Search

Background & Aims There is significant variation among endoscopists in their adenoma detection rates (ADRs). We explored associations between ADR and characteristics of endoscopists, including personality traits and financial incentives. Methods We collected electronic health record data from October 2013 through September 2015 and calculated ADRs for physicians from 4 health systems. ADRs were risk-adjusted for differences in patient populations. Physicians were surveyed to assess financial motivations, knowledge and perceptions about colonoscopy quality, and personality traits. Of 140 physicians sent the survey, 117 responded. Results The median risk-adjusted ADR for all surveyed physicians was 29.3% (interquartile range, 24.1%–35.5%). We found no significant association between ADR and financial incentives, malpractice concerns, or physicians’ perceptions of ADR as a quality metric. ADR was associated with the degree of self-reported compulsiveness relative to peers: among endoscopists who described themselves as much more compulsive, the ADR was 33.1%; among those who described themselves as somewhat more compulsive, the ADR was 32.9%; among those who described themselves as about the same as others, the ADR was 26.4%; and among those who described themselves as somewhat less compulsive, the ADR was 27.3%) (P = .0019). ADR was also associated with perceived thoroughness (much more thorough than peers, ADR = 31.5%; somewhat more, 31.9%; same/somewhat less, 27.1%; P = .0173). Physicians who reported feeling rushed, having difficulty pacing themselves, or having difficulty in accomplishing goals had higher ADRs. A secondary analysis found the same associations between personality and adenomas per colonoscopy. Conclusions We found no significant association between ADR and financial incentives, malpractice concerns, or perceptions of ADR as a quality metric. However, ADRs were higher among physicians who described themselves as more compulsive or thorough, and among those who reported feeling rushed or having difficulty accomplishing goals.

Owing to concerns about the accuracy of payments for postoperative care, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has announced that surgeries for which it has bundled payments for care during a 10- or 90-day global period will be shifted to a 0-day global period.

Numerous forecasts have predicted shortages of primary care providers, particularly in light of an expected increase in patient demand resulting from the Affordable Care Act. Yet these forecasts could be inaccurate because they generally do not allow for changes in the way primary care is delivered. We analyzed the impact of two emerging models of care--the patient-centered medical home and the nurse-managed health center--both of which use a provider mix that is richer in nurse practitioners and physician assistants than today's predominant models of care delivery. We found that projected physician shortages were substantially reduced in plausible scenarios that envisioned greater reliance on these new models, even without increases in the supply of physicians. Some less plausible scenarios even eliminated the shortage. All of these scenarios, however, may require additional changes, such as liberalized scope-of-practice laws; a larger supply of medical assistants, licensed practical nurses, and aides; and payment changes that reward providers for population health management.

Efforts to close the primary care workforce gap typically employ one of three basic strategies: train more primary care physicians; boost the supply of nurse practitioners or physician assistants, or both; or use community health workers to extend the reach of primary care physicians. In this article we briefly review each strategy and the barriers to its success. We then propose a new approach adapted from the widely accepted model of emergency medical services. Translating this model to primary care and leveraging the capabilities of modern health information technology, it should be possible to create primary care technicians who can dramatically expand the impact and reach of patient-centered medical homes by providing basic preventive, minor illness, and stable chronic disease care in rural and resource-deprived communities.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and many private health plans are encouraging patients to seek orthopedic care at hospitals designated as centers of excellence. No evaluations have been conducted to compare patient outcomes and costs at centers of excellence versus other hospitals. The objective of our study was to assess whether hospitals designated as spine surgery centers of excellence by a group of over 25 health plans provided higher quality care.Claims representing approximately 54 million commercially insured individuals were used to identify individuals aged 18-64 years with 1 of 3 types of spine surgery in 2007-2009: 1-level or 2-level cervical fusion (referred to as cervical simple fusion), 1-level or 2-level lumbar fusion (referred to as lumbar simple fusion), or lumbar discectomy and/or decompression without fusion. The primary outcomes were any complication (7 complications were captured) and 30-day readmission. The multivariate models controlled for differences in age, sex, and comorbidities between the 2 sets of hospitals.A total of 29,295 cervical simple fusions, 27,214 lumbar simple fusions, and 28,911 lumbar discectomy/decompressions were identified, of which 42%, 42%, and 47%, respectively, were performed at a hospital designated as a spine surgery center of excellence. Designated hospitals had a larger number of beds and were more likely to be an academic center. Across the 3 types of spine surgery (cervical fusions, lumbar fusions, or lumbar discectomies/decompressions), there was no difference in the composite complication rate [OR 0.90 (95% CI, 0.72-1.12); OR 0.98 (95% CI, 0.85-1.13); OR 0.95 (95% CI, 0.82-1.07), respectively] or readmission rate [OR 1.03 (95% CI, 0.87-1.21); OR 1.01 (95% CI, 0.89-1.13); OR 0.91 (95%, CI 0.79-1.04), respectively] at designated hospitals compared with other hospitals.On average, spine surgery centers of excellence had similar complication rates and readmission rates compared with other hospitals. These results highlight the importance of empirical evaluations of centers of excellence programs.

