Implementing a Social Needs Screening and Referral Program Among Veterans: Assessing Circumstances & Offering Resources for Needs (ACORN).

BACKGROUND: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system routinely screens Veterans for food insecurity, housing instability, and intimate partner violence, but does not systematically screen for other health-related social needs (HRSNs). OBJECTIVES: To (1) develop a process for systematically identifying and addressing Veterans' HRSNs, (2) determine reported prevalence of HRSNs, and (3) assess the acceptability of HRSN screening among Veterans. DESIGN: "Assessing Circumstances and Offering Resources for Needs" (ACORN) is a Veteran-tailored HRSN screening and referral quality improvement initiative. Veterans were screened via electronic tablet for nine HRSNs (food, housing, utilities, transportation, legal needs, social isolation, interpersonal violence, employment, and education) and provided geographically tailored resource guides for identified needs. Two-week follow-up interviews with a purposive sample of Veterans explored screening experiences. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of Veterans presenting for primary care at a VA urban women's health clinic and suburban community-based outpatient clinic (October 2019-May 2020). MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes included prevalence of HRSNs, Veteran-reported acceptability of screening, and use of resources guides. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and rapid qualitative analysis. KEY RESULTS: Of 268 Veterans screened, 50% reported one or more HRSNs. Social isolation was endorsed most frequently (29%), followed by educational needs (19%), interpersonal violence (12%), housing instability (9%), and utility concerns (7%). One in five Veterans reported at least one form of material hardship. In follow-up interviews (n = 15), Veterans found screening acceptable and felt VA should continue screening. No Veterans interviewed had contacted recommended resources at two-week follow-up, although several planned to use resource guides in the future. CONCLUSION: In a VA HRSN screening and referral program, Veterans frequently reported HRSNs, felt screening was important, and thought VA should continue to screen for these needs. Screening for HRSNs is a critical step towards connecting patients with services, identifying gaps in service delivery, and informing future resource allocation.

Ethical Considerations in Precision Medicine and Genetic Testing in Internal Medicine Practice: A Position Paper From the American College of Physicians.

This American College of Physicians position paper aims to inform ethical decision making for the integration of precision medicine and genetic testing into clinical care. Although the positions are primarily intended for practicing physicians, they may apply to other health care professionals and can also inform how health care systems, professional schools, and residency programs integrate genomics into educational and clinical settings. Addressing the challenges of precision medicine and genetic testing will guide ethical and responsible implementation to improve health outcomes.

Effect of Pharmacogenomic Testing for Drug-Gene Interactions on Medication Selection and Remission of Symptoms in Major Depressive Disorder: The PRIME Care Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Selecting effective antidepressants for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) is an imprecise practice, with remission rates of about 30% at the initial treatment. Objective: To determine whether pharmacogenomic testing affects antidepressant medication selection and whether such testing leads to better clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pragmatic, randomized clinical trial that compared treatment guided by pharmacogenomic testing vs usual care. Participants included 676 clinicians and 1944 patients. Participants were enrolled from 22 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers from July 2017 through February 2021, with follow-up ending November 2021. Eligible patients were those with MDD who were initiating or switching treatment with a single antidepressant. Exclusion criteria included an active substance use disorder, mania, psychosis, or concurrent treatment with a specified list of medications. Interventions: Results from a commercial pharmacogenomic test were given to clinicians in the pharmacogenomic-guided group (n = 966). The comparison group received usual care and access to pharmacogenomic results after 24 weeks (n = 978). Main Outcomes and Measures: The co-primary outcomes were the proportion of prescriptions with a predicted drug-gene interaction written in the 30 days after randomization and remission of depressive symptoms as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) (remission was defined as PHQ-9 ≤ 5). Remission was analyzed as a repeated measure across 24 weeks by blinded raters. Results: Among 1944 patients who were randomized (mean age, 48 years; 491 women [25%]), 1541 (79%) completed the 24-week assessment. The estimated risks for receiving an antidepressant with none, moderate, and substantial drug-gene interactions for the pharmacogenomic-guided group were 59.3%, 30.0%, and 10.7% compared with 25.7%, 54.6%, and 19.7% in the usual care group. The pharmacogenomic-guided group was more likely to receive a medication with a lower potential drug-gene interaction for no drug-gene vs moderate/substantial interaction (odds ratio [OR], 4.32 [95% CI, 3.47 to 5.39]; P < .001) and no/moderate vs substantial interaction (OR, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.52 to 2.84]; P = .005) (P < .001 for overall comparison). Remission rates over 24 weeks were higher among patients whose care was guided by pharmacogenomic testing than those in usual care (OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.05 to 1.57]; P = .02; risk difference, 2.8% [95% CI, 0.6% to 5.1%]) but were not significantly higher at week 24 when 130 patients in the pharmacogenomic-guided group and 126 patients in the usual care group were in remission (estimated risk difference, 1.5% [95% CI, -2.4% to 5.3%]; P = .45). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with MDD, provision of pharmacogenomic testing for drug-gene interactions reduced prescription of medications with predicted drug-gene interactions compared with usual care. Provision of test results had small nonpersistent effects on symptom remission. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03170362.

