Associations among hospital capacity, utilization, and mortality of US Medicare beneficiaries, controlling for sociodemographic factors.

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether geographic variations in Medicare hospital utilization rates are due to differences in local hospital capacity, after controlling for socioeconomic status and disease burden, and to determine whether greater hospital capacity is associated with lower Medicare mortality rates. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: The study population: a 20 percent sample of 1989 Medicare enrollees. Measures of resources were based on a national small area analysis of 313 Hospital Referral Regions (HRR). Demographic and socioeconomic data were obtained from the 1990 U.S. Census. Measures of local disease burden were developed using Medicare claims files. STUDY DESIGN: The study was a cross-sectional analysis of the relationship between per capita measures of hospital resources in each region and hospital utilization and mortality rates among Medicare enrollees. Regression techniques were used to control for differences in sociodemographic characteristics and disease burden across areas. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Data on the study population were obtained from Medicare enrollment (Denominator File) and hospital claims files (MedPAR) and U.S. Census files. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The per capita supply of hospital beds varied by more than twofold across U.S. regions. Residents of areas with more beds were up to 30 percent more likely to be hospitalized, controlling for ecologic measures of socioeconomic characteristics and disease burden. A greater proportion of the population was hospitalized at least once during the year in areas with more beds; death was also more likely to take place in an inpatient setting. All effects were consistent across racial and income groups. Residence in areas with greater levels of hospital resources was not associated with a decreased risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: Residence in areas of greater hospital capacity is associated with substantially increased use of the hospital, even after controlling for socioeconomic characteristics and illness burden. This increased use provides no detectable mortality benefit.

Geographic variation in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project.

CONTEXT: Quality indicators for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction include pharmacologic therapy, reperfusion, and smoking cessation advice, but these therapies may not be administered to all patients who could benefit from them. OBJECTIVE: To assess geographic variation in adherence to quality indicators for treatment of acute myocardial infarction. DESIGN: Inception cohort using data from the Health Care Financing Administration Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. SETTING: Acute care hospitals in the United States. PATIENTS: A total of 186800 Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for treatment of confirmed acute myocardial infarction from February 1994 through July 1995. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to quality indicators for pharmacologic therapy, reperfusion, and smoking cessation advice for patients judged to be ideal candidates for these therapies. The mean rates of adherence to these quality indicators for the entire United States were determined, and the 20th and 80th percentiles of the age- and sex-adjusted rates for each of 306 hospital referral regions were contrasted (mean rate [20th-80th percentiles]). RESULTS: Aspirin was used frequently both during hospitalization (86.2% [82.6%-90.1%]) and at discharge (77.8% [72.5% -83.9%]). Calcium channel blockers were withheld from most patients with impaired left ventricular function (81.9% [73.6%-90.8%]). Lower rates were seen in the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors at discharge (59.3% [49.2%-69.2%]); reperfusion, using thrombolytic therapy or coronary angioplasty (67.2% [59.8%-75.1%]); prescription of beta-blockers at discharge (49.5% [35.8%-61.5%]); and for smoking cessation advice (41.9% [32.8%-51.3%]). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial geographic variation exists in the treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction, and these gaps between knowledge and practice have important consequences. Therapies with proven benefit for AMI are underused despite strong evidence that their use will result in better patient outcomes.

Variation profiles of common surgical procedures.

BACKGROUND: Rates of many surgical procedures vary widely across both large and small geographic regions. Although variation in health care use has long been described, few studies have systematically compared variation profiles across surgical procedures. The goal of this study was to examine current patterns of regional variation in the rates of common surgical procedures. METHODS: The study population consisted of patients enrolled in Medicare in 1995, excluding those enrolled in risk-bearing health maintenance organizations. Patients ranged in age from 65 to 99 years. Using data from hospital discharge abstracts, we calculated rates of 11 common inpatient procedures for each of 306 US hospital referral regions (HRRs). To assess the relative variability of each procedure, we determined the number of low and high outlier regions (HRRs with rates < 50% or > 150% the national average) and the ratio of highest to lowest HRR rates. RESULTS: Procedures differed markedly in their variability. Rates of hip fracture repair, resection for colorectal cancer, and cholecystectomy varied only 1.9- to 2.9-fold across HRRs (0, 0, and 4 outlier regions, respectively). Coronary artery bypass grafting, transurethral prostatectomy, mastectomy, and total hip replacement had intermediate variation profiles, varying 3.5- to 4.7-fold across regions (8, 10, 16, and 17 outlier regions, respectively). Lower extremity revascularization, carotid endarterectomy, back surgery, and radical prostatectomy had the highest variation profiles, varying 6.5- to 10.1-fold across HRRs (25, 32, 39, and 56 outlier regions, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of many surgical procedures varies widely across geographic areas, rates of "discretionary" procedures are most variable. To avoid potential overuse or underuse, efforts to increase consensus in clinical decision making should focus on these high variation procedures.

