SimCoach Evaluation: A Virtual Human Intervention to Encourage Service-Member Help-Seeking for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Depression.

This article describes RAND Corporation researchers' assessment of SimCoach, a computer program featuring a virtual human that speaks and gestures in a video game-like interface, designed to encourage service members, especially those with signs or symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or depression, to seek help to improve their psychological health. The assessment included a formative component assessing SimCoach's design, development, and implementation approaches and a summative component assessing outcomes among participants in a user experience survey and a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Results of the formative evaluation identified both strengths and opportunities for improvement. For example, although SimCoach development processes were well-aligned with best practices for software engineering, SimCoach content development and evaluation processes could have been more tightly coupled to best practices in psychological health. The summative evaluation RCT did not show any SimCoach-related benefit in intent to seek help compared with that of control users not exposed to any intervention. However, secondary outcomes indicated that SimCoach users had satisfying experiences without distress. If SimCoach development is continued, greater attention to clinical processes and outcomes is needed so that the program can have its intended impact on help-seeking for PTSD and depression.

Development of a Model for the Validation of Work Relative Value Units for the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) uses the resource-based relative value scale to pay physicians and other practitioners for professional services. The work values measure the relative levels of professional time and intensity (physical effort, skills, and stress) associated with providing services. CMS asked RAND to develop a model to validate the work values using external data sources. RAND's goal was to test the feasibility of using external data and regression analysis to create prediction models to validate work values. Data availability limited the models to surgical procedures and selected medical procedures typically performed in an operating room. Key findings from the study include the following: RAND estimates of intra-service time using external data are typically shorter than the current CMS estimates. Model assumptions about how shorter intra-service times affect procedure intensity have implications for the work estimates. RAND estimates for work on average were similar to current work values if shorter intra-service time is assumed to increase procedure intensity and were on average up to 10 percent lower than current work values if shorter intra-service time is assumed to not impact on procedure intensity. The RAND estimates could be used for two key applications: CMS could flag codes as potentially misvalued if the RAND estimates are notably different from the current CMS values. CMS could also use the RAND estimates as an independent estimate of the work values. In some cases, further review will identify a clinical rationale for why a code is valued differently than the RAND model predictions.

Implementing a Resource-Based Relative Value Scale Fee Schedule for Physician Services: An Assessment of Policy Options for the California Workers' Compensation Program.

A RAND study used 2011 medical data to examine the impact of implementing a resource-based relative value scale to pay for physician services under the California workers' compensation system. Current allowances under the Official Medical Fee Schedule are approximately 116 percent of Medicare-allowed amounts and, by law, will transition to 120 percent of Medicare over four years. Using Medicare policies to establish the fee-schedule amounts, aggregate allowances are estimated to decrease for four types of service by the end of the transition in 2017: anesthesia (-16.5 percent), surgery (-19.9 percent), radiology (-16.5 percent), and pathology (-29.0 percent). Aggregate allowances for evaluation and management visits are estimated to increase by 39.5 percent. Allowances for services classified as "medicine" in the Current Procedural Terminology codebook will increase by 17.3 percent. In the aggregate, across all services, allowances are projected to increase 11.9 percent. Because most specialties furnish different types of services, the impacts by specialty are generally less than the impacts by type of service.

The Evolving Role of Emergency Departments in the United States.

The research described in this article was performed to develop a more complete picture of how hospital emergency departments (EDs) contribute to the U.S. health care system, which is currently evolving in response to economic, clinical, and political pressures. Using a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods, it explores the evolving role that EDs and the personnel who staff them play in evaluating and managing complex and high-acuity patients, serving as the key decisionmaker for roughly half of all inpatient hospital admissions, and serving as "the safety net of the safety net" for patients who cannot get care elsewhere. The report also examines the role that EDs may soon play in either contributing to or helping to control the rising costs of health care.

Allocation of scarce resources during mass casualty events.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review sought to identify the best available evidence regarding strategies for allocating scarce resources during mass casualty events (MCEs). Specifically, the review addresses the following questions: (1) What strategies are available to policymakers to optimize the allocation of scarce resources during MCEs? (2) What strategies are available to providers to optimize the allocation of scarce resources during MCEs? (3) What are the public's key perceptions and concerns regarding the implementation of strategies to allocate scarce resources during MCEs? (4) What methods are available to engage providers in discussions regarding the development and implementation of strategies to allocate scarce resources during MCEs? DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Global Health, Web of Science®, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1990 through 2011. To identify relevant non-peer-reviewed reports, we searched the New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report. We also reviewed relevant State and Federal plans, peer-reviewed reports and papers by nongovernmental organizations, and consensus statements published by professional societies. We included both English- and foreign-language studies. REVIEW METHODS: Our review included studies that evaluated tested strategies in real-world MCEs as well as strategies tested in drills, exercises, or computer simulations, all of which included a comparison group. We reviewed separately studies that lacked a comparison group but nonetheless evaluated promising strategies. We also identified consensus recommendations developed by professional societies or government panels. We reviewed existing State plans to examine the current state of planning for scarce resource allocation during MCEs. Two investigators independently reviewed each article, abstracted data, and assessed study quality. RESULTS: We considered 5,716 reports for this comparative effectiveness review (CER); we ultimately included 170 in the review. Twenty-seven studies focus on strategies for policymakers. Among this group were studies that examined various ways to distribute biological countermeasures more efficiently during a bioterror attack or influenza pandemic. They provided modest evidence that the way these systems are organized influences the speed of distribution. The review includes 119 studies that address strategies for providers. A number of these studies provided evidence suggesting that commonly used triage systems do not perform consistently in actual MCEs. The number of high-quality studies addressing other specific strategies was insufficient to support firm conclusions about their effectiveness. Only 10 studies included strategies that consider the public's perspective. However, these studies were consistent in their findings. In particular, the public believes that resource allocation guidelines should be simple and consistent across health care facilities but should allow facilities some flexibility to make allocation decisions based on the specific demand and supply situation. The public also believes that a successful allocation system should balance the goals of ensuring the functioning of society, saving the greatest number of people, protecting the most vulnerable people, reducing deaths and hospitalizations, and treating people fairly and equitably. The remaining 14 studies provided strategies for engaging providers in discussions about allocating and managing scarce medical resources. These studies did not identify one engagement approach as clearly superior; however, they consistently noted the importance of a broad, inclusive, and systematic engagement process. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific research to identify the most effective adaptive strategies to implement during MCEs is an emerging area. While it remains unclear which of the many options available to policymakers and providers will be most effective, ongoing efforts to develop a focused, well-organized program of applied research should help to identify the optimal methods, techniques, and technologies to strengthen our nation's capacity to respond to MCEs.