Background Given rising health care costs, there has been a renewed interest in using utilization measures to profile physicians. Despite the measures' common use, few studies have examined their reliability and whether they capture true differences among physicians. Methods A local health improvement organization in New York State used 2008–2010 claims data to create 11 utilization measures for feedback to primary care physicians (PCP). The sample consists of 2938 PCPs in 1546 practices who serve 853,187 patients. We used these data to measure reliability of these utilization measures using two methods (hierarchical model versus test–retest). For each PCP and each practice, we estimate each utilization measure’s reliability, ranging from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating that all differences in utilization are due to random noise and 1 indicating that all differences are due to real variation among physicians. Results Reliability varies significantly across the measures. For 4 utilization measures (PCP visits, specialty visits, PCP lab tests (blood and urine), and PCP radiology and other tests), reliability was high (mean>0.85) at both the physician and the practice level. For the other 7 measures (professional therapeutic visits, emergency room visits, hospital admissions, readmissions, skilled nursing facility days, skilled home care visits, and custodial home care services), there was lower reliability indicating more substantial measurement error. Conclusions The results illustrate that some utilization measures are suitable for PCP and practice profiling while caution should be used when using other utilization measures for efforts such as public reporting or pay-for-performance incentives.

The use of direct-to-consumer telehealth, in which a patient has access to a physician via telephone or videoconferencing, is growing rapidly. A key attraction of this type of telehealth for health plans and employers is the potential savings involved in replacing physician office and emergency department visits with less expensive virtual visits. However, increased convenience may tap into unmet demand for health care, and new utilization may increase overall health care spending. We used commercial claims data on over 300,000 patients from three years (2011-13) to explore patterns of utilization and spending for acute respiratory illnesses. We estimated that 12 percent of direct-to-consumer telehealth visits replaced visits to other providers, and 88 percent represented new utilization. Net annual spending on acute respiratory illness increased $45 per telehealth user. Direct-to-consumer telehealth may increase access by making care more convenient for certain patients, but it may also increase utilization and health care spending.

Retail clinics, located within larger retail stores, treat a limited number of acute conditions and offer a small set of preventive services. Although there are nearly 1,200 such clinics in the United States, a great deal about their utilization, relationships with other parts of the health care system, and quality of care remains unknown. The federal government has taken only limited action regarding retail clinics, and little evidence exists about the potential costs and benefits of integrating retail clinics into federal programs and initiatives. Through a literature review, semistructured interviews, and a panel of experts, the authors show that retail clinics have established a niche in the health care system based on their convenience and customer service. Levels of patient satisfaction and of the quality and appropriateness of care appear comparable to those of other provider types. However, we know little about the effects of retail clinic use on preventive services, care coordination, and care continuity. As clinics begin to expand into other areas of care, including chronic disease management, and as the number of patients with insurance increases and the shortage of primary care physicians continues, answering outstanding questions about retail clinics' role in the health care system will become even more important. These changes will create new opportunities for health policy to influence both how retail clinics function and the ways in which their care is integrated with that of other providers.

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.

Medicare and private plans are encouraging individuals to seek care at hospitals that are designated as centers of excellence. Few evaluations of such programs have been conducted. This study examines a large national initiative that designated hospitals as centers of excellence for knee and hip replacement.Comparison of outcomes and costs associated with knee and hip replacement at designated hospitals and other hospitals.Retrospective claims analysis of approximately 54 million enrollees.Individuals with insurance from one of the sponsors of this centers of excellence program who underwent a primary knee or hip replacement in 2007-2009.Primary outcomes were any complication within 30 days of discharge and costs within 90 days after the procedure.A total of 80,931 patients had a knee replacement and 39,532 patients had a hip replacement of which 52.2% and 56.5%, respectively, were performed at a designated hospital. Designated hospitals had a larger number of beds and were more likely to be an academic center. Patients with a knee replacement at designated hospitals did not have a statistically significantly lower overall complication rate with an odds ratio of 0.90 (P=0.08). Patients with hip replacement treated at designated hospitals had a statistically significant lower risk of complications with an odds ratio of 0.80 (P=0.002). There was no significant difference in 90-day costs for either procedure.Hospitals designated as joint replacement centers of excellence had lower rates of complications for hip replacement, but there was no statistically significant difference for knee replacement. It is important to validate the criteria used to designate centers of excellence.

There has been concern that greater use of nurse practitioners (NP) and physician assistants (PA) in face-to-face primary care may increase utilization and spending.To evaluate a natural experiment within Kaiser Permanente in Georgia in the use of NP/PA in primary care.From 2006 through early 2008 (the preperiod), each NP or PA was paired with a physician to manage a patient panel. In early 2008, NPs and PAs were removed from all face-to-face primary care. Using the 2006-2010 data, we applied a difference-in-differences analytic approach at the clinic level due to patient triage between a NP/PA and a physician. Clinics were classified into 3 different groups based on the percentage of visits by NP/PA during the preperiod: high (over 20% in-person primary care visits attended by NP/PAs), medium (5%-20%), and low (5%) NP/PA model clinics.Referrals to specialist physicians; emergency department visits and inpatient admissions; and advanced diagnostic imaging services.Compared with the low NP/PA model, the high NP/PA model and the medium NP/PA model were associated with 4.9% and 5.1% fewer specialist referrals, respectively (P0.05 for both estimates); the high NP/PA model and the medium NP/PA model also showed fewer hospitalizations and emergency department visits and fewer advanced diagnostic imaging services, but none of these was statistically significant.We find no evidence to support concerns that under a physician's supervision, NPs and PAs increase utilization and spending.

