Screening Mammography for Free: Impact of Eliminating Cost Sharing on Cancer Screening Rates.

OBJECTIVES: To study the impact of eliminating cost sharing for screening mammography on mammography rates in a large Medicare Advantage (MA) health plan which in 2010 eliminated cost sharing in anticipation of the Affordable Care Act mandate. STUDY SETTING: Large MA health maintenance organization offering individual-subscriber MA insurance and employer-supplemented group MA insurance. STUDY DESIGN: We investigated the impact on breast cancer screening of a policy that eliminated a $20 copayment for screening mammography in 2010 among 53,188 women continuously enrolled from 2007 to 2012 in an individual-subscriber MA plan, compared with 42,473 women with employer-supplemented group MA insurance in the same health maintenance organization who had full screening coverage during this period. We used differences-in-differences analysis to study the impact of cost-sharing elimination on mammography rates. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Annual screening rates declined over time for both groups, with similar trends pre-2010 and a slower decline after 2010 among women whose copayments were eliminated. Among women aged 65-74 years in the individual-subscriber MA plan, 44.9 percent received screening in 2009 compared with 40.9 percent in 2012, while 49.5 percent of women in the employer-supplemented MA plan received screening in 2009 compared with 44.1 percent in 2012, that is, a difference-in-difference effect of 1.4 percentage points less decline in screening among women experiencing the cost-sharing elimination. Effects were concentrated among women without recent screening. There were no differences by neighborhood socioeconomic status or race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Eliminating cost sharing for screening mammography was associated with modesty lower decline in screening rates among women with previously low screening adherence.

Cost and resource utilization associated with use of computed tomography to evaluate chest pain in the emergency department: the Rule Out Myocardial Infarction using Computer Assisted Tomography (ROMICAT) study.

BACKGROUND: Coronary computed tomographic angiography (cCTA) allows rapid, noninvasive exclusion of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). However, concern exists whether implementation of cCTA in the assessment of patients presenting to the emergency department with acute chest pain will lead to increased downstream testing and costs compared with alternative strategies. Our aim was to compare observed actual costs of usual care (UC) with projected costs of a strategy including early cCTA in the evaluation of patients with acute chest pain in the Rule Out Myocardial Infarction Using Computer Assisted Tomography I (ROMICAT I) study. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared cost and hospital length of stay of UC observed among 368 patients enrolled in the ROMICAT I study with projected costs of management based on cCTA. Costs of UC were determined by an electronic cost accounting system. Notably, UC was not influenced by cCTA results because patients and caregivers were blinded to the cCTA results. Costs after early implementation of cCTA were estimated assuming changes in management based on cCTA findings of the presence and severity of CAD. Sensitivity analysis was used to test the influence of key variables on both outcomes and costs. We determined that in comparison with UC, cCTA-guided triage, whereby patients with no CAD are discharged, could reduce total hospital costs by 23% (P<0.001). However, when the prevalence of obstructive CAD increases, index hospitalization cost increases such that when the prevalence of ≥ 50% stenosis is >28% to 33%, the use of cCTA becomes more costly than UC. CONCLUSIONS: cCTA may be a cost-saving tool in acute chest pain populations that have a prevalence of potentially obstructive CAD <30%. However, increased cost would be anticipated in populations with higher prevalence of disease.

Design of the Rule Out Myocardial Ischemia/Infarction Using Computer Assisted Tomography: a multicenter randomized comparative effectiveness trial of cardiac computed tomography versus alternative triage strategies in patients with acute chest pain in the emergency department.

Although early cardiac computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) might improve the management of emergency department (ED) patients with acute chest pain, it could also result in increased testing, costs, and radiation exposure. ROMICAT II was a randomized comparative effectiveness trial enrolling patients 40 to 74 years old without known coronary artery disease who presented to the ED with chest pain but without ischemic electrocardiographic (ECG) changes or elevated initial troponin and who required further risk stratification. Overall, 1000 patients at 9 sites within the United States were randomized to either CCTA as the first diagnostic test following serial biomarkers or to standard of care, which included no testing or functional testing such as exercise ECG, stress radionuclide imaging, or stress echocardiography. Test results were provided to ED physicians, yet patient management was not driven by a study protocol in either arm. Data were collected on diagnostic testing, cardiac events, and cost of medical care for the index hospitalization and during the following 28 days. The primary end point was length of hospital stay. Secondary end points were cumulative radiation exposure, resource utilization, and costs of competing strategies. Tertiary end points were institutional, physician, and patient characteristics associated with primary and secondary outcomes. Rate of missed acute coronary syndrome within 28 days was the safety end point. The ROMICAT II will provide rigorous data on whether CCTA is more efficient than standard of care in the management of patients with acute chest pain at intermediate risk for acute coronary syndrome.

Assessing emerging technologies--the case of organ replacement technologies: volume, durability, cost.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to estimate thresholds for production volume, durability, and cost of care for the cost-effective adoption of liver organ replacement technologies (ORTs). METHODS: We constructed a discrete-event simulation model of the liver allocation system in the United States. The model was calibrated against UNOS data (1994-2000). Into this model, we introduced ORTs with varying durability (time to failure), cost of care, and production volume. Primary outputs of interest were time to 5 percent reduction in the waiting list and time to 5 percent increase in expected transplant volume. RESULTS: Model output for both calibration and validation phases closely matched published data: waiting list length (+/-2 percent), number of transplants (+/-2 percent), deaths while waiting (+/-5 percent), and time to transplant (+/-11 percent). Reducing the waiting list was dependent on both ORT durability and production volume. The longer the durability, the less production volume needed to reduce the waiting list and vice versa. However, below 250 ORT/year, durability needed to be >2 years for any significant change to be seen in the waiting list. For base-case costs, all ORT production volume and durability scenarios result in more transplants per year at less total cost of care/patient than the current system. ORTs remain cost saving until manufacturing costs are >5 times base-case costs, production is less 500 ORT/year, and durability <6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Although there remain many technical challenges to overcome, as long as ORTs can meet these threshold criteria, they have the potential of transforming the world of end-stage liver disease.

