What Should Healthcare Systems Consider When Modernizing Call Centers? Early Considerations From the Veterans Health Administration.

GOAL: Growing numbers of hospitals and payers are using call centers to answer patients' clinical and administrative questions, schedule appointments, address billing issues, and offer supplementary care during public health emergencies and national disasters. In 2020, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) implemented VA Health Connect, an enterprise-wide initiative to modernize call centers. VA Health Connect is designed to improve the care experience with the convenience, flexibility, and simplicity of a single toll-free number connected to a range of 24/7 virtual services. The services are organized into four areas: administrative guidance for scheduling and general inquiries; pharmacy support for medication matters; clinical triage for evaluation of symptoms and recommended care; and virtual visits with providers for urgent and episodic care. Through a qualitative evaluation of VA Health Connect, we sought to identify the factors that affected the development of this program and to compile considerations to support the implementation of other enterprise-wide initiatives. METHODS: The evaluation team interviewed 29 clinical and administrative leads from across the VA. These leads were responsible for the modernization of their local service networks. PhD-level qualitative methodologists conducted the interviews, asking participants to reflect on barriers and facilitators to modernization and implementation. The team employed a rapid qualitative analytic approach commonly used in healthcare research to distill robust results. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A review of the early implementation of VA Health Connect found: (1) deadlines proved challenging but provided momentum for the initiative; (2) a balance between standardized processes and local adaptations facilitated implementation; (3) attention to staffing, hiring, and training of call center staff before implementation expedited workflows; (4) establishing national and local leadership commitment to the innovation from the onset increased team cohesion and efficacy; and (5) anticipating information technology infrastructure needs prevented delays to modernization and implementation. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Our findings suggest that healthcare systems would benefit from anticipating likely obstacles (e.g., delays in software implementations and negotiations with unions), thus providing ample time to secure leadership buy-in and identify local champions, communicating early and often, and supporting flexible implementation to meet local needs. VA leadership can use this evaluation to refine implementation, and it could also have important implications for regulators, federal health exchanges, insurers, and other healthcare systems when determining resource levels for call centers.

Emergency Department Use Among Combat and Non-Combat Post-9/11 Military Veterans.

INTRODUCTION: Most post-9/11 Veterans have completed at least 1 combat deployment-a known factor associated with adverse health outcomes. Such Veterans are known to have unmet health care needs, and the emergency department (ED) may serve as a safety net, yet little is known about whether combat status is associated with more frequent ED use. We sought to evaluate the relationship between combat status and frequency of ED use among post-9/11 Veterans and assess the most common reasons for ED visits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study consisted of post-9/11 Veterans who enrolled in U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) care between fiscal years (FYs) 2005 and 2015. Data were obtained from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. Incidence rates for ED visits for combat and non-combat Veterans were compared from FY 2010 to 2019 using zero-inflated negative binomial regression. The most frequent reasons for ED visits were determined using International Classification of Diseases codes. This study was approved by the Stanford Institutional Review Board. RESULTS: Among 1.3 million Veterans included in analyses, 70.4% had deployed to a combat zone. The mean (SD) age of our cohort was 32.6 (5.0) years and 83.5% of Veterans were male. After controlling for other factors, combat Veterans had 1.84 times the rate of ED visits compared to non-combat Veterans (95% CI, 1.83-1.85). Only combat Veterans had a mental health-related ED visit (suicidal ideations) among the top 3 reasons for ED presentation. CONCLUSIONS: Those who deployed to a combat zone had a significantly higher rate of ED use compared to those who did not. Further, mental health-related ED diagnoses appeared to be more prevalent in combat Veterans. These findings highlight the unique health care needs faced by combat Veterans and emphasize the importance of tailored interventions and support services for this specific population.

Community Emergency Care Use by Veterans in an Era of Expanding Choice.