Access to specialists such as dermatologists is often limited for Medicaid enrollees. Teledermatology has been promoted as a potential solution; however, its effect on access to care at the population level has rarely been assessed.To evaluate the effect of teledermatology on the number of Medicaid enrollees who received dermatology care and to describe which patients were most likely to be referred to teledermatology.Claims data from a large California Medicaid managed care plan that began offering teledermatology as a covered service in April 2012 were analyzed. The plan enrolled 382 801 patients in California's Central Valley, including 108 480 newly enrolled patients who obtained coverage after the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Rates of dermatology visits by patients affiliated with primary care practices that referred patients to teledermatology and those that did not were compared. Data were collected from April 1, 2012, through December 31, 2014, and assessed from March 1 to October 15, 2015.The percentage of patients with at least 1 visit to a dermatologist (including in-person and teledermatology visits) and total visits with dermatologists (including in-person and teledermatology visits) per 1000 patients.Of the 382 801 patients enrolled for at least 1 day from 2012 to 2014, 8614 (2.2%) had 1 or more visits with a dermatologist. Of all patients who visited a dermatologist, 48.5% received care via teledermatology. Among the patients newly enrolled in Medicaid, 75.7% (1474 of 1947) of those who visited a dermatologist received care via teledermatology. Primary care practices that engaged in teledermatology had a 63.8% increase in the fraction of patients visiting a dermatologist (vs 20.5% in other practices; P .01). Compared with in-person dermatology, teledermatology served more patients younger vs older than 17 years (2600 of 4427 [58.7%] vs 1404 of 4187 [33.5%]), male patients (1849 of 4427 [41.8%] vs 1526 of 4187 [36.4%]), nonwhite patients (2779 of 4188 [66.4%] vs 1844 of 3478 [53.0%]), and individuals without comorbid conditions (1795 of 2464 [72.8%] vs 1978 of 3024 [65.4%]) (P .001 for all comparisons). Conditions managed across settings varied; teledermatology physicians were more likely to care for viral skin lesions and acne (3405 of 7287 visits [46.7%]), whereas in-person dermatologists were more likely to care for psoriasis and skin neoplasms (10 062 of 27 347 visits [36.8%]).The offering of teledermatology appeared to improve access to dermatology care among Medicaid enrollees and played an especially important role for the newly enrolled.

Importance There is increasing interest in using price transparency tools to decrease health care spending. Objective To measure the association between offering a health care price transparency tool and outpatient spending. Design, Setting, and Participants Two large employers represented in multiple market areas across the United States offered an online health care price transparency tool to their employees. One introduced it on April 1, 2011, and the other on January 1, 2012. The tool provided users information about what they would pay out of pocket for services from different physicians, hospitals, or other clinical sites. Using a matched difference-in-differences design, outpatient spending among employees offered the tool (n=148 655) was compared with that among employees from other companies not offered the tool (n=295 983) in the year before and after it was introduced. Exposure Availability of a price transparency tool. Main Outcomes and Measures Annual outpatient spending, outpatient out-of-pocket spending, use rates of the tool. Results Mean outpatient spending among employees offered the tool was $2021 in the year before the tool was introduced and $2233 in the year after. In comparison, among controls, mean outpatient spending changed from $1985 to $2138. After adjusting for demographic and health characteristics, being offered the tool was associated with a mean $59 (95% CI, $25-$93) increase in outpatient spending. Mean outpatient out-of-pocket spending among those offered the tool was $507 in the year before introduction of the tool and $555 in the year after. Among the comparison group, mean outpatient out-of-pocket spending changed from $490 to $520. Being offered the price transparency tool was associated with a mean $18 (95% CI, $12-$25) increase in out-of-pocket spending after adjusting for relevant factors. In the first 12 months, 10% of employees who were offered the tool used it at least once. Conclusions and Relevance Among employees at 2 large companies, offering a price transparency tool was not associated with lower health care spending. The tool was used by only a small percentage of eligible employees.

Importance Commercial virtual visits are an increasingly popular model of health care for the management of common acute illnesses. In commercial virtual visits, patients access a website to be connected synchronously—via videoconference, telephone, or webchat—to a physician with whom they have no prior relationship. To date, whether the care delivered through those websites is similar or quality varies among the sites has not been assessed. Objective To assess the variation in the quality of urgent health care among virtual visit companies. Design, Setting, and Participants This audit study used 67 trained standardized patients who presented to commercial virtual visit companies with the following 6 common acute illnesses: ankle pain, streptococcal pharyngitis, viral pharyngitis, acute rhinosinusitis, low back pain, and recurrent female urinary tract infection. The 8 commercial virtual visit websites with the highest web traffic were selected for audit, for a total of 599 visits. Data were collected from May 1, 2013, to July 30, 2014, and analyzed from July 1, 2014, to September 1, 2015. Main Outcomes and Measures Completeness of histories and physical examinations, the correct diagnosis (vs an incorrect or no diagnosis), and adherence to guidelines of key management decisions. Results Sixty-seven standardized patients completed 599 commercial virtual visits during the study period. Histories and physical examinations were complete in 417 visits (69.6%; 95% CI, 67.7%-71.6%); diagnoses were correctly named in 458 visits (76.5%; 95% CI, 72.9%-79.9%), and key management decisions were adherent to guidelines in 325 visits (54.3%; 95% CI, 50.2%-58.3%). Rates of guideline-adherent care ranged from 206 visits (34.4%) to 396 visits (66.1%) across the 8 websites. Variation across websites was significantly greater for viral pharyngitis and acute rhinosinusitis (adjusted rates, 12.8% to 82.1%) than for streptococcal pharyngitis and low back pain (adjusted rates, 74.6% to 96.5%) or ankle pain and recurrent urinary tract infection (adjusted rates, 3.4% to 40.4%). No statistically significant variation in guideline adherence by mode of communication (videoconference vs telephone vs webchat) was found. Conclusions and Relevance Significant variation in quality was found among companies providing virtual visits for management of common acute illnesses. More variation was found in performance for some conditions than for others, but no variation by mode of communication.