Influence of patient preferences and local health system characteristics on the place of death. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Risks and Outcomes of Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the degree to which variation in place of death is explained by differences in the characteristics of patients, including preferences for dying at home, and by differences in the characteristics of local health systems. DESIGN: We drew on a clinically rich database to carry out a prospective study using data from the observational phase of the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT component). We used administrative databases for the Medicare program to carry out a national cross-sectional analysis of Medicare enrollees place of death (Medicare component). SETTING: Five teaching hospitals (SUPPORT); All U.S. Hospital Referral Regions (Medicare). STUDY POPULATIONS: Patients dying after the enrollment hospitalization in the observational phase of SUPPORT for whom place of death and preferences were known. Medicare beneficiaries who died in 1992 or 1993. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Place of death (hospital vs non-hospital). RESULTS: In SUPPORT, most patients expressed a preference for dying at home, yet most died in the hospital. The percent of SUPPORT patients dying in-hospital varied by greater than 2-fold across the five SUPPORT sites (29 to 66%). For Medicare beneficiaries, the percent dying in-hospital varied from 23 to 54% across U.S. Hospital Referral Regions (HRRs). In SUPPORT, variations in place of death across site were not explained by sociodemographic or clinical characteristics or patient preferences. Patient level (SUPPORT) and national cross-sectional (Medicare) multivariate models gave consistent results. The risk of in-hospital death was increased for residents of regions with greater hospital bed availability and use; the risk of in-hospital death was decreased in regions with greater nursing home and hospice availability and use. Measures of hospital bed availability and use were the most powerful predictors of place of death across HRRs. CONCLUSIONS: Whether people die in the hospital or not is powerfully influenced by characteristics of the local health system but not by patient preferences or other patient characteristics. These findings may explain the failure of the SUPPORT intervention to alter care patterns for seriously ill and dying patients. Reforming the care of dying patients may require modification of local resource availability and provider routines.

Are randomized controlled trials controlled? Patient preferences and unblind trials.

The most reliable information about treatment effects comes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, the possibility of subtle interactions--for example, between treatment preferences and treatment effects--is generally subordinated in the quest for evidence about main treatment effects. If patient preferences can influence the effectiveness of treatments through poorly understood (psychological) pathways, then RCTs, particularly when unblinded, may wrongly attribute effects solely to a treatment's physiological/pharmacological properties. To interpret the RCT evidence base it is important to know whether any preference effects exist and, if so, by how much they affect outcome. Reliable measurement of these effects is difficult and will require new approaches to the conduct of trials. In view of the fanciful image with which such effects are portrayed and the uncertainties about their true nature and biological mechanisms, existing evidence is unlikely to provide sufficient justification for investment in trials. This is a Catch 22. Until an escape is found we might never know, even approximately, how much of modern medicine is attributable to psychological processes.

Benchmarking the US physician workforce. An alternative to needs-based or demand-based planning.

OBJECTIVE: To propose population-based benchmarking as an alternative to needs- or demand-based planning for estimating a reasonably sized, clinically active physician workforce for the United States and its regional health care markets. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of 1993 American Medical Association and American Osteopathic Association physician masterfiles. POPULATION: The resident population of the 306 hospital referral regions in the United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Per capita number of clinically active physicians by specialty adjusted for age and sex population differences and out-of-region health care utilization. The measured physician workforce was compared with 4 benchmarks: the staffing within a large (2.4 million members) health maintenance organization (HMO), a hospital referral region dominated by managed care (Minneapolis, Minn), a hospital referral region dominated by fee-for-service (Wichita, Kan), and the proposed "balanced" physician supply (50% generalists). RESULTS: The proportion of the US population residing in hospital referral regions with a higher per capita generalist workforce than the benchmark was 96% for the HMO benchmark, 60% for Wichita, and 27% for Minneapolis. The specialist workforce exceeded all 3 benchmarks for 74% of the population. The per capita workforce of generalists was not related to the proportion of generalists among regions (Pearson correlation coefficient=0.06; P=.26). CONCLUSIONS: Population-based benchmarking offers practical advantages to needs- or demand-based planning for estimating a reasonably sized per capita workforce of clinically active physicians. The physician workforce within the benchmarks of an HMO and health care markets indicates the varying opportunities for regional physician employment and services. The ratio of generalists to specialists does not measure the adequacy of the supply of the generalist workforce either nationally or for specific regions. Research measuring the relationship between physician workforces of different sizes and population outcomes will guide the selection of future regional benchmarks.

The importance of patient preference in the decision to screen for prostate cancer. Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team.