Importance: Recently passed legislation aimed at improving access to care has considerably expanded options for veterans to receive emergency care in community, or non-Veterans Affairs (VA) settings. However, national trends in community emergency department (ED) use by veterans are unknown. Objective: To examine national, temporal trends in the frequencies and types of ED visits provided in community settings and explore the association between facilities' purchase of community care with facility and regional characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective, observational cross-sectional study of ED visits over fiscal years (FY) 2016 to 2022. VA and community ED encounter data were obtained from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse and the Office of Integrated Veteran Care. Participants were veterans receiving ED care at VA facilities or paid for by the VA in the community. Data were analyzed from June to September 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measures included community ED visit volume, disposition, and payments over time. Also, the most common and costly ED visits were assessed. Negative binomial regression analysis examined associations between facility and regional characteristics and the rate of ED visits purchased in community settings relative to all ED visits. Results: There were 19 787 056 ED visits, predominantly at VA facilities (14 532 261 visits [73.4%]), made by 3 972 503 unique veterans from FY 2016 to 2022. The majority of ED users were male (3 576 120 individuals [90.0%]), and the median (IQR) age was 63 (48-73) years. The proportion of community ED visits increased in absolute terms from 18% in FY 2016 to 37% in FY 2022. Total community ED payments, adjusted to 2021 dollars, were $1.18 billion in FY 2016 and over $6.14 billion in FY 2022. The most common reasons for ED visits in the community were for nonspecific chest pain (305 082 visits [6%]), abdominal pain (174 836 visits [3%]), and septicemia (149 968 visits [3%]). The average proportion of ED visits purchased by a VA facility increased from 14% in FY 2016 to 32% by FY 2022. In multivariable analyses, facilities with greater ED volume and low-complexity facilities had higher expected rates of community emergency care than lower volume and high-complexity facilities, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: As veterans increasingly use community EDs for acute, unscheduled needs, attention to factors associated with veterans' use of acute care services in different settings are important to identify access barriers and to ensure veterans' health care needs are met.

Hospital-level variation in risk-standardized admission rates for emergency care-sensitive conditions among older and younger Veterans.

OBJECTIVES: Research examining emergency department (ED) admission practices within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is limited. This study investigates facility-level variation in risk-standardized admission rates (RSARs) for emergency care-sensitive conditions (ECSCs) among older (≥65 years) and younger (<65 years) Veterans across VA EDs. METHODS: Veterans presenting to a VA ED for an ECSC between October 1, 2016 and September 30, 2019 were identified and the 10 most common ECSCs established. ECSC-specific RSARs were calculated using hierarchical generalized linear models, adjusting for Veteran and encounter characteristics. The interquartile range ratio (IQR ratio) and coefficient of variation were measures of dispersion for each condition and were stratified by age group. Associations with facility characteristics were also examined in condition-specific multivariable models. RESULTS: The overall cohort included 651,336 ED visits across 110 VA facilities for the 10 most common ECSCs-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure, pneumonia, volume depletion, tachyarrhythmias, acute diabetes mellitus, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, asthma, sepsis, and myocardial infarction (MI). After adjusting for case mix, the ECSCs with the greatest variation (IQR ratio, coefficient of variation) in RSARs were asthma (1.43, 32.12), COPD (1.39, 24.64), volume depletion (1.38, 23.67), and acute diabetes mellitus (1.28, 17.52), whereas those with the least variation were MI (1.01, 0.87) and sepsis (1.02, 2.41). Condition-specific RSARs were not qualitatively different between age subgroups. Association with facility characteristics varied across ECSCs and within condition-specific age subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: We identified unexplained facility-level variation in RSARs for Veterans presenting with the 10 most common ECSCs to VA EDs. The magnitude of variation did not appear to be qualitatively different between older and younger Veteran subgroups. Variation in RSARs for ECSCs may be an important target for systems-based levers to improve value in VA emergency care.