Background Retail clinics are a promising venue in which to promote and administer vaccinations; however, little is known about who receives vaccinations at a retail clinic. Purpose The aim of this paper was to describe the use of retail clinics in the delivery of recommended vaccinations. Methods The three largest retail clinic operators in the U.S.—MinuteClinic, TakeCare, and LittleClinic—provided de-identified clinic data for 2007–2009. Descriptive statistics were generated in 2011 on visit type, type of vaccination, patient age, and payment method. Results From 2007 to 2009, there were 8.9 million retail clinic visits across the three largest clinic operators. In 2009, vaccinations were administered at 1,952,610 visits, up from 469,330 visits in 2007. Visits in which vaccinations were administered accounted for 39.9%, 36.4%, and 42.0% of total visits in 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively. In 2009, 1.8 million influenza vaccinations (including seasonal and H1N1 vaccinations) were administered by the two largest retail clinic operators (94% of all vaccination visits). Pneumococcal vaccination was administered at 59,849 visits (3% of all vaccination visits). In 2009, vaccinations were also administered in 0.8% of acute care visits ( n =18,807); 0.8% of chronic care visits ( n =261); and 1.3% of general medical exams ( n =2497). Conclusions Results suggest that retail clinics play a growing role in vaccination delivery, and vaccinations constitute a substantial share of the business conducted by retail clinics. As such, retail clinics have the potential to play an important role in vaccination delivery in the U.S. Retail clinics potentially could deliver more vaccinations if they reviewed vaccination histories and counseled patients regarding the benefits of vaccination during acute care visits.

There is tremendous interest in different approaches to slowing the rise in US per capita health spending. One approach is to publicly report on a provider's costs--also called efficiency, resource use, or value measures--with the hope that consumers will select lower-cost providers and providers will be encouraged to decrease spending. In this paper we explain why we believe that many current cost-profiling efforts are unlikely to have this intended effect. One of the reasons is that many consumers believe that more care is better and that higher-cost providers are higher-quality providers, so giving them information that some providers are lower cost may have the perverse effect of deterring them from accessing these providers. We suggest changes that can be made to content and design of public cost reports to increase the intended consumer and provider response.

Context: In the United States, more than a third of patients are referred to a specialist each year, and specialist visits constitute more than half of outpatient visits. Despite the frequency of referrals and the importance of the specialty-referral process, the process itself has been a long-standing source of frustration among both primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists. These frustrations, along with a desire to lower costs, have led to numerous strategies to improve the specialty-referral process, such as using gatekeepers and referral guidelines. Methods: This article reviews the literature on the specialty-referral process in order to better understand what is known about current problems with the referral process and what solutions have been proposed. The article first provides a conceptual framework and then reviews prior literature on the referral decision, care coordination including information transfer, and access to specialty care. Findings: PCPs vary in their threshold for referring a patient, which results in both the underuse and the overuse of specialists. Many referrals do not include a transfer of information, either to or from the specialist; and when they do, it often contains insufficient data for medical decision making. Care across the primary-specialty interface is poorly integrated; PCPs often do not know whether a patient actually went to the specialist, or what the specialist recommended. PCPs and specialists also frequently disagree on the specialist's role during the referral episode (e.g., single consultation or continuing co-management). Conclusions: There are breakdowns and inefficiencies in all components of the specialty-referral process. Despite many promising mechanisms to improve the referral process, rigorous evaluations of these improvements are needed.

Importance There has been wide interest in using artificial intelligence (AI)–based grading of retinal images to identify diabetic retinopathy, but such a system has never been deployed and evaluated in clinical practice. Objective To describe the performance of an AI system for diabetic retinopathy deployed in a primary care practice. Design, Setting, and Participants Diagnostic study of patients with diabetes seen at a primary care practice with 4 physicians in Western Australia between December 1, 2016, and May 31, 2017. A total of 193 patients consented for the study and had retinal photographs taken of their eyes. Three hundred eighty-six images were evaluated by both the AI-based system and an ophthalmologist. Main Outcomes and Measures Sensitivity and specificity of the AI system compared with the gold standard of ophthalmologist evaluation. Results Of the 193 patients (93 [48%] female; mean [SD] age, 55 [17] years [range, 18-87 years]), the AI system judged 17 as having diabetic retinopathy of sufficient severity to require referral. The system correctly identified 2 patients with true disease and misclassified 15 as having disease (false-positives). The resulting specificity was 92% (95% CI, 87%-96%), and the positive predictive value was 12% (95% CI, 8%-18%). Many false-positives were driven by inadequate image quality (eg, dirty lens) and sheen reflections. Conclusions and Relevance The results demonstrate both the potential and the challenges of using AI systems to identify diabetic retinopathy in clinical practice. Key challenges include the low incidence rate of disease and the related high false-positive rate as well as poor image quality. Further evaluations of AI systems in primary care are needed.

In an effort to rein in rising health care costs, health plans are using physician cost profiles as the basis for tiered networks that give patients incentives to visit low-cost physicians. Because physician cost profiles are often statistically unreliable some experts have argued that physician groups should be profiled instead. Using Massachusetts data, we evaluate the two options empirically. Although we find that physician-group profiles are statistically more reliable, the group profile is not a good predictor of individual physician performance within the group. Better methods for creating provider cost profiles are needed.

Importance Safety-net health systems across the country are implementing electronic consult (eConsult) systems in which primary care practitioners (PCPs) submit all requests for specialty assistance electronically to be reviewed and discussed with specialists. Evidence suggests that eConsult systems can make significant improvements in specialty access, but the outcomes of these systems for frontline PCPs is poorly understood. Objective To understand PCP perceptions of the results of eConsult initiation on PCP workflow, specialist access, and patient care. Design, Setting, and Participants Qualitative interviews were conducted from December 1, 2016, to April 15, 2017, with 40 safety-net PCPs in Los Angeles County who use the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (DHS) eConsult system. Interviewees were recruited to include diversity in PCP type, practice setting, and employer (DHS employed vs DHS affiliated). Participants were interviewed about their perceptions of clinical workflow, access to specialists, relationships with specialists, and referral decision making. Main Outcomes and Measures Perceptions of the results of eConsult, including positive and negative themes and remaining perceived gaps in specialty care. Results Of the 40 participants, 27 (68%) were women; 24 (60%) PCPs performed 5 or more eConsults per week. Primary care practitioners’ perceptions of eConsult clustered around 4 main themes: access and timeliness of specialty care, shift of work to PCPs, relationships with specialists, and eConsult interface issues. Many PCPs praised the improved timeliness of specialist input with eConsult, as well as the added clinical and educational value of dialogue with specialists, particularly compared with the limitations of the prior referral process. However, PCPs also consistently perceived that eConsult shifted some of the work of specialty care to them. Many PCPs believed that this extra burden was worth the effort given the benefits of eConsult, such as improved timeliness of care and ability to manage specialty conditions. In contrast, others were frustrated by the increased administrative burden, broadened clinical responsibility, and restructuring of specialty care delivery. Conclusions and Relevance While associated with improved specialty care access, eConsult systems simultaneously created new challenges for PCPs, such as an increased burden of work in providing specialty care. Primary care practitioners varied in their enthusiasm for these workflow changes with diverging perceptions of the same processes. Our findings provide insights on challenges future primary care transformation efforts may face.

There has been growing interest in the patient-centered medical home as a way to provide coordinated, high-quality primary care. At the same time, the number of retail clinics has increased dramatically. Many are concerned that retail clinics undermine the medical home by fragmenting care. In this article we explore the juxtaposition of these trends, highlighting shared characteristics and sources of tension. We describe three types of relationships between retail clinics and primary care providers. We argue that for some relationships there is no conflict, and we describe areas of potential concern for others.

Purpose: As a rapidly growing new health care delivery model in the United States, retail clinics have been the subject of much debate and controversy. Located physically within a retail store, retail clinics provide simple acute and preventive services for a fixed price and without an appointment. Some hope that retail clinics can be a new safety-net provider for the poor and those without a primary care physician. To better understand the potential for retail clinics to achieve this goal, we describe the sociodemographic characteristics of the communities in which they operate. Methods: We created an inventory of all retail clinics in the United States and determined the proportion that are in a health professional shortage area (HPSA). We defined each retail clinic9s catchment area as all census blocks that were less than a 5-minute driving distance from the clinic. We compared the sociodemographic characteristics of the population within and outside of these retail clinic catchment areas. Results: Of the 982 clinics in 32 states, 88.4% were in an urban area and 12.5% were in an HPSA (20.9% of the US population lives within an HPSA). Compared with the rest of the urban population, the population living within a retail clinic catchment area has a higher median household income ($52,849 vs $46,080), is better educated (32.6% vs 24.9% with a college degree), and is as likely to be uninsured (17.7% vs 17.0%). In a multivariate model, the census block9s median household income had the strongest association with whether the census block was in a retail clinic catchment area (odds ratio, 3.63; 95% CI, 3.26–4.05; median income, ≥$54,779 vs Conclusions: We found that relatively few retail clinics are located in HPSAs and that, compared with the rest of the urban population, the population living in close proximity to a retail clinic has a higher income.