OBJECTIVE: Routine screening for prostate cancer is controversial because of frequent false-positive results, the potential for slow, non-life-threatening growth of untreated cancer, the uncertainty regarding whether treatment can extend life, and the potential for treatment complications. This study examines how information about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and the uncertain benefits of treating prostate cancer affects patients' desire for PSA testing. DESIGN: An educational videotape designed to inform men about the uncertainty surrounding PSA screening and the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer was presented to two groups of male patients 50 years of age or older. SETTING: Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: For study 1, men seeking a free prostate cancer screening were preassigned to view the educational videotape (N = 184) or another videotape (N = 185). For study 2, men scheduled to visit a general internal medicine clinic viewed either the educational videotape (N = 103) or no videotape (N = 93). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The men's information and preferences about prostate cancer screening and treatment and actual choice of PSA test at the next test opportunity were measured. Men who viewed the educational videotape were: better informed about PSA tests, prostate cancer, and its treatment; preferred no active treatment if cancer were found; and preferred not to be screened (all significant at p < or = .002 in both studies). Men viewing the educational video were less likely to have a PSA test (p = .041, study 2). This tendency was not significant at the free-PSA clinic (p = .079). CONCLUSIONS: Preference regarding cancer screening and treatment is greatly affected by information about medical uncertainties. Because informed patient choices vary. PSA screening decisions should incorporate individual preferences.

Follow-up prostate cancer treatments after radical prostatectomy: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Radical prostatectomy is one of the most commonly used curative procedures for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. The probability that a patient will undergo additional cancer therapy after this procedure is largely unknown. PURPOSE: The objective was to determine the likelihood of additional cancer therapy after radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Data for this study were derived from a linked dataset that combined information from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program and Medicare hospital and physician claims. Records were included in this study if patient histories met the following criteria: (a) residing in Connecticut, Washington (Seattle-Puget Sound), or Georgia (Metropolitan Atlanta); (b) having been diagnosed with prostate cancer during the period from January 1, 1985, through December 31, 1991; (c) undergoing radical prostatectomy by December 31, 1992; and (d) having no evidence of other types of cancer. Patients were considered to have had additional cancer therapy if they had had radiation therapy, orchiectomy, and/or androgen-deprivation therapy by injection after radical prostatectomy. The interval between the initial treatment and any follow-up treatment was calculated from the date of radical prostatectomy to the 1st day of the follow-up cancer therapy. All presented probabilities are based on Kaplan-Meier estimates. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 3494 Medicare patients, 3173 of whom underwent radical prostatectomy within 3 months of prostate cancer diagnosis. Although radical prostatectomy is often reserved for localized cancer, less than 60% (1934) of patients whose records were included in this study had organ-confined disease, according to final surgical pathology. Overall, the 5-year cumulative incidence of having any additional cancer treatment after radical prostatectomy reached 34.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 31.5%-38.5%). For patients with pathologically organ-confined cancer, the 5-year cumulative incidence was 24.3% (95% CI = 20.0%-29.3%) overall and ranged from 15.6% (95% CI = 9.7%-24.5%) for well-differentiated cancer (Gleason scores 2-4) to 41.5% (95% CI = 27.9%-58.4%) for poorly differentiated cancer (Gleason scores 8-10). The corresponding figures for pathologically regional cancer were 22.7% (95% CI = 12.0%-40.5%) and 68.1% (95% CI = 58.7%-77.1%). CONCLUSION: Further treatment of prostate cancer was done in about one third of patients who had had a radical prostatectomy with curative intent and in about one quarter of patients who were found to have organ-confined disease. IMPLICATIONS: Given the common requirement for follow-up cancer treatments after radical prostatectomy and the uncertainties about the effectiveness of the various follow-up treatment strategies, further investigation of these treatments is warranted.

Patient reactions to a program designed to facilitate patient participation in treatment decisions for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Patients often want considerable information about their conditions, and enhanced patient participation might reduce unwanted practice variation and improve medical decisions. The authors assessed how men with benign prostatic hyperplasia reacted to an education program designed to facilitate participation in decisionmaking, and how strongly ratings of their symptom state and the prospect of complications predicted their treatment choice. A prospective cohort study was conducted in three hospital-based urology practices: two in prepaid group practices, and one Veterans Administration clinic. Four hundred twenty-one men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia without prior prostatectomy or benign prostatic hyperplasia complications were enrolled, and 373 provided usable ratings. Subjects participated in an interactive videodisc-based shared decisionmaking program about benign prostatic hyperplasia and its treatment options, prostatectomy, and "watchful waiting." They rated the length, clarity, balance, and value of the program and were followed for 3 months to determine if they underwent surgery. Patients rated the program as generally clear, informative, and balanced. Across all three sites, 77% of patients were very positive and 16% were generally positive about the program's usefulness in making a treatment decision. Logistic models predicting choice of surgical treatment documented the independent importance of negative ratings of the current symptom state (odds ratio 7.0, 95% confidence interval 2.9-16.6), as well as the prospect of postoperative sexual dysfunction (odds ratio 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.48) in decisionmaking. Patients rated the Shared Decisionmaking Program very positively and made decisions consistent with their assessed preferences. These results suggest that patients can be helped to participate in treatment decisions, and support a randomized trial of the Shared Decisionmaking Program.