Engaging Patients in the Veterans Health Administration's Lean Enterprise Transformation: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Lean management is a strategy for improving health care experiences of patients. While best practices for engaging patients in quality improvement have solidified in recent years, few reports specifically address patient engagement in Lean activities. This study examines the benefits and challenges of incorporating patient engagement strategies into the Veterans Health Administration's (VA) Lean transformation. METHODS: We conducted a multisite, mixed-methods evaluation of Lean deployment at 10 VA medical facilities, including 227 semistructured interviews with stakeholders, including patients. RESULTS: Interviewees noted that a patient-engaged Lean approach is mutually beneficial to patients and health care employees. Benefits included understanding the veteran's point of view, uncovering inefficient aspects of care processes, improved employee participation in Lean events, increased transparency, and improved reputation for the organization. Challenges included a need for focused time and resources to optimize veteran participation, difficulty recruiting a diverse group of veteran stakeholders, and a lack of specific instructions to encourage meaningful participation of veterans. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: As the first study to focus on patient engagement in Lean transformation efforts at the VA, this study highlights ways to effectively partner with patients in Lean-based improvement efforts. Lessons learned may also help optimize patient input into quality improvement more generally.

Achieving transformation to lean management systems in health care.

OBJECTIVE: To understand what factors and organizational dynamics enable Lean transformation of health care organizations. DATA SOURCES: Primary data were collected through two waves of interviews in 2016-2017 with leaders and staff at seven veterans affairs medical centers participating in Lean enterprise transformation. STUDY DESIGN: Using an observational study design, for each site we coded and rated seven potential enablers of transformation. The outcome measure was the extent of Lean transformation, constructed by coding and rating 11 markers of depth and spread of transformation. Using multivalue coincidence analysis (CNA), we identified enablers that distinguished among sites having different levels of transformation. We identified representative quotes for the enablers. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: We interviewed 121 executive leaders, middle managers, expert consultants, systems redesign staff, frontline supervisors, and staff. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Two sites achieved high Lean transformation, three medium, and two low. Together leadership support and capability development were sufficient for the three-level Lean transformation outcomes with 100% consistency and 100% coverage. High scores on both corresponded to high Lean transformation; medium on either one corresponded to medium transformation; and low on both corresponded to low transformation. Additionally, low scores in communication and availability of data and very low scores in alignment characterized low-transformation sites. Sites with high leadership support also had a high veteran engagement. CONCLUSIONS: This multisite study develops a novel measure of the extent of organization-wide Lean transformation and uses CNA to identify enablers linked to transformation. It provides insights into why and how some organizations are more successful at transformation than others. Findings support the applicability of the organization transformation model that guided the study and highlight the roles of executive leadership and capability development in the dynamics of transformation.

Veterans' Experiences With Accessing Community Emergency Care.

INTRODUCTION: Under current regulations, there are three separate authorities for which the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) can pay for emergency medical care received by Veterans in the community. The three VHA authorities have overlapping criteria and eligibility requirements that contribute to a complex and confusing landscape for Veterans when they obtain emergency care in the community. Given the intricacies in how VHA provides coverage for community emergency care and the desire to provide seamless Veteran-centric care, it is imperative to understand Veterans' experiences with navigating coverage for community emergency care. The purpose of this study was to elicit feedback from Veterans about their experiences with and perceptions of community emergency care coverage paid for by VHA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Veterans Health Administration data were used to identify geographically diverse Veterans who recently used emergency care. We conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 50 Veterans to understand their VHA coverage and experiences with accessing community emergency care. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. We conducted directed content analysis of interview transcripts. RESULTS: Veterans emphasized three major concerns with navigating community emergency care: (1) they lack information about benefits and eligibility when they need it most, (2) they require assistance with medical billing to avoid financial hardship and future delays in care, and (3) they desire multimodal communication about VHA policies or updates in emergency coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the challenges Veterans experience in understanding VHA coverage for community emergency care. Feedback suggests that improving information, support, and communication may help Veterans make timely, informed decisions when experiencing unexpected illness or injury.

Medical advice lines offering on-demand access to providers reduced emergency department visits.

