesaria a la atención acorde con las directrices para el dolor lumbar, podrían ser neutras en cuanto a costes y tener un impacto generalizado. Sin embargo, los pequeños ajustes en la política sanitaria no funcionarán de forma aislada. Los sistemas del lugar de trabajo, los marcos jurídicos, las creencias personales, la política y el contexto social general en el que vivimos la salud también tendrán que cambiar.

Exploring variation in low-value care: a multilevel modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Whether patients receive low-value hospital care (care that is not expected to provide a net benefit) may be influenced by unmeasured factors at the hospital they attend or the hospital's Local Health District (LHD), or the patients' areas of residence. Multilevel modelling presents a method to examine the effects of these different levels simultaneously and assess their relative importance to the outcome. Knowing which of these levels has the greatest contextual effects can help target further investigation or initiatives to reduce low-value care. METHODS: We conducted multilevel logistic regression modelling for nine low-value hospital procedures. We fit a series of six models for each procedure. The baseline model included only episode-level variables with no multilevel structure. We then added each level (hospital, LHD, Statistical Local Area [SLA] of residence) separately and used the change in the c statistic from the baseline model as a measure of the contribution of the level to the outcome. We then examined the variance partition coefficients (VPCs) and median odds ratios for a model including all three levels. Finally, we added level-specific covariates to examine if they were associated with the outcome. RESULTS: Analysis of the c statistics showed that hospital was more important than LHD or SLA in explaining whether patients receive low-value care. The greatest increases were 0.16 for endoscopy for dyspepsia, 0.13 for colonoscopy for constipation, and 0.14 for sentinel lymph node biopsy for early melanoma. SLA gave a small increase in c compared with the baseline model, but no increase over the model with hospital. The VPCs indicated that hospital accounted for most of the variation not explained by the episode-level variables, reaching 36.8% (95% CI, 31.9-39.0) for knee arthroscopy. ERCP (8.5%; 95% CI, 3.9-14.7) and EVAR (7.8%; 95% CI, 2.9-15.8) had the lowest residual variation at the hospital level. The variables at the hospital, LHD and SLA levels that were available for this study generally showed no significant effect. CONCLUSIONS: Investigations into the causes of low-value care and initiatives to reduce low-value care might best be targeted at the hospital level, as the high variation at this level suggests the greatest potential to reduce low-value care.

Evidence for underuse of effective medical services around the world.

Underuse-the failure to use effective and affordable medical interventions-is common and responsible for substantial suffering, disability, and loss of life worldwide. Underuse occurs at every point along the treatment continuum, from populations lacking access to health care to inadequate supply of medical resources and labour, slow or partial uptake of innovations, and patients not accessing or declining them. The extent of underuse for different interventions varies by country, and is documented in countries of high, middle, and low-income, and across different types of health-care systems, payment models, and health services. Most research into underuse has focused on measuring solutions to the problem, with considerably less attention paid to its global prevalence or its consequences for patients and populations. Although focused effort and resources can overcome specific underuse problems, comparatively little is spent on work to better understand and overcome the barriers to improved uptake of effective interventions, and methods to make them affordable.

Levers for addressing medical underuse and overuse: achieving high-value health care.

The preceding papers in this Series have outlined how underuse and overuse of health-care services occur within a complex system of health-care production, with a multiplicity of causes. Because poor care is ubiquitous and has considerable consequences for the health and wellbeing of billions of people around the world, remedying this problem is a morally and politically urgent task. Universal health coverage is a key step towards achieving the right care. Therefore, full consideration of potential levers of change must include an upstream perspective-ie, an understanding of the system-level factors that drive overuse and underuse, as well as the various incentives at work during a clinical encounter. One example of a system-level factor is the allocation of resources (eg, hospital beds and clinicians) to meet the needs of a local population to minimise underuse or overuse. Another example is priority setting using tools such as health technology assessment to guide the optimum diffusion of safe, effective, and cost-effective health-care services. In this Series paper we investigate a range of levers for eliminating medical underuse and overuse. Some levers could operate effectively (and be politically viable) across many different health and political systems (eg, increase patient activation with decision support) whereas other levers must be tailored to local contexts (eg, basing coverage decisions on a particular cost-effectiveness ratio). Ideally, policies must move beyond the purely incremental; that is, policies that merely tinker at the policy edges after underuse or overuse arises. In this regard, efforts to increase public awareness, mobilisation, and empowerment hold promise as universal methods to reset all other contexts and thereby enhance all other efforts to promote the right care.