On All Accounts: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Limited Preoperative Optimization Efforts Before Colon Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Reports suggest that preoperative optimization of a patient's serious comorbidities is associated with a reduction in postoperative complications. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the cost and benefits of preoperative optimization, accounting for total costs associated with postoperative morbidity. DESIGN: This study is a decision tree cost-effectiveness analysis with probabilistic sensitivity analysis (10,000 iterations). SETTING: This is a hypothetical scenario of stage II colon cancer surgery. PATIENT: The simulated 65-year-old patient has left-sided, stage II colon cancer. INTERVENTION: Focused preoperative optimization targets high-risk comorbidities. OUTCOMES: Total discounted (3%) economic costs (US $2018), effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, cost/quality-adjusted life-years gained), and net monetary benefit. RESULTS: We calculated the per individual expected health care sector total cost of preoperative optimization and sequelae to be $12,395 versus $15,638 in those not optimized (net monetary benefit: $1.04 million versus $1.05 million). A nonoptimized patient attained an average 0.02 quality-adjusted life-years less than one optimized. Thus, preoperative optimization was the dominant strategy (lower total costs; higher quality-adjusted life-years). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated 100% of simulations favoring preoperative optimization. The breakeven cost of optimization to remain cost-effective was $6421 per patient. LIMITATIONS: Generalizability must account for the lack of standardization among existing preoperative optimization efforts, and decision analysis methodology provides guidance for the average patient or general population, and is not patient-specific. CONCLUSIONS: Although currently not comprehensively reimbursed, focused preoperative optimization may reduce total costs of care while also reducing complications from colon cancer surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B494. EN TODO CASO ANLISIS DE RENTABILIDAD DE LOS ESFUERZOS LIMITADOS DE OPTIMIZACIN PREOPERATORIA ANTES DE LA CIRUGA DE CNCER DE COLON: ANTECEDENTES:Los informes sugieren que la optimización preoperatoria de las comorbilidades graves de un paciente se asocia con una reducción de las complicaciones postoperatorias.OBJETIVO:El propósito de este estudio fue evaluar el costo y los beneficios de la optimización preoperatoria, teniendo en cuenta los costos totales asociados con la morbilidad postoperatoria.DISEÑO:Análisis de costo-efectividad de árbol de decisión con análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico (10,000 iteraciones).AJUSTE ENTORNO CLINICO:Escenario hipotético Cirugía de cáncer de colon en estadio II.PACIENTE:Paciente simulado de 65 años con cáncer de colon en estadio II del lado izquierdo.INTERVENCIÓN:Optimización preoperatoria enfocada dirigida a comorbilidades de alto riesgo.RESULTADOS:Costos económicos totales descontados (3%) (US $ 2018), efectividad (años de vida ajustados por calidad [AVAC]), relación costo-efectividad incremental (ICER, costo / AVAC ganado) y beneficio monetario neto (NMB).RESULTADOS:Calculamos que el costo total esperado por sector de atención médica individual de la optimización preoperatoria y las secuelas es de $ 12,395 versus $ 15,638 en aquellos no optimizados (NMB: $ 1.04 millones versus $ 1.05 millones, respectivamente). Un paciente no optimizado alcanzó un promedio de 0.02 AVAC menos que uno optimizado. Por lo tanto, la optimización preoperatoria fue la estrategia dominante (menores costos totales; mayores AVAC). El análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico demostró que el 100% de las simulaciones favorecían la optimización preoperatoria. El costo de equilibrio de la optimización para seguir siendo rentable fue de $ 6,421 por paciente.LIMITACIONES:La generalización debe tener en cuenta la falta de estandarización entre los esfuerzos de optimización preoperatorios existentes y esa metodología de análisis de decisiones proporciona una guía para el paciente promedio o la población general, no específica del paciente.CONCLUSIONES:Si bien actualmente no se reembolsa de manera integral, la optimización preoperatoria enfocada puede reducir los costos totales de la atención y al mismo tiempo reducir las complicaciones de la cirugía de cáncer de colon. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B494.

