Optimizing Value of Colon Surgery in Michigan.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of bundling perioperative care measures in colon surgery. BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) in colectomy are associated with increased morbidity and cost. Perioperative care bundling has been designed to improve processes of care surrounding colectomy operations. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study performed by the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) of patients who underwent elective colon surgery from 2012 to 2015. We identified 3,387 patients in the MSQC database who underwent colon surgery. Of these cases, 332 had associated episodic cost data. RESULTS: High compliance (3-6 bundle elements) and low compliance (0-2 bundle elements) had a risk-adjusted SSI rate of 8.2% (95% confidence interval, CI, 7.2-9.2%) and 16.0% (95% CI, 12.9-19.1%), respectively (P < 0.01). When compared with low compliance, the high compliance group had an absolute risk reduction of 3.6% (P < 0.01), 2.9% (P < 0.01) and 1.3% (P < 0.01) for SSI rates in superficial space, deep space, and organ space, respectively. Low compliance had an average episodic cost of $20,046 (95% CI, $17,281-$22,812) whereas high compliance had an episodic cost of $15,272 (95% CI, $14,354-$16,192). This showed a $4,774 (95% CI, $1,859-$7,688) and 23.8% cost reduction (P < 0.01). Facility base payments decreased 14.8% ($13,444; $11,458), professional payments decreased 43.9% ($5,180; $2,906), and other payments decreased 36.2% ($1,422; $908). CONCLUSIONS: A colectomy perioperative care bundle in Michigan is associated with improved value of surgical care. We will expand efforts to implement perioperative care bundles in Michigan to improve outcomes and reduce costs.

The Effect of Financial Incentives on Patient Decisions to Undergo Low-value Head Computed Tomography Scans.

BACKGROUND: Excessive diagnostic testing and defensive medicine contribute to billions of dollars in avoidable costs in the United States annually. Our objective was to determine the influence of financial incentives, accompanied with information regarding test risk and benefit, on patient preference for diagnostic testing. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients at the University of Michigan emergency department (ED). Each participant was presented with a hypothetical scenario involving an ED visit following minor traumatic brain injury. Participants were given information regarding potential benefit (detecting brain hemorrhage) and risk (developing cancer) of head computed tomography scan, as well as an incentive of $0 or $100 to forego testing. We used 0.1 and 1% for test benefit and risk, and values for risk, benefit, and financial incentive varied across participants. Our primary outcome was patient preference to undergo testing. We also collected demographic and numeracy information. We then used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs), which were adjusted for multiple potential confounders. Our sample size was designed to find at least 300 events (preference for testing) to allow for inclusion of up to 30 covariates in fully adjusted models. We had 85% to 90% power to detect a 10% absolute difference in testing rate across groups, assuming a 95% significance level. RESULTS: We surveyed 913 patients. Increasing test benefit from 0.1% to 1% significantly increased test acceptance (adjusted OR [AOR] = 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2 to 2.1) and increasing test risk from 0.1% to 1% significantly decreased test acceptance (AOR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.52 to 0.93). Finally, a $100 incentive to forego low-value testing significantly reduced test acceptance (AOR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.4 to 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: Providing financial incentives to forego testing significantly decreased patient preference for testing, even when accounting for test benefit and risk. This work is preliminary and hypothetical and requires confirmation in larger patient cohorts facing these actual decisions.

Patient Preferences for Diagnostic Testing in the Emergency Department: A Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic testing is common during emergency department (ED) visits. Little is understood about patient preferences for such testing. We hypothesized that a patient's willingness to undergo diagnostic testing is influenced by the potential benefit, risk, and personal cost. METHODS: We conducted a cross sectional survey among ED patients for diagnostic testing in two hypothetical scenarios: chest pain (CP) and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Each scenario defined specific risks, benefits, and costs of testing. The odds of a participant desiring diagnostic testing were calculated using a series of nested multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Participants opted for diagnostic testing 68.2% of the time, including 69.7% of CP and 66.7% of all mTBI scenarios. In the CP scenario, 81% of participants desired free testing versus 59% when it was associated with a $100 copay (difference = 22%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 16% to 28%). Similarly, in the mTBI scenario, 73% of adult participants desired free testing versus 56% when charged a $100 copayment (difference = 17%, 95% CI = 11% to 24%). Benefit and risk had mixed effects across the scenarios. In fully adjusted models, the association between cost and desire for testing persisted in the CP (odds ratio [OR] = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.47) and adult mTBI (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.67) scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: In this ED-based study, patient preferences for diagnostic testing differed significantly across levels of risk, benefit, and cost of diagnostic testing. Cost was the strongest and most consistent factor associated with decreased desire for testing.