Article

Economic analysis of medical practice variation between 1991 and 2000: The impact of patient outcomes research teams (PORTs)

Department of Finance, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA.
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care (Impact Factor: 1.56). 02/2008; 24(3):282-93. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462308080380
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to examine the impact of the multi-hundred million dollar investment by the federal government in the developing Patient Outcomes Research Teams (PORTs) in over a dozen major academic medical centers in the United States throughout the 1990s. The objective of the PORTs was to reduce unnecessary clinical variation in medical treatment.
Using an economic derivation of welfare loss attributable to medical practice variation and hospital admission claims data for 2 million elderly patients generalizable to the nation, we estimate the change in welfare between 1991 and 2000, the period within which the PORTs were designed and executed and their results disseminated.
Our results show inpatient admission types targeted by the PORTs did have less welfare loss relative to their total expenditure by 2000, but that there was not a net decrease in the welfare loss for all hospital admissions affected by the PORT.
We conclude that PORTs may have had favorable effects on welfare, most likely by reducing variation in clinical care, but that causality cannot be proved, and the effects were not equal across all conditions targeted by PORTs. This research provides a methodological template that may be used to evaluate the impact of patient safety research on welfare loss and on variation in medical treatment in both hospital and ambulatory settings.

0 Followers
 · 
100 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article examines geographical variations in 30-day revascularization rates and 30-day in-hospital mortality rates for Canadian heart attack (acute myocardial infarction) patients. The data are from the Health Person-Oriented Information Database and pertain to health regions with at least 100,000 population in seven provinces for the years 1995/1996 and 2003/2004. Revascularization rates rose in all health regions between these years, and mortality rates dropped in most, but not all, regions. Generally, health regions with high revascularization rates had lower mortality rates. However, some regions with high revascularization rates had relatively high mortality rates, and some with relatively low revascularization rates achieved relatively low mortality rates. These results raise important questions about the overall efficiency of health care in Canada, and suggest that better data are needed to support research on explaining the wide geographical variations in treatment and survival rates for heart attack patients.
    Health reports / Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Health Information = Rapports sur la santé / Statistique Canada, Centre canadien d'information sur la santé 07/2009; 20(2):29-34. · 3.31 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: During the economic crisis, the pressure to reduce health services expenditure as an isolated measure is greater than measures intended to increase the efficiency of these services. Information, methods and experiences to improve health outcomes with limited resources are available and a number of countries have been applying measures to achieve this goal. One of these measures is disinvestment. Given that this tactic is necessary but also intricate, allergenic and confusing, this article tries to clarify its meaning, place it in its correct context, and describe the methods and criteria used to identify and prioritize candidate medical technologies for disinvestment. The experiences of Spain, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and Italy in this endeavor are reviewed, as well as the obstacles faced by these countries when disinvesting and their mid-term perspectives. Ignorance does not excuse its application, regardless of whether there is a crisis or not. Efforts to improve social efficiency are a permanent obligation of the national health system.
    Gaceta Sanitaria 03/2013; 27(2):175–179. DOI:10.1016/j.gaceta.2012.01.010 · 1.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Although information on variations in health service performance is now more widely available, relatively little is known about how healthcare payers use this information to improve resource allocation. We explore to what extent and how Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) in England have used the NHS Atlas of Variation in Healthcare, which has highlighted small area variation in rates of expenditure, activity and outcome. METHODS: Data collection involved an email survey among PCT Chief Executives and a telephone follow-up to reach non-respondents (total response: 53 of 151 of PCTs, 35%). 45 senior to mid-level staff were interviewed to probe themes emerging from the survey. The data were analysed using a matrix-based Framework approach. FINDINGS: Just under half of the respondents (25 of 53 PCTs) reported not using the Atlas, either because they had not been aware of it, lacked staff capacity to analyse it, or did not perceive it as applicable to local decision-making. Among the 28 users, the Atlas served as a prompt to understand variations and as a visual tool to facilitate communication with clinicians. Achieving clarity on which variations are unwarranted and agreeing on responsibilities for action appeared to be important factors in moving beyond initial information gathering towards decisions about resource allocation and behaviour change. CONCLUSIONS: Many payers were unable to use information on small area variations in expenditure, activity and outcome. To change this what is additionally required are appropriate tools to understand causes of unexplained variation, in particular unwarranted variation, and enable remedial actions to be prioritised in terms of their contribution to population health.
    Health Policy 05/2013; 114(1). DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.04.014 · 1.73 Impact Factor
Show more