Ventilator Triage Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic at U.S. Hospitals Associated With Members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has or threatens to overwhelm health care systems. Many institutions are developing ventilator triage policies. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the development of ventilator triage policies and compare policy content. DESIGN: Survey and mixed-methods content analysis. SETTING: North American hospitals associated with members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors. PARTICIPANTS: Program directors. MEASUREMENTS: Characteristics of institutions and policies, including triage criteria and triage committee membership. RESULTS: Sixty-seven program directors responded (response rate, 91.8%); 36 (53.7%) hospitals did not yet have a policy, and 7 (10.4%) hospitals' policies could not be shared. The 29 institutions providing policies were relatively evenly distributed among the 4 U.S. geographic regions (range, 5 to 9 policies per region). Among the 26 unique policies analyzed, 3 (11.3%) were produced by state health departments. The most frequently cited triage criteria were benefit (25 policies [96.2%]), need (14 [53.8%]), age (13 [50.0%]), conservation of resources (10 [38.5%]), and lottery (9 [34.6%]). Twenty-one (80.8%) policies use scoring systems, and 20 of these (95.2%) use a version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Among the policies that specify the triage team's composition (23 [88.5%]), all require or recommend a physician member, 20 (87.0%) a nurse, 16 (69.6%) an ethicist, 8 (34.8%) a chaplain, and 8 (34.8%) a respiratory therapist. Thirteen (50.0% of all policies) require or recommend that those making triage decisions not be involved in direct patient care, but only 2 (7.7%) require that their decisions be blinded to ethically irrelevant considerations. LIMITATION: The results may not be generalizable to institutions without academic bioethics programs. CONCLUSION: Over one half of respondents did not have ventilator triage policies. Policies have substantial heterogeneity, and many omit guidance on fair implementation. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Gender Wage Disparities in Medicine: Time to Close the Gap.

Women physicians are paid less than their male peers across medical specialties and geographies. While the medical literature to date has focused on documenting the existence of a wage gap, less attention has been paid to fixing this gap. We focus on interventions around auditing, salary transparency, family leave, and childcare that can be implemented to advance gender wage parity.

Hidden Curricula, Ethics, and Professionalism: Optimizing Clinical Learning Environments in Becoming and Being a Physician: A Position Paper of the American College of Physicians.

