Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Health Policy ; 122(7): 746-754, 2018 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29907323

RESUMEN

Systematic measurement of healthcare services enables evaluation of health professionals' quality of work. Whereas policy makers find measurement a useful mechanism for quality improvement, a public choice perspective implies that physicians would resent such an initiative, which undermines their professional autonomy. In this article, we compare two healthcare systems of economically developed countries - Israel and the UK. Both systems share common features such as universal coverage, strong state intervention, and enthusiasm for New Public Management. In both countries, quality measurement was introduced in acute care hospitals at around the same time. However, while the UK succeeded in establishing a framework of surgical outcome measures during the 2000s, a similar initiative in Israel failed completely during the 1990s. We also refer to subsequent quality indicator efforts in Israel, in both community and hospital frameworks, that were more successful, but in a way that reinforces our central thesis. We contend that differences in reform outcomes stem from the medical profession's reaction to government's endeavors. This response, in turn, hinges on the professional organizations' relative institutional position vis-a-vis state authorities. This study constitutes a unique investigation of the medical profession's response to critical quality measurement reforms. Most importantly, it stresses the institutional position of medical associations as the primary factor in explaining cross-case variation in government's success in introducing quality measurement.


Asunto(s)
Atención a la Salud , Médicos , Autonomía Profesional , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Política de Salud , Humanos , Israel , Medicina Estatal/organización & administración , Reino Unido
2.
Am Health Drug Benefits ; 9(6): 304-311, 2016 Sep.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27924184

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Prior authorization (PA) is a management technique that has been implemented to manage the utilization of expensive drugs and to improve the precision of drug prescribing. PA requirements may incentivize physicians to document adverse effects, sometimes falsely, to meet the eligibility requirements. OBJECTIVES: To identify documentation patterns that may facilitate the quantitative analysis of physician gaming and underreporting behaviors associated with the prescribing of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in a primary care setting, and to evaluate the effect of a PA requirement on the documentation of adverse events as a way to receive approval for more expensive drugs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of physician electronic reporting of adverse effects associated with ACE inhibitors before and after the revocation of a PA requirement for angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) between 2004 and 2013 in an Israeli HMO. The data were stratified into 2 groups-patients who were newly prescribed an ACE inhibitor or those who had been receiving an ACE inhibitor for at least 1 year. The annual rate of adverse events related to ACE inhibitors (ie, the number of reported cases of adverse events per 1000 patients receiving an ACE inhibitor) was calculated from data captured on the date the events were first reported for the 5 years before and 5 years after the revocation of the PA constraint. RESULTS: A total of 151,845 patients treated with ACE inhibitors were identified during the 10-year study period. The reported adverse events among patients newly treated with an ACE inhibitor peaked in 2007 to 10 cases per 1000 patients, and gradually decreased to 4.6 cases in 2012, which was the year after the PA requirements for the ARBs valsartan and candesartan were rescinded by the HMO. Among previously treated patients, adverse events rates decreased from a high of 5.4 per 1000 patients in 2008 to 1.9 in 1000 patients in 2012, the year after the PA restraints for the last 2 ARBs with a requirement were revoked. CONCLUSIONS: The PA requirement influenced physician propensity for reporting drug side effects, possibly encouraging reporting inaccuracies. The decline in the incidence of reported side effects, in both subpopulations in the study, with the revocation of the PA requirement confirms our hypothesis that physicians were incentivized to document the side effects related to ACE inhibitors to meet the eligibility requirements for the approval of an ARB by the HMO.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA