Potential US Health Care Savings Based on Clinician Views of Feasible Site-of-Care Shifts.

Importance: Shifting care to alternative sites when clinically appropriate may be associated with reduced US health care spending, improved access, and, in some cases, improved care outcomes. Objective: To fill 2 main gaps in the current literature on site-of-care shifts: (1) understanding the clinician perspective on appropriateness of alternative care sites, given the central role they play in referrals and patient trust and (2) considering all potential sites where care could shift and calculating net savings potential. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this survey study, physicians (MDs and DOs), nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurse anesthetists, radiology and imaging technicians, and psychologists were surveyed from September 17 to November 22, 2021, about potential shifts of care from the hospital setting to alternative sites. Participants were selected by the survey firm Intellisurvey to provide broad representation across all specialties of interest. A minimum of 34 clinicians responded to each question. Data were analyzed from April 2022 through October 2023. Exposure: More than 5000 individual diagnostic and procedural codes were reviewed and sorted into 312 distinct care activities by an expert panel of physicians. Survey respondents were then provided with the 2019 claims-based distribution across sites of care for each care activity and were asked, "based on your clinical judgment, what portion of [care activity] could safely occur in each of the following sites of care, without compromising clinical outcomes?" Main Outcomes and Measures: Based on clinician-reported distributions, the total potential shift of volume from hospital-based settings to alternative sites and the associated net savings were estimated. Results: Survey respondents included 1069 practicing clinicians (386 female [36.1%]; mean [SD] years since residency of physicians, 21.0 [9.7] years; mean [SD] age of nonphysicians, 45.3 [9.4] years) across specialties, all of whom practiced more than 20 clinical hours per week. There were 794 physicians (74.3%), and the remaining 275 respondents were midlevel professionals, such as physician assistants. Among 312 care activities surveyed, respondents indicated that 10.3 percentage points (95% CI, 10.0-10.5 percentage points) of commercial and 10.9 percentage points (95% CI, 10.7-11.1 percentage points) of Medicare volume currently taking place in hospital-based settings could shift to alternative sites with today's technology without compromising clinical outcomes. Across the entire US health care system, these shifts could be associated with a reduction in overall health care consumption spending ($3 562 339 000 000 000) by approximately $113.8 billion ($113 767 446 087 174 [3.2%]) to $147.7 billion ($147 661 672 284 263 [4.1%]) annually. Conclusions and relevance: In this study, a substantial net savings opportunity was estimated. However, realizing this potential will require ongoing alignment among organizations, clinicians, and policymakers to overcome barriers to these shifts.

The Pathology of US Health Care-The Example of Weight Loss Medications.

This JAMA Forum discusses the cost of newly approved weight loss medications in the US compared with other countries and provides arguments for why these medications should be more available for individuals in the US and covered by more insurers.

Financial Games in Health Care-Doing Well Without Doing Good.

This JAMA Forum discusses dimensions of financial manipulation in health care and highlights policies that might address it.

The Impact Of Telemedicine On Medicare Utilization, Spending, And Quality, 2019-22.

Telemedicine use remains substantially higher than it was before the COVID-19 pandemic, although it has fallen from pandemic highs. To inform the ongoing debate about whether to continue payment for telemedicine visits, we estimated the association of greater telemedicine use across health systems with utilization, spending, and quality. In 2020, Medicare patients receiving care at health systems in the highest quartile of telemedicine use had 2.5 telemedicine visits per person (26.8 percent of visits) compared with 0.7 telemedicine visits per person (9.5 percent of visits) in the lowest quartile of telemedicine use. In 2021-22, relative to those in the lowest quartile, Medicare patients of health systems in the highest quartile had an increase of 0.21 total outpatient visits (telemedicine and in-person) per patient per year (2.2 percent relative increase), a decrease of 14.4 annual non-COVID-19 emergency department visits per 1,000 patients per year (2.7 percent relative decrease), a $248 increase in per patient per year spending (1.6 percent relative increase), and increased adherence for metformin and statins. There were no clear differential changes in hospitalizations or receipt of preventive care.

Trends in Integration Between Physician Organizations and Pharmacies for Self-Administered Drugs.

Importance: Increasing integration across medical services may have important implications for health care quality and spending. One major but poorly understood dimension of integration is between physician organizations and pharmacies for self-administered drugs or in-house pharmacies. Objective: To describe trends in the use of in-house pharmacies, associated physician organization characteristics, and associated drug prices. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study was conducted from calendar years 2011 to 2019. Participants included 20% of beneficiaries enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare Parts A, B, and D. Data analysis was performed from September 15, 2020, to December 20, 2023. Exposures: Prescriptions filled by in-house pharmacies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The share of Medicare Part D spending filled by in-house pharmacies by drug class, costliness, and specialty was evaluated. Growth in the number of physician organizations and physicians in organizations with in-house pharmacies was measured in 5 specialties: medical oncology, urology, infectious disease, gastroenterology, and rheumatology. Characteristics of physician organizations with in-house pharmacies and drug prices at in-house vs other pharmacies are described. Results: Among 8 020 652 patients (median age, 72 [IQR, 66-81] years; 4 570 114 [57.0%] women), there was substantial growth in the share of Medicare Part D spending on high-cost drugs filled at in-house pharmacies from 2011 to 2019, including oral anticancer treatments (from 10% to 34%), antivirals (from 12% to 20%), and immunosuppressants (from 2% to 9%). By 2019, 63% of medical oncologists, 20% of urologists, 29% of infectious disease specialists, 21% of gastroenterologists, and 22% of rheumatologists were in organizations with specialty-relevant in-house pharmacies. Larger organizations had a greater likelihood of having an in-house pharmacy (0.75 percentage point increase [95% CI, 0.56-0.94] per each additional physician), as did organizations owning hospitals enrolled in the 340B Drug Discount Program (10.91 percentage point increased likelihood [95% CI, 6.33-15.48]). Point-of-sale prices for high-cost drugs were 1.76% [95% CI, 1.66%-1.87%] lower at in-house vs other pharmacies. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of physician organization-operated pharmacies, in-house pharmacies were increasingly used from 2011 to 2019, especially for high-cost drugs, potentially associated with organizations' financial incentives. In-house pharmacies offered high-cost drugs at lower prices, in contrast to findings of integration in other contexts, but their growth highlights a need to understand implications for patient care.

The New Role of Private Investment in Health Care Delivery.

This JAMA Forum discusses the good and bad of innovation in health care delivery, tax policy, an escrow account for failure, and state monitoring.

Health System Change in the Wake of COVID-19.

This JAMA Forum discusses resiliency, telehealth, the health care labor force, and public health in the context of the health system changes occurring since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

What Artificial Intelligence Means for Health Care.

This JAMA Forum discusses 5 observations about the possible effects of artificial intelligence on medicine.

Organization of Cancer Specialists in US Physician Practices and Health Systems.

PURPOSE: To describe the supply of cancer specialists, the organization of cancer care within versus outside of health systems, and the distance to multispecialty cancer centers. METHODS: Using the 2018 Health Systems and Provider Database from the National Bureau of Economic Research and 2018 Medicare data, we identified 46,341 unique physicians providing cancer care. We stratified physicians by discipline (adult/pediatric medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgical/gynecologic oncologists, other surgeons performing cancer surgeries, or palliative care physicians), system type (National Cancer Institute [NCI] Cancer Center system, non-NCI academic system, nonacademic system, or nonsystem/independent practice), practice size, and composition (single disciplinary oncology, multidisciplinary oncology, or multispecialty). We computed the density of cancer specialists by county and calculated distances to the nearest NCI Cancer Center. RESULTS: More than half of all cancer specialists (57.8%) practiced in health systems, but 55.0% of cancer-related visits occurred in independent practices. Most system-based physicians were in large practices with more than 100 physicians, while those in independent practices were in smaller practices. Practices in NCI Cancer Center systems (95.2%), non-NCI academic systems (95.0%), and nonacademic systems (94.3%) were primarily multispecialty, while fewer independent practices (44.8%) were. Cancer specialist density was sparse in many rural areas, where the median travel distance to an NCI Cancer Center was 98.7 miles. Distances to NCI Cancer Centers were shorter for individuals living in high-income areas than in low-income areas, even for individuals in suburban and urban areas. CONCLUSION: Although many cancer specialists practiced in multispecialty health systems, many also worked in smaller-sized independent practices where most patients were treated. Access to cancer specialists and cancer centers was limited in many areas, particularly in rural and low-income areas.

Health Care in a Time of Deficit Concern.

This JAMA Forum discusses some guidelines for discussing deficit reduction and suggests 3 principles for keeping the rates of health insurance coverage high, using averages in an unaverage world, and distinguishing between cost shifting and cost cutting.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Opioid Access and Urine Drug Screening Among Older Patients With Poor-Prognosis Cancer Near the End of Life.