Reorganizing patient care and workflow in the operating room: a cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Many surgeons believe that long turnover times between cases are a major impediment to their productivity. We hypothesized that redesigning the operating room (OR) and perioperative-staffing system to take advantage of parallel processing would improve throughput and lower the cost of care. METHODS: A state of the art high tech OR suite equipped with augmented data collection systems served as a living laboratory to evaluate both new devices and perioperative systems of care. The OR suite and all the experimental studies carried out in this setting were designated as the OR of the Future Project (ORF). Before constructing the ORF, modeling studies were conducted to inform the architectural and staffing design and estimate their benefit. In phase I a small prospective trial tested the main hypothesized benefits of the ORF: reduced patient intra-operative flow-time, wait-time and operative procedure time. In phase II a larger retrospective study was conducted to explore factors influencing these effects. A modified process costing method was used to estimate costs based on nationally derived data. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using standard methods. RESULTS: There were 385 cases matched by surgeon and procedure type in the retrospective dataset (182 ORF, 193 standard operating room [SOR]). The median Wait Time (12.5 m ORF vs 23.8 m SOR), Operative Procedure Time (56.1 m ORF vs 70.5 m SOR), Emergence Time (10.9 m ORF vs 14.5 m SOR) and Total Patient OR Flowtime (79.5 m ORF vs 108.9 m SOR) were all shorter in the ORF (P < .05 for all comparisons). The median cost/patient was $3,165 in the ORF (interquartile range, $1,978 to $4,426) versus $2,645 in SORs (interquartile range, $1,823 to $3,908) (P = ns). The potential change in patient throughput for the ORF was 2 additional patients/day. This improved throughput was primarily attributable to a marked reduction in the non-operative time (ie, those activities commonly accounting for "turnover time") rather than facilitation of faster operations. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ORF was $260 (interquartile range, $180 to $283). CONCLUSION: The redesigned perioperative system improves patient flow, allowing more patients to be treated per day. Cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that the additional costs incurred by higher staffing ratios in an ORF environment are likely to be offset by increases in productivity. The benefits of this system are realized when performing multiple, short-to-medium duration procedures (eg, <120 m).

Introducing new technology into the operating room: measuring the impact on job performance and satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: The Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Operating Room of the Future (ORF) project is a test site for evaluating new surgical technologies and processes. Here we evaluate the effect on staff satisfaction and burnout of introducing a set of new technologies. METHODS: Staff satisfaction and burnout were measured via sequential surveys based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory during the introduction of a new technology system. Functional behavior of the OR was measured in terms of flow time (time to transit the OR) and wait time (time to access the OR). These data were gathered using time-motion analysis methods. RESULTS: Significant functional improvements were found in the ORF (more than 35% reduction in flow time and wait time, P < .05). During the same period, more exposure to the ORF resulted in greater sense of personal accomplishment among surgeons, a worse sense of personal accomplishment among nurses, more emotional exhaustion among surgeons, and less emotional exhaustion among nurses. However, the responses for emotional exhaustion were reversed the greater the time from exposure to the ORF. Staff with 6 to 10 years' experience were at highest risk for burnout across all categories. General surgeons experienced more emotional exhaustion than other physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Tracking the response of all users and identifying groups at high risk for burnout when exposed to new systems should be a central part of any new technology project.

Optimizing management and financial performance of the teaching ambulatory care clinic.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how to optimize teaching ambulatory care clinics performance with regard to access to care, access to teaching, and financial viability. DESIGN: Optimization analysis using computer simulation. METHODS: A discrete-event simulation model of the teaching ambulatory clinic setting was developed. This method captures flow time, waiting time, competition for resources, and the interdependency of events, providing insight into system dynamics. Sensitivity analyses were performed on staffing levels, room availability, patient characteristics such as "new" versus "established" status, and clinical complexity and pertinent probabilities. MAIN RESULTS: In the base-case, 4 trainees:preceptor, patient flow time (registration to check out) was 148 minutes (SD 5), wait time was 20.6 minutes (SD 4.4), the wait for precepting was 6.2 minutes (SD 1.2), and average daily net clinic income was $1,413. Utilization rates were preceptors (59%), trainees (61%), medical assistants (64%), and room (68%). Flow time and the wait times remained relatively constant for strategies with trainee:preceptor ratios <4:1 but increased with number of trainees steadily thereafter. Maximum revenue occurred with 3 preceptors and 5 trainees per preceptor. The model was relatively insensitive to the proportion of patients presenting who were new, and relatively sensitive to average evaluation and management (E/M) level. Flow and wait times rose on average by 0.05 minutes and 0.01 minutes per percent new patient, respectively. For each increase in average E/M level, flow time increased 8.4 minutes, wait time 1.2 minutes, wait for precepting 0.8 minutes, and net income increased by $490. CONCLUSION: Teaching ambulatory care clinics appear to operate optimally, minimizing flow time and waiting time while maximizing revenue, with trainee-to-preceptor ratios between 3 and 7 to 1.