Instant access to clinicians through virtual care is designed to allow patients to receive care they need while avoiding high-cost visits in acute-care settings. This study investigates the effect of offering patients the option to instantly connect with emergency care providers instead of being referred to the emergency department (ED) following calls to a medical advice line. We used a staggered rollout design to assess the effects of implementing this program on key outcomes among Veterans Affairs enrollees. Analyzing over 1 million calls from 2019 to 2022, we found that access to a provider reduced the proportion of patients who subsequently visited the ED compared with those with access to the standard medical advice line (38% vs 36%). There was no significant difference observed in subsequent inpatient admissions or 30-day mortality. We found that a majority of callers (65%) achieved issue resolution or were directed to lower acuity settings for further evaluation. Although substantial direct cost savings were not evident, our findings demonstrate that on-demand access to a virtual provider can effectively decrease ED visits.

Community Urgent Care Use Following Implementation of the Veterans Affairs Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act.

BACKGROUND: Effective June 6, 2019, Veterans Affairs (VA) began offering a new urgent care (UC) benefit that provides eligible Veterans with greater choice and access to care for the treatment of minor injuries and illnesses in their local communities. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to describe trends in UC use, identify predictors of UC benefit use, and understand the factors associated with community UC use versus VA emergency department (ED) or urgent care center (UCC) use. STUDY DESIGN: Using VA administrative data, this was a retrospective cross-sectional study of Veterans that were enrolled in VA in FY19. Veterans were classified into 3 groups: UC benefit users, benefit non-users, and VA ED/UCC users. METHODS: We used summary statistics to compare population characteristics across user groups. To determine whether predisposing, enabling, and need factors predicted UC benefit use and setting choice (community UCC vs. VA ED/UCC), 2 logistic regression models were fitted to assess odds of UC use. RESULTS: From June 6, 2019 through February 29, 2020, 138,305 Veterans made 175,821 community UC visits. The majority of visits were made by White males who were not subject to co-pays. The average cost to VA for UC visits was $132 (SD=$135). Upper respiratory infections were the most common reason for UC use. Being younger, female, and living farther from a VA ED/UCC was associated with greater UC benefit use compared with both benefit non-users and VA ED/UCC users. CONCLUSIONS: The new benefit expands Veteran access to UC services for low-acuity conditions.

Short-term Effects of Canceled Elective Procedures Due to COVID-19: Evidence From the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether delayed or canceled elective procedures due to COVID-19 resulted in higher rates of ED utilization and/or increased mortality. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: On March 15, 2020, the VA issued a nationwide order to temporarily pause elective cases due to COVID-19. The effects of this disruption on patient outcomes are not yet known. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. Surgical procedures canceled due to COVID-19 in 2020 (n = 3326) were matched to similar completed procedures in 2018 (n = 151,863) and 2019 (n = 146,582). Outcome measures included 30- and 90-day VA ED use and mortality in the period following the completed or canceled procedure. We used exact matching on surgical procedure category and nearest neighbor matching on patient characteristics, procedure year, and facility. RESULTS: Patients with elective surgical procedures canceled due to COVID-19 were no more likely to have an ED visit in the 30- [Difference: -4.3% pts; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.078, -0.007] and 90 days (-0.9% pts; 95% CI: -0.068, 0.05) following the expected case date. Patients with cancellations had no difference in 30- (Difference: 0.1% pts; 95% CI: -0.008, 0.01) and 90-day (Difference: -0.4% pts; 95% CI: -0.016, 0.009) mortality rates when compared to similar patients with similar procedures that were completed in previous years. CONCLUSIONS: The pause in elective surgical cases was not associated with short-term adverse outcomes in VA hospitals, suggesting appropriate surgical case triage and management. Further study will be essential to determine if the delayed cases were associated with longer-term effects.