Background The extent to which racial/ethnic disparities in pneumonia care occur within or between hospitals is unclear. Objective Examine within and between-hospital racial/ethnic disparities in quality indicators and mortality for patients hospitalized for pneumonia. Research design Retrospective cohort study. Subjects A total of 1,183,753 non-Hispanic white, African American, and Hispanic adults hospitalized for pneumonia between January 2005 and June 2006. Measures Eight pneumonia care quality indicators and in-hospital mortality. Results Performance rates for the 8 quality indicators ranged from 99.4% (oxygenation assessment within 24 hours) to 60.2% (influenza vaccination). Overall hospital mortality was 4.1%. African American and Hispanic patients were less likely to receive pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations, smoking cessation counseling, and first dose of antibiotic within 4 hours than white patients at the same hospital (ORs = 0.65-0.95). Patients at hospitals with the racial composition of those attended by average African Americans and Hispanics were less likely to receive all indicators except blood culture within 24 hours than patients at hospitals with the racial composition of those attended by average whites. Hospital mortality was higher for African Americans (OR = 1.05; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.09) and lower for Hispanics (OR = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.81, 0.89) than for whites within the same hospital. Mortality for patients at hospitals with the racial composition of those attended by average African Americans (OR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.18, 1.25) or Hispanics (OR = 1.18; 95% CI = 1.14, 1.23) was higher than for patients at hospitals with the racial composition of those attended by average whites. Conclusions Racial/ethnic disparities in pneumonia treatment and mortality are larger and more consistent between hospitals than within hospitals.

In this study we compared the demographics of and reasons for visits in national samples of visits to retail clinics, primary care physicians (PCPs), and emergency departments (EDs). We found that retail clinics appear to be serving a patient population that is underserved by PCPs. Ten clinical problems such as sinusitis and immunizations encompass more than 90 percent of retail clinic visits. These same ten clinical problems make up 13 percent of adult PCP visits, 30 percent of pediatric PCP visits, and 12 percent of ED visits. Whether there will be a future shift of care from EDs or PCPs to retail clinics is unknown.

To quantify the use of adult-trained medical subspecialists by children and to determine the association between geographic access to pediatric subspecialty care and the use of adult-trained subspecialists. Children with limited access to pediatric subspecialty care may seek care from adult-trained subspecialists, but data on this practice are limited.We identified children aged16 years in 2007-2012 Pennsylvania Medicaid claims. We categorized outpatient visits to 9 selected medical subspecialties as either pediatric or adult-trained subspecialty visits. We used multinomial logistic regression to examine the adjusted association between travel times to pediatric referral centers and use of pediatric vs adult-trained medical subspecialists for children with and without complex chronic conditions (CCCs).Among 1.1 million children, 8% visited the examined medical subspecialists, with 10% of these children using adult-trained medical subspecialists. Compared with children with a ≤30-minute travel time to a pediatric referral center, children with a90-minute travel time were more likely to use adult-trained subspecialists (without CCCs: relative risk ratio [RRR], 1.94, 95% CI, 1.79-2.11; with CCCs: RRR, 2.33; 95% CI, 2.10-2.59) and less likely to use pediatric subspecialists (without CCCs: RRR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.63-0.68; with CCCs: RRR, 0.76, 95% CI, 0.73-0.79).Among medical subspecialty fields with pediatric and adult-trained subspecialists, adult-trained subspecialists provided 10% of care to children overall and 18% of care to children living90 minutes from pediatric referral centers. Future studies should examine consequences of adult-trained medical subspecialist use on pediatric health outcomes and identify strategies to increase access to pediatric subspecialists.

Objective The median time required to perform a surgical procedure is important in determining payment under Medicare's physician fee schedule. Prior studies have demonstrated that the current methodology of using physician surveys to determine surgical times results in overstated times. To measure surgical times more accurately, we developed and validated a methodology using available data from anesthesia billing data and operating room (OR) records. Data Sources We estimated surgical times using Medicare 2011 anesthesia claims and New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System 2011 OR times. Estimated times were validated using data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. We compared our time estimates to those used by Medicare in the fee schedule. Study Design We estimate surgical times via piecewise linear median regression models. Principal Findings Using 3.0 million observations of anesthesia and OR times, we estimated surgical time for 921 procedures. Correlation between these time estimates and directly measured surgical time from the validation database was 0.98. Our estimates of surgical time were shorter than the Medicare fee schedule estimates for 78 percent of procedures. Conclusions Anesthesia and OR times can be used to measure surgical time and thereby improve the payment for surgical procedures in the Medicare fee schedule.

This report makes recommendations to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on a set of nonpayment codes that can be used to collect information on the number and level of post-operative visits. The proposed nonpayment codes aim to capture the major differences in the breadth and intensity of post-operative care provided to Medicare beneficiaries.

Annual physicals do not reduce morbidity or mortality, and they waste time and money. To address their overuse, relationship-building visits could be created, preventive care could be updated in other ways, and reimbursement could be changed accordingly.

Background The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a validated and widely used measure of colonoscopy quality. There is uncertainty in the published literature as to which colonoscopy examinations should be excluded when measuring a physician's ADR. Objective To examine the impact of varying the colonoscopy exclusion criteria on physician ADR. Design We applied different exclusion criteria used in 30 previous studies to a dataset of endoscopy and pathology reports. Under each exclusion criterion, we calculated physician ADR. Setting A private practice colonoscopy center affiliated with the University of Illinois College of Medicine. Patients Data on 20,040 colonoscopy examinations performed by 11 gastroenterologists from July 2009 to May 2013 and associated pathology notes. Main Outcome Measurements ADRs across all colonoscopy examinations, each physician's ADR, and ADR ranking. Results There were 28 different exclusion criteria used when measuring the ADR. Each study used a different combination of these exclusion criteria. The proportion of all colonoscopy examinations in the dataset excluded under these combinations of exclusion criteria ranged from 0% to 92.2%. The mean ADR across all colonoscopy examinations was 39.1%. The change in mean ADR after applying the 28 exclusion criteria ranged from −5.5 to +3.0 percentage points. However, the exclusion criteria affected each physician's ADR relatively equally, and therefore physicians' rankings via the ADR were stable. Limitations ADR assessment was limited to a single private endoscopy center. Conclusion There is wide variation in the exclusion criteria used when measuring the ADR. Although these exclusion criteria can affect overall ADRs, the relative rankings of physicians by ADR were stable. A consensus definition of which exclusion criteria are applied when measuring ADR is needed.