Much of what is formally taught in medicine is about the knowledge, skills, and behaviors required of a physician, including how to express compassion and respect for patients at the bedside. What is learned, however, includes not only admirable qualities but also behaviors and qualities that are inconsistent with ethics and professionalism. Positive role models may reinforce the character and values the profession seeks to cultivate; negative ones directly contradict classroom lessons and expectations of patients, society, and medical educators. These positive and negative lessons, which are embedded in organizational structure and culture, are the hidden curricula conveyed in medical schools, residency programs, hospitals, and clinics. This position paper from the American College of Physicians focuses on ethics, professionalism, and the hidden curriculum. It provides strategies for revealing what is hidden to foster the development of reflective and resilient lifelong learners who embody professionalism and clinicians who are, and are perceived as, positive role models. Making the hidden visible and the implicit explicit helps to create a culture reflecting medicine's core values.

Ethical Obligations Regarding Short-Term Global Health Clinical Experiences: An American College of Physicians Position Paper.

This American College of Physicians position paper aims to inform ethical decision making surrounding participation in short-term global health clinical care experiences. Although the positions are primarily intended for practicing physicians, they may apply to other health care professionals and should inform how institutions, organizations, and others structure short-term global health experiences. The primary goal of short-term global health clinical care experiences is to improve the health and well-being of the individuals and communities where they occur. In addition, potential benefits for participants in global health include increased awareness of global health issues, new medical knowledge, enhanced physical diagnosis skills when practicing in low-technology settings, improved language skills, enhanced cultural sensitivity, a greater capacity for clinical problem solving, and an improved sense of self-satisfaction or professional satisfaction. However, these activities involve several ethical challenges. Addressing these challenges is critical to protecting patient welfare in all geographic locales, promoting fair and equitable care globally, and maintaining trust in the profession. This paper describes 5 core positions that focus on ethics and the clinical care context and provides case scenarios to illustrate them.

Protecting User Privacy and Rights in Academic Data-Sharing Partnerships: Principles From a Pilot Program at Crisis Text Line.

Data sharing between technology companies and academic health researchers has multiple health care, scientific, social, and business benefits. Many companies remain wary about such sharing because of unaddressed concerns about ethics, data security, logistics, and public relations. Without guidance on these issues, few companies are willing to take on the potential work and risks involved in noncommercial data sharing, and the scientific and societal potential of their data goes unrealized. In this paper, we describe the 18-month long pilot of a data-sharing program led by Crisis Text Line (CTL), a not-for-profit technology company that provides a free 24/7 text line for people in crisis. The primary goal of the data-sharing pilot was to design, develop, and implement a rigorous framework of principles and protocols for the safe and ethical sharing of user data. CTL used a stakeholder-based policy process to develop a feasible and ethical data-sharing program. The process comprised forming a data ethics committee; identifying policy challenges and solutions; announcing the program and generating interest; and revising the policy and launching the program. Once the pilot was complete, CTL examined how well the program ran and compared it with other potential program models before putting in place the program that was most suitable for its organizational needs. By drawing on CTL's experiences, we have created a 3-step set of guidelines for other organizations that wish to develop their own data-sharing program with academic researchers. The guidelines explain how to (1) determine the value and suitability of the data and organization for creating a data-sharing program; (2) decide on an appropriate data sharing and collaboration model; and (3) develop protocols and technical solutions for safe and ethical data sharing and the best organizational structure for implementing the program. An internal evaluation determined that the pilot satisfied CTL's goals of sharing scientific data and protecting client confidentiality. The policy development process also yielded key principles and protocols regarding the ethical challenges involved in data sharing that can be applied by other organizations. Finally, CTL's internal review of the pilot program developed a number of alternative models for sharing data that will suit a range of organizations with different priorities and capabilities. In implementing and studying this pilot program, CTL aimed both to optimize its own future data-sharing programs and to inform similar decisions made by others. Open data programs are both important and feasible to establish. With careful planning and appropriate resources, data sharing between big data companies and academic researchers can advance their shared mission to benefit society and improve lives.

Industry Payments to US Physicians by Specialty and Product Type.

This study examines the distribution of payments within and across specialties and the medical products associated with the largest total payments.

Navigating the research-clinical interface in genomic medicine: analysis from the CSER Consortium.