Facilitators and barriers to the Lean Enterprise Transformation program at the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration piloted a nationwide Lean Enterprise Transformation program to optimize delivery of services to patients for high value care. PURPOSE: Barriers and facilitators to Lean implementation were evaluated. METHODS: Guided by the Lean Enterprise Transformation evaluation model, 268 interviews were conducted, with stakeholders across 10 Veterans Health Administration medical centers. Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis techniques. RESULTS: Supporting the utility of the model, facilitators and barriers to Lean implementation were found in each of the Lean Enterprise Transformation evaluation model domains: (a) impetus to transform, (b) leadership commitment to quality, (c) improvement initiatives, (d) alignment across the organization, (e) integration across internal boundaries, (f) communication, (g) capability development, (h) informed decision making, (i) patient engagement, and (j) organization culture. In addition, three emergent themes were identified: staff engagement, sufficient staffing, and use of Lean experts (senseis). CONCLUSIONS: Effective implementation required staff engagement, strategic planning, proper scoping and pacing, deliberate coaching, and accountability structures. Visible, stable leadership drove Lean when leaders articulated a clear impetus to change, aligned goals within the facility, and supported middle management. Reliable data and metrics provided support for and evidence of successful change. Strategic early planning with continual reassessment translated into focused and sustained Lean implementation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Prominent best practices identified include (a) reward participants by broadcasting Lean successes; (b) provide time and resources for participation in Lean activities; (c) avoid overscoping projects; (d) select metrics that closely align with improvement processes; and (e) invest in coaches, informal champions, process improvement staff, and senior leadership to promote staff engagement and minimize turnover.

Identification of Emergency Care-Sensitive Conditions and Characteristics of Emergency Department Utilization.

Importance: Monitoring emergency care quality requires understanding which conditions benefit most from timely, quality emergency care. Objectives: To identify a set of emergency care-sensitive conditions (ECSCs) that are treated in most emergency departments (EDs), are associated with a spectrum of adult age groups, and represent common reasons for seeking emergency care and to provide benchmark national estimates of ECSC acute care utilization. Design, Setting, and Participants: A modified Delphi method was used to identify ECSCs. In a cross-sectional analysis, ECSC-associated visits by adults (aged ≥18 years) were identified based on International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes and analyzed with nationally representative data from the 2016 US Nationwide Emergency Department Sample. Data analysis was conducted from January 2018 to December 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Identification of ECSCs and ECSC-associated ED utilization patterns, length of stay, and charges. Results: An expert panel rated 51 condition groups as emergency care sensitive. Emergency care-sensitive conditions represented 16 033 359 of 114 323 044 ED visits (14.0%) in 2016. On average, 8 535 261 of 17 886 220 ED admissions (47.7%) were attributed to ECSCs. The most common ECSC ED visits were for sepsis (1 716 004 [10.7%]), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1 273 319 [7.9%]), pneumonia (1 263 971 [7.9%]), asthma (970 829 [6.1%]), and heart failure (911 602 [5.7%]) but varied by age group. Median (interquartile range) length of stay for ECSC ED admissions was longer than non-ECSC ED admissions (3.2 [1.7-5.8] days vs 2.7 [1.4-4.9] days; P < .001). In 2016, median (interquartile range) ED charges per visit for ECSCs were $2736 ($1684-$4605) compared with $2179 ($1118-$4359) per visit for non-ECSC ED visits (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This comprehensive list of ECSCs can be used to guide indicator development for pre-ED, intra-ED, and post-ED care and overall assessment of the adult, non-mental health, acute care system. Health care utilization and costs among patients with ECSCs are substantial and warrant future study of validation, variations in care, and outcomes associated with ECSCs.

Lean Enterprise Transformation in VA: a national evaluation framework and study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The goal of Lean Enterprise Transformation (LET) is to go beyond simply using Lean tools and instead embed Lean principles and practices in the system so that it becomes a fundamental, collective mindset of the entire enterprise. The Veterans Engineering Resource Center (VERC) launched the Veterans Affairs (VA) LET pilot program to improve quality, safety, and the Veteran's experience. A national evaluation will examine the pilot program sites' implementation processes, outcomes and impacts, and abilities to improve LET adoption and sustainment. This paper describes the evaluation design for the VA LET national evaluation and describes development of a conceptual framework to evaluate LET specifically in healthcare settings. METHODS: A targeted literature review of Lean evaluation frameworks was performed to inform the development of the conceptual framework. Key domains were identified by a multidisciplinary expert group and then validated with key stakeholders. The national evaluation design will examine LET implementation using qualitative, survey, and quantitative methods at ten VA facilities. Qualitative data include site visits, interviews, and field observation notes. Survey data include an employee engagement survey to be administered to front-line staff at all pilot sites. Quantitative data include site-level quality improvement metrics collected by the Veterans Services Support Center. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods analyses will be conducted to examine implementation of LET strategic initiatives and variations in implementation success across sites. DISCUSSION: This national evaluation of a large-scale LET implementation effort will provide insights helpful to other systems interested in embarking on a Lean journey. Additionally, we created a multi-faceted conceptual framework to capture the specific features of a Lean healthcare organization. This framework will guide this evaluation and may be useful as an assessment tool for other organizations interested in implementing Lean principles at an enterprise level.

