Article

The association between health care quality and cost

Annals of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 16.1). 01/2013; 158(1):27-34. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-1-201301010-00006
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although there is broad policy consensus that both cost containment and quality improvement are critical, the association between costs and quality is poorly understood.
To systematically review evidence of the association between health care quality and cost.
Electronic literature search of PubMed, EconLit, and EMBASE databases for U.S.-based studies published between 1990 and 2012.
Title, abstract, and full-text review to identify relevant studies.
Two reviewers independently abstracted data with differences reconciled by consensus. Studies were categorized by level of analysis, type of quality measure, type of cost measure, and method of addressing confounders.
Of 61 included studies, 21 (34%) reported a positive or mixed-positive association (higher cost associated with higher quality); 18 (30%) reported a negative or mixed-negative association; and 22 (36%) reported no difference, an imprecise or indeterminate association, or a mixed association. The associations were of low to moderate clinical significance in many studies. Of 9 studies using instrumental variables analysis to address confounding by unobserved patient health status, 7 (78%) reported a positive association, but other characteristics of these studies may have affected their findings.
Studies used widely heterogeneous methods and measures. The review is limited by the quality of underlying studies.
Evidence of the direction of association between health care cost and quality is inconsistent. Most studies have found that the association between cost and quality is small to moderate, regardless of whether the direction is positive or negative. Future studies should focus on what types of spending are most effective in improving quality and what types of spending represent waste.
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

3 Followers
 · 
159 Views
  • Journal of dental education 12/1990; 54(11):695-8. · 1.04 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Background: Postmarketing reports have linked exenatide use with acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer, but a definitive relationship has yet to be established. Subjects and Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes with employer-provided health insurance from 2007 to 2009. Multivariate models estimated the association between exenatide use and acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. We required at least 1 year of exenatide exposure in the pancreatic cancer analysis. Sensitivity analyses were conducted that quasirandomized exenatide use based on patient out-of-pocket costs. Results: Among 268,561 patients included in the acute pancreatitis analysis, only 2.6% used exenatide. Hospitalization for acute pancreatitis was rare (0.247% of patients). In unadjusted and adjusted analyses, patients who did not use exenatide were more likely to be hospitalized for acute pancreatitis (0.249% vs. 0.196% in unadjusted analysis), but the difference was not statistically significant in either analysis (P=0.22 and P=0.70, respectively). Among 209,306 patients in the pancreatic cancer analysis, 0.070% were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, and 0.88% had at least 1 year of continuous exenatide exposure prior to the diagnosis. Those with exenatide exposure had higher rates of pancreatic cancer compared with those without (0.081% vs. 0.070% in unadjusted analysis). In both unadjusted and adjusted analyses, the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.80 and P=0.46, respectively). In sensitivity analyses, results were similar. Conclusions: We found no association between exenatide use and either hospitalization for acute pancreatitis or pancreatic cancer in a large sample of privately insured U.S. patients.
    Diabetes Technology &amp Therapeutics 07/2012; 14(10):904-11. DOI:10.1089/dia.2012.0075 · 2.29 Impact Factor
  • Evidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal 03/2013; 8(2):253-4. DOI:10.1002/ebch.1908
Show more