PurposeThe Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium encompasses nine National Institutes of Health-funded U-award projects investigating translation of genomic sequencing into clinical care. Previous literature has distinguished norms and rules governing research versus clinical care. This is the first study to explore how genomics investigators describe and navigate the research-clinical interface.MethodsA CSER working group developed a 22-item survey. All nine U-award projects participated. Descriptive data were tabulated and qualitative analysis of text responses identified themes and characterizations of the research-clinical interface.ResultsSurvey responses described how studies approached the research-clinical interface, including in consent practices, recording results, and using a research versus clinical laboratory. Responses revealed four characterizations of the interface: clear separation between research and clinical care, interdigitation of the two with steps to maintain separation, a dynamic interface, and merging of the two. All survey respondents utilized at least two different characterizations. Although research has traditionally been differentiated from clinical care, respondents pointed to factors blurring the distinction and strategies to differentiate the domains.ConclusionThese results illustrate the difficulty in applying the traditional bifurcation of research versus clinical care to translational models of clinical research, including in genomics. Our results suggest new directions for ethics and oversight.

Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between.

As more research studies incorporate next-generation sequencing (including whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing), investigators and institutional review boards face difficult questions regarding which genomic results to return to research participants and how. An American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics 2013 policy paper suggesting that pathogenic mutations in 56 specified genes should be returned in the clinical setting has raised the question of whether comparable recommendations should be considered in research settings. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium and the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are multisite research programs that aim to develop practical strategies for addressing questions concerning the return of results in genomic research. CSER and eMERGE committees have identified areas of consensus regarding the return of genomic results to research participants. In most circumstances, if results meet an actionability threshold for return and the research participant has consented to return, genomic results, along with referral for appropriate clinical follow-up, should be offered to participants. However, participants have a right to decline the receipt of genomic results, even when doing so might be viewed as a threat to the participants' health. Research investigators should be prepared to return research results and incidental findings discovered in the course of their research and meeting an actionability threshold, but they have no ethical obligation to actively search for such results. These positions are consistent with the recognition that clinical research is distinct from medical care in both its aims and its guiding moral principles.

Oncofertility: Fertile Ground for Conflict Between Patient Autonomy and Medical Values.

Oncofertility is a unique, multidisciplinary field that serves to bridge the gap between available fertility resources and the special reproductive needs of cancer patients. Oncofertility is a growing field due to the increasing number of survivors, development of new oncologic therapies, extension of duration of therapies, and development and refinement of reproductive therapies. While the technologies and demand for services expand, clinicians need to be appropriately prepared for dealing with various clinical scenarios that may require ethical deliberation. Three real cases are presented in which the patient wishes to pursue reproductive assistance, but her decision is met with hesitance or uncertainty by her care team. Discussion of these clinical scenarios highlights ethical implications of oncofertility practice and serves to highlight the need for the establishment of multidisciplinary care teams and guidelines to support both clinicians and patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The growing field of oncofertility is ripe for conflict between patient autonomy and medical values due to the nature of cancer and associated threat on an individual's health and survival, as well as the personal significance of childbearing. Cases are presented and ethical implications are discussed to further explore the inherent difficulties in oncofertility practice and guide clinicians in similar situations. Developing guidelines and establishing multidisciplinary teams to facilitate oncofertility discussions and care, as well as training of clinical team members, may improve patient safety, well-being, and satisfaction within the context of fertility decision making, care, and outcomes.

Undocumented injustice? Medical repatriation and the ends of health care.

The authors review the history and motivations behind medical repatriation, the transfer of undocumented patients in need of subacute care to their country of origin. They argue that involuntary medical repatriation violates the ethical duties of health care providers.

The Effects of Public Disclosure of Industry Payments to Physicians on Patient Trust: A Randomized Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Financial ties between physicians and the pharmaceutical and medical device industry are common, but little is known about how patient trust is affected by these ties. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate how viewing online public disclosure of industry payments affects patients' trust ratings for physicians, the medical profession, and the pharmaceutical and medical device industry. DESIGN: This was a randomized experimental evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: There were 278 English-speaking participants over age 18 who had seen a healthcare provider in the previous 12 months who took part in the study. INTERVENTIONS: Participants searched for physicians on an online disclosure database, viewed payments from industry to the physicians, and assigned trust ratings. Participants were randomized to view physicians who received no payment ($0), low payment ($250-300), or high payment (>$13,000) from industry, or to a control arm in which they did not view the disclosure website. They also were asked to search for and then rate trust in their own physician. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were trust in individual physician, medical profession, and industry. These scales measure trust as a composite of honesty, fidelity, competence, and global trust. KEY RESULTS: Compared to physicians who received no payments, physicians who received payments over $13,000 received lower ratings for honesty [mean (SD): 3.36 (0.86) vs. 2.75 (0.95), p < 0.001] and fidelity [3.19 (0.65) vs. 2.89 (0.68), p = 0.01]. Among the 7.9% of participants who found their own physician on the website, ratings for honesty and fidelity decreased as the industry payment to the physician increased (honesty: Spearman's ρ = -0.52, p = 0.02; fidelity: Spearman's ρ = -0.55, p = 0.01). Viewing the disclosure website did not affect trust ratings for the medical profession or industry. CONCLUSIONS: Disclosure of industry payments to physicians affected perceptions of individual physician honesty and fidelity, but not perceptions of competence. Disclosure did not affect trust ratings for the medical profession or the pharmaceutical and medical device industry. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02179632 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02179632 ).

Public Awareness of and Contact With Physicians Who Receive Industry Payments: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND: The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, part of the Affordable Care Act, requires pharmaceutical and medical device firms to report payments they make to physicians and, through its Open Payments program, makes this information publicly available. OBJECTIVE: To establish estimates of the exposure of the American patient population to physicians who accept industry payments, to compare these population-based estimates to physician-based estimates of industry contact, and to investigate Americans' awareness of industry payments. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey conducted in late September and early October 2014, with data linkage of respondents' physicians to Open Payments data. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3542 adults drawn from a large, nationally representative household panel. MAIN MEASURES: Respondents' contact with physicians reported in Open Payments to have received industry payments; respondents' awareness that physicians receive payments from industry and that payment information is publicly available; respondents' knowledge of whether their own physician received industry payments. KEY RESULTS: Among the 1987 respondents who could be matched to a specific physician, 65% saw a physician who had received an industry payment during the previous 12 months. This population-based estimate of exposure to industry contact is much higher than physician-based estimates from the same period, which indicate that 41% of physicians received an industry payment. Across the six most frequently visited specialties, patient contact with physicians who had received an industry payment ranged from 60 to 85%; the percentage of physicians with industry contact in these specialties was much lower (35-56%). Only 12% of survey respondents knew that payment information was publicly available, and only 5% knew whether their own doctor had received payments. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' contact with physicians who receive industry payments is more prevalent than physician-based measures of industry contact would suggest. Very few Americans know whether their own doctor has received industry payments or are aware that payment information is publicly available.

How Primary Care Physicians Integrate Price Information into Clinical Decision-Making.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how primary care physicians (PCPs) in routine outpatient practice use paid price information (i.e., the amount that insurers finally pay providers) in daily clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To describe the experiences of PCPs who have had paid price information on tests and procedures for at least 1 year. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using semi-structured interviews and the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-six PCPs within an accountable care organization. INTERVENTION: Via the ordering screen of their electronic health record, PCPs were presented with the median paid price for commonly ordered tests and procedures (e.g., blood tests, x-rays, CTs, MRIs). APPROACH: We asked PCPs for (a) their "gut reaction" to having paid price information, (b) the situations in which they used price information in clinical decision-making separate from or jointly with patients, (c) their thoughts on who bore the chief responsibility for discussing price information with patients, and (d) suggestions for improving physician-targeted price information interventions. KEY RESULTS: Among "gut reactions" that ranged from positive to negative, all PCPs were more interested in having patient-specific price information than paid prices from the practice perspective. PCPs described that when patients' out-of-pocket spending concerns were revealed, price information helped them engage patients in conversations about how to alter treatment plans to make them more affordable. PCPs stated that having price information only slightly altered their test-ordering patterns and that they avoided mentioning prices when advising patients against unnecessary testing. Most PCPs asserted that physicians bear the chief responsibility for discussing prices with patients because of their clinical knowledge and relationships with patients. They wished for help from patients, practices, health plans, and society in order to support price transparency in healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: Physician-targeted price transparency efforts may provide PCPs with the information they need to respond to patients' concerns regarding out-of-pocket affordability rather than that needed to change test-ordering habits.