Acute respiratory infections are the most common symptomatic reason for seeking care among patients in the US, and account for the majority of all antibiotic prescribing, yet a large fraction of antibiotic prescriptions are inappropriate.We sought to identify the underlying factors driving variation in antibiotic prescribing across clinicians and settings.Using electronic health data for adult ambulatory visits for acute respiratory infections to a retail clinic chain and primary care practices from an integrated healthcare system, we identified a random sample of clinicians for survey.We evaluated independent predictors of overall prescribing and imperfect antibiotic prescribing, controlling for clinician and site of care. We defined imperfect antibiotic prescribing as prescribing for non-antibiotic-appropriate diagnoses, failure to prescribe for an antibiotic-appropriate diagnosis, or prescribing a non-guideline-concordant antibiotic.Response rates were 34 % for retail clinics and 24 % for physicians' offices (N = 187). Clinicians in physicians' offices prescribed antibiotics less often than those in retail clinics (53 % versus 67 %; p 0.01), but had a higher imperfect antibiotic prescribing rate (65 % versus 31 %; p 0.01). Feeling rushed was associated with higher antibiotic prescribing (OR 1.34; 95 % CI 1.03, 1.75). Antibiotic prescribing was also associated with clinician disagreement that antibiotics are overused (OR 1.60, 95 % CI, 1.16, 2.20). Imperfect antibiotic prescribing was associated with receiving antibiotic prescribing feedback (OR 1.35, 95 % CI 1.04, 1.75) and disagreement that patient demand was a problem (OR 1.66, 95 % CI 1.00, 2.73). Imperfect antibiotic prescribing was less common with clinicians who perceived that they prescribed antibiotics less often than their peers (OR 0.63, 95 % CI 0.46, 0.87).Poor-quality antibiotic prescribing was associated with feeling rushed, believing less strongly that antibiotics were overused, and believing that patient demand was not an issue, factors that can be assessed and addressed in future interventions.

The Institute of Medicine has recently argued against a value index as a mechanism to address geographic variation in spending and instead promoted payment reform targeted at individual providers. It is unknown whether such provider-focused payment reform reduces geographic variation in spending.We estimated the potential impact of 3 Medicare provider-focused payment policies-pay-for-performance, bundled payment, and accountable care organizations-on geographic variation in Medicare spending across Hospital Referral Regions (HRRs). We compared geographic variation in spending, measured using the coefficient of variation (CV) across HRRs, between the baseline case and a simulation of each of the 3 policies.Policy simulation based on 2008 national Medicare data combined with other publicly available data.Compared with the baseline (CV, 0.171), neither pay-for-performance nor accountable care organizations would change geographic variation in spending (CV, 0.171), while bundled payment would modestly reduce geographic variation (CV, 0.165).In our models, the bundled payment for inpatient and post acute care services in Medicare would modestly reduce geographic variation in spending, but neither accountable care organizations nor pay-for-performance appear to have an impact.

Objective To determine the diagnostic and triage accuracy of online symptom checkers (tools that use computer algorithms to help patients with self diagnosis or self triage). Design Audit study. Setting Publicly available, free symptom checkers. Participants 23 symptom checkers that were in English and provided advice across a range of conditions. 45 standardized patient vignettes were compiled and equally divided into three categories of triage urgency: emergent care required (for example, pulmonary embolism), non-emergent care reasonable (for example, otitis media), and self care reasonable (for example, viral upper respiratory tract infection). Main outcome measures For symptom checkers that provided a diagnosis, our main outcomes were whether the symptom checker listed the correct diagnosis first or within the first 20 potential diagnoses (n=770 standardized patient evaluations). For symptom checkers that provided a triage recommendation, our main outcomes were whether the symptom checker correctly recommended emergent care, non-emergent care, or self care (n=532 standardized patient evaluations). Results The 23 symptom checkers provided the correct diagnosis first in 34% (95% confidence interval 31% to 37%) of standardized patient evaluations, listed the correct diagnosis within the top 20 diagnoses given in 58% (55% to 62%) of standardized patient evaluations, and provided the appropriate triage advice in 57% (52% to 61%) of standardized patient evaluations. Triage performance varied by urgency of condition, with appropriate triage advice provided in 80% (95% confidence interval 75% to 86%) of emergent cases, 55% (47% to 63%) of non-emergent cases, and 33% (26% to 40%) of self care cases (P

Little is known about the health status of the 7.3 million Americans who enrolled in insurance plans through the Marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act in 2014. Medication use may provide an early indicator of the health needs and access to care among Marketplace enrollees. We used data from January-September 2014 on more than one million Marketplace enrollees from Express Scripts, the largest pharmacy benefit management company in the United States. We compared the characteristics and medication use between early and late Marketplace enrollees and between all Marketplace enrollees and enrollees with employer-sponsored insurance. Among Marketplace enrollees, we found that those who enrolled earlier (October 2013-February 2014) were older and used more medication than later enrollees. Marketplace enrollees, as a whole, had lower average drug spending and were less likely to use most medication classes than the employer-sponsored comparison group. However, Marketplace enrollees were more likely to use medicines for hepatitis C and particularly for HIV.