PURPOSE: To characterize racial and ethnic disparities and trends in opioid access and urine drug screening (UDS) among patients dying of cancer, and to explore potential mechanisms. METHODS: Among 318,549 non-Hispanic White (White), Black, and Hispanic Medicare decedents older than 65 years with poor-prognosis cancers, we examined 2007-2019 trends in opioid prescription fills and potency (morphine milligram equivalents [MMEs] per day [MMEDs]) near the end of life (EOL), defined as 30 days before death or hospice enrollment. We estimated the effects of race and ethnicity on opioid access, controlling for demographic and clinical factors. Models were further adjusted for socioeconomic factors including dual-eligibility status, community-level deprivation, and rurality. We similarly explored disparities in UDS. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2019, White, Black, and Hispanic decedents experienced steady declines in EOL opioid access and rapid expansion of UDS. Compared with White patients, Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to receive any opioid (Black, -4.3 percentage points, 95% CI, -4.8 to -3.6; Hispanic, -3.6 percentage points, 95% CI, -4.4 to -2.9) and long-acting opioids (Black, -3.1 percentage points, 95% CI, -3.6 to -2.8; Hispanic, -2.2 percentage points, 95% CI, -2.7 to -1.7). They also received lower daily doses (Black, -10.5 MMED, 95% CI, -12.8 to -8.2; Hispanic, -9.1 MMED, 95% CI, -12.1 to -6.1) and lower total doses (Black, -210 MMEs, 95% CI, -293 to -207; Hispanic, -179 MMEs, 95% CI, -217 to -142); Black patients were also more likely to undergo UDS (0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.3 to 0.8). Disparities in EOL opioid access and UDS disproportionately affected Black men. Adjustment for socioeconomic factors did not attenuate the EOL opioid access disparities. CONCLUSION: There are substantial and persistent racial and ethnic inequities in opioid access among older patients dying of cancer, which are not mediated by socioeconomic variables.

Organization and Performance of US Health Systems.

Importance: Health systems play a central role in the delivery of health care, but relatively little is known about these organizations and their performance. Objective: To (1) identify and describe health systems in the United States; (2) assess differences between physicians and hospitals in and outside of health systems; and (3) compare quality and cost of care delivered by physicians and hospitals in and outside of health systems. Evidence Review: Health systems were defined as groups of commonly owned or managed entities that included at least 1 general acute care hospital, 10 primary care physicians, and 50 total physicians located within a single hospital referral region. They were identified using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrative data, Internal Revenue Service filings, Medicare and commercial claims, and other data. Health systems were categorized as academic, public, large for-profit, large nonprofit, or other private systems. Quality of preventive care, chronic disease management, patient experience, low-value care, mortality, hospital readmissions, and spending were assessed for Medicare beneficiaries attributed to system and nonsystem physicians. Prices for physician and hospital services and total spending were assessed in 2018 commercial claims data. Outcomes were adjusted for patient characteristics and geographic area. Findings: A total of 580 health systems were identified and varied greatly in size. Systems accounted for 40% of physicians and 84% of general acute care hospital beds and delivered primary care to 41% of traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Academic and large nonprofit systems accounted for a majority of system physicians (80%) and system hospital beds (64%). System hospitals were larger than nonsystem hospitals (67% vs 23% with >100 beds), as were system physician practices (74% vs 12% with >100 physicians). Performance on measures of preventive care, clinical quality, and patient experience was modestly higher for health system physicians and hospitals than for nonsystem physicians and hospitals. Prices paid to health system physicians and hospitals were significantly higher than prices paid to nonsystem physicians and hospitals (12%-26% higher for physician services, 31% for hospital services). Adjusting for practice size attenuated health systems differences on quality measures, but price differences for small and medium practices remained large. Conclusions and Relevance: In 2018, health system physicians and hospitals delivered a large portion of medical services. Performance on clinical quality and patient experience measures was marginally better in systems but spending and prices were substantially higher. This was especially true for small practices. Small quality differentials combined with large price differentials suggests that health systems have not, on average, realized their potential for better care at equal or lower cost.

Active steps to reduce administrative spending associated with financial transactions in US health care.

US health care administrative spending is approximately $1 trillion annually. A major operational area is the financial transactions ecosystem, which has approximately $200 billion in spending annually. Efficient financial transactions ecosystems from other industries and countries exhibit 2 features: immediate payment assurance and high use of automation throughout the process. The current system has an average transaction cost of $12 to $19 per claim across private payers and providers for more than 9 billion claims per year; each claim on average takes 4 to 6 weeks to process and pay. For simple claims, the transaction cost is $7 to $10 across private payers and providers; for complex claims, $35 to $40. Prior authorization on approximately 5000 codes has an average cost of $40 to $50 per submission for private payers and $20 to $30 for providers. Interventions aligned with a more efficient financial transactions ecosystem could reduce spending by $40 billion to $60 billion; approximately half is at the organizational level (scaling interventions being implemented by leading private payers and providers) and half at the industry level (adopting a centralized automated claims clearinghouse, standardizing medical policies for a subset of prior authorizations, and standardizing physician licensure for a national provider directory).

Health Workforce Issues More Conspicuous After Onset of COVID-19.

This JAMA Forum discusses the problems facing the health care workforce in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, including a shortage of workers and the challenge of increasing wages, and highlights issues that policy makers and leaders may consider to address these problems.

A Satellite Account for Health in the United States.

This paper develops a satellite account for the US health sector and measures productivity growth in health care for the elderly population between 1999 and 2012. We measure the change in medical spending and health outcomes for a comprehensive set of 80 conditions. Medical care has positive productivity growth over the time period, with aggregate productivity growth of 1.5% per year. However, there is significant heterogeneity in productivity growth. Care for cardiovascular disease has had very high productivity growth. In contrast, care for people with musculoskeletal conditions has been costly but has not led to improved outcomes.