Inequities in Academic Compensation by Gender: A Follow-up to the National Faculty Survey Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Cross-sectional studies have demonstrated gender differences in salaries within academic medicine. No research has assessed longitudinal compensation patterns. This study sought to assess longitudinal patterns by gender in compensation, and to understand factors associated with these differences in a longitudinal cohort. METHOD: A 17-year longitudinal follow-up of the National Faculty Survey was conducted with a random sample of faculty from 24 U.S. medical schools. Participants employed full-time at initial and follow-up time periods completed the survey. Annual pretax compensation during academic year 2012-2013 was compared by gender. Covariates assessed included race/ethnicity; years since first academic appointment; retention in academic career; academic rank; departmental affiliation; percent effort distribution across clinical, teaching, administrative, and research duties; marital and parental status; and any leave or part-time status in the years between surveys. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, women earned a mean of $20,520 less than men (P = .03); women made 90 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. This difference was reduced to $16,982 (P = .04) after adjusting for covariates. The mean difference of $15,159 was no longer significant (P = .06) when adjusting covariates and for those who had ever taken a leave or worked part-time. CONCLUSIONS: The continued gender gap in compensation cannot be accounted for by metrics used to calculate salary. Institutional actions to address these disparities include both initial appointment and annual salary equity reviews, training of senior faculty and administrators to understand implicit bias, and training of women faculty in negotiating skills.

Calculations of Financial Incentives for Providers in a Pay-for-Performance Program: Manual Review Versus Data From Structured Fields in Electronic Health Records.

BACKGROUND: Hospital report cards and financial incentives linked to performance require clinical data that are reliable, appropriate, timely, and cost-effective to process. Pay-for-performance plans are transitioning to automated electronic health record (EHR) data as an efficient method to generate data needed for these programs. OBJECTIVE: To determine how well data from automated processing of structured fields in the electronic health record (AP-EHR) reflect data from manual chart review and the impact of these data on performance rewards. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of performance measures used in a cluster randomized trial assessing the impact of financial incentives on guideline-recommended care for hypertension. SUBJECTS: A total of 2840 patients with hypertension assigned to participating physicians at 12 Veterans Affairs hospital-based outpatient clinics. Fifty-two physicians and 33 primary care personnel received incentive payments. MEASURES: Overall, positive and negative agreement indices and Cohen's kappa were calculated for assessments of guideline-recommended antihypertensive medication use, blood pressure (BP) control, and appropriate response to uncontrolled BP. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to assess how similar participants' calculated earnings were between the data sources. RESULTS: By manual chart review data, 72.3% of patients were considered to have received guideline-recommended antihypertensive medications compared with 65.0% by AP-EHR review (κ=0.51). Manual review indicated 69.5% of patients had controlled BP compared with 66.8% by AP-EHR review (κ=0.87). Compared with 52.2% of patients per the manual review, 39.8% received an appropriate response by AP-EHR review (κ=0.28). Participants' incentive payments calculated using the 2 methods were highly correlated (r≥0.98). Using the AP-EHR data to calculate earnings, participants' payment changes ranged from a decrease of $91.00 (-30.3%) to an increase of $18.20 (+7.4%) for medication use (interquartile range, -14.4% to 0%) and a decrease of $100.10 (-31.4%) to an increase of $36.40 (+15.4%) for BP control or appropriate response to uncontrolled BP (interquartile range, -11.9% to -6.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Pay-for-performance plans that use only EHR data should carefully consider the measures and the structure of the EHR before data collection and financial incentive disbursement. For this study, we feel that a 10% difference in the total amount of incentive earnings disbursed based on AP-EHR data compared with manual review is acceptable given the time and resources required to abstract data from medical records.