Drivers of poor medical care.

The global ubiquity of overuse and underuse of health-care resources and the gravity of resulting harms necessitate an investigation of drivers to inform potential solutions. We describe the network of influences that contribute to poor care and suggest that it is driven by factors that fall into three domains: money and finance; knowledge, bias, and uncertainty; and power and human relationships. In each domain the drivers operate at the global, national, regional, and individual level, and are modulated by the specific contexts within which they act. We discuss in detail drivers of poor care in each domain.

Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world.

Overuse, which is defined as the provision of medical services that are more likely to cause harm than good, is a pervasive problem. Direct measurement of overuse through documentation of delivery of inappropriate services is challenging given the difficulty of defining appropriate care for patients with individual preferences and needs; overuse can also be measured indirectly through examination of unwarranted geographical variations in prevalence of procedures and care intensity. Despite the challenges, the high prevalence of overuse is well documented in high-income countries across a wide range of services and is increasingly recognised in low-income countries. Overuse of unneeded services can harm patients physically and psychologically, and can harm health systems by wasting resources and deflecting investments in both public health and social spending, which is known to contribute to health. Although harms from overuse have not been well quantified and trends have not been well described, overuse is likely to be increasing worldwide.

Choosing wisely? Quantifying the extent of three low value psychotropic prescribing practices in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The global Choosing Wisely campaign has identified the following psychotropic prescribing as low-value (harmful or wasteful): (1) benzodiazepine use in the elderly, (2) antipsychotic use in dementia and (3) prescribing two or more antipsychotics concurrently. We aimed to quantify the extent of these prescribing practices in the Australian population. METHODS: We applied indicators to dispensing claims of a 10% random sample of Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme beneficiaries to quantify annual rates of each low-value practice from 2013 to 2016. We also assessed patient factors and direct medicine costs (extrapolated to the entire Australian population) associated with each practice in 2016. RESULTS: We observed little change in the rates of the three practices between 2013 and 2016. In 2016, 15.3% of people aged ≥65 years were prescribed a benzodiazepine, 0.5% were prescribed antipsychotics in the context of dementia and 0.2% of people aged ≥18 years received two or more antipsychotics concurrently. The likelihood of elderly people receiving benzodiazepines or antipsychotics in the context of dementia increased with age and the likelihood of receiving all three practices increased with comorbidity burden. In 2016, direct medicine costs to the government of all three practices combined, extrapolated to national figures, were > $21 million AUD. CONCLUSIONS: Our indicators suggest that the frequency of these three practices has not changed appreciably in recent years and that they incur significant costs. Worryingly, people with the greatest risk of harm from these prescribing practices are often the most likely to receive them.

Countering cognitive biases in minimising low value care.

Cognitive biases in decision making may make it difficult for clinicians to reconcile evidence of overuse with highly ingrained prior beliefs and intuition. Such biases can predispose clinicians towards low value care and may limit the impact of recently launched campaigns aimed at reducing such care. Commonly encountered biases comprise commission bias, illusion of control, impact bias, availability bias, ambiguity bias, extrapolation bias, endowment effects, sunken cost bias and groupthink. Various strategies may be used to counter such biases, including cognitive huddles, narratives of patient harm, value considerations in clinical assessments, defining acceptable levels of risk of adverse outcomes, substitution, reflective practice and role modelling, normalisation of deviance, nudge techniques and shared decision making. These debiasing strategies have considerable face validity and, for some, effectiveness in reducing low value care has been shown in randomised trials.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 10: operationalising disinvestment in a conceptual framework for resource allocation.