To compare antibiotic prescribing among retail clinics, primary care practices, and emergency departments (EDs) for acute respiratory infections (ARIs): antibiotics-may-be-appropriate ARIs (eg, sinusitis) and antibiotics-never-appropriate ARIs (eg, acute bronchitis).We analyzed retail clinic data from the electronic health records of the 3 largest retail clinic chains in the United States, and data on visits to primary care practices and EDs from the nationally representative National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.Using multivariate models, we estimated an adjusted antibiotic prescribing rate for each site of care, controlling for differences in patient characteristics and diagnosis.From 2007 to 2009 in the United States, there were 3 million, 167 million, and 29 million ARI visits at retail clinics, primary care practices, and EDs, respectively. For all ARI visits, the adjusted antibiotic prescribing rate at retail clinics (58%) was similar to the rate at primary care practices (62%; P=.09) and EDs (59%; P=.48). For antibiotics-may-be-appropriate ARI visits, the adjusted antibiotic prescribing rate (95%) at retail clinics was higher than at primary care practices (85%; P.01) and EDs (83%; P.01). For antibiotics-never-appropriate ARI visits, the adjusted antibiotic prescribing rate (34%) at retail clinics was lower than at primary care practices (51%; P.01) and EDs (48%; P.01).Compared with primary care practices and EDs, there was no difference at retail clinics in overall ARI antibiotic prescribing. At retail clinics, antibiotic prescribing was more diagnosis-appropriate.

We examined eleven communities in which an employer coalition created a report card to compare the performance of the community's hospitals. After interviewing employer coalition and hospital representatives from each community, we found great variability in report cards' capacity to prompt quality improvement. Although some were successful, others had less impact because of conflicts between employer coalitions and hospitals. Areas of disagreement included selection of appropriate goals, methodology of quality measurement, whether report cards should be publicly released, and the use of economic incentives to improve quality. We describe these conflicts and offer recommendations for future hospital report cards.

"Consumer-Directed" Health Plans (CDHPs), those with high deductibles and personal medical accounts, are intended to reduce health care spending through greater patient cost exposure. Prior research agrees that in the first year, CDHPs reduce spending. There is little research and in it results are mixed regarding the impact of CDHPs over the longer term. We add to this literature with an intent-to-treat, difference-in-differences analysis of health care spending over up to three years post CDHP offer among 13 million person-years of data from 54 large US firms, half of which offered CDHPs. To strengthen the identification, we balance observables over time within firm, by developing weights through a machine learning algorithm, generalized boosted regression. We find that spending is reduced for those in firms offering CDHPs in all three years post offer relative to firms continuing to offer lower-deductible plans. The reductions are driven by spending decreases in outpatient care and pharmaceuticals, with no evidence of increases in emergency department or inpatient care over the three-year window.

“Consumer-Directed” Health Plans (CDHPs) combine high deductibles with personal medical accounts and are intended to reduce health care spending through greater patient cost sharing. Prior research shows that CDHPs reduce spending in the first year. However, there is little research on the impact of CDHPs over the longer term. We add to this literature by using data from 13 million individuals in 54 large US firms to estimate the effects of a firm offering CDHPs on health care spending up to three years post offer. We use a difference-in-differences analysis and to further strengthen identification, we balance observables within firm, over time by developing weights through a machine learning algorithm. We find that spending is reduced for those in firms offering CDHPs in all three years post. The reductions are driven by spending decreases in outpatient care and pharmaceuticals, with no evidence of increases in emergency department or inpatient care.

Prior studies suggest that consumer-directed health plans (CDHPs) -characterized by high deductibles and health care accounts- reduce health costs, but there is concern that enrollees indiscriminately reduce use of low-value services (e.g., unnecessary emergency department use) and high-value services (e.g., preventive care). We investigate how CDHP enrollees change use of pharmaceuticals for chronic diseases. We compare two large firms where nearly all employees were switched to CDHPs to firms with conventional health insurance plans. In the first firm’s CDHP, pharmaceuticals were subject to the deductible, while in the second firm pharmaceuticals were exempt. Employees in the first firm shifted the timing of drug purchases to periods with lower cost sharing and were more likely to use lower-cost drugs, but the largest effect of the CDHP was to reduce utilization. Employees in the second firm also reduced utilization, but did not shift the timing or use of low cost drugs.

Studies have found associations between better outcomes and a variety of structural and process criteria that help explain the wide outcome variations that occur across hospitals. In response, Centers of Excellence programs have been developed by multiple third parties. Despite this, programs have yielded disappointing results and can have unintended consequences. To outweigh potential harms, outcomes at Centers of Excellence must be clearly superior. We need to change how hospitals are designated and provide evidence that Centers of Excellence are truly excellent.

RAND researchers found that Americans spend over 30 billion hours each year providing informal care for the elderly, at a cost of $522 billion. These findings underscore the need for workplace policies that provide paid time off for caregivers.