Regional Variations in Diagnostic Practices

Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Hanover, NH, USA.
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 55.87). 06/2010; 363(1):45-53. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa0910881
Source: PubMed


Current methods of risk adjustment rely on diagnoses recorded in clinical and administrative records. Differences among providers in diagnostic practices could lead to bias.
We used Medicare claims data from 1999 through 2006 to measure trends in diagnostic practices for Medicare beneficiaries. Regions were grouped into five quintiles according to the intensity of hospital and physician services that beneficiaries in the region received. We compared trends with respect to diagnoses, laboratory testing, imaging, and the assignment of Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCCs) among beneficiaries who moved to regions with a higher or lower intensity of practice.
Beneficiaries within each quintile who moved during the study period to regions with a higher or lower intensity of practice had similar numbers of diagnoses and similar HCC risk scores (as derived from HCC coding algorithms) before their move. The number of diagnoses and the HCC measures increased as the cohort aged, but they increased to a greater extent among beneficiaries who moved to regions with a higher intensity of practice than among those who moved to regions with the same or lower intensity of practice. For example, among beneficiaries who lived initially in regions in the lowest quintile, there was a greater increase in the average number of diagnoses among those who moved to regions in a higher quintile than among those who moved to regions within the lowest quintile (increase of 100.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 89.6 to 112.1; vs. increase of 61.7%; 95% CI, 55.8 to 67.4). Moving to each higher quintile of intensity was associated with an additional 5.9% increase (95% CI, 5.2 to 6.7) in HCC scores, and results were similar with respect to laboratory testing and imaging.
Substantial differences in diagnostic practices that are unlikely to be related to patient characteristics are observed across U.S. regions. The use of clinical or claims-based diagnoses in risk adjustment may introduce important biases in comparative-effectiveness studies, public reporting, and payment reforms.

Download full-text


Available from: John E Wennberg, Oct 09, 2015
26 Reads
  • Source
    • "If a risk-adjusted measure is used to track improvement , it should be graphed along with its components—observed and expected mortality . The expected mortality is affected not just by changes in case mix, but also by coding (Jacques, Fotheringham, Campbell, & Nicholl, 2013; Song et al., 2010; Welch, Sharp, Gottlieb , Skinner, & Wennberg, 2011; Wennberg et al., 2013). Changes in coding over time alter expected mortality and produce a reduction in adjusted mortality that may not reflect improvement in care. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Risk-adjusted hospital-wide mortality has been proposed as a key indicator of system-level quality. Several risk-adjusted measures are available, and one—the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR)—is publicly reported in a number of countries, but not in the United States. This paper reviews potential uses of such measures. We conclude that available methods are not suitable for interhospital comparisons or rankings and should not be used for pay-for-performance or value-based purchasing/payment. Hospital-wide mortality is a relatively imprecise, crude measure of quality, but disaggregation into condition- and service-line–specific mortality can facilitate targeted improvement efforts. If tracked over time, both observed and expected mortality rates should be monitored to ensure that apparent improvement is not due to increasing expected mortality, which could reflect changes in case mix or coding. Risk-adjusted mortality can be used as an initial signal that a hospital's mortality rate is significantly higher than statistically expected, prompting further inquiry.
    Journal for Healthcare Quality 08/2014; DOI:10.1111/jhq.12080 · 1.40 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "State-based limitations on noneconomic damages, such as California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, have been implemented in an effort to curb increasing malpractice costs and could conceivably alter an EP's perception of medicolegal risk leading to a less defensive practice style [32]. Regional variation in health care resource utilization in the United States has been well known for quite some time [33]; there exists substantial regional variation in imaging rates not accounted for by differences in patient characteristics [34] [35] [36]. The location of an EP's practice influences the decision to order a CT even after controlling for differences in patient population and injury severity [37] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of computed tomography (CT) scanning in blunt head trauma has increased dramatically in recent years without an accompanying rise in the prevalence of injury or hospital admission for serious conditions. Because CT is neither harmless nor inexpensive, researchers have attempted to optimize utilization, largely through research that describes which clinical variables predict intracranial injury, and use this information to develop clinical decision instruments (CDIs). While such techniques may be useful when the benefits and harms of each strategy (neuroimaging vs. observation) are quantifiable and amenable to comparison, the exact magnitude of these benefits and harms remains unknown in this clinical scenario. We believe that most CDI development efforts are misguided insofar as they ignore critical, non-clinical factors influencing the decision to image. In this paper, we propose a conceptual model to illustrate how clinical- and non-clinical- factors influence emergency physicians making this decision. We posit that elements unrelated to standard clinical factors, such as personality of the physician, fear of litigation and of missed diagnoses, patient expectations and compensation method may have equal or greater impact on actual decision-making than traditional clinical factors. We believe three particular factors deserve special consideration for further research: fear of error/malpractice, financial incentives and patient engagement. Acknowledgement and study of these factors will be essential if we are to understand how EPs truly make these decisions and how test-ordering behavior can be modified.
    The American journal of emergency medicine 06/2014; 32(6). DOI:10.1016/j.ajem.2014.01.003 · 1.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Similar cost-effectiveness has been established for other healthcare systems, including the US [16]. Despite this, in the UK as in other countries, the majority of people with AD-dementia do not have a diagnosis, with up to three quarters undiagnosed in some regions [17-19]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Intervention and treatment in Alzheimer’s disease dementia (AD-dementia) can be cost effective but the majority of patients are not diagnosed in a timely manner. Technology is now available that can enable the earlier detection of cognitive loss associated with incipient dementia, offering the potential for earlier intervention in the UK health care system. This study aimed to determine to what extent the timing of an intervention affects its cost-effectiveness. Methods Using published data describing cognitive decline in the years prior to an AD diagnosis, we modelled the effects on healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years of hypothetical symptomatic and disease-modifying interventions. Early and standard interventions were assumed to have equal clinical effects, but the early intervention could be applied up to eight years prior to standard diagnosis. Results A symptomatic treatment which immediately improved cognition by one MMSE point and reduced in efficacy over three years, would produce a maximum net benefit when applied at the earliest timepoint considered, i.e. eight years prior to standard diagnosis. In this scenario, the net benefit was reduced by around 17% for every year that intervention was delayed. In contrast, for a disease-modifying intervention which halted cognitive decline for one year, economic benefits would peak when treatment effects were applied two years prior to standard diagnosis. In these models, the maximum net benefit of the disease modifying intervention was fifteen times larger than that of the symptomatic treatment. Conclusion Timeliness of intervention is likely to have an important impact on the cost-effectiveness of both current and future treatments. Healthcare policy should aim to optimise the timing of AD-dementia diagnosis, which is likely to necessitate detecting and treating patients several years prior to current clinical practice.
    BMC Neurology 05/2014; 14(1):101. DOI:10.1186/1471-2377-14-101 · 2.04 Impact Factor
Show more