BACKGROUND: This is the tenth in a series of papers reporting a program of Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. After more than a decade of research, there is little published evidence of active and successful disinvestment. The paucity of frameworks, methods and tools is reported to be a factor in the lack of success. However there are clear and consistent messages in the literature that can be used to inform development of a framework for operationalising disinvestment. This paper, along with the conceptual review of disinvestment in Paper 9 of this series, aims to integrate the findings of the SHARE Program with the existing disinvestment literature to address the lack of information regarding systematic organisation-wide approaches to disinvestment at the local health service level. DISCUSSION: A framework for disinvestment in a local healthcare setting is proposed. Definitions for essential terms and key concepts underpinning the framework have been made explicit to address the lack of consistent terminology. Given the negative connotations of the word 'disinvestment' and the problems inherent in considering disinvestment in isolation, the basis for the proposed framework is 'resource allocation' to address the spectrum of decision-making from investment to disinvestment. The focus is positive: optimising healthcare, improving health outcomes, using resources effectively. The framework is based on three components: a program for decision-making, projects to implement decisions and evaluate outcomes, and research to understand and improve the program and project activities. The program consists of principles for decision-making and settings that provide opportunities to introduce systematic prompts and triggers to initiate disinvestment. The projects follow the steps in the disinvestment process. Potential methods and tools are presented, however the framework does not stipulate project design or conduct; allowing application of any theories, methods or tools at each step. Barriers are discussed and examples illustrating constituent elements are provided. CONCLUSIONS: The framework can be employed at network, institutional, departmental, ward or committee level. It is proposed as an organisation-wide application, embedded within existing systems and processes, which can be responsive to needs and priorities at the level of implementation. It can be used in policy, management or clinical contexts.

De-adoption and its 43 related terms: harmonizing low-value care terminology.

Research into the prevalence and impact of low-value medical practices has evolved substantially over the past two decades. However, despite international efforts, many challenges still remain with regards to progress in this field, including limits in the capacity to identify and prioritize low-value care practices and to systematically appraise clinical and policy attempts at redressing low-value care. A recent article by Niven et al. in BMC Medicine consolidates the current literature and terminology on the de-adoption of clinical practices, advocating the use of de-adoption as an appropriate term to label low-value care and proposes a new synthesis model to facilitate efforts to reverse ineffective and harmful medical practices. We hope that this work will facilitate advances in low-value care research and policy, and shift focus towards establishing evidence for de-adopting low-value interventions, which is crucial since attempts to reduce low-value care interventions have shown mixed results. Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/13/255.

Informing disinvestment with limited evidence: cobalamin deficiency in the fatigued.

OBJECTIVES: Health technology reassessment and disinvestment can be difficult due to uncertainties regarding available evidence. Pathology testing to investigate cobalamin (vitamin B12) deficiency is a strong case in point. We conducted a 3-month economic evaluation of five strategies for diagnosing and treating cobalamin deficiency in adult patients hypothetically presenting with new unexplained fatigue in the primary care setting. The first consultation per patient was considered. Screening tests other than serum cobalamin were not included. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken using a decision tree to represent the diagnostic / treatment pathways, with relevant cost and utility scores assigned to different stages in the evaluation process. Input parameter values were estimated from published evidence, supplemented by expert opinion, with sensitivity analysis undertaken to represent parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Ordering serum vitamin B12 to assess cobalamin deficiency among patients with unexplained fatigue was not cost-effective in any patient population, irrespective of pretest prevalence of this deficiency. For patients with a pretest prevalence above 1 percent, treating all with oral vitamin B12 supplements without testing was most cost-effective, whereas watchful waiting with symptoms monitoring was most cost-effective for patients with lower pretest prevalence probabilities. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial evidence gaps exist for parameter estimation: questionable cobalamin deficiency levels in the fatigued; debatable treatment methods; unknown natural history of the condition. Despite this, we reveal a robust path for disinvestment decision making in the face of a paradox between the evidence required to inform disinvestment compared with its paucity in informing initial funding decisions.

FROM TALK TO ACTION: POLICY STAKEHOLDERS, APPROPRIATENESS, AND SELECTIVE DISINVESTMENT.

OBJECTIVES: There is widespread commitment--at least in principle--to "evidence-informed" clinical practice and policy development in health care. The intention is that only "appropriate" care ought to be delivered at public expense. Although the rationale for an appropriateness agenda is widely endorsed, and methods have been proposed for addressing it, few published studies exist of contemporary policy initiatives which have actually led to successful disinvestment. Our objective was to explore whether the direct involvement of policy stakeholders could advance appropriateness and disinvestment. METHODS: Several collaborative engagements with policy stakeholders were undertaken to adapt and combine conceptual and empirical material related to appropriateness and disinvestment from the literature to create tools and processes for use in Canada and the province of Ontario in particular. RESULTS: By combining inputs from the literature with colloquial evidence from policy stakeholders, a definition of appropriateness was developed and, importantly, endorsed by all the provincial and territorial ministers of health in Canada. Second, a reassessment framework was successfully implemented for identifying priorities for selective disinvestment. CONCLUSIONS: When scientific evidence was combined with colloquial evidence from policy stakeholders, progress was made on the design and successful implementation of policies for appropriateness and disinvestment.

