Cost-effectiveness of the utilization of "good practice" or the lack thereof according to a bronchiolitis evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of the utilization of "good practice" according to a bronchiolitis clinical practice guideline (CPG) in a population of infants hospitalized for acute bronchiolitis. METHOD: A decision-analysis model was developed in order to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the utilization of "good practice" compared with the lack of use of "good practice" according to a bronchiolitis evidence-based CPG. The effectiveness parameters and costs of the model were obtained from electronic medical records. The main outcome was the readmission of the patients within 10 days of post discharge. RESULTS: Compared with lack of "good practice," the utilization of "good practice" in the diagnosis and management of patients with bronchiolitis was associated with both fewer patients readmitted within 10 days of post discharge (0.88 vs 0.99 on average per patient) and lower costs (US$1529.3 versus $1709.1 average cost per patient), thus leading to dominance. Results were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with lack of "good practice," the utilization of "good practice" in the diagnosis and management of acute bronchiolitis according to a bronchiolitis CPG is a dominant strategy because it involves both fewer patients readmitted within 10 days of post discharge and lower costs.

The different clinical guideline standards in Brazil: High cost treatment diseases versus poverty-related diseases.

Each year, evidence-based clinical guidelines gain more space in the health professionals' practice and in services organization. Due to the scarcity of scientific publications focused on diseases of poverty, the development of well-founded clinical guidelines becomes more and more important. In view of that, this paper aims to evaluate the quality of Brazilian guidelines for those diseases. The AGREE II method was used to evaluate 16 guidelines for poverty-related diseases (PRD) and 16 guidelines for global diseases whose treatment require high-cost technologies (HCD), with the ultimate aim of comparing the results. It was found that, in general, the guideline development quality standard is higher for the HCD guidelines than for the PRD guidelines, with emphasis on the "rigour of development" (48% and 7%) and "editorial independence" (43% and 1%) domains, respectively, which had the greatest discrepancies. The HCD guidelines showed results close to or above international averages, whereas the PRD guidelines showed lower results in the 6 domains evaluated. It can be concluded that clinical protocol development priorities need some redirecting in order to qualify the guidelines that define the healthcare organization and the care of vulnerable populations.

First, do no harm by adopting evidence-based policy initiatives: the overselling of ICD-10 by congress with high expectations.

While it appears to be beneficial to apply a detailed disease classification system, the costs, cash flow disruptions, and increased investments with physician time incorporated into learning these processes, patient care might unfortunately suffer. This is essentially an unfunded mandate with much of the burden of transitioning to ICD-10 falling on health care providers,especially small independent practices. This will impact interventional pain management practices substantially.Further, as we have shown in previous manuscripts,the so-called advantages of multiple codes with specificity and granularity does not translate into reality where some specificity is actually lost for various codes. As Grimsley and O'Shea (1) have described in clinical practices, doctors do not treat codes, but they treat patients according to the individual clinical condition.A doctor will be losing valuable time and also will not be able to obtain meaningful information due to burdensome regulations of meaningful use, PQRS,value-based reimbursement, electronic prescribing,and now a major impact with change to ICD-10. Thus,very little benefit will be seen by practitioners, which cannot be said for the health care information industry.With overwhelming regulatory atmosphere created by numerous federal regulations and those including under the Affordable Care Act (15), there is no evidence that ICD-10 is needed, there is no evidence that it will be effective, and, finally, there is preponderance of evidence of adverse consequences. Thus, Congress should be cautious in imposing further regulations on already strained independent practices with ongoing regulations and imposing yet another unfunded mandate on the medical profession.

Population-level cost-effectiveness of implementing evidence-based practices into routine care.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to apply a new methodology (population-level cost-effectiveness analysis) to determine the value of implementing an evidence-based practice in routine care. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Data are from sequentially conducted studies: a randomized controlled trial and an implementation trial of collaborative care for depression. Both trials were conducted in the same practice setting and population (primary care patients prescribed antidepressants). STUDY DESIGN: The study combined results from a randomized controlled trial and a pre-post-quasi-experimental implementation trial. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The randomized controlled trial collected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from survey and medication possession ratios (MPRs) from administrative data. The implementation trial collected MPRs and intervention costs from administrative data and implementation costs from survey. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In the randomized controlled trial, MPRs were significantly correlated with QALYs (p = .03). In the implementation trial, patients at implementation sites had significantly higher MPRs (p = .01) than patients at control sites, and by extrapolation higher QALYs (0.00188). Total costs (implementation, intervention) were nonsignificantly higher ($63.76) at implementation sites. The incremental population-level cost-effectiveness ratio was $33,905.92/QALY (bootstrap interquartile range -$45,343.10/QALY to $99,260.90/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: The methodology was feasible to operationalize and gave reasonable estimates of implementation value.