A Randomized Trial of Displaying Paid Price Information on Imaging Study and Procedure Ordering Rates.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have demonstrated how price transparency lowers the test-ordering rates of trainees in hospitals, and physician-targeted price transparency efforts have been viewed as a promising cost-controlling strategy. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of displaying paid-price information on test-ordering rates for common imaging studies and procedures within an accountable care organization (ACO). DESIGN: Block randomized controlled trial for 1 year. SUBJECTS: A total of 1205 fully licensed clinicians (728 primary care, 477 specialists). INTERVENTION: Starting January 2014, clinicians in the Control arm received no price display; those in the intervention arms received Single or Paired Internal/External Median Prices in the test-ordering screen of their electronic health record. Internal prices were the amounts paid by insurers for the ACO's services; external paid prices were the amounts paid by insurers for the same services when delivered by unaffiliated providers. MAIN MEASURES: Ordering rates (orders per 100 face-to-face encounters with adult patients): overall, designated to be completed internally within the ACO, considered "inappropriate" (e.g., MRI for simple headache), and thought to be "appropriate" (e.g., screening colonoscopy). KEY RESULTS: We found no significant difference in overall ordering rates across the Control, Single Median Price, or Paired Internal/External Median Prices study arms. For every 100 encounters, clinicians in the Control arm ordered 15.0 (SD 31.1) tests, those in the Single Median Price arm ordered 15.0 (SD 16.2) tests, and those in the Paired Prices arms ordered 15.7 (SD 20.5) tests (one-way ANOVA p-value 0.88). There was no difference in ordering rates for tests designated to be completed internally or considered to be inappropriate or appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Displaying paid-price information did not alter how frequently primary care and specialist clinicians ordered imaging studies and procedures within an ACO. Those with a particular interest in removing waste from the health care system may want to consider a variety of contextual factors that can affect physician-targeted price transparency.

Processes for Identifying and Reviewing Adverse Events and Near Misses at an Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: Conferences, processes, and/or meetings in which adverse events and near misses are reviewed within clinical programs at a single academic medical center were identified. METHODS: Leaders of conferences, processes, or meetings-"process leaders"-in which adverse events and near misses were reviewed were surveyed. RESULTS: On the basis of responses from all 45 process leaders, processes were classified into (1) Morbidity and Mortality Conferences (MMCs), (2) Quality Assurance (QA) Meetings, and (3) Educational Conferences. Some 22% of the clinical programs used more than one of these three processes to identify and review adverse events and near misses, while 10% had no consistent participation in any of them. Explicit criteria for identifying and selecting cases to be reviewed were used by 58% of MMCs and 69% of QA Meetings. The explicit criteria used by MMCs and QA Meetings varied widely. Many MMCs (54%, 13/24), QA Meetings (54%, 7/13), and Educational Conferences (70%, 7/10) did not review all the adverse events or near misses that were identified, and several MMCs (46%, 6/13), QA Meetings (29%, 2/7), and Educational Conferences (57%, 4/7) had no other process within their clinical program by which to review these remaining cases. CONCLUSIONS: There was wide variation regarding how clinical programs identify and review adverse events and near misses within the MMCs, QA Meetings, and Educational Conferences, and some programs had no such processes. A well-designed, coordinated process across all clinical areas that incorporates accepted approaches for event analysis may improve the quality and safety of patient care.