Can we learn anything from health care in the United States?

Some aspects of health care in the United States would be beneficial to Australia and New Zealand, but others should be avoided. Positive aspects, which should be emulated, include: •health care reform that is focused on the continuum of care and patient-centred care •trials of new models to organise, deliver and pay for health care services, where quality of care is rewarded over quantity of services •an integral view of, and strong support for, health services research as a means of evaluating reforms aimed at improving patient outcomes and systems-level efficiencies •physician engagement in reforms--for example, participating in the Choosing Wisely initiative, and trialling and implementing new payment models that are not fee-for-service. Negative aspects, which should be avoided, include: •increasingly fragmented provider and financing structures (funding provided by state and federal governments, private insurance and out-of-pocket costs) that cause frustration in terms of access and care coordination and increase administrative waste •an overemphasis on technological solutions, with insufficient acknowledgment of the importance of addressing value in health care •a focus on hospital and doctor-based health care rather than environmental and social inputs into health.

Disinvestment policy and the public funding of assisted reproductive technologies: outcomes of deliberative engagements with three key stakeholder groups.

BACKGROUND: Measures to improve the quality and sustainability of healthcare practice and provision have become a policy concern. In addition, the involvement of stakeholders in health policy decision-making has been advocated, as complex questions arise around the structure of funding arrangements in a context of limited resources. Using a case study of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), deliberative engagements with a range of stakeholder groups were held on the topic of how best to structure the distribution of Australian public funding in this domain. METHODS: Deliberative engagements were carried out with groups of ART consumers, clinicians and community members. The forums were informed by a systematic review of ART treatment safety and effectiveness (focusing, in particular, on maternal age and number of treatment cycles), as well as by international policy comparisons, and ethical and cost analyses. Forum discussions were transcribed and subject to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Each forum demonstrated stakeholders' capacity to understand concepts of choice under resource scarcity and disinvestment, and to countenance options for ART funding not always aligned with their interests. Deliberations in each engagement identified concerns around 'equity' and 'patient responsibility', culminating in a broad preference for (potential) ART subsidy restrictions to be based upon individual factors rather than maternal age or number of treatment cycles. Community participants were open to restrictions based upon measures of body mass index (BMI) and smoking status, while consumers and clinicians saw support to improve these factors as part of an ART treatment program, as distinct from a funding criterion. All groups advocated continued patient co-payments, with measures in place to provide treatment access to those unable to pay (namely, equity of access). CONCLUSIONS: Deliberations yielded qualitative, socially-negotiated evidence required to inform ethical, accountable policy decisions in the specific area of ART and health care more broadly. Notably, reductionist, deterministic characterizations of stakeholder 'self-interest' proved unfounded as each group sought to prioritise universal values (in particular, 'equity' and 'responsibility') over specific, within-group concerns. Our results--from an emotive case study in ART--highlight that evidence-informed disinvestment decision-making is feasible, and potentially less controversial than often presumed.

Sources of specialist physician fee variation: Evidence from Australian health insurance claims data.

This study explores the variation in specialist physician fees and examines whether the variation can be attributed to patient risk factors, variation between physicians, medical specialties, or other factors. We use health insurance claims data from a large private health insurer in Australia. Although Australia has a publicly funded health system that provides universal health coverage, about 44 % of the population holds private health insurance. Specialist physician fees in the private sector are unregulated; physicians can charge any price they want, subject to market forces. We examine the variation in fees using two price measures: total fees charged and out-of- pocket payments. We follow a two-stage method of removing the influence of patient risk factors by computing risk-adjusted prices at patient-level, and aggregating the adjusted prices over all claims made by each physician to arrive at physician-level average prices. In the second stage, we use variance-component models to analyse the variation in the physician-level average prices. We find that patient risk factors account for a small portion of the variance in fees and out-of-pocket payments. Physician-specific variation accounts for the bulk of the vari- ance. The results underscore the importance of understanding physician characteristics in formulating policy efforts to reduce fee variation.