Gender disparities in evidence-based statin therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Studies have shown gender disparities in cholesterol care in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), with women less likely than men to have low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels <100 mg/dl. Whether this is related to a lower evidence-based statin or high-intensity statin use is not known. We used a national cohort of 972,532 patients with CVD (coronary heart disease, peripheral artery disease, and ischemic stroke) receiving care in 130 Veterans Health Administration facilities from October 1, 2010, to September 30, 2011, to identify the proportion of male and female patients with CVD receiving any statin and high-intensity statin. Women with CVD (n = 13,371) were less likely than men to receive statins (57.6% vs 64.8%, p <0.0001) or high-intensity statins (21.1% vs 23.6%, p <0.0001). Mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (99 vs 85 mg/dl) were higher in women compared with men (p <0.0001). In adjusted models, female gender was independently associated with a lower likelihood of receiving statins (odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.71) or high-intensity statins (odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.80). The median facility-level rate of statin and high-intensity statin use among female patients (57.3% [interquartile range = 8.93%] for statin, 20% [interquartile range = 7.7%] for high-intensity statin use) showed significant variation. In conclusion, women with CVD are less likely to receive evidence-based statin and high-intensity statins compared with men, although, their use remains low in both genders. There is a significant facility-level variation in evidence-based statin or high-intensity statin use in female patients with CVD. With the "statin dose-based approach" proposed by the recent cholesterol guidelines, these results highlight areas for quality improvement.

Effects of individual physician-level and practice-level financial incentives on hypertension care: a randomized trial.

IMPORTANCE: Pay for performance is intended to align incentives to promote high-quality care, but results have been contradictory. OBJECTIVE: To test the effect of explicit financial incentives to reward guideline-recommended hypertension care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cluster randomized trial of 12 Veterans Affairs outpatient clinics with 5 performance periods and a 12-month washout that enrolled 83 primary care physicians and 42 nonphysician personnel (eg, nurses, pharmacists). INTERVENTIONS: Physician-level (individual) incentives, practice-level incentives, both, or none. Intervention participants received up to 5 payments every 4 months; all participants could access feedback reports. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Among a random sample, number of patients achieving guideline-recommended blood pressure thresholds or receiving an appropriate response to uncontrolled blood pressure, number of patients prescribed guideline-recommended medications, and number who developed hypotension. RESULTS: Mean (SD) total payments over the study were $4270 ($459), $2672 ($153), and $1648 ($248) for the combined, individual, and practice-level interventions, respectively. The unadjusted baseline and final percentages and the adjusted absolute change over the study in patients meeting the combined blood pressure/appropriate response measure were 75% to 84% and 8.84% (95% CI, 4.20% to 11.80%) for the individual group, 80% to 85% and 3.70% (95% CI, 0.24% to 7.68%) for the practice-level group, 79% to 88% and 5.54% (95% CI, 1.92% to 9.52%) for the combined group, and 86% to 86% and 0.47% (95% CI, -3.12% to 4.04%) for the control group. The adjusted absolute estimated difference in the change between the proportion of patients with blood pressure control/appropriate response for individual incentive and control groups was 8.36% (95% CI, 2.40% to 13.00%; P=.005). The other incentive groups did not show a significant change compared with controls for this outcome. For medications, the unadjusted baseline and final percentages and the adjusted absolute change were 61% to 73% and 9.07% (95% CI, 4.52% to 13.44%), 56% to 65% and 4.98% (95% CI, 0.64% to 10.08%), 65% to 80% and 7.26% (95% CI, 2.92% to 12.48%), and 63% to 72% and 4.35% (95% CI, -0.28% to 9.28%), respectively. These changes in the use of guideline-recommended medications were not significant in any of the incentive groups compared with controls, nor was the incidence of hypotension. The effect of the incentive was not sustained after a washout. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Individual financial incentives, but not practice-level or combined incentives, resulted in greater blood pressure control or appropriate response to uncontrolled blood pressure; none of the incentives resulted in greater use of guideline-recommended medications or increased incidence of hypotension compared with controls. Further research is needed on the factors that contributed to these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00302718.

Correlates of repeat lipid testing in patients with coronary heart disease.

IMPORTANCE: Understanding the frequency and correlates of redundant lipid testing could identify areas for quality improvement initiatives aimed at improving the efficiency of cholesterol care in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and correlates of repeat lipid testing in patients with CHD who attained low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals and received no treatment intensification. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We assessed the proportion of patients with LDL-C levels of less than 100 mg/dL and no intensification of lipid-lowering therapy who underwent repeat lipid testing during an 11-month follow-up period. We performed logistic regression analyses to evaluate facility, provider, and patient characteristics associated with repeat testing. In total, we analyzed 35,191 patients with CHD in a Veterans Affairs network of 7 medical centers with associated community-based outpatient clinics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Frequency and correlates of repeat lipid testing in patients having CHD with LDL-C levels of less than 100 mg/dL and no further treatment intensification with lipid-lowering therapies. RESULTS: Of 27,947 patients with LDL-C levels of less than 100 mg/dL, 9200 (32.9%) had additional lipid assessments without treatment intensification during the following 11 months (12 ,686 total additional panels; mean, 1.38 additional panel per patient). Adjusting for facility-level clustering, patients with a history of diabetes mellitus (odds ratio [OR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.22), a history of hypertension (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.13-1.30), higher illness burden (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.23-1.57), and more frequent primary care visits (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.25-1.39) were more likely to undergo repeat testing, whereas patients receiving care at a teaching facility (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80) or from a physician provider (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.98) and those with a medication possession ratio of 0.8 or higher (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80) were less likely to undergo repeat testing. Among 13,114 patients who met the optional LDL-C target level of less than 70 mg/dL, repeat lipid testing was performed in 8177 (62.4% of those with LDL-C levels of <70 mg/dL) during 11 follow-up months. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: One-third of patients having CHD with LDL-C levels at goal underwent repeat lipid panels. Our results highlight areas for quality improvement initiatives to reduce redundant lipid testing. These efforts would be more important if the forthcoming cholesterol guidelines adopt a medication dose-based approach in place of the current treat-to-target approach.

Impact of clinical complexity on the quality of diabetes care.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of clinical complexity on 3 dimensions of diabetes care. STUDY DESIGN: We identified 35,872 diabetic patients receiving care at 7 Veterans Affairs facilities between July 2007 and June 2008 using administrative and clinical data. We examined control at index and appropriate care (among uncontrolled patients) within 90 days, for blood pressure (<130/80 mm Hg), glycated hemoglobin (<7%), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (<100 mg/dL). We used ordered logistic regression to examine the impact of complexity, defined by comorbidities count and illness burden, on control at index and a combined measure of quality (control at index or appropriate follow-up care) for all 3 measures. RESULTS: There were 6260 (17.5%) patients controlled at index for all 3 quality indicators. Patients with >3 comorbidities (odds ratio [OR], 1.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.67-2.26) and illness burden >2.00 (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.13-1.32) were more likely than the least complex patients to be controlled for all 3 measures. Patients with >3 comorbidities (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 2.07-2.54) and illness burden >2.00 (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.18-1.33) were also more likely than the least complex patients to meet the combined quality indicator for all 3 measures. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with greatest complexity received higher quality diabetes care compared with less complex patients, regardless of the definition of complexity chosen. Although providers may appropriately target complex patients for aggressive control, deficits in guideline achievement among all diabetic patients highlight the challenges of caring for chronically ill patients and the importance of structuring primary care to promote higher-quality, patient-centered care.